Barack Obama's debate strategy of portraying the Bush administration as a complete failure is running into one big problem: Bush's Iraq policy appears to be succeeding. How embarrassing! Well, at least the Democrats can try to make sure that no one finds out about this.

During his foreign trip, Obama tried to take advantage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's statement that America should work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Obama triumphantly declared that now is the time for Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Obama failed to mention, however, that if he had been president, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only destiny that Obama would have consigned Iraq to is oppression, torture, and mass graves.

To understand what is going on in Iraq, we must distinguish between two approaches: the Bush doctrine and the Reagan doctrine. Unlike the Bush doctrine--which seemed to require invasion and occupation--the Reagan doctrine was one of assisted non-intervention. Reagan believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. But if they are willing to fight, we are willing to help. And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For intance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan.

Now in Bush's defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. Unlike in Afghanistan, which the mujaheedin turned into a Soviet "bleeding wound," there was no Iraqi resistance that could substantially threaten Saddam Hussein. Bush's choice was either for America to get rid of Hussein, or to leave Hussein in power. But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine.

It has taken longer than expected. But that's because Saddam's Baathist minority--let's call them the Saddamites--ran not only the government but the entire society. So it has been quite a process to train a Shia elected government to learn to govern a nation in which they were victimized for a quarter century. Slowly, however, the Iraqis have been rising to the task, assisted by able U.S. forces under the competent leadership of General Petraeus.

So now, finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. This is what "success" means in Iraq: not the end of the insurgency, or the end of terrorism, but a situation in which Iraqis take the helm and America moves into a supporting role. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipituously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.

Postscript: Due to internal re-organization at AOL, it seems that this and other blogs are going to be suspended effective the end of this month. The blogs we have posted will still be online, but no new blogs will be posted. What a pity, especially as the election debate is heating up. I have enjoyed doing this blog and I want to thank my readers--yes, even the Dineshophobic atheists--for checking in and posting comments. (Sometimes I wonder if some of you atheists who post several times a day have regular jobs.)

AOL has informed me that the company is hiring a new blog manager and I will be negotiating the resumption of this blog--perhaps in a new format--with that person. This however could take a month or two. In the meantime look for my columns each Monday on Townhall.com and also consult my website dineshdsouza.com for forthcoming speaking events and updates.

Does science really have laws? The proposition that it does is at the root of the argument that science is based on undisputed "facts" while religion is based on subjective "values." Moreover, if science has laws that are known to be incorrigible, then miracles would seem to be impossible.

So what exactly are scientific laws and what degree of certainty can we attach to them? This question was raised in a recent email I received. "My question concerns your summation of Hume's position concerning scientific laws," the writer says. In my book on Christianity, I cited Hume to make the point that "no finite number of observations, however large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."

This raised for my correspondent the following question: "How do you suppose a modern-day Hume would answer someone who points out that all humans are made from DNA? Surely he would not be so stubborn as to insist on the possibility that there are a few of us walking around without DNA. What say you?"

Here is my answer. Consider the proposition that all life forms--including all humans--are made from DNA. Hume would say this is not a "law." Rather, it is an observation based on common experience and testing. The reason we cannot speak of a "law" is that we haven't checked every human and every life form that has ever existed to ensure that every one is made of DNA.

So where do we get this so-called "law"? And where do we get other laws, such as Newton's inverse square law or the law that says "light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum"? Hume would argue that we have measured many humans and other life forms and found DNA and therefore we infer that all humans and other life forms are made of DNA. Similarly we have measured the speed of light frequently and from this we derive the idea that light always and everywhere travels at the same speed.

Hume's point is not to deny the practical utility of these conclusions, but to deny that we know something as a law just because we have measured it many, many times. As Hume writes in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from the proposition "I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect," it is impossible to derive the conclusion, "I forsee that other objects which are in appearance similar, will be attended with similar effects." Logically, Hume notes, this is a non-sequitur.

In particular, just because we have measured light at a given speed a hundred or a thousand or ten million times doesn't mean that light always and everywhere travels at that speed. How do we know that on a distant star, light travels at the same speed as it does here? In truth, we do not know. Along the same lines, if tomorrow a life form was located on, say, Mars, and this life form did not contain DNA, we could no longer hold that all life forms are made of DNA.

From this we can conclude that: scientific laws are not really "laws" but merely generalizations based on previous tries. Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. Since we cannot name a single empirical scientific law that is in principle inviolable, we cannot rule out deviations from these so-called laws. I'm not arguing for the validity of this or that miracle. I'm simply saying that the idea that these things cannot happen is based on an ignorance of what science shows and doesn't show.

Hume, generally regarded as an exploder of metaphysics, was also an exploder of the pretensions of scientific knowledge. Recognizing the power of Hume's argument, the philosopher Karl Popper conceded that science is incapable of "verifying" truth; it can merely "falsify" hypotheses and thus (we hope) draw us a little closer to truth. This truth, however, remains elusive, just over the horizon. The biblical notion that "we see through a glass darkly" turns out not to be theological hocus-pocus but a clear-eyed summary of the human situation.

So isn't it interesting that we keep hearing about Sarah Palin's peccadilloes--most lately, that she used her private email account to conduct government business--while the major media continues to ignore the George Obama scandal? Here is a guy living in Third World destitution and his half-brother is the leading candidate to become the next president of the United States! How can we be blind to this national disgrace? Are the networks and major newspapers so exhilarated at the prospect of an African American president that they have become cheerleaders and cover-up specialists for the Obama campaign?

My modest campaign to help out George Obama has been coming nicely. Sean Hannity mentioned it on his show on the Fox News Channel, and I appeared on a handful of radio shows to talk about the idea. Interestingly the George Obama Compassion Fund was reported on by Kenya's leading newspaper "The Nation." So far I have received more than $1,000 in small contributions. With my kickoff contribution of $1,000, that's upwards of $2,000 for George Obama.

This is not a huge sum, but I specifically asked people to send gifts of $5, $10 and $25. The reason is that even a relatively modest sum by American standards is a considerable sum by Kenyan standards. George Obama has said that he is living on a dollar a month. This seems an impossibly small sum to survive on, so I checked the poverty line in Kenya. That is around $100 a year. By this measure, our little fund has provided for George for 20 years. Alternatively, George can move out of his 6 foot-by-10-foot hut and into a more comfortable dwelling. He can also get the training he needs to become a mechanic.

The reporter for "The Nation" thought he had me cornered when he asked, "Are you doing this to embarrass Barack Obama?" To which I answered, "Absolutely. He deserves to be embarrassed." The reporter went on to ask me since when I had developed this great interest in African poverty. I responded that I had only a slight and distant interest in African poverty. I happen to come from a very poor country, India, and my philanthropic work is directed there. In fact,I I only took up the George Obama cause when I heard what a jerk and a hypocrite Barack Obama is being about his sibling. One Obamoron emailed me to say, "Why don't you use your money to help your own impoverished relatives in India?" The answer is that my relatives don't live in huts!

The George Obama Compassion Fund elicited some interesting comments from donors, which I'll be forwarding to George along with the funds. "This is for the poor brother long forgotten." "A brother is a terrible thing to waste." "I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare." "When Obama said that not taking care of the least of our brothers is our greatest moral failure, who knew that he was talking literally about the least of his brothers?" "I never thought I'd be writing a check to anyone named Obama, but I do want to be a true Christian and help this man in this shameful situation." "I'd send more, but I make $9.10 per hour." "I'm unemployed, but I can spare $5 for the Obama Compassion Fund."

Not one of the atheists who regularly appears on this blog contributed a penny. (This is very much in line with sociologist Arthur Brooks' data showing that the most secular people are much less generous both with money and time than their religious counterparts.) As Brooks might have predicted, most of my donations came from self-identified Christians, some of them in difficult circumstances themselves. Thanks to this generosity, Barack Obama's half-brother can look forward to the prospect of a better life. George Obama, start packing!

The presidential contest is not simply an election about who rules America; it is also an election about which set of principles defines American politics. For the past two and a half decades, conservatism has set the agenda. Is the left making a comeback?

I don't think so. Notice that Democrats avoid terms like "the left" and even "liberalism" like the plague, while Republicans routinely associate themselves with the "right" and the "conservative" label. Also the left is now defined by shrieking demagogues like Michael Moore, while intelligent people are keeping their distance or moving out of this menagerie.

In this connection, the case of David Mamet is a revealing one. It has now been six months since playwright David Mamet declared himself an admirer of America and the Constitution, and bid farewell to what he called the "brain dead left." Our left-leaning literary and cultural intelligentsia is still in shock.

The New Statesman warned that Mamet was embracing a "Hobbesian strain of conservatism." The folks at the Daily Kos website feigned indifference: "Who really cares?" But until this time Mamet was regarded as a virtual demigod of American high culture. Now we can expect the accolades to stop.

So what turned Mamet around? Well, it's been a change coming for some time now, and presumably it's not the kind of change that Barack Obama is looking for. Consider this piece of dialog from Mamet's play Bobby Gould in Hell. When Bobby echoes the old liberal nostrum, "Nothing's black and white," he receives this crushing response: "Nothing's black and white? What about a panda?"

Then there was a play that I saw several years ago on Broadway, Mamet's Oleanna. While Mamet disclaimed any political motives, you only had to see the play to recognize that it was about the feminist witch-hunt. Basically a female student (somewhat reminiscent of a young Hillary Clinton at Wellesley) makes false allegations of sexual harassment against a well-meaning but incautious liberal professor. In the name of the sisterhood, she destroys the poor man's career. I think resistance to political correctness played a big role in showing Mamet the exit out of liberalism.

Still, Mamet's essay in a March issue of the Village Voice, "Why I am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal," came as a complete surprise. In this essay Mamet did not declare himself a Republican or a McCain voter. HIs conversion was to a kind of philosophical conservatism. Mamet affirmed what he called the conservative or tragic view of life over the liberal or perfectionist view.

Mamet openly identified with his Jewish heritage and boldly said that National Public Radio might as well stand for "National Palestinian Radio." Mamet also expressed unabashed love for America, which is something that left-wing Democrats only express at their presidential conventions when it is time to put on a performance for the American people who are watching. The rest of the time they are mentored by the likes of Jeremiah Wright whose motto is better expressed as "God damn America."

Perhaps most touching, Mamet expressed the profound sense of liberation that all independent-thinking people feel when they stop kowtowing to liberal shibboleths. "I no longer need to believe the drivel that is spoken around me," Mamet said. "I feel lighter already." To which I can only say: welcome home, David Mamet.

For a couple of years it seemed like the new atheists were going largely unanswered. But now there are several good books rebutting their claims, among them John Lennox's God's Undertaker and Tim Keller's The Reason for God. The latest addition to this literature is Michael Novak's new book No One Sees God. It is a wise and important book.

Novak is a friend of mine and a former colleague at the American Enterprise Institute. He is known for his books celebrating the morality of free markets, notably The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. As a theologian who has written on subjects from Aquinas to existentialism, Novak is well equipped to consider the metaphysical claims of the new atheists.

One of Novak's especially attractive qualities is his ability to find common ground with his opponents. Here he begins by conceding to the atheist that "we are all in the same darkness." No one-not even Moses or Abraham-has set his eyes on God. Novak rejects the certitudes of both the religious fundamentalist and the militant atheist. He intends to explore what he calls "the dark and windswept open spaces between unbelief and belief."

For Novak, life raises bigger questions than the ones answered, and answerable, by science. Ultimately we want to know not merely how things work but also: why are we here? What is our purpose? What is our final destiny? Novak credits religion with addressing the largest moral questions, not only "what is it good to do?" but also "what is it good to be?" and "what is it good to love?"

Novak expresses admiration for some of the leading atheists, notably Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. (He seems less enamored with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.) Modern atheism has its virtues, such as an emphasis on truth over good feelings, and also on honesty and courage in facing the realities of life. Even so, Novak finds it puzzling that these atheists make so little effort to understand how God is experienced by the believer.

"For a believer," Novak writes, "It does not take a prolonged thought experiment to imagine oneself an unbeliever." The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from. By contrast, Novak suggests, atheists like Hitchens seem to have no empathetic understanding whatsoever of genuine religious conviction. They have no sense of what belief must be like from within.

Novak's point is that this shortcoming makes them poor analysts of religion. All critical reading requires a certain measure of suspended belief. This is as true of the strange but captivating world of Dostoyevsky as it is of Shakespeare's moral universe. When we read Macbeth, for instance, we have to be able to plunge into Shakespeare's world, ghosts and all. No understanding of Macbeth is possible if we begin with rude dismissal, "Of course the whole premise is complete nonsense."

Novak is surprised to discover that in the entire literature of the new atheism "there is not a shred of evidence that the authors have ever had any doubts whatever about the rightness of their own atheism." This is not simply a matter of refusing to apply the vaunted virtue of skepticism to one's own philosophy. It is also a matter of giving an account of why such a tiny minority of people in our culture have embraced vocal atheism. If atheism is so obviously convincing, Novak asks, why are so few people drawn to it? The new atheists offer no answers; indeed, scarcely any of them even raise the question.

Novak likens Hitchens to Thomas Paine, that fiery pamphleteer and partisan of the American Revolution. Novak notes, however, that despite his hostility to Christianity, Paine understood that such concepts as the dignity of man and human rights depended on man's special place in God's creation. Indeed the Jacobins of the French Revolution imprisoned Paine after he warned them that their atheism would undercut the basis of their declaration of human rights. Hitchens seems blissfully unaware of a whole tradition of scholarship, from Tocqueville to Jurgen Habermas, that identifies Christianity as the essential foundation of some of the West's most cherished institutions and values.

In a 2005 lecture in on "Religion in the Public Sphere," Habermas raises a question that is central to Novak's inquiry. Habermas shows that the very idea of toleration is a gift that religious thought has bequeathed to modern secular society. Then he asks: are secular people willing to acknowledge that toleration is always a two-way street? In other words, if religious people are expected to be tolerant of unbelievers, shouldn't secular people learn to be tolerant of their fellow citizens who are believers?

This argument has important implications. If Habermas and Novak are right, the public square should not be viewed as the property of secular citizens. Rather, it is the common ground on which believers and non-believers communicate with each other. It makes no sense to exclude religious convictions from the public sphere if secular convictions are granted full access. An uncritical "separation of church and state" must give way to a shared domain in which all citizens have the right to express their heartfelt convictions.

Do Muslims around the world back Islamic radicalism and terrorism? We've been hearing a positive answer to this question for seven years now from a slew of right-wing pundits who seem to be making a very good living as Muslim-bashers. These pundits are big on anecdotes but small on data. Fortunately we are now in a position to answer them with the facts supplied in John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed's important book Who Speaks for Islam? If you haven't read this book, you cannot consider yourself properly informed on the topic.

Esposito and Mogahed cite Gallup data that shows that only 7 percent of Muslims consider the 9/11 attacks to be justified. The authors don't think that even 7 percent of the world's Muslims are ready to sign up for jihad. Yet any group of Muslims who approves of 9/11 is a group that I think we should worry about. These are the political backers of Bin Laden and his cohorts. Undoubtedly Al Qaeda hopes to recruit from this pool. We should be monitoring this group closely.

But let's at the same time recognize that this cohort is a tiny minority. Images of Palestinian activists celebrating 9/11 or radical Imams leading chants of "Death to America" are not representative of Muslim opinion. There are right-wing pundits who have been trying to foment a clash of civilizations by proclaiming typical Muslims to be radicals, but next time you hear this ask for convincing evidence to back up such allegations. Most likely you will get unrepresentative anecdotes.

The larger concern for Esposito and Mogahed is Muslims who reject terrorism of the 9/11 type but nevertheless hate the United States. This hatred, however, is not mainly derived from American support for Israel or America's alleged imperialist history. Nor is it because, as President Bush once put it, "they hate us for our freedom." Rather, Esposito and Mogahed trace Muslim anti-Americanism to the belief that the West in general, and America in particular, are conducting a "war with Islam." And when Muslims are asked why they think this, they point to three things.

First, they cite America's support for secular Muslim despots. Second, they point the finger at what they view to be anti-religious and immoral values disseminated through American popular culture abroad. Finally, they seize upon the statements of inflammatory Americans who say, as Lawrence Auster recently did, "The problem is not 'radical' Islam but Islam itself, from which it follows that we must seek to weaken and contain Islam." My former colleague at the Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson, seems to share Auster's view.

One wishes that self-styled Islamic experts like Auster (an attorney previously known for his efforts to reduce immigration in America) and Victor Davis Hanson (actually an expert on classical antiquity with excellent books on topics like the Peloponnesian War) would stop trying to launch the United States on a crazy secular crusade to undermine or transform the religious beliefs of Muslims, a group numbering well over a billion people. These pundits' analysis would be greatly improved if they learned to distinguish among Muslims.

No, guys: they don't all look alike and they don't all think alike. There are Islamic radicals who are our sworn enemies, and there are other Muslims who are being alienated from the United States because they want to rule themselves, they want to affirm traditional Islamic values in their countries, and also because they are disgusted with the anti-Muslim sentiments exhibited by people like Auster and Hanson.

Who Speaks for Islam?, written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, is one of the most important books on the War on Terror. In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us." This book, written by a leading scholar of Islam and the head of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, brings a wealth of real data to bear on this important subject.

The book is full of fascinating data on Islamic radicalism, on Muslim support for democracy, on the role of women, and on the values of Western popular culture. At first glance the results seem confusing: An overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects 9/11 style terrorism but a significant number of Muslims support the Palestine suicide bombers. Huge majorities of Muslims support democracy but reject the Western understanding of rights and liberty. In fact, a substantial majority of Muslims--including Muslim women--support some form of sharia or Islamic holy law. Most Muslim women want equal rights but even champions of those rights emphatically reject Western-style feminism.

What's going on here? Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans. Many Muslims who back Hamas do so because they see the group as fighting for Muslim self-rule.

On the other hand, Muslims reject what may be termed 1960s liberalism. They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination. Rather than import these "alternative lifestyles" into their society, Muslims want to live according to their own traditional values and elect their own governments that will defend Muslim interests.

Esposito and Mogahed shrewdly note that the values of traditional Muslims worldwide are very similar to the values of traditional Jews and Christians in the West. For instance, only around 15 percent of Muslims in Europe consider homosexuality "morally acceptable." That's way below the figures for the general public in Britain, France and Germany. But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.

Yes, I could say that I predicted all this in my book The Enemy at Home. But the great contribution of Esposito and Mogahed is to put a mountain of data behind these conclusions. Over six years their group has conducted tens of thousands of face-to-face surveys of Muslims in more than 35 countries making what they rightly call "the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done."

This book is a huge embarassment to conservatives like Victor Davis Hanson who, based on no data and very little familiarity with the Muslim world, have been portraying Muslims as violent theocrats who reject modern science, modern democracy and modern capitalism and spend most of their day performing honor killings and genital mutilations. This portrait of the Muslim world is about as accurate as that of a Muslim who believes that typical Americans live their daily lives according to the values of "Natural Born Killers" and "Brokeback Mountain."

What can we conclude from this book? First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.

Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong! It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims.

Proclaiming "nothing is sacred," atheist P.Z. Myers took the Christian eucharist, pierced it with a rusty nail, and threw it into the garbage. Then he posed his action on the world wide web.

Who is Myers? He's a biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a close ally of Richard Dawkins. In fact, Dawkins has praised Myers, conducted public conversations with him, and I count several links to Myers' articles on richarddawkins.net. Dawkins also urged his fans to write in support of Myers.

Myers rose to semi-fame, or perhaps I should say notoriety, when he praised University of Central Florida student Webster Cook who stole the eucharist from a church and held it hostage. Apparently figuring that such antics were more likely to gain attention than his own relatively undistinguished scholarship, Myers decided to get into the act himself.

On his blog Pharyngula, Myers wrote "It's a Frackin' Cracker" and said that if someone would send him a eucharist he would "show you sacrelige, gladly and with much fanfare." Myers' desecration was widely viewed on the web and raised much comment, much of it infuriated--but we can assume that this was Myers' intention.

Asked whether he cared about injuring the feelings of Christians, Myers professed surprise. "I've got so many people writing me and saying that I have seriously hurt them. But what have I done? I have thrown away a cracker."

This would be like someone burning a cross and then saying, "I cannot understand why all those black people are upset? All I did was set fire to a piece of wood." If a child did it, you can possibly say he was innocent. But when a professor acts this way, isn't malevolence the obvious explanation?

The National Catholic Register caught up with Myers recently and asked him the source of his hostility toward religion. "Religion has been selling everybody a bill of goods for so many years. It's about time somebody spoke up and said it's a load of nonsense."

Asked whether Christianity deserves credit for founding the first Western hospitals, universities and even scientific breakthroughs, Myers said, "No. People made those contributions to Western civilization."

But werent' those people Christians acting on their religious convictions? "That's like saying that because for so many years people got smallpox, smallpox is to be credited for all the virtue men have done."

Here we see Myers' thought in all its glorious idiocy. No, Myers, the two are not even comparable. Smallpox has nothing to do with the building of Gothic spires and astronomical observatories and setting up institutions like Harvard and the Red Cross. Christianity was a powerful motivating force in why people did those things. You can find all this out by opening up a history book.

The problem with people like Myers and Dawkins is not that they are complete morons. It is that they are biologists who know something about one thing but pretend that they know a lot about other things. Consequently they come across sounding like morons. Have pity on them.

The biggest scandal of the election campaign is going unreported, for the most part, by the mainstream newspapers and TV shows. Imagine if John McCain or Sarah Palin had a half-brother who was living in a hut. Imagine if McCain, a multimillionaire, did nothing to help the guy. Imagine if McCain came to the convention and spoke incessantly about compassion and how he was inspired by the biblical mandate: we are our brothers' keepers! This would be the lead story on the evening news.

So why aren't the networks covering the fact that Barack Obama's half-brother George lives in a 6 by 10 foot hut in the slums of Kenya? It took a reporter for the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to locate George Obama. Obama noted that when he met his famous half-brother in 2006 it was only for a few minutes and like talking to a complete stranger. George Obama also told the magazine that when people ask him whether he is related to Barack Obama he denies it because he is ashamed. Obama has done absolutely nothing to help his unfortunate half-brother.

Apparently alarmed that this report could hurt Obama, CNN dispatched one of its reporters to do cover-up work for the Obama campaign. This is a hopeless enterprise; anyone who sees pictures of Geroge Obama's dwelling place knows that they reveal the worst images of African poverty. Moreover, for all its propagandistic intent, the CNN report is unintentionally damaging to Obama. The reporter cannot hide the fact that George Obama comes from a "ramshackled slum." A neighbor tells CNN that Barack Obama really should connect with his half-brother and "see how he's living" and do what he can to "improve our way of life."

CNN attempts to portray George Obama as a self-reliant fellow who doesn't want any help. The network quotes him saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now." Notice that George speaks in a halting voice; he is trying to maintain his self-image. George also says, "I'm Kenyan...I would love to live in Kenya." Presumably George gave this answer to a question asking whether he'd like to move to the United States with Barack Obama's help. These answers, however, in no way suggest that George doesn't want Barack Obama's intervention to relieve his grinding poverty. A man's effort to maintain his dignity should not be exploited to pretend that he doesn't want a helping hand.

When I posted on George Obama last week, the Obama apologists could do no better than to say that Barack Obama doesn't owe his half-brother anything. But sibling assistance is not a matter of debt. Rather, it is a matter of family values and compassion. Obama has publicly cited as his favorite Bible verse Jesus's statement: whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. It seems that the Republican allegation that this man is full of pretense and empty words--in other words, a modern-day Pharisee--is more than justified.

Obama may not want to help his 26 year old half-brother, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I'm starting the George Obama Compassion Fund which has the goal of raising some money to help George move out of his one-room hut. George also wants to become a mechanic and surely he could use some funds to get the training he needs to fulfill his humble aspirations. Currently George lives on a few dollars a month. Even a few thousand dollars would completely transform this man's life.

I'm putting up $1000 to get this fund started. I invite people to send me small contributions--$5, $10, $25, whatever you can spare. Send them to P.O. Box 3384, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067. Make your checks to "George Obama." I will then contact the Obama campaign and offer them the money on the condition that they forward it to George Obama in Kenya. The advantage of this approach is that not only does George Obama benefit from our generosity, but also Barack Obama can use the opportunity to improve his relationship with his half-brother. Let's foster Obama family values, and give a break to a guy who really needs it.

Yes, it was a great speech, possibly the highlight of the Republican convention. And yes, it was the climax of a big day for the GOP. First Romney and then Huckabee made their effective case against Obama and Biden. Then Giuliani came in as the Mafia Man to rough up Obama, a bruising he delivered with obvious relish. I would not have thought Palin could top these three seasoned veterans, but she did. It doesn't really matter how McCain does; the Republicans are off and running.

Commentators have noted that Palin spoke with aplomb. The liberals had sought to portray her as a bungler and a problem pick, akin to George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle. But the attacks created for Palin a great opportunity. All she had to show was that she was not the small-town nitwit of Democratic propaganda. Palin also demonstrated that she could mount a devastating attack on Obama--basically a "community organizer" who knows how to talk a slick game--without coming across as mean-spirited. This is a real art, to know how to punch with a smile. As commentator Fred Barnes said later, this is not an easy skill to learn. Palin didn't really learn it; she is a natural.

What struck me most about Palin, however, was not her pungent one-liners or her savoir faire. Rather, it was her girlish innocence, her unexpected candor and small-town charm. Palin came across as a really wholesome all-American, a real contrast with all the men in the race. Both by her words and her style, she contrasted herself with both Biden and Obama. Biden is basically a mediocre fellow (he graduated in the bottom 10 percent of his law school class, where he was found guilty of plagiarism) whose only original ideas have been terrible ideas, like carving Iraq into small pieces. He is also a product of the back-slapping Washington D.C. establishment. Republicans haven't bothered to attack Biden because he isn't worth attacking. By contrast, Democrats are going crazy over Palin because she scares them.

Even Palin's so-called problems highlight her normalcy. So her husband had a DUI conviction twenty years ago. First of all it wasn't her, it was her husband. Second, how does this compare with Obama, who was snorting cocaine twenty years ago? The media, with its familiar one-sidedness, has been commending Obama's "honesty" over his drug use while blasting Palin for her husband's irresponsible driving. Then Palin's daughter got pregnant at 17: apparently the "family values" didn't entirely get through. Even so, Bristol and the boyfriend are keeping the baby and getting married. So responsibility wins out after all.

By contrast, Obama said he wanted to preserve abortion rights because if his daughters got pregnant one day he wouldn't want them to be "punished" with a child. (Let's be glad that Obama's mom didn't think this way because if she had at the age of 18, Obama wouldn't be around today.) Even Palin's alleged action to fire the state trooper who split with her sister and then harassed her is precisely the kind of action that most Americans would take in a similar situation. While Obama is a cunning Chicago pol who has played his rhetoric and his machine connections to rise through the ranks, Palin remains authenticially all-American with ordinary and recognizable problems.

The problem for the Republicans is that many Americans have become jaded about them. McCain's maverick reputation helps, but it doesn't alter this reality. Palin, on the other hand, is a completely fresh face. I predict she will appeal not only to Christian conservatives but also to working-class independents, male and female, who see in her the promise of real reform. Palin offers change, but this does not take the form of warmed-over socialism. Instead, it is change in congruence with traditional American values. I don't know if an unspoiled person like Palin can actually clean out the Augean stables in the nation's capital, but she does seem determined to try. She is the new star of this political race and already she has altered the whole equation.

So let's compare. Sarah Palin has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant. Does this mean that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for championing family values? Does this make her a bad parent? Here is what Palin has to say about the matter: "We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart...Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of love and adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional support."

This to me is the true humble and Christian response. No one is perfect. And there are consequences for actions which people have to live with. Even so, parents can admire the young girl's decision not to take the easy way out and have an abortion. They love their daughter unconditionally, and accept the grandchild unreservedly. I predict that this will strengthen Palin's support both with evangelical Christians and with the American people.

Now let's contrast Palin's behavior with that of Barack Obama. Here is Obama, from his speech at the Democratic National Convention. "It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it." Obama faulted McCain for his cruel and insensitive philosophy, which he defined this way: "Out of work? Tough luck. No health care. The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."

Obama rejected the bootstraps philosophy in favor of a Christian alternative. In his interview with pastor Rick Warren, Obama said his favorite passage in the Bible is the one where Jesus says: whatever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me. Obama has actually used biblical language to make the point that we are our brothers' keeper. Obama insisted that these are the ideals that have guided his life and the ones that he would bring to the Oval Office.

Now how can Obama's self-description be reconciled with news reports that Obama's younger half-brother lives in a hut in a shanty town on the outskirts of Nairobi? Vanity Fair caught up with twenty six year old George Hussein Onyango Obama, and what he had to say is as shocking as it is pathetic. "No one knows who I am. I live here on less than a dollar a month." George's shack measures 6 feet by 10 feet, and yet he says that Barack Obama has done nothing to reach out to him or to help him. "I live like a recluse. If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed." The two Obamas only met twice, once when George was five and then again in 2006 when Senator Obama visited Nairobi. "It was very brief," George says. "We spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger."

So far what has Obama said about his half-brother? Absolutely nothing. Yet the Obama campaign has not denied the story. And Obama's supporters, attempting to cover up for their man, have basically said that young George Obama is trying to benefit from Barack Obama's success. Their argument is that Obama owes his sibling nothing. So the Obama camp has a message for George: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own." Obama's accusation against McCain turns out to be an accurate description of his own practical philosophy.

Could there be a more striking contrast between Palin's loving approach to her family and Obama's stern rejection of his own half-brother? The media seems to be implying that Palin is hypocritical because she stands for "family values" while her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. But parents don't have full control over their teenagers' actions. Moreover, isn't Obama an even bigger hypocrite for championing aid to the down-and-out while his own sibling lives in an African hut on pennies a day? By the way the Obamas made several million dollars last year! They are certainly in a position to relieve George's condition if they cared enough.

The major newspapers and networks know about George, and they seem to recognize how damaging this story is for their favorite presidential candidate. So they are not reporting it, even though it is one of the most revealing stories about the candidate's character. And thus, with the GOP convention under way, we have the ridiculous spectacle of Obama getting credit for talking about compassion while Palin gets criticized for practicing it.

A slightly different version of this article appears in the online edition of National Review.

I would not have thought it possible, but McCain and his advisers have made the perfect vice presidential selection in Sarah Palin. It is an ingenious, even thrilling choice, and one that is all the more remarkable in that it was completely unexpected. All the other candidates, such as Romney and Pawlenty, were boring and came with serious drawbacks. Obama has certainly added excitement to the Democratic ticket; now, with his choice of Palin, McCain has done the same for the Republicans.

Compare Obama's unimaginative selection of Joe Biden--another Washington D.C. blowhard--with McCain's choice. I suppose Biden is supposed to win over lower-middle-class white voters by the fact that he is a backslapping good old boy who likes to watch football games and eat chili dogs. What Biden offers is a proven record of mediocrity, and perhaps he can appeal to mediocre people on the basis of a shared absence of accomplisment.

I'm not saying that Palin has accomplished much either. What she has is potential. The Obama camp has already released its first commercial attacking Palin. But how ridiculous does Obama sound in faulting her for lack of experience? Palin is serving her first term as governor, but then Obama is serving his first term as senator. Palin has no foreign policy experience and has only been to Iraq once; Obama's level of foreign policy experience is exactly the same. It's worth noting, in this context, that Obama, unlike Palin, is at the top of the ticket. Palin will at least have a chance to learn on the job; Obama wants to step right into the Oval Office. So every time the Democrats use the experience charge against Palin, they remind the American people of Obama's greatest weakness.

Here's why Palin is such a good choice. She seems like an incredibly wholesome person who doesn't so much talk about family values as embody them. This is the best kind of social conservative: one whose life is an exemplar of the kind of American dream that we can all admire. In attacking her, I think her critics like Paul Begala and James Carville sound like total jerks. I'd like to see more of those carping attack dogs on TV: they can only help Palin.

With her support for a muscular foreign policy and guns and oil drilling, Palin is an across-the-board conservative, which will reinforce McCain's credentials with the right-wing base of the party. Not that those guys had anyone else to vote for, but the choice of Palin will increase the enthusiasm of GOP activists in working hard for a McCain victory. Second, unlike Bush, McCain has chosen a deputy who can be a future leader of the Republican Party. Palin is also young and thus helps to neutralize Obama's youthful advantage. As a woman, Palin will not so much win over the disenchanted Hillary supporters as pick up Hillary's argument to independent voters that it's about time America had a strong woman in its top echelons of political office. For every Obama supporter who can claim an historic first for the Democrats, Palin enthusiasts can make an equal historic claim for the Republicans.

The media will continue to lionize Obama-Biden and attack McCain-Palin. It's only a short time before we start hearing that Palin is the "wrong kind of woman." (Would anyone dare argue that Obama is the "wrong kind of black man"?) Still, the American people have gotten pretty good at seeing through the media charade. A whole summer of media genuflections hasn't produced a substantial Democratic lead. For months, McCain and Obama have remained virtually tied. Now, with Palin, the Republicans have their first chance to pull ahead.

Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past. We are now approaching what may be termed "the end of racism." The End of Racism was the title of my 1995 bestseller, hugely controversial when it was published, but now it seems to have been a decade ahead of its time. If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Consider this: for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much, how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than ever. It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities. Even so, liberal activists and civil rights activists continue to browbeat white America in the schools, in the universities, in politics and in the media if there is the slightest dissent from civil rights orthodoxy.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes. He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent and successful segments of the white community. Obama, not Hillary, is the pillar of the white establishment. Moreover, Obama's own campaign is based on the premise that America is no longer racist. Far from making race-based appeals, to blacks on the basis of solidarity, and to whites on the basis of guilt, Obama campaigns on the expectation that whites share his economic values and foreign policy positions and view of America. In other words, Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse Jackson is telling family members, "If race relations keep improving like this, I may have to get a real job."

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of American life or even African American life. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used to be systematic, is now only episodic. In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist, many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story. Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black vote. When your logic leads to an absurd conclusion, go back and re-examine the premise.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness, race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become. The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors who need preferential treatment. (Liberals hate to have this pointed out; hence the irrational invective of the early responses to this post.) The solutions are obvious. If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America, let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making. And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

I think I'll let the Democrats define themselves more clearly at the convention before I comment on it. But I cannot help but regard Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a blunder. Hillary must be going nuts and thinking: "How many votes did I get and how many votes did this guy get? Is this affirmative action for white males or what?" Leave aside the fact that the choice is unimaginative, uninspired, banal. It seems that Obama is going after the hoi polloi by naming one of their undistinguished number to the ticket. Sure, Joe is a jovial character, but when is the last time he had an idea? To date his best lines have been plagiarized from others. Let's just hope he doesn't begin his convention speech, "Four score and seven years ago..."

Well, it's Obama who's at the top of the ticket and it's Obama we should be focusing on. So far it sounds like Obama is running not for president of the United States but for president of the world. Obama is a globalist, and in his Berlin speech at the Brandenburg Gate Obama decalred himself a "fellow citizen of the world." I guess this means that in conflicts between our world and other worlds, Obama is decidedly on the side of Planet Earth.

Sure, there's more to Obama's argument than his platitudes. Essentially Obama has been arguing that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands alone." The problem with this is that there are competing ideals and competing interests in the world. China would like to be a regional bully and kick around the little countries that are in its neighborhood. Russia too would like to restore some of its czarist and later Communist hegemony. How exactly does our Chicago community activist propose to change these global realities?

Obama's answer is: through the power of prose. In his stump speeches Obama has been sounding a Robert Frost note, talking a lot about walls. According to Obama, the greatest threat in today's world is not terrorism or nuclear war. Rather, the "greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another." According to Obama, the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic, or between natives and immigrants, or between races and religions, "cannot stand."

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," Frost wrote, and certainly we can all share the feeling. Perhaps the best example of an unloved wall is the Berlin Wall, which came down thanks to the efforts of people like Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Havel, Walesa and Solzhenitsyn. Yet Frost's poem ends with these striking lines: "Good fences make good neighbors." Frost's point is that the sentimental resistance to walls must be modified by the recognition of the utility and even indispensability of walls. I'm quite sure the Obamas understand the principle quite well: they would not be happy if their neighbors' kids crossed into their yard and treated it as their own. Good fences make good neighbors.

So when should walls be taken down? Consider a contemporary example. It's possible that the wall the Israelis are building is saving Israeli lives and protecing that nation's security. It's also possible that the wall is unncessary, and that it's fueling further Palestinian grievance. My point is that the correct position is going to derive from a careful analysis of the situation on the ground. Vague and lofty talk about the badness of walls isn't going to help. Yet that is precisely the level of analysis that we are getting from Barack Obama. Now will the press stop genuflecting before this man and do him--and our democracy--the dignity of critically examining his views?

For the past few days I've been blogging on racial differences in the short and long distance Olympic races. I noted Jon Entine's argument that such differences may have a biological origin, a taboo subject because once we start talking about physical differences, perhaps some people might then begin to suspect differences of intelligence between the races.

In my book The End of Racism I argued against such differences, noting instead that culture is a far better explanation of ethnic differences in intellectual achievement and economic performance. But when we turn to the issue of men and women, I note an anomaly.

No one denies that men are taller and stronger than women on average. This explains of course why competitive sports is based on the "separate but equal" principle. Men play against men, and women play against women. Segregation on the basis of gender appears to have an obvious rational basis in physical contests of speed and strength.

Yet one of my favorite games, namely chess, is not such a contest. Rather, chess is entirely based on intellectual capacity. It involves planning, calculation, strategy. One would assume that since men and women are equally intelligent, therefore women should be fully competive with men in chess. But it is not so. Consider: of the top 100 players in the USA currently, only two are women. Even more startling, of the top 100 chess players in the world today, only one is a woman.

So embarrassing is male over-representation at the top level that most chess competitions today are divided into two categories. There is a general category that is almost inevitably won by a man, and then there is a separate women's championship obviously designed to give women a chance to succeed as well. Currently there is a World Chess Champion and a World Women's Champion. Somehow the chess world seem to have adjusted to the reality that int his particular mental contest, women simply aren't as good as men.

Can culture account for the difference between the sexes? Actually no. Culture can help to explain why certain countries like Russia are more dominant in chess. They simply play a lot more chess over there. But culture doesn't explain why Russian males are so much better than Russian females in chess. I am not aware of an historical exclusion of women from chess, and even if there was some past discrimination, how come women still fare so poorly in an age of equality? Of the top 20 junior chess players in the world, there isn't a single woman. So in these respects the cultural explanation falters.

Are we forced to conclude then that men are smarter than women, at least when it comes to chess? Not really. The average IQ of both groups is 100. But when it comes to the bell curve distribution, an interesting difference emerges. The female bell curve is taller and narrower, with the vast majority of women bunched in the middle. The male bell curve is shorter and flatter, with more men at both ends of the distribution. What this means is that there are more male geniuses and more male morons. And this would effectively account for why at the very top level of an intellectual contest like chess, we find far more men than women.