Interesting reads

This New York Times article on Washington think tanks.

This article in the current issue of the Weekly Standard on the connection between religion and the death penalty. I’ve been called “religious” once or twice in the past, but, not being a supporter of capital punishment, I don’t quite fit the mold described in the article. It’s still well worth checking out. A taste:

But it can be said that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed by a religious people. The reasons for this are not obvious. It may be that the religious know what evil is or, at least, that it is, and, unlike the irreligious, are not so ready to believe that evil can be explained, and thereby excused, by a history of child abuse or, say, a “post-traumatic stress disorder” or a “temporal lobe seizure.” Or, again unlike the irreligious, and probably without having read so much as a word of his argument, they may be morally disposed (or better, predisposed) to agree with the philosopher Immanuel Kant—that greatest of the moralists—who said it was a “categorical imperative” that a convicted murderer “must die.” Or perhaps the religious are simply quicker to anger and, while instructed to do otherwise, slower, even unwilling, to forgive. In a word, they are more likely to demand that justice be done. Whatever the reason, there is surely a connection between the death penalty and religious belief.

And this special to the Daily Standard on President Bush and his African AIDs policy. An excerpt:

Even the president’s most vitriolic critics call his HIV/AIDS policy a remarkable achievement. After Bush signed PEPFAR into law, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof ripped it as “a war on condoms.” But Kristof has since praised the initiative, and a recent Times story called it “the most lasting bi-partisan accomplishment of the Bush presidency.” Democratic Senator John Kerry labels the program “a tremendous accomplishment for the country.” And Paul Zeitz, executive director of the liberal Global AIDS Alliance, believes Bush has ignited a “philosophical revolution” in America’s commitment to combating global AIDS and poverty.

That’s no embellishment. The Times article noted, with obvious embarrassment, that before the Bush initiative hardly 50,000 AIDS patients overseas were getting U.S. assistance. The unmentionable fact is that Bill Clinton—despite a robust economy, budget surpluses, few international crises, and eight interminable years in the White House—never seriously contemplated how America might help the developing world tackle the AIDS pandemic. The plight of AIDS orphans barely appeared on the Clinton radar screen. But if Congress approves the next round of funding, HIV/AIDS treatment will reach 2.5 million people, probably prevent 12 million new infections, and help care for about 5 million orphans and at-risk children. So much for the liberal record on social justice.

PEPFAR’s success is partly a result of Bush’s decision to mostly bypass bloated and corrupt U.N. bureaucracies and deliver assistance directly to community and faith-based organizations (a concept still resisted by many in the U.S. Agency for International Development). About 80 percent of PEPFAR recipients are indigenous, grass-roots groups: the “armies of compassion” that Bush has extolled since the first days of his administration. In countries such as Uganda, faith-based clinics, supported by local ministers and imams, are crucial in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Unlike many AIDS activist groups or U.N.-sponsored programs, they can effectively challenge risky behaviors that help spread the disease-from prostitution to illicit drug use.

By sheer force of will, Bush has orchestrated the most successful partnership of government and international civil society in memory—what is emerging as a medical Marshall Plan for Africa. Presidential hopefuls such as Barack Obama might never admit it, but PEPFAR sure looks like “change we can believe in.” Yet, thanks to media indifference and political cynicism, most Americans will never hear the redemptive story of Tatu Msangi, her daughter, or anyone like them, despite their legions. Why disturb the deranged caricature of Bush that shapes the narrative of the liberal establishment?