Earlier this year the Departments of State and Homeland Security received wide criticism for politically correct memos prohibiting the use of certain language in referring to Islamic terrorists. The diplomatic and intelligence communities were urged to “never use the terms jihadist or mujahedeen in conversation to describe the terrorists.” The bureaucrats at State and Homeland Security insist that “calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”

Now the Washington Times writes that a “Red Team” report of civilian analysts at the U.S. Central Command has published a study, “Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words” that helpfully repudiates those inaccurate politically correct conclusions.

The study insists that “While there is concern that we not label all Muslims as Islamist terrorists, it is proper to address certain aspects of violence as uniquely Islamic.” Here are a few nuggets of wisdom from the Red Team report:

There are a growing number of [U.S. government] documents that suggest we stand in danger of (if we have not already) demonizing Islam and/or associating all Muslims with violence simply by invoking he Islamic identity, or Islamic goals, of a particular extremist group. These assumptions appear to be based upon emotional or political responses to criticism, rather than based on intentional or passive acts of bigotry, as they seem to imply. . . .

We must not be afraid to engage in analyzing Islam and its tenets without prejudice when the situation calls for such analysis to take place. When a well-tempered and intellectual analysis of proper Islamic terms can be made, then we should by all means use these terms to accurately describe the phenomenon of violence presently being witnessed. If these are terms being extracted from Islamic sources by terrorists, then the intelligence and diplomatic communities have a responsibility to report where we believe the terrorists have accurately understood the sources.

To say that by merely stating that Islamic-inspired acts of violence is akin to labeling Islam as the enemy is unnecessary and extreme. The fact is our enemies cite the sources of Islam as the foundation of the global jihad. That the results of this campaign are temporally repugnant does not dismiss their existence within the traditions of Islam. A well-laid debate may well have the “extremists” winning on many points about jihad and their American-Muslim detractors would have a tough-go of proving them juridically wrong.

Anticipating the predictable objections likely to come from American Muslims, the study offers the following suggestion:

We should suggest to Muslims who advise the [U.S. Government] on Islamic matters that, as an all-encompassing way of life that binds state and religion into a single unit, it is incumbent upon the Muslim community at large to disprove (to “Violent Extremists”) the martial tenets of Islam to which our enemies turn. The onus is on Muslims to disprove, within their own communities, that those who undertake source-prescribed warfare (jihad) are patently incorrect in their actions in accordance with all norms of social behavior.

One can only hope that the folks over at Foggy Bottom, Homeland Security, and Langley, where common sense is too often an uncommon virtue, pay attention. But I suspect that just may be too much to hope for.

With the election, the economy, and the environment making headlines everyday, it seems we could all spend a bit of time in the “world’s most relaxing room.“

“Global warming was blamed for 35,000 deaths in Europe’s August 2003 heat wave,” reports George Will in Newsweek today. Never mind that cold causes seven times as many deaths in Europe each year. We must take up the eco-friendly, non-carbon-emitting torch, and fight to end global warming at any cost.

Or should we? Reviewing Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Will asks: “How cool do we want the world to be? As cool as it was when the Arctic ice pack extended so far south that Eskimos in kayaks landed in Scotland?” Global warming may be problematic for the polar bears, but what about the anticipated species increase due to warmer climates? What about the human lives that will be saved, compared to those lost, due to moderate warming—“a 9-to-1 ratio in China and India”? If climate change is moderate, as Lomborg attests, our reaction should certainly be moderate too.

But there’s something so intriguing about dramatic self- (and societal) sacrifice. “What do we want? Carbon taxes! When do we want them? Now!,” chanted a group of London demonstrators. A serious plea, and Will has a serious answer:

Well, you want dramatic effects now? We can eliminate what the World Health Organization says will be, by 2020, second only to heart disease as the world’s leading cause of death.

The cause is traffic accidents. The surefire cure is speed limits of 5mph. In 2008 alone, that would save 1.2 million lives and $500 billion in damages, disproportionately in the Third World, which will be hardest hit by increasing traffic carnage. But a world moving at 5mph would be, over the years, uncountable trillions of dollars poorer, which would cost some huge multiple of 1.2 million lives through forgone nutrition, education, infrastructure—e.g., clean water—medicine, research, etc.

The costs of such global slowing would be the medievalization of the world, so the world accepts the costs of velocity. . . .

Sums that are small relative to the cost of trying to fine-tune the planet’s climate could prevent scores of millions of deaths from AIDS, unsafe drinking water and other clear and present dangers. If nations concert to impose antiwarming measures commensurate with the hyperbole about the danger, the damage to global economic growth could cause in this century more preventable death and suffering than was caused in the last century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined. Nobel Peace Prize, indeed.

In addition to being a compelling indictment of the “addiction bureaucracy,” Theodore Dalrymple’s Romancing Opiates is probably the most wryly funny book-length discussion of heroin addiction you’ll read all week. Here’s a characteristic digression:

Cold turkey is so called because of the piloerection–the gooseflesh–that is a sign of withdrawal from opiates, and “I’m turkeying” is a common way for addicts to describe their condition. In England they also say, mixing their avian metaphors, that they’re “clucking” or “doing their cluck.” Strictly speaking they should be gobbling, or doing their gobble.

In the current issue of First Things we are pleased to have an article by Amy Julia Becker entitled “Babies Perfect and Imperfect,” a reflection on how having a child with Down syndrome has deepened Becker’s understanding of what it means to be human:

Early on, I had asked my mother whether she thought Down syndrome happened because of sin in the world. She responded gently, “The only evidence of sin I see is in how the world reacts to Penny.” I began to understand what she meant—that Penny is no more or less human than I am, no more or less born in sin, no more or less blessed, no more or less in need of redemption. When I think of Penny’s life to come only in terms of being fixed or healed, I miss the point of what it means for God to redeem and heal each and every one of us.

Now available for your listening pleasure is an interview of Mrs. Becker with First Things features editor R.R. Reno. Hear it by clicking below:

Healing, Service, Reverence for the Person, Respect for the Family, Commitment to the Poor: In the medical world today, these principles–asserted and upheld–can’t be taken for granted. Which makes the opening, yesterday, of Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy, noteworthy not just to the people of Chantilly, Virginia but also to the medical world.

The network of Catholic hospitals owned and largely staffed by religious congregations has dwindled, but Divine Mercy Care, a non-profit organization founded in 2000, is working through its Tepeyac Family Center and now its VA pharmacy to “bring the healing presence of Christ through health care.”

DMC Pharmacy aims to provide “superior pharmaceutical care–both traditional and clinical service–focusing on the individual in a family-oriented, pro-life environment, free of contraceptive products and anti-life messages,” said its managing pharmacist, Robert Semler. President of DMC, Dr. John Bruchalski, added: “Divine Mercy Care is values-based and consumer-driven. Neither patients nor professionals want to abandon their conscience while they seek medical care. We need to be professional, personal, and passionate about how we infuse our community with the love of Jesus Christ.”