A Western HeartWednesday, February 09, 2005
Why we went to Iraq
by Dan
[ Permalink ]
Comment (0) || Trackback (0)
It wasn't about oil. It wasn't about Halliburton contracts. It wasn't to bring democracy, US style to the Middle East. It was to ensure that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq understood it's obligations as part of the international community. Obligations it had ignored since getting it's ass kicked six ways from Sunday in 1991. Remember the final months leading up to this Gulf War? No? Remember the Blix report?
Let's look at the head of UNMOVIC, Dr Hans Blixs' comments when he presented information to the UN Security Council on Monday, 23rd January 2003. Specifically, I would like to highlight the points raised by Blix was the main reason a coalition of countries moved into Iraq to guarantee compliance and ensure that the WMD inspection process was completed, without influence or prevarication by the Iraqi authorities.
"I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.
Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.
During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.
While addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter which I reported on 19th of December last year concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.
There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers and the Al-Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they're still undergoing development.
The Al-Samud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.
During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.
Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."
Need some more (rocket) fuel for thought?
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
So let's have a quick summary of Iraq's efforts to clear their good name, and lift UN sanctions against them.
1. Information from Iraq relating to large quantities of the nerve agent VX,which may or may not have been weaponised was inaccurate, with the inspection agency believing that one of the deadliest toxins known to man, was being prepared for a method of delivery as part of a military weapon. Precursor chemicals used to create the toxin have yet to be accounted for.
2. Some 6500 chemical weapons remain unaccounted for from the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80's. These weapons are believed to hold up to 1000 tonnes of toxic chemical warheads.
3. Chemical processing equipment previously destroyed by UNSCOM was repaired and replaced to restart a chemical refining process. Under contravention of previous UN Resolutions.
4. No evidence to the destruction or location of some 8500 litres of anthrax, a highly toxic biological warfare agent. But hey, they said it was destroyed, so that should be good enough, right? Not to mention strong evidence indicating a far higher amount of material produced than they declared. It's not like the Iraqi government to LIE about anything.
5. Didn't declare some 650 kilos of bacterial growth medium. The culture required to grow anthrax spores. Oops, forgot. By the way, this makes about 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
6. A missile programme designed to produce missiles with ranges in excess of that allowed under UN Resolution, with propellant, guidance system and rocket motor research continuing to vastly extend the range of these missiles. Once again, what were they thinking? Oh, that's right, the UN were watching. No probs then, full steam ahead. Increased missile diameters, with larger payload capabilities and longer ranges. The importation of 300 rocket motors for the Al-Samud rocket. All illegal.
7. The finding of a large amount of material relating to the enrichment of uranium at a scientist's private home. Because that's where I'd keep my nuclear secrets. In the lounge or on the kitchen table.
So, of course, after 12 years, we should have kept the inspections going. Apparently. That's right, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL! Morons.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Power Line: A Race Against Time-Well Put
Power Line: A Race Against TimeSteyn's latest struck me forcibly:
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Power Line Givs statistics on Bushs' Popularity
Power Line: "Bush has already transformed the American electorate. On Election Day, John Kerry won 16 percent more votes than Al Gore did in 2000. George W. Bush won 23 percent more votes than he had in 2000. This is comparable to Franklin Roosevelt's 22 percent gain in popular votes between 1932 and 1936. FDR created a New Deal majority that hadn't existed before. Bush may have done something similar for his party.
Bush carried 31 states that elect 62 of the 100 senators. He carried approximately 250 congressional districts, to about 185 for Kerry (the final counts aren't in). Bill Clinton was re-elected with 49 percent of the vote in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity -- the most favorable posture in which to run. George W. Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the vote in times not of apparent peace and apparent prosperity. Clinton's 49 percent in retrospect looks like a ceiling for his party. Bush's 51 percent may be more in the nature of a floor."
Bush carried 31 states that elect 62 of the 100 senators. He carried approximately 250 congressional districts, to about 185 for Kerry (the final counts aren't in). Bill Clinton was re-elected with 49 percent of the vote in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity -- the most favorable posture in which to run. George W. Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the vote in times not of apparent peace and apparent prosperity. Clinton's 49 percent in retrospect looks like a ceiling for his party. Bush's 51 percent may be more in the nature of a floor."
Monday, February 07, 2005
Power Line: The Democrats as they really are
Power Line: The Democrats as they really areThe Democrats as they really are
Please don't miss this brilliant column by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard on the Democrats' week from hell. Focusing on the behavior of Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy (in a section I found priceless), Evan Bayh, and John Kerry, Emery finds all of the answers to the question Democrats have been asking since November -- why wonderful people such as they keep on losing. Here's what it comes down to:
With a few brave exceptions (a faction of one named Joe Lieberman), the Democrats split into two major camps: the wingnuts--Dean, Boxer, and Kennedy--who know what they think, which alas sets them at odds with the rest of the country; and the caucus of cowards--Bayh, Edwards, and Kerry--who believe in nothing so much as their own career prospects, and change their minds on the gravest of war and peace issues on the basis of what serves their ends. . . .
Republicans want to win wars and spread freedom; Democrats want to save their rear ends. Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they themselves are better than Bush. In 2004, Bush made it clear he was willing to lose on the basis of his convictions--and won in spite or more likely because of this. Democrats had no convictions beyond the end goal of winning, and therefore quite properly lost. No party deserved to lose more than the Democrats did in these past two elections, and unless they make changes, they stand to lose many more.
At one level, it seems counter-intuitive that the Democrats would behave so badly so soon after again being chastised by the electorate and at a time when they allegedly are engaged in soul-searching. At another level, it isn't surprising at all. The Democrats don't have to face the voters again for two years, so they no longer feel the need to repress their ugliest sentiments, which defeat has made them feel all the more passionately.
Please don't miss this brilliant column by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard on the Democrats' week from hell. Focusing on the behavior of Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy (in a section I found priceless), Evan Bayh, and John Kerry, Emery finds all of the answers to the question Democrats have been asking since November -- why wonderful people such as they keep on losing. Here's what it comes down to:
With a few brave exceptions (a faction of one named Joe Lieberman), the Democrats split into two major camps: the wingnuts--Dean, Boxer, and Kennedy--who know what they think, which alas sets them at odds with the rest of the country; and the caucus of cowards--Bayh, Edwards, and Kerry--who believe in nothing so much as their own career prospects, and change their minds on the gravest of war and peace issues on the basis of what serves their ends. . . .
Republicans want to win wars and spread freedom; Democrats want to save their rear ends. Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they themselves are better than Bush. In 2004, Bush made it clear he was willing to lose on the basis of his convictions--and won in spite or more likely because of this. Democrats had no convictions beyond the end goal of winning, and therefore quite properly lost. No party deserved to lose more than the Democrats did in these past two elections, and unless they make changes, they stand to lose many more.
At one level, it seems counter-intuitive that the Democrats would behave so badly so soon after again being chastised by the electorate and at a time when they allegedly are engaged in soul-searching. At another level, it isn't surprising at all. The Democrats don't have to face the voters again for two years, so they no longer feel the need to repress their ugliest sentiments, which defeat has made them feel all the more passionately.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Andrew Olmsted dot com: One Small Step
Andrew Olmsted dot com: One Small Step------We often forget that in our own history, only about one in three colonists really wanted to leave England and become our own nation. It was the passion and courage of that small band of Americans that saw us through to independence and our current system of government.
The Adventures of Chester: The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
The Adventures of Chester: The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
In today's Current News Service, also known as "The Early Bird," (accessible to active and reserve members of DoD) there appears amongst the regular news and opinion pieces from the major dailies, this solitary post from Alaa, an Iraqi blogger, who authors The Mesopotamian:
Greetings Friends,
I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal. We shall never forget the meanness of these bas…s. After this is over there will be no let up, they must be wiped out. It is our duty and the duty of every decent human to make sure this vermin is no more and that no more innocent decent people are victimized.
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
This is a very hurried message, while we are witnessing something quite extraordinary. I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.
Salaam for now
This is great news for the blogosphere. Seems like a great idea for the Early Bird to cover blogger opinion. Interesting that they chose an Iraqi for the first. Alaa is a good blogger. Who else will they cover?
A withdrawal of some earlier criticism of the Early Bird, back in November, from this post might even be in order:
The Early Bird has made two changes:
1. The Main edition is now available 7 days a week.
2. The Supplemental edition has been scrapped completely.
While making the Main edition available on weekends is nice, I think scrapping the Supplement is a mistake. The Main edition is filled with stories from the major newspapers -- NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles, etc. These papers make up around 60-70% of the content of the Main edition. The Supplement on the other hand always had stories from local papers, foreign papers, and not just papers, but magazines and journals as well. The Supplement also carried stories that were behind-the-scenes and more in-depth, as opposed to the headline-grabbing stuff you see in the Main edition. The result is that the stories in the Main edition are nearly always told from the same angle or reporting slant, whereas those in the Supplement were varied and much more interesting (I once read a translated interview with Donald Rumsfeld from the French press in the Supplement -- very enlightening). The bottom line is that the Supplement was an outstanding repository of open-source news about defense issues, whereas the Main edition is just a wave-top view of current headlines, with all of the predictable left-media spin.
I know this is irrelevant to many of my readers, but you never know who in the Pentagon might read my blog. Maybe they'll change their minds.
Last week, by the way, one of Wretchard's posts made it into RealClearPolitics. The blending of blogging and traditional media continues afoot . . .
Posted by Chester at 02:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
January 31, 2005
The Latest from George Friedman -- "The Three Power Game"
In his latest article, George Friedman asks:
First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?
He answers thus:
For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable.
There seems to be a fourth possible -- and worst for Iran -- outcome: a stable, US-friendly regime in Iraq.
Friedman has organized Iran's outcomes into these categories because of his take on Iran's strategic goals:
The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet.
The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk.
Looking at the flip side of this logic, what are the fundamental strategic decisions for the US to make? Friedman notes:
Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni.
This much is true. The Iraqi terrorist insurgency is largely Sunni. But is the war on terrorism restricted solely to Sunnis? Is the Bush administration pursuing a policy of detente with Iran? The Iranians are Shi'ite, and their Pasdaran has long supported Hizballah (Party of God -- also Shi'ites). Hizballah are certainly war on terror material . . . does it seem wise to think that the US will discriminate against threats based on their religious origin? Don't Bush's latest remarks in his inaugural imply that whatever his choices with Iran, he would prefer it were a more fully-functioning democracy?
The US is engaged in a game of long-term modernization and alliance construction in the Middle East. it is creating new nation and state-based centers of power to replace religious centers of power. The new centers are allied with the US: Afghanistan, a nation-state, replaces the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, which were ethnically and religiously-based. In Iraq, a Sunni and tribe-based power center is replaced with a Shi'ite and Kurd-dominated nation-state (it's a gamble, but can certainly succeed). Whereas the old power centers in the Islamic world looked like this:
1. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Afghanistan
2. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
3. Shi'ite clerical dictatorship in Iran
4. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Iraq
5. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Syria,
the new power centers are so:
1. Aghani-nation state.
2. Mixed ethnicity Iraqi nation-state.
3. Sunni Wahabbi terrorist insurgency in Sunni Triangle, Iraq
If the insurgency is defeated, no longer will the populations of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia see their world solely in terms of religious blocs. National blocs, mainly mixed-ethnicity nations, will have replaced them.
The goal of the Bush administration is to redefine the Middle East in terms of nation-states rather than religion. The key question is, how badly does a nuclear Iran muddle those long-term plans? This is why the question of whether the US sees itself as solely fighting the Sunnis is so important. If the US also sees itself as wishing to influence modernizing change with the Shi'ite portions of the Middle East as well, then a nuclear Iran could scuttle those plans entirely.
The strategic choices vis a vis Iran then become:
1. Let Iran keep its current state of security and influence in order to stabilize Iraq, the goal being that a non-religiously defined Iraq will spark Iran not to religiously define itself. Iran may shortly become a nuclear power. This is low-risk, low-reward.
2. Pressure Iran to keep its influence out of Iraq, and to end its nuclear weapons program. The outcome would be a stable Iraq, and a non-nuclear Iran ready for its regime to be destabilized in the future. This is low-risk, medium reward.
3. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to stop the possibility of a nuclear Iran from interfering with long-term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. This is high-risk, medium/high reward. The very act of military action in Iran could cause a backlash from those portions of its society which would find themselves in the vanguard of any democratic movement. It has been widely noted that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is seen as valuable to the regime even by those who detest it, because their nationality is stronger than their democratic desire.
4. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the replacement of the Iranian regime in order not to allow a nuclear Iran to interfere with long term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. In fact, to speed up the democratization and redefinition. This is very high risk, very high reward.
The US cannot allow Iran's sphere of influence to increase, giving Iran larger influence internally in Iraq and significantly destabilizing the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
It seems that a nuclear Iran is a serious setback to regional strategic goals for the United States and US statements have indicated that senior decisionmakers feel as such.
What now?
The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
In today's Current News Service, also known as "The Early Bird," (accessible to active and reserve members of DoD) there appears amongst the regular news and opinion pieces from the major dailies, this solitary post from Alaa, an Iraqi blogger, who authors The Mesopotamian:
Greetings Friends,
I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal. We shall never forget the meanness of these bas…s. After this is over there will be no let up, they must be wiped out. It is our duty and the duty of every decent human to make sure this vermin is no more and that no more innocent decent people are victimized.
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
This is a very hurried message, while we are witnessing something quite extraordinary. I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.
Salaam for now
This is great news for the blogosphere. Seems like a great idea for the Early Bird to cover blogger opinion. Interesting that they chose an Iraqi for the first. Alaa is a good blogger. Who else will they cover?
A withdrawal of some earlier criticism of the Early Bird, back in November, from this post might even be in order:
The Early Bird has made two changes:
1. The Main edition is now available 7 days a week.
2. The Supplemental edition has been scrapped completely.
While making the Main edition available on weekends is nice, I think scrapping the Supplement is a mistake. The Main edition is filled with stories from the major newspapers -- NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles, etc. These papers make up around 60-70% of the content of the Main edition. The Supplement on the other hand always had stories from local papers, foreign papers, and not just papers, but magazines and journals as well. The Supplement also carried stories that were behind-the-scenes and more in-depth, as opposed to the headline-grabbing stuff you see in the Main edition. The result is that the stories in the Main edition are nearly always told from the same angle or reporting slant, whereas those in the Supplement were varied and much more interesting (I once read a translated interview with Donald Rumsfeld from the French press in the Supplement -- very enlightening). The bottom line is that the Supplement was an outstanding repository of open-source news about defense issues, whereas the Main edition is just a wave-top view of current headlines, with all of the predictable left-media spin.
I know this is irrelevant to many of my readers, but you never know who in the Pentagon might read my blog. Maybe they'll change their minds.
Last week, by the way, one of Wretchard's posts made it into RealClearPolitics. The blending of blogging and traditional media continues afoot . . .
Posted by Chester at 02:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
January 31, 2005
The Latest from George Friedman -- "The Three Power Game"
In his latest article, George Friedman asks:
First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?
He answers thus:
For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable.
There seems to be a fourth possible -- and worst for Iran -- outcome: a stable, US-friendly regime in Iraq.
Friedman has organized Iran's outcomes into these categories because of his take on Iran's strategic goals:
The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet.
The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk.
Looking at the flip side of this logic, what are the fundamental strategic decisions for the US to make? Friedman notes:
Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni.
This much is true. The Iraqi terrorist insurgency is largely Sunni. But is the war on terrorism restricted solely to Sunnis? Is the Bush administration pursuing a policy of detente with Iran? The Iranians are Shi'ite, and their Pasdaran has long supported Hizballah (Party of God -- also Shi'ites). Hizballah are certainly war on terror material . . . does it seem wise to think that the US will discriminate against threats based on their religious origin? Don't Bush's latest remarks in his inaugural imply that whatever his choices with Iran, he would prefer it were a more fully-functioning democracy?
The US is engaged in a game of long-term modernization and alliance construction in the Middle East. it is creating new nation and state-based centers of power to replace religious centers of power. The new centers are allied with the US: Afghanistan, a nation-state, replaces the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, which were ethnically and religiously-based. In Iraq, a Sunni and tribe-based power center is replaced with a Shi'ite and Kurd-dominated nation-state (it's a gamble, but can certainly succeed). Whereas the old power centers in the Islamic world looked like this:
1. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Afghanistan
2. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
3. Shi'ite clerical dictatorship in Iran
4. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Iraq
5. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Syria,
the new power centers are so:
1. Aghani-nation state.
2. Mixed ethnicity Iraqi nation-state.
3. Sunni Wahabbi terrorist insurgency in Sunni Triangle, Iraq
If the insurgency is defeated, no longer will the populations of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia see their world solely in terms of religious blocs. National blocs, mainly mixed-ethnicity nations, will have replaced them.
The goal of the Bush administration is to redefine the Middle East in terms of nation-states rather than religion. The key question is, how badly does a nuclear Iran muddle those long-term plans? This is why the question of whether the US sees itself as solely fighting the Sunnis is so important. If the US also sees itself as wishing to influence modernizing change with the Shi'ite portions of the Middle East as well, then a nuclear Iran could scuttle those plans entirely.
The strategic choices vis a vis Iran then become:
1. Let Iran keep its current state of security and influence in order to stabilize Iraq, the goal being that a non-religiously defined Iraq will spark Iran not to religiously define itself. Iran may shortly become a nuclear power. This is low-risk, low-reward.
2. Pressure Iran to keep its influence out of Iraq, and to end its nuclear weapons program. The outcome would be a stable Iraq, and a non-nuclear Iran ready for its regime to be destabilized in the future. This is low-risk, medium reward.
3. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to stop the possibility of a nuclear Iran from interfering with long-term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. This is high-risk, medium/high reward. The very act of military action in Iran could cause a backlash from those portions of its society which would find themselves in the vanguard of any democratic movement. It has been widely noted that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is seen as valuable to the regime even by those who detest it, because their nationality is stronger than their democratic desire.
4. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the replacement of the Iranian regime in order not to allow a nuclear Iran to interfere with long term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. In fact, to speed up the democratization and redefinition. This is very high risk, very high reward.
The US cannot allow Iran's sphere of influence to increase, giving Iran larger influence internally in Iraq and significantly destabilizing the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
It seems that a nuclear Iran is a serious setback to regional strategic goals for the United States and US statements have indicated that senior decisionmakers feel as such.
What now?
Monday, January 31, 2005
Frontpage interview of Author
FP: Dr. Schweikart, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is a pleasure to have you here.
Schweikart: Thanks, Jamie. I only wish Mike could be here with us, but he's busy promoting the book on the West Coast.
FP: What inspired you to write a patriot’s history of America?
Schweikart: It began years ago when I was teaching U.S. history and found a numbing similarity in all the U.S. history textbooks: they all seemed heavily tilted to the left. One of the first things that really convinced me to write a survey was a chart on debt and deficits in the then-Bailey and Kennedy book, "The American Pageant," dealing with the Reagan years. The upshot was that federal debt and deficits just went off the screen under Reagan, and the authors had two charts to emphasize this--in case the students missed it. But I then noticed that their dollars were not in "real dollars," and so I re-calculated the charts in real dollars as a share of GNP and found that they not only were wrong, they were so seriously distorted as to be meaningless. The worst deficits in American history, as a share of GNP, occurred under FDR, not Reagan, and the national debt levels under Reagan in real dollars as a share of GNP were about where they were under Kennedy.
So I decided then to begin writing a U.S. history survey---and was already in the process of writing "The Entrepreneurial Adventure" for Harcourt, which is a history of American business. But I had some gaps in my knowledge and areas of emphasis, so I contacted Mike Allen, whom I had met before at the Western History Assoc. meeting, and we hit it off. Not only did our areas of emphasis compliment each other, but our interpretations and world view on the "big questions" were quite sympatico. It was a great match-up. We also agreed on the marketing strategy of making an "end run" around the textbook companies (and faculty committees) by going the "trade" route, and got a terrific publisher who really believes in the book in Penguin/Sentinel.
FP: How do you think your book will do in academia? Will it be included in the curriculum of any courses? What do you think can be done to improve the intellectual balance and diversity in academia?
Schweikart: We not only think it will do well, we are counting on it. Already people from Duquesne and Hillsdale had adopted it, as have a half-dozen instructors from junior colleges and smaller colleges. This, in fact, is where we will get great sales---in those schools where the uber-leftists do not dominate what the non-tenure track and part-timers can use. As a sidebar, it’s funny that in many schools, as you well know, the teaching of the “core” history classes, including Western Civ (if they still allow that to be taught) and U.S. History is foisted off on part-timers or non-tenure track people. My experience is that many of these teachers, though certainly not a majority, are conservatives. They come from the ranks of business people who just like history; conservatives who were blacklisted in “mainstream” academia; lawyers; housewives; and retired military people. We think the book will have a huge appeal to them.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In March, Mike and I will have a booth provided by Penguin/Sentinel at the Missouri Valley History conference and the “buzz” is that there is great excitement over Patriot’s History. My personal experience is that many teachers have been waiting a long time for a book like this. Then we have the homeschoolers. I can’t tell you how many e-mail questions I get on website chat threads about whether this book is appropriate for homeschoolers, and the answer is yes. Homeschoolers as a rule are ahead of their public-school counterparts, and the book is perfect for a Junior or Senior homeschooler. I should add, though, that Patriot’s History does not have the typical “boilerplate” of a “textbook,” what with “study questions” and “review topics.” But it has a hefty notes/sources section. Maybe in the second edition we can add a few maps and charts. Still, students just don’t read most of that stuff. When I teach a freshman course, I often have to begin with “How to Read a History Book.” The study habits are that bad out there.
As to your second question, Jamie, I’m less optimistic. The academy is unique in the social and economic culture of the United States, in that it is essentially immune from the market forces that discipline every other activity. I highly recommend a book by my fellow Ohioan, Richard Vedder, Going Broke By Degree, on this topic. But here’s what we have: the faculty (aided and abetted by leftist administrations) sets the intellectual agenda. Trustees cannot control them, parents cannot control them, and even the students---who are less willing to put up with left-wing demagougery---really can’t control them. In the first place, faculty have an iron grip on hiring. No conservative can even get close to a final three cut-down in a search. Mike and I are rare, rare exceptions, and there are a few. But you’ve seen the numbers. In most universities it’s 10:1 liberal to conservative.
Worse, there is no competition, because the mind-set of those at the top convinces them that all of their competitors have the same views they do, so they steadily drift further left. Vedder argues that on-line universities, like the University of Phoenix, will eventually provide an important alternative. I don’t know. One central aspect of college life is the social interactions on a campus, and the electronic campus will never significantly replace that, any more than homeschooling can replace traditional schools.
However, I can’t completely lose hope. In my lifetime, I’ve seen something occur that I would have thought impossible---the demise of the MainstreamMedia (MSM) and the rise of “alternative” or “conservative” voices with almost as much power and influence, including the Internet and sites such as Frontpagemagazine.com . Twenty-five years ago, who would have predicted that the “big three” would be in a news ratings free-fall, or that a radio host like Rush Limbaugh would have as much influence over a large part of the country as the New York Times? So given that it happened in the media, anything’s possible. But right now, I don’t see educational reform on the horizon. I hope I’m wrong.
FP: What do you think motivates many Americans to loathe their own country?
Schweikart: I think this has its origins in several underlying factors. One is, liberals hate capitalism because it's been my experience that they just don't understand it. Most haven't read Adam Smith and certainly don't get that "self interest" is not selfishness. So right off the bat, any country that is primarily capitalist is "evil."
Second, they rightly recognize (but usually won't admit) the fact that Americans are blessed by God, and that as a nation we have honored Him, and therefore can be blessed by Him. They hate that about us---that we are, for all of our sin and rebellion, still pretty much a Christian nation. Liberals hate God-talk, whether it comes from an Orthodox Jew or a "fundamentalist" Christian (by which they mean any Christian who practices what he or she preaches!) They want to rely solely on themselves, which is the ultimate rebellion against God. Yet deep inside, they know this is wrong, and it eats at them. Jesus encountered the "rich young ruler" who "went away sad" because he would not do what Jesus told him to do, with the implication being that his sadness came because he knew what was the right thing to do, but his ego got in the way. Liberals hate that little voice that keeps telling them, "There is a God, and you're not him." It makes them angry people.
Third, they loathe the notion that America has a special role in the world---a GOOD role---and to them the notion that any one country is "better" than another is anathema. So they get themselves in this remarkable pickle: they rail against "oppression" and "violations" of "human rights," yet hate the only country in the world capable of doing anything about it. More important, since most of the time, the only way to deal with tyrannies is to defeat them militarily, liberals are even more exorcised because they can't stand the use of military force.
FP: What do you think of many segments of the Left now cheering for radical Islam? Tom Hayden and Michael Moore have clearly come out supporting the Islamist enemy. This is bizarre, as our totalitarian enemy extinguishes all rights that are supposedly at the heart of leftist values. What gives here?
Schweikart: It is entirely predictable. Years ago, I took history courses from Robert Loewenberg, who has gone on to head up the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in Jerusalem. He even wrote a paper about how the “pacifist” Quakers were supporting the PLO---this was in the 1970s. These radicals always supported the Soviets and their slug-like apprentices, and I think we on the right assumed that it was because they had so much in common ideologically with communism. But perhaps an even more important factor was that the Soviets were anti-American. Perhaps it is that these people so hate America, and the concept of what this nation stands for, that they would gleefully align with anyone who opposes us.
That’s why I think the modern so-called “left” in fact greatly resembles the Nazis: they are anti-religious (unless it is their state, secular religion of “man” or Gaia); they are anti-Semitic; they hate freedom; and they are ruthless in their speech and behavior codes.
When it gets right down to it, both the Islamofascists and the modern Moore-ish left are terrified of the freedom of ideas. As a Christian, I’m convinced in the rightness of my ideas and that they will win out without force. It’s interesting that new research, which we cite in Patriot’s History, shows that the more competition there is in religion, the better the so-called “fundamentalist” denominations do. I don’t know if that applies to Orthodox Jewry---that wasn’t included in the study---but from my perspective, if all ideas are able to be expressed, the best ideas will always win. This doesn’t sit well with the Left and the Islamofascists. Many Muslim countries strictly prohibit missionaries and evangelizing. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but 20 years ago contractors working in Saudi Arabia were told they could not bring Bibles, crosses, Stars of David, or many other religions items that challenged Islam.
Well, if you think about the Left’s “enemies list,” God is at the top, and especially Jesus. A generic “god” is ok for now, but of course, they want to get rid of that concept too. I think, then, they see the Judeo-Christian God as the central threat to everything they do, and don’t take Allah as much of a threat at all. Therefore, the Islamic nations aren’t a problem in their book.
Oh, and one more thing: even if they were a problem, the Left is stuck because actually doing something about them is going to require military force, pure and simple, and the Left hates the use of military power for whatever purpose.
FP: What is it that makes America a beacon of liberty?
Schweikart: America remains a shining city on the hill because, despite steady erosion in some cases, we are a nation that celebrates individuals---individual freedom, individual initiative, and even individual failure. We tolerate failure more than any country in the world, and everyone learns from failure. We rejoice in cultural differences, but unlike many Euros, we insist that at some point you become "American." I know many people think this is unravelling, especially with Hispanic immigration. But it's interesting that in 1910 there were more daily German-language newspapers in the U.S. than there are Spanish-language newspapers today; that in the late 1900s it took about three generations before the majority of the language in the home of an immigrant was English, whereas today it's closer to two generations.
The United States, among all nations, also remains a beacon of liberty because we are a nation of LAW. We still respect, for the most part, the right to property. Citizens, unlike most places in the world, can be armed. We uphold, in most cases, sanctity of contract. And so on. It isn't just that we have unfettered liberty in America, but that we have a structure of law that generates a climate of responsibility to go along with it.
FP: Do you think the Bush administration did the right thing by liberating Iraq?
Schweikart: Absolutely. After 9/11, Bush faced up to a threat that, frankly, his own father and Bill Clinton ignored: Islamofascism. This was a very tough call. It would have been so easy to topple the Taliban and declare victory, then, two, three, or ten years later have a bio weapon go off in Chicago or have a dirty bomb make Manhattan unliveable for the next fifteen years. Instead, Bush did what a leader needs to do. He saw the threat and acted, not merely for short term results, but for long-term stability. This is something Woodrow Wilson didn't do with the communist revolution in Russia. And we note in the book that even though FDR was almost alone in seeing the Nazi and Japanese threats for what they were, he never used his own political capital to mobilize the country to face them. But Bush did.
Almost everyone knew that to effectively deal with the islamofascist threat, after Afghanistan we needed to take on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, in no particular order and with a variety of methods. Bush chose the most obvious, I think, and, in a sense, the easiest. But we still are going to have to change the governments in Iran, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia, and Khaddafi wisely decided he'd rather rule as a prince without his weapons than sit in a jail as a one-time dictator.
Of course, the issue has been the WMDs, and I would remind everyone that as we geared up to go into Iraq, France and Germany said Saddam had WMDs; Britain said he had WMDs; Russia said he had WMDs (and also said that he provided support for 9/11); all of NATO said he had WMDs; Iran said he had WMDs; Israel said he had WMDs; Australia said he had WMDs; the King of Jordan and the president of Egypt BOTH told Tommy Franks that Saddam had WMDs; the UN said he had them; and lastly the CIA said he had them. Saddam himself easily could have proven he didn't, but chose not to. Now, my question is, why does only the CIA and Bush get blamed, when every darn country in the world, most of them using independent sources of intelligence, came to the same conclusion?
My own thought is that the weapons likely were there, and were moved. During the war, we found 140 JETS buried in the desert for 10 years that we didn't know about. If Saddam could hide 140 jets, how easy would it be to hide some drums of VX or other chem/bio weapons? His own army had chem/bio suits en masse. The bottom line is, Bush would have been a fool if he had not taken the WMD threat seriously and de-throned Saddam in light of the 9/11 attacks.
This is the defining issue of our day. Yes, Bush has made some mistakes by sighing Campaign Finance Reform and allowing that monstrosity of a prescription drug bill to pass. But overall these are very minor issues compared to what I believe is our very survival, and he has been a great leader on this defining issue of the time.
FP: If you were asked for your advice by the Bush administration on the next steps in fighting the terror war, what would you recommend?
Schweikart: First, finish pacifying Iraq. This will not be a short-term thing. Since 1899, the U.S. or western nations have fought something like eleven major anti-guerrilla or anit-”insurgency” campaigns, including the Philippine insurrection, Malaya, and Vietnam. The established government or the West won eight of those. Almost all of them took a minimum of five years to win. In other words, victory is nearly assured, but patience is an absolute necessity.
Second, make plans to foment a revolt in Iran. We should already be slipping agents inside Iran and destabilizing that government. Once we are satisfied with the situation in Iraq, lower the boom. I don’t think Iran will require direct military intervention, but it may need some special forces and a well-placed precision-guided-weapon or two.
Third, get it set in our minds now that this isn’t over until we deal with Syria. At that point, with a democratized Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran in place, who knows what would develop. I suspect the Saudis would see the writing on the wall, but you never know.
Finally, but certainly this could be done right now, tighten our borders. Illegal immigration is going to be the issue of the 2008 election, in my opinion. The fact that She-Who-Mus-Not-Be-Named has already made noises about this shows that the Dems are not totally blind. Of course, the Democratic Party cannot propose any serious immigration reform, because that would finish it as a party. So the key will be the Republican contenders. But sooner or later, someone must step up and say “enough.” We cannot allow millions of illegals to keep coming into this country---it is, above all, a security threat.
FP: What is the future of America?
Schweikart: Right now, the future looks incredibly bright. The increasing conservatism of youth, the growing awareness of a need for spiritual things, and the continued growth of the economy all are very positive signs. The “Greatest Generation” is going to die out and with them, the entitlement mentality of the New Deal will die too. Most of the students I speak to are upset about Social Security---and they tend to not get upset about anything. But they easily see the injustice of that program. More and more, they see the inherent destructiveness of “anti-poverty” programs, and while they don’t lack compassion, they do have common sense, and know that having babies without fathers just ain’t gonna work! The aforementioned revolution in the media is a spectacle to behold, and with it, the phenomenal success of the Passion of the Christ suggests that even Hollywood is losing its grip on our culture.
Heck, merely the appearance of books like A Patriot’s History, Slander, Radical Son, and Bias reflects the loss of control over the intellectual discussion in the United States that once was completely in the hands of the Left. But there are still major hurdles remaining. I’ve mentioned the university system. Hollywood and the music industry still have far too much influence over all citizens---not just the young. Rap is particularly destructive---and, in my view, boring. (This from a former rock drummer who opened major concerts back in the 1970s!). There is a lot yet to do, and evil never takes a holiday.
FP: Dr. Schweikart, thank you. It was a pleasure to have you here. We hope to see you again soon.
Schweikart: Thanks very much. I love FPM and am honored that you guys took the time to discuss our book. It's a long war, and I hope this is one of many small victories we experience.
[Get A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart for just $29.95 in the FrontPage Bookstore.]
Friday, January 28, 2005
Scalia
Click here to return to 2theadvocate.com
Scalia: Faithful live for Christ
Supreme Court justice urges Christians to live fearlessly
By PENNY BROWN ROBERTS
Advocate staff writer
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that people of faith should not fear being viewed by "educated circles" as "fools for Christ."
The justice -- in Baton Rouge to address the Knights of Columbus Council 969 centennial celebration without charging a fee -- told a largely Roman Catholic crowd of 350 at the Holiday Inn Select that there's nothing wrong with "traditional Christianity."
"To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Scalia said. "For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?
"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools ... and he has not been disappointed."
Scalia praised "traditional Catholics" who say the rosary, go on pilgrimages, kneel during the Eucharist and "follow religiously the teaching of the pope," adding that "intellect and reason need not be laid aside for religion. It is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain. There is something wrong with rejecting a priori (deductively) the existence of miracles."
The outspoken conservative justice -- known for his views on religion in America -- didn't shy from them during his visit to south Louisiana Saturday. He didn't discuss any specific issues before the high court, but did tell those in attendance they had "no greater model" for their faith than St. Thomas More.
The Catholic martyr and considered the patron saint of lawyers, repudiated Martin Luther and refused to endorse King Henry VIII's plan to divorce Katherine of Aragon or recognize the king as the supreme head of the Church of England. More was found guilty of treason and beheaded in 1535.
"I find it hard to understand people who revere Thomas More but who themselves selectively oppose the teachings of the pope," said Scalia, widely cited as a potential nominee for the position of chief justice when William Rehnquist leaves the bench.
"If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."
President Ronald named Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1982. Four years later, Scalia was nominated and unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, taking the seat vacated when was elevated to the court's top post.
The Catholic justice -- raised in the New York City Borough of Queens, and the father of nine children, one of them a priest -- has become an anti-abortion hero to many in the American political right and a leading conservative voice on the court.
He has described himself as an "originalist," following the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, rather than interpreting it to reflect the changing times.
In November, while speaking to an interfaith conference at a Manhattan synagogue, Scalia made headlines by saying that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military.
More than a year ago, he removed himself from the Supreme Court's review of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance after mentioning the case in a speech and complaining that courts are stripping God from public life.
Last year, Scalia cast one of two dissenting votes in a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that states may deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students. And in 2000, he stood with a majority of the court in upholding the constitutionality of taxpayer funding for parochial school materials in a Jefferson Parish case.
Louis McHardy, a Baton Rouge native who is retired executive director of the Nevada-based National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, called Scalia "one of the nation's heroes."
"His message to me is that our constitution is all-encompassing," said McHardy, who attended Saturday's banquet. "It takes into consideration all points of view."
Rev. Miles Walsh, pastor of Our Lady of Mercy Church and Knights of Columbus chaplain, said Scalia's address convinced him that the justice is "committed to the transcendent principles he believes in."
The Knights of Columbus Baton Rouge Council 969 was founded in January 1905 by 30 men who were charter members. The organization founded the LSU Catholic Center, and over the years has supported orphanages, mental health facilities and hospitals.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/012305/new_scalia001.shtml
Shroud of Turin Between 1,300 and 3,000 Years Old
Christianity Today, Week of January 24
Weblog: Shroud of Turin Between 1,300 and 3,000 Years Old, Journal Says
Plus: Scalia the circuit rider, the next "SpongeBob," and other stories from online sources around the world.
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 01/26/2005 2:00 p.m.
Microchemists say 1988 dating of Shroud tested a newer patch, not the "much older" original
Continuing good news for those who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin—a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory has published a peer-reviewed study declaring invalid the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the cloth (which dated it between 1260 and 1390).
The problem, writes Raymond N. Rogers, in the January 20 issue of Thermochimica Acta, is that the 1988 study tested a sample from a medieval patch, not the shroud itself.
"The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most likely to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth," Rogers told Discovery News. "The sample was dyed using a technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in 1291. … The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the age determined by carbon-14 dating in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
How much older? That's hard to tell, Rogers wrote.
The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
"The presence of a patch on the shroud doesn't come as a surprise," says Discovery News. "The linen cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532. Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth that is now known as the Holland cloth."
Rogers also notes in a side comment that the apparent blood stains probably are blood of some sort: "Incidentally, the pyrolysis/ms spectra of samples from apparent blood spots showed hydroxyproline peaks at mass 131, a pyrolysis product of animal proteins." Here's that in a bit more plain English.
Scalia: 'Be fools for Christ'
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been on a kind of speaking circuit of late. His American University debate with fellow justice Stephen Breyer (video) over whether foreign courts should be cited in American judicial decisions has received a fair bit of media attention, but the emphasis in his more recent speeches has been religion.
In a dinner address for the Ave Maria School of Law yesterday, Scalia discussed the three-prong "Lemon test" created by the Court in determining whether a law or practice unconstitutionally "establishes religion." Scalia didn't support throwing out the Lemon test, The Ann Arbor News reports.
"They are the means by which judicial arbitrariness is checked." But they must be rooted in the Constitution, he said. And when the Constitution itself is unclear, jurists must default to "the settled practices that the text represents." …
Scalia cited a 1970 Supreme Court case involving tax exemptions for houses of worship in New York. "Such exemptions had been around forever," said Scalia, but they don't pass the three tests because the houses of worship had gotten what amounted to favored treatment. Still, the court let the exemptions continue, pointing to long-standing history and tradition. "Those historic understandings are the raw data from which the rules should be constructed," Scalia said.
And Scalia criticized judges who forget historical practices, the Associated Press reports. "Scalia criticized judges for using what he called 'abstractions' to interpret religious issues when they should be looking to the text of the Constitution itself. 'The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say,' he said."
Last week, however, Scalia had less jurisprudential matters on his mind when addressing a Louisiana chapter of the Knights of Columbus.
"To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Scalia told a group of about 350.
For the Son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?
God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. …
Intellect and reason need not be laid aside for religion. It is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain. There is something wrong with rejecting a priori the existence of miracles. …
If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.
Weblog: Shroud of Turin Between 1,300 and 3,000 Years Old, Journal Says
Plus: Scalia the circuit rider, the next "SpongeBob," and other stories from online sources around the world.
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 01/26/2005 2:00 p.m.
Microchemists say 1988 dating of Shroud tested a newer patch, not the "much older" original
Continuing good news for those who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin—a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory has published a peer-reviewed study declaring invalid the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the cloth (which dated it between 1260 and 1390).
The problem, writes Raymond N. Rogers, in the January 20 issue of Thermochimica Acta, is that the 1988 study tested a sample from a medieval patch, not the shroud itself.
"The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most likely to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth," Rogers told Discovery News. "The sample was dyed using a technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in 1291. … The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the age determined by carbon-14 dating in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
How much older? That's hard to tell, Rogers wrote.
The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
"The presence of a patch on the shroud doesn't come as a surprise," says Discovery News. "The linen cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532. Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth that is now known as the Holland cloth."
Rogers also notes in a side comment that the apparent blood stains probably are blood of some sort: "Incidentally, the pyrolysis/ms spectra of samples from apparent blood spots showed hydroxyproline peaks at mass 131, a pyrolysis product of animal proteins." Here's that in a bit more plain English.
Scalia: 'Be fools for Christ'
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been on a kind of speaking circuit of late. His American University debate with fellow justice Stephen Breyer (video) over whether foreign courts should be cited in American judicial decisions has received a fair bit of media attention, but the emphasis in his more recent speeches has been religion.
In a dinner address for the Ave Maria School of Law yesterday, Scalia discussed the three-prong "Lemon test" created by the Court in determining whether a law or practice unconstitutionally "establishes religion." Scalia didn't support throwing out the Lemon test, The Ann Arbor News reports.
"They are the means by which judicial arbitrariness is checked." But they must be rooted in the Constitution, he said. And when the Constitution itself is unclear, jurists must default to "the settled practices that the text represents." …
Scalia cited a 1970 Supreme Court case involving tax exemptions for houses of worship in New York. "Such exemptions had been around forever," said Scalia, but they don't pass the three tests because the houses of worship had gotten what amounted to favored treatment. Still, the court let the exemptions continue, pointing to long-standing history and tradition. "Those historic understandings are the raw data from which the rules should be constructed," Scalia said.
And Scalia criticized judges who forget historical practices, the Associated Press reports. "Scalia criticized judges for using what he called 'abstractions' to interpret religious issues when they should be looking to the text of the Constitution itself. 'The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say,' he said."
Last week, however, Scalia had less jurisprudential matters on his mind when addressing a Louisiana chapter of the Knights of Columbus.
"To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Scalia told a group of about 350.
For the Son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that he rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?
God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. …
Intellect and reason need not be laid aside for religion. It is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain. There is something wrong with rejecting a priori the existence of miracles. …
If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Chrenkoff
Chrenkoff
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Good news from the Muslim world, Part 4
From the past few weeks, a selection of some positive steps and encouraging trends towards greater freedom and democracy throughout the Islamic world.
Region-wide: Not the first - and hopefully many more to come - stirrings of a reformist spirit in Islam:
"Mohamed Shahrour, a layman who writes extensively about Islam, sits in his Damascus engineering office, arguing that Muslims will untangle their faith from the increasingly gory violence committed in its name only by reappraising their sacred texts.
"First, Shahrour brazenly tackles the Koran. The entire ninth chapter, The Sura of Repentance, he says, describes a failed attempt by Prophet Muhammad to form a state on the Arabian peninsula.
"As the source of most of the verses used to validate extremist attacks, with lines like 'slay the Pagans where you find them,' he believes that chapter should be isolated to its original context.
" 'The state which he built died, but his message is still alive,' says Shahrour, a soft-spoken, 65-year-old Syrian civil engineer. 'So we have to differentiate between the religion and state politics. When you take the political Islam, you see only killing, assassination, poisoning, intrigue, conspiracy and civil war; but Islam as a message is very human, sensible and just'."
Read the whole story of Shahrour and other like-minded intellectuals who have presented their call for reform after a Cairo seminar titled "Islam and Reform".
Afghanistan: For the latest good news from Afghanistan see this separate post.
Egypt: Great news for economic integration in the Middle East:
"Israel and Egypt signed a three-way trade deal with the United States yesterday in a move that signalled a further warming of relations between the two neighbours and gave momentum to renewed hopes for peace negotiations in the Middle East.
"The pact will enable Cairo to export some goods free of duty to the US. It was hailed as the most important agreement to be reached by Israel and Egypt since they signed their peace deal 25 years ago.
"Under the agreement seven Qualified Industrial Zones will be set up in Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said, where goods produced using Israeli input can be sold to the US.
"The agreement could create as many as 250,000 jobs in Egypt’s textile sector — the country’s largest area of export — next year, and help to offset the ending next month of beneficial US quotas on the import of textiles. Beyond the trade deal Egypt and Israel believe that the agreement could pave the way for greater co-operation in the search for peace."
The Gulf Region: Signs of increasing openness and debate:
"The absence of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz from the GCC summit, reportedly due to his country's announced reservations over a Bahraini-US free trade agreement, is 'a strong' signal that the old style of 'hiding' inter-GCC problems is being replaced by a newly-emerged way of open discussions and criticism, analysts said yesterday.
"News of the controversy over the Saudi objections to unilateral agreements with the United States would not have been splashed on the front pages of regional newspapers a few years ago, the way they are being done now, said Abdul Nabi Salman, member of the Bahraini Parliament, who writes regularly on Gulf affairs.
" 'It is a strong indicative of the changes in Gulf politics that have been forced upon us by the rapid developments regionally and internationally,' he said of the absence of Saudi Prince Abdullah."
Iran: You can't keep freedom of speech down, even in mullahocracy:
"In September 2001, a young Iranian journalist, Hossein Derakhshan, devised and set up one of the first weblogs in his native language of Farsi. In response to a request from a reader, he created a simple how-to-blog guide in Farsi, thereby setting in motion a community's surreal flight into free speech; online commentaries that the leading Iranian author and blogger, Abbas Maroufi, calls our 'messages in bottles, cast to the winds.'
"With an estimated 75,000 blogs, Farsi is now the fourth most popular language for keeping online journals. A phenomenal figure given that in neighbouring countries such as Iraq there are less than 50 known bloggers.
"The internet has opened a new virtual space for free speech in a country dubbed the 'the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East', by Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF). Through the anonymity and freedom that weblogs can provide, those who once lacked voices are at last speaking up and discussing issues that have never been aired in any other media in the Islamic world. Where else in Iran could someone dare write, as the blogger Faryadehmah did, 'when these mullahs are dethroned ... it will be like the Berlin wall coming down ...'?"
Iraq: For the latest good news from Iraq see this separate post.
Kuwait: A reformist movement is launched in the Kingdom:
"A group of young political activists has launched the Justice and Development Movement in the country and are calling for political pluralism and the activation of civil institutions and organisations.
"It also called for the country's 42-year-old constitution to be implemented in practice and cautioned against certain influential people who are trying to amend it to serve their vested interests.
"Nasser Yousuf Al Abdali, a founder member of the group, told Gulf News, 'We are looking for a democracy shaped along the lines of Britain and Spain where the royal families play a very important special role but real power lies in the hands of the people'."
Pakistan: Less conservatism in the the conservative tribal areas:
"Zuhra Nafees drinks in the sights and sounds of Peshawar’s riotous marketplace with newfound enthusiasm. A year ago the grate of a burqa separated her from the outside world.
"Now the late twenty something is clad only in the traditional Muslim chador, the long cloth that covers her body from head to toe but leaves her face completely unobscured. 'As our men are no longer stressing that we wear the burqa, so we have now abandoned it,' said Zuhra, who belongs to the Mohmand tribe and lives in the semi-lawless tribal areas in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province."
Palestinians: are more optimistic about their future - and the opposition to violence is growing:
"The death of Yasser Arafat has left most Palestinians optimistic regarding the future and opposed to the continuation of terror attacks on Israel, according to a public opinion poll published Wednesday by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center.
"A majority of 51.8 percent of the Palestinians polled said that they were opposed to 'military operations' against Israeli targets and consider them harmful to Palestinian national interests, compared with 26.9% last June. Only 41.1% of the Palestinians believe that terrorist attacks should continue compared with 65.4% last June.
"According to the poll, a majority of Palestinians, 59.3%, feel optimistic regarding the future in general, compared with 45.3% last June...
"In response to a question about their favored solution, 56.7% said they supported a two-state settlement compared with 44.5% last June."
Palestinians, of course, also had their second election since the mid 1990s, with Mahmoud Abbas being elected president with 62.3 percent of the vote.
"Palestinian leaders called the elections the most transparent in modern Arab history, and international observers said they could be the first truly democratic Arab elections...
"An 800-strong contingent of international observers, organized through the U.S. National Democratic Institute, was on hand for the election, along with 20,000 Palestinian observers.
"Election officials reported about 65 percent turnout among the 1.8 million voters. Earlier they had reported about 35 percent and extended the voting by two hours."
Saudi Arabia: The government is conducting a TV campaign against jihadism:
"Saudi national television aired interviews Saturday with fathers of militants condemning their own sons for launching terrorist attacks as part of a national public relations campaign to undermine support for militants. In a program called A Pause with the Parents shown on state television, emotional accounts were narrated by the fathers of five militants as part of the Saudi royal family's campaign against militants who have carried out several attacks against westerners inside the kingdom and abroad.
" 'I contacted the authorities immediately when I knew he was wanted,' Ahmed Jamaan al-Zahrani said of his son Faris, No. 12 on the list of Saudi Arabia's 26 most wanted terror suspects before he was captured in August. 'He has a wife and children whom he should have been taking care of better than staying in Afghanistan.'
"The father of the former top militant on the list, Abdulaziz Issa Abdul-Mohsin al-Moqrin, who was killed in a June 19 shootout after the al-Qaida cell he led decapitated an American hostage, said he had vowed to take down his son himself.
"The program, viewed via satellite in Dubai, played on Islam's high regard for honouring parents - stressing that disobeying them is almost equated with apostasy. The narrator of the program, Khamees bin Saeed al-Ghamdi, said the 'misery and pain' these parents went through negate militants' claims that they are being true Muslims."
Sudan: "Cellphones, roads, and girls in school. Is this south Sudan?" asks the "Christian Science Monitor" as Sudan slowly reawakens from the long-running nightmare:
"As fear subsides, southern Sudan is reawakening and rebuilding. A Jan. 9 peace deal ended Africa's longest civil war - a conflict between north and south in which 2 million died. The first signs of normalcy are appearing: Children, even girls, are going to school - many for the first. (Only Afghanistan under the Taliban had fewer girls graduate from eighth grade.) Some are starting to see a life beyond the battlefield. And commerce is coming back."
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Good news from the Muslim world, Part 4
From the past few weeks, a selection of some positive steps and encouraging trends towards greater freedom and democracy throughout the Islamic world.
Region-wide: Not the first - and hopefully many more to come - stirrings of a reformist spirit in Islam:
"Mohamed Shahrour, a layman who writes extensively about Islam, sits in his Damascus engineering office, arguing that Muslims will untangle their faith from the increasingly gory violence committed in its name only by reappraising their sacred texts.
"First, Shahrour brazenly tackles the Koran. The entire ninth chapter, The Sura of Repentance, he says, describes a failed attempt by Prophet Muhammad to form a state on the Arabian peninsula.
"As the source of most of the verses used to validate extremist attacks, with lines like 'slay the Pagans where you find them,' he believes that chapter should be isolated to its original context.
" 'The state which he built died, but his message is still alive,' says Shahrour, a soft-spoken, 65-year-old Syrian civil engineer. 'So we have to differentiate between the religion and state politics. When you take the political Islam, you see only killing, assassination, poisoning, intrigue, conspiracy and civil war; but Islam as a message is very human, sensible and just'."
Read the whole story of Shahrour and other like-minded intellectuals who have presented their call for reform after a Cairo seminar titled "Islam and Reform".
Afghanistan: For the latest good news from Afghanistan see this separate post.
Egypt: Great news for economic integration in the Middle East:
"Israel and Egypt signed a three-way trade deal with the United States yesterday in a move that signalled a further warming of relations between the two neighbours and gave momentum to renewed hopes for peace negotiations in the Middle East.
"The pact will enable Cairo to export some goods free of duty to the US. It was hailed as the most important agreement to be reached by Israel and Egypt since they signed their peace deal 25 years ago.
"Under the agreement seven Qualified Industrial Zones will be set up in Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said, where goods produced using Israeli input can be sold to the US.
"The agreement could create as many as 250,000 jobs in Egypt’s textile sector — the country’s largest area of export — next year, and help to offset the ending next month of beneficial US quotas on the import of textiles. Beyond the trade deal Egypt and Israel believe that the agreement could pave the way for greater co-operation in the search for peace."
The Gulf Region: Signs of increasing openness and debate:
"The absence of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz from the GCC summit, reportedly due to his country's announced reservations over a Bahraini-US free trade agreement, is 'a strong' signal that the old style of 'hiding' inter-GCC problems is being replaced by a newly-emerged way of open discussions and criticism, analysts said yesterday.
"News of the controversy over the Saudi objections to unilateral agreements with the United States would not have been splashed on the front pages of regional newspapers a few years ago, the way they are being done now, said Abdul Nabi Salman, member of the Bahraini Parliament, who writes regularly on Gulf affairs.
" 'It is a strong indicative of the changes in Gulf politics that have been forced upon us by the rapid developments regionally and internationally,' he said of the absence of Saudi Prince Abdullah."
Iran: You can't keep freedom of speech down, even in mullahocracy:
"In September 2001, a young Iranian journalist, Hossein Derakhshan, devised and set up one of the first weblogs in his native language of Farsi. In response to a request from a reader, he created a simple how-to-blog guide in Farsi, thereby setting in motion a community's surreal flight into free speech; online commentaries that the leading Iranian author and blogger, Abbas Maroufi, calls our 'messages in bottles, cast to the winds.'
"With an estimated 75,000 blogs, Farsi is now the fourth most popular language for keeping online journals. A phenomenal figure given that in neighbouring countries such as Iraq there are less than 50 known bloggers.
"The internet has opened a new virtual space for free speech in a country dubbed the 'the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East', by Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF). Through the anonymity and freedom that weblogs can provide, those who once lacked voices are at last speaking up and discussing issues that have never been aired in any other media in the Islamic world. Where else in Iran could someone dare write, as the blogger Faryadehmah did, 'when these mullahs are dethroned ... it will be like the Berlin wall coming down ...'?"
Iraq: For the latest good news from Iraq see this separate post.
Kuwait: A reformist movement is launched in the Kingdom:
"A group of young political activists has launched the Justice and Development Movement in the country and are calling for political pluralism and the activation of civil institutions and organisations.
"It also called for the country's 42-year-old constitution to be implemented in practice and cautioned against certain influential people who are trying to amend it to serve their vested interests.
"Nasser Yousuf Al Abdali, a founder member of the group, told Gulf News, 'We are looking for a democracy shaped along the lines of Britain and Spain where the royal families play a very important special role but real power lies in the hands of the people'."
Pakistan: Less conservatism in the the conservative tribal areas:
"Zuhra Nafees drinks in the sights and sounds of Peshawar’s riotous marketplace with newfound enthusiasm. A year ago the grate of a burqa separated her from the outside world.
"Now the late twenty something is clad only in the traditional Muslim chador, the long cloth that covers her body from head to toe but leaves her face completely unobscured. 'As our men are no longer stressing that we wear the burqa, so we have now abandoned it,' said Zuhra, who belongs to the Mohmand tribe and lives in the semi-lawless tribal areas in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province."
Palestinians: are more optimistic about their future - and the opposition to violence is growing:
"The death of Yasser Arafat has left most Palestinians optimistic regarding the future and opposed to the continuation of terror attacks on Israel, according to a public opinion poll published Wednesday by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center.
"A majority of 51.8 percent of the Palestinians polled said that they were opposed to 'military operations' against Israeli targets and consider them harmful to Palestinian national interests, compared with 26.9% last June. Only 41.1% of the Palestinians believe that terrorist attacks should continue compared with 65.4% last June.
"According to the poll, a majority of Palestinians, 59.3%, feel optimistic regarding the future in general, compared with 45.3% last June...
"In response to a question about their favored solution, 56.7% said they supported a two-state settlement compared with 44.5% last June."
Palestinians, of course, also had their second election since the mid 1990s, with Mahmoud Abbas being elected president with 62.3 percent of the vote.
"Palestinian leaders called the elections the most transparent in modern Arab history, and international observers said they could be the first truly democratic Arab elections...
"An 800-strong contingent of international observers, organized through the U.S. National Democratic Institute, was on hand for the election, along with 20,000 Palestinian observers.
"Election officials reported about 65 percent turnout among the 1.8 million voters. Earlier they had reported about 35 percent and extended the voting by two hours."
Saudi Arabia: The government is conducting a TV campaign against jihadism:
"Saudi national television aired interviews Saturday with fathers of militants condemning their own sons for launching terrorist attacks as part of a national public relations campaign to undermine support for militants. In a program called A Pause with the Parents shown on state television, emotional accounts were narrated by the fathers of five militants as part of the Saudi royal family's campaign against militants who have carried out several attacks against westerners inside the kingdom and abroad.
" 'I contacted the authorities immediately when I knew he was wanted,' Ahmed Jamaan al-Zahrani said of his son Faris, No. 12 on the list of Saudi Arabia's 26 most wanted terror suspects before he was captured in August. 'He has a wife and children whom he should have been taking care of better than staying in Afghanistan.'
"The father of the former top militant on the list, Abdulaziz Issa Abdul-Mohsin al-Moqrin, who was killed in a June 19 shootout after the al-Qaida cell he led decapitated an American hostage, said he had vowed to take down his son himself.
"The program, viewed via satellite in Dubai, played on Islam's high regard for honouring parents - stressing that disobeying them is almost equated with apostasy. The narrator of the program, Khamees bin Saeed al-Ghamdi, said the 'misery and pain' these parents went through negate militants' claims that they are being true Muslims."
Sudan: "Cellphones, roads, and girls in school. Is this south Sudan?" asks the "Christian Science Monitor" as Sudan slowly reawakens from the long-running nightmare:
"As fear subsides, southern Sudan is reawakening and rebuilding. A Jan. 9 peace deal ended Africa's longest civil war - a conflict between north and south in which 2 million died. The first signs of normalcy are appearing: Children, even girls, are going to school - many for the first. (Only Afghanistan under the Taliban had fewer girls graduate from eighth grade.) Some are starting to see a life beyond the battlefield. And commerce is coming back."
Monday, January 24, 2005
JS Online: 5 charged in election-day tire slashings
JS Online: 5 charged in election-day tire slashings
Sons of prominent Milwaukee politicians among those facing felonies
By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Jan. 24, 2005
Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann announced this morning that five of the seven men arrested in the election-day slashing of Republican vehicles' tires - including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians - have been charged with felonies and will appear in court this afternoon.
49024Election Day Vandalism
Photo/AP
First-term U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore accompanies her son, Sowande Omokunde, at his court appearance Monday.
Recent Coverage
1/22/05: Expect tire-slashing charges Monday
1/18/05: Spivak & Bice: Charges imminent in election day tire slashing
11/11/04: Police arrest ex-mayor's son in tire-slashing
11/10/04: FBI starts own probe of vandalism of GOP vehicles
11/4/04: Spivak & Bice: Tire-slashing questions await Democrats' sons
11/2/04: Republican rental vehicles vandalized
Advertisement
Click to learn more...
The five who were charged with felony criminal damage to property for slashing 40 tires on 25 vehicles are:
* Michael Pratt, 32, of the 400 block of N. 16th St., Milwaukee. Pratt is the son of former acting mayor Marvin Pratt.
* Sowande A. Omokunde, 25, of the 4000 block of N. 19th Place, Milwaukee. Omokunde is the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore.
* Lewis G. Caldwell, 28, of the 2900 block of N. Summit Ave., Milwaukee.
* Lavelle Mohammad, 35, of the 4700 block of W. Lloyd St., Milwaukee.
* Justin Howell, 20, of the 2400 block of N. Olive St., Racine.
The vans had been rented by the state Republican Party to transport voters to the polls on election day Nov. 2.
If convicted, each of the five faces up to a $10,000 fine and up to 3 1/2 years in prison. The crime met the $2,500 damage threshold as a felony because the slashed tires and towing costs totaled more than $5,300, according to the criminal complaint filed today. It says the men were caught after a security guard in the Republican Party headquarters parking lot saw the vandalism and wrote down the license-plate numbers of a fleeing car.
Sons of prominent Milwaukee politicians among those facing felonies
By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Jan. 24, 2005
Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann announced this morning that five of the seven men arrested in the election-day slashing of Republican vehicles' tires - including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians - have been charged with felonies and will appear in court this afternoon.
49024Election Day Vandalism
Photo/AP
First-term U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore accompanies her son, Sowande Omokunde, at his court appearance Monday.
Recent Coverage
1/22/05: Expect tire-slashing charges Monday
1/18/05: Spivak & Bice: Charges imminent in election day tire slashing
11/11/04: Police arrest ex-mayor's son in tire-slashing
11/10/04: FBI starts own probe of vandalism of GOP vehicles
11/4/04: Spivak & Bice: Tire-slashing questions await Democrats' sons
11/2/04: Republican rental vehicles vandalized
Advertisement
Click to learn more...
The five who were charged with felony criminal damage to property for slashing 40 tires on 25 vehicles are:
* Michael Pratt, 32, of the 400 block of N. 16th St., Milwaukee. Pratt is the son of former acting mayor Marvin Pratt.
* Sowande A. Omokunde, 25, of the 4000 block of N. 19th Place, Milwaukee. Omokunde is the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore.
* Lewis G. Caldwell, 28, of the 2900 block of N. Summit Ave., Milwaukee.
* Lavelle Mohammad, 35, of the 4700 block of W. Lloyd St., Milwaukee.
* Justin Howell, 20, of the 2400 block of N. Olive St., Racine.
The vans had been rented by the state Republican Party to transport voters to the polls on election day Nov. 2.
If convicted, each of the five faces up to a $10,000 fine and up to 3 1/2 years in prison. The crime met the $2,500 damage threshold as a felony because the slashed tires and towing costs totaled more than $5,300, according to the criminal complaint filed today. It says the men were caught after a security guard in the Republican Party headquarters parking lot saw the vandalism and wrote down the license-plate numbers of a fleeing car.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Proverbial Wife: A Counterculture of Death
Proverbial Wife: A Counterculture of Death
A few months after my birthday, Roe v. Wade turns another year older, making us the same age (now we're both 32). Legal executions in the womb began with the slaughter of my generation, known as "X," perhaps because so many of us were x'd out.
The masses who succeeded in securing abortion rights for the nation would not have existed if their own parents had believed so strongly in so-called "choice." Had the murder of the unborn been legalized one generation earlier, numerous defenders of reproductive freedom wouldn't have had any voice at all. I wonder if they ever think about it that way...
The baby boomers (I'm generalizing, I know) obviously didn't value the sacrifices their parents made to birth them and raise them because they weren't ready to make those same sacrifices for their own children. Instead, many chose to dwell on the dysfunctions and repressions of what they attributed to a "patriarchal" society.
The end result was that one of the biggest generations in our history (my parents') produced one of the smallest (mine). They boast of what their "revolution" accomplished and fret that we "slackers" aren't overthrowing the culture like they did. It takes numbers to start a movement...and to stop one.
That was all I had written from my time in the waiting room during my last pre-natal appointment, and I was hoping more would come to me for this momentous and tragic day, so that I could actually make some sort of meaningful point, but as it turns out, it had to come from my mother, herself a poster child in many ways for the 60s--Berkeley student, boyfriend one of the ringleaders of the Vietnam protest, Mario Savio groupee, and later...after I was born...a heroin addict who aborted my two younger siblings.
Her drug addiction was relatively brief (and induced by my now deceased stepdad), though she did almost die from an overdose (was brought back to life by a counter-injection), but her anguish over taking the lives of her children took many years of grieving and healing prayer. It was also bittersweet that when they did want another child, she couldn't conceive again. For anyone in her place, I suggest the novella Tilly which I haven't read in years but it comforted me when I mourned the absence of siblings in a home with a tyrannical parent where I longed for solace and comraderie.
But as I shared with my mom today about what I had sketched out for this post, she brought up something that hadn't occured me, but that her own life testifies too. The people from her generation weren't just out for themselves, but actually out to get themselves. So many of her peers kept on the path of self-destruction and ultimately took their own lives by their drug use, like my stepdad whose Hepatitis-C, transmitted via needle in the late 60s, and alcohol abuse destroyed his liver. My mom said it was like they had a deathwish. So many of her generation have died prematurely as a result of their choices.
It's also ironic that they were so impassioned about protecting the lives of invisible people half way across the world in Vietname, yet felt no sense of obligation to preserve the lives of invisible human beings within their own borders...and bodies. "A woman's right to her body" somehow extended to include her unborn baby's body as well, but it almost makes sense in a culture where those same bodies are being pumped full of drugs and alcohol and other toxic substances. And then we encounter yet another irony. The whole natural health movement initiated by hippies like my parents were. My stepdad died having taken several dozen different vitamins every day, a protein shake, wheatgrass juice, you name it...all while he was still taking methadone, a.k.a. legal heroin.
It's not realistic for me (or anyone) to try to cover all aspects of the abortion controversy and its connection with the counterculture, both of which have long and complex histories, but I thought it was at least worth posting a window into these overlapping worlds on this day when I, a survivor (merely because I was wanted), and Roe v. Wade coincide in the length of our existence.
Check out the timeline I wrote last year on this day detailing my experiences with this issue since my birth.
January 22, 2005 at 04:31 PM in Abortion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1712101
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Counterculture of Death:
» Let Us Mourn - 32 years of Death from ProLifeBlogs
In the United States, over 45 million pre-born boys and girls have been killed since the Jan. 22, 1973 Supreme Court Decision that legalized abortion. Each year, nearly 20,000 abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.
A few months after my birthday, Roe v. Wade turns another year older, making us the same age (now we're both 32). Legal executions in the womb began with the slaughter of my generation, known as "X," perhaps because so many of us were x'd out.
The masses who succeeded in securing abortion rights for the nation would not have existed if their own parents had believed so strongly in so-called "choice." Had the murder of the unborn been legalized one generation earlier, numerous defenders of reproductive freedom wouldn't have had any voice at all. I wonder if they ever think about it that way...
The baby boomers (I'm generalizing, I know) obviously didn't value the sacrifices their parents made to birth them and raise them because they weren't ready to make those same sacrifices for their own children. Instead, many chose to dwell on the dysfunctions and repressions of what they attributed to a "patriarchal" society.
The end result was that one of the biggest generations in our history (my parents') produced one of the smallest (mine). They boast of what their "revolution" accomplished and fret that we "slackers" aren't overthrowing the culture like they did. It takes numbers to start a movement...and to stop one.
That was all I had written from my time in the waiting room during my last pre-natal appointment, and I was hoping more would come to me for this momentous and tragic day, so that I could actually make some sort of meaningful point, but as it turns out, it had to come from my mother, herself a poster child in many ways for the 60s--Berkeley student, boyfriend one of the ringleaders of the Vietnam protest, Mario Savio groupee, and later...after I was born...a heroin addict who aborted my two younger siblings.
Her drug addiction was relatively brief (and induced by my now deceased stepdad), though she did almost die from an overdose (was brought back to life by a counter-injection), but her anguish over taking the lives of her children took many years of grieving and healing prayer. It was also bittersweet that when they did want another child, she couldn't conceive again. For anyone in her place, I suggest the novella Tilly which I haven't read in years but it comforted me when I mourned the absence of siblings in a home with a tyrannical parent where I longed for solace and comraderie.
But as I shared with my mom today about what I had sketched out for this post, she brought up something that hadn't occured me, but that her own life testifies too. The people from her generation weren't just out for themselves, but actually out to get themselves. So many of her peers kept on the path of self-destruction and ultimately took their own lives by their drug use, like my stepdad whose Hepatitis-C, transmitted via needle in the late 60s, and alcohol abuse destroyed his liver. My mom said it was like they had a deathwish. So many of her generation have died prematurely as a result of their choices.
It's also ironic that they were so impassioned about protecting the lives of invisible people half way across the world in Vietname, yet felt no sense of obligation to preserve the lives of invisible human beings within their own borders...and bodies. "A woman's right to her body" somehow extended to include her unborn baby's body as well, but it almost makes sense in a culture where those same bodies are being pumped full of drugs and alcohol and other toxic substances. And then we encounter yet another irony. The whole natural health movement initiated by hippies like my parents were. My stepdad died having taken several dozen different vitamins every day, a protein shake, wheatgrass juice, you name it...all while he was still taking methadone, a.k.a. legal heroin.
It's not realistic for me (or anyone) to try to cover all aspects of the abortion controversy and its connection with the counterculture, both of which have long and complex histories, but I thought it was at least worth posting a window into these overlapping worlds on this day when I, a survivor (merely because I was wanted), and Roe v. Wade coincide in the length of our existence.
Check out the timeline I wrote last year on this day detailing my experiences with this issue since my birth.
January 22, 2005 at 04:31 PM in Abortion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1712101
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Counterculture of Death:
» Let Us Mourn - 32 years of Death from ProLifeBlogs
In the United States, over 45 million pre-born boys and girls have been killed since the Jan. 22, 1973 Supreme Court Decision that legalized abortion. Each year, nearly 20,000 abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.
Hal Lindsey: The ultimate tragedy
WorldNetDaily: The ultimate tragedyThe ultimate tragedy
Posted: January 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Hal Lindsey
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The sheer enormity and scope of the Sumatra earthquake-tsunami catastrophe has dominated the thinking of people worldwide. It has caused almost everyone to confront the ultimate reality of the "fragility of life."
At least 150,000 lives were suddenly snuffed out. A shocking percentage of them were under the age of 12-years-old. This disaster has forced nearly everyone to confront the uncomfortable issue of sudden and unexpected death.
Yet there is one thing in life we must all face – we are all going to die. We may hurl charges against God that He has unfairly allowed such catastrophe to snuff out the lives of so many young people. But, in the end, death is a certainty to us all.
Because most people today act as though this life is all there is, death is viewed as the ultimate tragedy. Especially if those who die didn't have a chance "to get the most out of this life." To them, death is the ultimate tragedy that is to be avoided at all costs for as long as possible.
Interestingly, people who normally do not believe in God nevertheless pour out outrage at God for allowing such "unjust tragedy" to happen. God is brought in to blame when convenient. In one-way or another, most the world charges "Why does God allow such horrible things to happen to good people?"
In view of all this, I am going to present God's perspective to this question from the Bible.
First, God declares that He created all men to live forever. But because of mankind's rebellion against Him, man now has two destinations in eternity. Every person who does not restore his relationship with God will spend eternity away from God in a place of isolation, torment and outer darkness. This consequence is so great that God Himself stepped out of eternity into time in the person of Jesus Christ in order pay our penalty for rebellion. On that basis, God offers each person who will receive it a free gift of pardon and eternity with Him.
The most familiar verses in the Bible are based on this reality:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
– John 3:16-19
You see, from God's perspective the ultimate tragedy is not the timing or nature of your death. The ultimate tragedy is for you to die without resolving where you will spend eternity.
Now I know that this is not a popular idea for the world to confront. But truth is truth no matter how much man chooses to deceive himself about it.
Second, when you look at life from the perspective of eternity, what may be considered a tragedy to the world may not be so at all. God says this world is only a preparation for eternity. Therefore if a person dies suddenly at a young age, it may be a blessing rather than a curse.
The Bible teaches that if a person dies before the age of accountability, he is automatically covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ because he didn't have the ability to make a decision. There are many people in Heaven from the tsunami that wouldn't have been if they had lived out their lives.
In great catastrophe, true believers in Jesus Christ are killed along with those who are not. However this is not a tragedy to the believer. God says, "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints." (Psalm 116:15)
To the world, such a statement is incomprehensible. But the Bible teaches that every believer is a saint in the eyes of God. The word in its original language means "one set apart as God's possession." So when he dies, it is a homecoming. All pain, sorrows and tears are over. God says:
Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord – for we walk by faith, not by sight – we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home [literally, "face to face"] with the Lord.
– 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
Third, the one who understands life in view of eternity lives with a different purpose. He realizes that there is no guarantee on the length and condition of this life. He agrees with God's assessment:
Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills ... we will live and also do this or that."
– James 4:14-15
Each one of us is blazing a vapor trail across the sky of time. God tells us that the only things we can take with us into eternity are the good things we do for others out of thanksgiving to God. God will remember all of our acts of kindness we do by faith in Him – and He will reward us for them.
Such catastrophes as the Sumatran earthquake-tsunami should be viewed with humility and compassion. Apart from God's intervening grace, we could all fall victims to "natural disasters." The Bible teaches that such catastrophes are the result of an Earth that is living under a curse resulting from man's fall.
We live in "Cosmos Diabolicus." The Bible says, "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the Evil One." Jesus warned that Satan is "The Ruler of this world." (John 5:19 and John 14:30)
The book of Job reveals that Satan has the authority and power to unleash great "natural disasters." Jesus also warned that as the time for His return draws near, natural catastrophes would increase in frequency and destructive power. He particularly mentioned great earthquakes and paralyzing fear because of the "roaring of the waves of the sea." We live in the time of these signs that Jesus called "birth pains."
Therefore the greatest priority is to win as many people to faith in Christ as possible and to grow in faith so as to be able to face the crises that surely are coming. The time is at hand. Make sure that you have accepted God's free gift of pardon through Christ's death in your place. Pray right now and receive Him. Tell Him you want Him to come in and change your life to His will. Your eternal destiny depends upon your decision. If you miss it, that will be the ultimate tragedy.
Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth." He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily.
Posted: January 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Hal Lindsey
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The sheer enormity and scope of the Sumatra earthquake-tsunami catastrophe has dominated the thinking of people worldwide. It has caused almost everyone to confront the ultimate reality of the "fragility of life."
At least 150,000 lives were suddenly snuffed out. A shocking percentage of them were under the age of 12-years-old. This disaster has forced nearly everyone to confront the uncomfortable issue of sudden and unexpected death.
Yet there is one thing in life we must all face – we are all going to die. We may hurl charges against God that He has unfairly allowed such catastrophe to snuff out the lives of so many young people. But, in the end, death is a certainty to us all.
Because most people today act as though this life is all there is, death is viewed as the ultimate tragedy. Especially if those who die didn't have a chance "to get the most out of this life." To them, death is the ultimate tragedy that is to be avoided at all costs for as long as possible.
Interestingly, people who normally do not believe in God nevertheless pour out outrage at God for allowing such "unjust tragedy" to happen. God is brought in to blame when convenient. In one-way or another, most the world charges "Why does God allow such horrible things to happen to good people?"
In view of all this, I am going to present God's perspective to this question from the Bible.
First, God declares that He created all men to live forever. But because of mankind's rebellion against Him, man now has two destinations in eternity. Every person who does not restore his relationship with God will spend eternity away from God in a place of isolation, torment and outer darkness. This consequence is so great that God Himself stepped out of eternity into time in the person of Jesus Christ in order pay our penalty for rebellion. On that basis, God offers each person who will receive it a free gift of pardon and eternity with Him.
The most familiar verses in the Bible are based on this reality:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
– John 3:16-19
You see, from God's perspective the ultimate tragedy is not the timing or nature of your death. The ultimate tragedy is for you to die without resolving where you will spend eternity.
Now I know that this is not a popular idea for the world to confront. But truth is truth no matter how much man chooses to deceive himself about it.
Second, when you look at life from the perspective of eternity, what may be considered a tragedy to the world may not be so at all. God says this world is only a preparation for eternity. Therefore if a person dies suddenly at a young age, it may be a blessing rather than a curse.
The Bible teaches that if a person dies before the age of accountability, he is automatically covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ because he didn't have the ability to make a decision. There are many people in Heaven from the tsunami that wouldn't have been if they had lived out their lives.
In great catastrophe, true believers in Jesus Christ are killed along with those who are not. However this is not a tragedy to the believer. God says, "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints." (Psalm 116:15)
To the world, such a statement is incomprehensible. But the Bible teaches that every believer is a saint in the eyes of God. The word in its original language means "one set apart as God's possession." So when he dies, it is a homecoming. All pain, sorrows and tears are over. God says:
Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord – for we walk by faith, not by sight – we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home [literally, "face to face"] with the Lord.
– 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
Third, the one who understands life in view of eternity lives with a different purpose. He realizes that there is no guarantee on the length and condition of this life. He agrees with God's assessment:
Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills ... we will live and also do this or that."
– James 4:14-15
Each one of us is blazing a vapor trail across the sky of time. God tells us that the only things we can take with us into eternity are the good things we do for others out of thanksgiving to God. God will remember all of our acts of kindness we do by faith in Him – and He will reward us for them.
Such catastrophes as the Sumatran earthquake-tsunami should be viewed with humility and compassion. Apart from God's intervening grace, we could all fall victims to "natural disasters." The Bible teaches that such catastrophes are the result of an Earth that is living under a curse resulting from man's fall.
We live in "Cosmos Diabolicus." The Bible says, "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the Evil One." Jesus warned that Satan is "The Ruler of this world." (John 5:19 and John 14:30)
The book of Job reveals that Satan has the authority and power to unleash great "natural disasters." Jesus also warned that as the time for His return draws near, natural catastrophes would increase in frequency and destructive power. He particularly mentioned great earthquakes and paralyzing fear because of the "roaring of the waves of the sea." We live in the time of these signs that Jesus called "birth pains."
Therefore the greatest priority is to win as many people to faith in Christ as possible and to grow in faith so as to be able to face the crises that surely are coming. The time is at hand. Make sure that you have accepted God's free gift of pardon through Christ's death in your place. Pray right now and receive Him. Tell Him you want Him to come in and change your life to His will. Your eternal destiny depends upon your decision. If you miss it, that will be the ultimate tragedy.
Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth." He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Mudville Gazette
Mudville Gazette: "The Washington Post:
An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey. The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.
'Despite the efforts of the terrorists, Iraqis remain committed to casting their vote on election day,' IRI President Lorne Craner said in a statement. The organization, which is funded by Congress through the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, commissioned the poll, which surveyed 1,900 Iraqis in all but two of the country's 18 provinces. Poor security made two in the far north, Nineveh and Dohuk, inaccessible. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points."
An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey. The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.
'Despite the efforts of the terrorists, Iraqis remain committed to casting their vote on election day,' IRI President Lorne Craner said in a statement. The organization, which is funded by Congress through the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, commissioned the poll, which surveyed 1,900 Iraqis in all but two of the country's 18 provinces. Poor security made two in the far north, Nineveh and Dohuk, inaccessible. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points."
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
80 MM Christians in China?
Christianity Today, Week of February 16
The Dick Staub Interview: China's Christian Syndrome
David Aikman, author of Jesus in Beijing, says in 20 years Christians could have a major impact on China, and that could change the world.
posted 02/18/2004
David Aikman is former senior correspondent and bureau chief in Eastern Europe and Beijing for Time Magazine. His latest book is Jesus in Beijing, which discusses the rise of Christianity in China and what a Christian China might mean for global Christianity and world politics. Aikman is chairman and founder of Gegrapha, a fellowship of Christian journalists, and he contributes regularly to the to the American Spectator and the Weekly Standard.
Talk about how things have changed so dramatically since you were a bureau chief.
When I was in China in the 1980's it was just beginning to open up. The decisions by Deng Xiaoping in 1978-79 began to open China right after their hibernation during the cultural revolution. But it has taken two decades for the changes to shake down through society. Now, you still have very tight restrictions on religion and you still have persecution there, of course. But it's possible to get around China, to go to places without asking permission from the Foreign Ministry, and that was not the case two decades ago.
What are some of the dynamics that have meant that right now is a time where there can be some tremendous growth and opportunities for growth of the Church in China?
I think probably the most dramatic growth may be over. I would say that occurred in the '80s and '90s. Throughout the 1980s and then in the early '90s. Christianity is still growing a lot. I think the point is that there is a spiritual vacuum in China that for quite a long time nobody has believed in Marxism-Leninism, and people want to know what's life all about?
What is the Three Self Church.
The Three Self Patriotic Movement is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches in China, which was set up in the 1950s to enable the Communist Party, through Protestant clergy, to control Protestant Christianity. And it has, in many ways, affected the theology for a long time. In a Three Self church, if you were a pastor, even if you were an evangelical, and many of them are, you were not allowed to preach on the book of Daniel, you weren't allowed to preach on Genesis, you weren't allowed to speak about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Three Self churches claim these are the churches that are open and visible and operating on a weekly basis on Sunday.
How do we go about getting a number for the number of Christians in China?
The Three Self Church claims about 15 to 20 million people. And that's probably a fairly accurate assessment of church membership or church-going throughout China. The Christians in the House Church, or what is sometimes called the Unregistered Christian Communities are reckoned to be about three times as large as the Three Self Christians. So let's suppose you've got 15 million Protestant Christians attached to the Three Self. It's estimated that there may be as many as 45 million who attend House churches. So you were at about 50 million, and then maybe add on another 12 for the Catholics. So we're talking 70 to 80 million people here.
It is amazing when you consider that in 1949 there were only 3 million Catholics and fewer than one million Protestants.
When you try to understand the House Church movement and why it's grown rapidly, you talk about persecution, and you talk about genuine miraculous work of the Spirit of God. You feel like you're reading the book of Acts when you read some of these stories.
Certainly persecution has played a role in the growth of the Church. Christianity has flourished. It's certainly been in many ways as healthy as under persecution because they trimmed a lot of the excesses of life that's come by when things were too easy. But it's also true that for some reason which only the sovereignty of God can explain, many Chinese come into a faith experience of the Christian gospel through some form of miraculous healing, either in their own lives or in the lives of people they know well. And it is very striking. You don't have to spend much time in China to realize that lots and lots of people—far more I would say than you would find normally in the United States—have had first-hand experience of what seemed like miraculous healing.
There's another aspect of the House Church that was fascinating. And that is the degree to which they are a combination of fairly supportive of the United States, and also their call to the Islamic world. They feel the call to be part of what God might do with Muslims.
They do tend to be pro-American, obviously, because they know that in America Christians are free and they get a lot of help from the United States churches, so they're very grateful for that. And also they take a view of America as having had on the whole, a very good influence all over the world. Which countries are first always to provide emergency aid after earthquakes and volcanoes? It's always the Americans. So they appreciate that.
In the case of the Muslims as a movement in the Chinese churches, particularly the House Churches, it's called Back to Jerusalem. And essentially this is a sort of nation-wide concept that the destiny of the Chinese church is to complete the great commission insofar as reaching the Muslim world.
One of the most strategic forward-looking aspects of the book is the way it talks about a "Christianized China."
Well, I make it clear in the book that there's lots of things that could go wrong in China. You could have a sort of alpha-nationalist reaction against all of the Western contacts just as you did during the Boxer Rebellion in the year 1900. But at the present rate of growth in China, it's possible that within 20 to 30 years, 20 to 30 percent of the Chinese will be Christian, which would take place about the same time China is emerging as a number two superpower in the world.
When you have 20 to 30 percent of any country that are Christian believers, and not just nominal Christians but quite serious committed Christians, you find them showing up throughout society in places of influence, including eventually politics. And if that happened, then China as a major power would have the same kind of view of itself and its global responsibility that say Great Britain had in the 19th century and the United States—although it certainly made a few mistakes—has honestly tried to pursue in the 20th century and now in the 21st century.
We've been talking about how Christianity could change China. How might China change the movement of Christianity in the world?
Well, there's an interesting book by a scholar of missions, Philip Jenkins, called The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, in which he shows that there is a shift in the center of gravity of Christianity from north to south because there are more and more Christians in the southern hemisphere, in South American and in Africa, and increasingly large numbers in Asia. Now, if that's happening, and if China is going to be emerging as a country with perhaps the largest number of Christians anywhere in the world, you can be quite sure that China's Christian presence is going to play an influence in the development of global Christianity.
The Dick Staub Interview: China's Christian Syndrome
David Aikman, author of Jesus in Beijing, says in 20 years Christians could have a major impact on China, and that could change the world.
posted 02/18/2004
David Aikman is former senior correspondent and bureau chief in Eastern Europe and Beijing for Time Magazine. His latest book is Jesus in Beijing, which discusses the rise of Christianity in China and what a Christian China might mean for global Christianity and world politics. Aikman is chairman and founder of Gegrapha, a fellowship of Christian journalists, and he contributes regularly to the to the American Spectator and the Weekly Standard.
Talk about how things have changed so dramatically since you were a bureau chief.
When I was in China in the 1980's it was just beginning to open up. The decisions by Deng Xiaoping in 1978-79 began to open China right after their hibernation during the cultural revolution. But it has taken two decades for the changes to shake down through society. Now, you still have very tight restrictions on religion and you still have persecution there, of course. But it's possible to get around China, to go to places without asking permission from the Foreign Ministry, and that was not the case two decades ago.
What are some of the dynamics that have meant that right now is a time where there can be some tremendous growth and opportunities for growth of the Church in China?
I think probably the most dramatic growth may be over. I would say that occurred in the '80s and '90s. Throughout the 1980s and then in the early '90s. Christianity is still growing a lot. I think the point is that there is a spiritual vacuum in China that for quite a long time nobody has believed in Marxism-Leninism, and people want to know what's life all about?
What is the Three Self Church.
The Three Self Patriotic Movement is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches in China, which was set up in the 1950s to enable the Communist Party, through Protestant clergy, to control Protestant Christianity. And it has, in many ways, affected the theology for a long time. In a Three Self church, if you were a pastor, even if you were an evangelical, and many of them are, you were not allowed to preach on the book of Daniel, you weren't allowed to preach on Genesis, you weren't allowed to speak about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Three Self churches claim these are the churches that are open and visible and operating on a weekly basis on Sunday.
How do we go about getting a number for the number of Christians in China?
The Three Self Church claims about 15 to 20 million people. And that's probably a fairly accurate assessment of church membership or church-going throughout China. The Christians in the House Church, or what is sometimes called the Unregistered Christian Communities are reckoned to be about three times as large as the Three Self Christians. So let's suppose you've got 15 million Protestant Christians attached to the Three Self. It's estimated that there may be as many as 45 million who attend House churches. So you were at about 50 million, and then maybe add on another 12 for the Catholics. So we're talking 70 to 80 million people here.
It is amazing when you consider that in 1949 there were only 3 million Catholics and fewer than one million Protestants.
When you try to understand the House Church movement and why it's grown rapidly, you talk about persecution, and you talk about genuine miraculous work of the Spirit of God. You feel like you're reading the book of Acts when you read some of these stories.
Certainly persecution has played a role in the growth of the Church. Christianity has flourished. It's certainly been in many ways as healthy as under persecution because they trimmed a lot of the excesses of life that's come by when things were too easy. But it's also true that for some reason which only the sovereignty of God can explain, many Chinese come into a faith experience of the Christian gospel through some form of miraculous healing, either in their own lives or in the lives of people they know well. And it is very striking. You don't have to spend much time in China to realize that lots and lots of people—far more I would say than you would find normally in the United States—have had first-hand experience of what seemed like miraculous healing.
There's another aspect of the House Church that was fascinating. And that is the degree to which they are a combination of fairly supportive of the United States, and also their call to the Islamic world. They feel the call to be part of what God might do with Muslims.
They do tend to be pro-American, obviously, because they know that in America Christians are free and they get a lot of help from the United States churches, so they're very grateful for that. And also they take a view of America as having had on the whole, a very good influence all over the world. Which countries are first always to provide emergency aid after earthquakes and volcanoes? It's always the Americans. So they appreciate that.
In the case of the Muslims as a movement in the Chinese churches, particularly the House Churches, it's called Back to Jerusalem. And essentially this is a sort of nation-wide concept that the destiny of the Chinese church is to complete the great commission insofar as reaching the Muslim world.
One of the most strategic forward-looking aspects of the book is the way it talks about a "Christianized China."
Well, I make it clear in the book that there's lots of things that could go wrong in China. You could have a sort of alpha-nationalist reaction against all of the Western contacts just as you did during the Boxer Rebellion in the year 1900. But at the present rate of growth in China, it's possible that within 20 to 30 years, 20 to 30 percent of the Chinese will be Christian, which would take place about the same time China is emerging as a number two superpower in the world.
When you have 20 to 30 percent of any country that are Christian believers, and not just nominal Christians but quite serious committed Christians, you find them showing up throughout society in places of influence, including eventually politics. And if that happened, then China as a major power would have the same kind of view of itself and its global responsibility that say Great Britain had in the 19th century and the United States—although it certainly made a few mistakes—has honestly tried to pursue in the 20th century and now in the 21st century.
We've been talking about how Christianity could change China. How might China change the movement of Christianity in the world?
Well, there's an interesting book by a scholar of missions, Philip Jenkins, called The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, in which he shows that there is a shift in the center of gravity of Christianity from north to south because there are more and more Christians in the southern hemisphere, in South American and in Africa, and increasingly large numbers in Asia. Now, if that's happening, and if China is going to be emerging as a country with perhaps the largest number of Christians anywhere in the world, you can be quite sure that China's Christian presence is going to play an influence in the development of global Christianity.
C 130 Pilots Naration of an Adventure
C-130 Pilot's Story
***************************
I am forwarding this to you since it is a good story particularly if you lust over mixed metaphors. This is from a colorful writer from the 1st Marine Air Wing based at MCAS Miramar, (The guy ought to write for a living.....> This is my nominee for 'Best of the Month.)
8888888888888888888888888888
There I was at six thousand feet over central Iraq, two hundred eighty knots and we're dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties. It's a typical September evening in the Persian Gulf; hotter than a rectal thermometer and I'm sweating like a priest at a Cub Scout meeting. But that's neither here nor there. The night is moonless over Baghdad tonight, and blacker than a Steven King novel. But it's 2004, folks, and I'm sporting the latest in night-combat technology - namely, hand-me-down night vision goggles(NVGs) thrown out by the fighter boys.
Additionally, my 1962 Lockheed C-130E Hercules is equipped with an obsolete, yet, semi-effective missile warning system (MWS). The MWS conveniently makes a nice soothing tone in your headset just bfore the missile explodes into your airplane. Who says you can't polish a turd?
At any rate, the NVGs are illuminating Baghdad International Airport like the Las Vegas Strip during a Mike Tyson fight. These NVGs are the cat's ass. But I've digressed.
The preferred method of approach tonight is the random shallow. This tactical maneuver allows the pilot to ingress the landing zone in an unpredictable manner, thus exploiting the supposedly secured perimeter of the airfield in an attempt to avoid enemy surface-to-air-missiles and small arms fire. Personally, I wouldn't bet my pink ass on that theory but the approach is fun as hell and that's the real reason we fly it.
We get a visual on the runway at three miles out, drop down to one thousand feet above the ground, still maintaining two hundred eighty knots. Now the fun starts. It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herk to six hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty degree left bank, turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the runway.
Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety/Two-Seventy."
Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off energy in order to configure the pig for landing.
"Flaps Fifty!, Landing Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I look over at the copilot and he's shaking like a cat shitting on a sheet of ice.
Looking further back at the navigator, and even through the NVGs, I can clearly see the wet spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glanc at my steely-eyed flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin form on his face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am.... "Where do we find such fine young men?"
"Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat. Now it's all aimpoint and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception there' are no lights, I'm on NVGs, it's Baghdad, and now tracers are starting to crisscross the black sky.
Naturally, and not at all surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left, bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid Baghdad air. Thehuge,one hundred thirty thousand pound, lumbering whispe pig comes to a lurching stop in less than two thousand feet.
Let's see a Viper do that!
We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on Saddam's home. Walking down the crew entry steps with my lowest-bidder, Beretta 92F, 9 millimeter strapped smartly to my side, look around and thank God, not Allah, I'm an American and I'm on the winning team. Then I thank God I'm not in the Army.
Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your ass.
Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to mention chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior, cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine model. It is however, time to get out of this shit-hole. Hey copilot , clean yourself up! And how's
'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist."
God, I love this job!"
***************************
I am forwarding this to you since it is a good story particularly if you lust over mixed metaphors. This is from a colorful writer from the 1st Marine Air Wing based at MCAS Miramar, (The guy ought to write for a living.....> This is my nominee for 'Best of the Month.)
8888888888888888888888888888
There I was at six thousand feet over central Iraq, two hundred eighty knots and we're dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties. It's a typical September evening in the Persian Gulf; hotter than a rectal thermometer and I'm sweating like a priest at a Cub Scout meeting. But that's neither here nor there. The night is moonless over Baghdad tonight, and blacker than a Steven King novel. But it's 2004, folks, and I'm sporting the latest in night-combat technology - namely, hand-me-down night vision goggles(NVGs) thrown out by the fighter boys.
Additionally, my 1962 Lockheed C-130E Hercules is equipped with an obsolete, yet, semi-effective missile warning system (MWS). The MWS conveniently makes a nice soothing tone in your headset just bfore the missile explodes into your airplane. Who says you can't polish a turd?
At any rate, the NVGs are illuminating Baghdad International Airport like the Las Vegas Strip during a Mike Tyson fight. These NVGs are the cat's ass. But I've digressed.
The preferred method of approach tonight is the random shallow. This tactical maneuver allows the pilot to ingress the landing zone in an unpredictable manner, thus exploiting the supposedly secured perimeter of the airfield in an attempt to avoid enemy surface-to-air-missiles and small arms fire. Personally, I wouldn't bet my pink ass on that theory but the approach is fun as hell and that's the real reason we fly it.
We get a visual on the runway at three miles out, drop down to one thousand feet above the ground, still maintaining two hundred eighty knots. Now the fun starts. It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herk to six hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty degree left bank, turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the runway.
Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety/Two-Seventy."
Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off energy in order to configure the pig for landing.
"Flaps Fifty!, Landing Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I look over at the copilot and he's shaking like a cat shitting on a sheet of ice.
Looking further back at the navigator, and even through the NVGs, I can clearly see the wet spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glanc at my steely-eyed flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin form on his face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am.... "Where do we find such fine young men?"
"Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat. Now it's all aimpoint and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception there' are no lights, I'm on NVGs, it's Baghdad, and now tracers are starting to crisscross the black sky.
Naturally, and not at all surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left, bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid Baghdad air. Thehuge,one hundred thirty thousand pound, lumbering whispe pig comes to a lurching stop in less than two thousand feet.
Let's see a Viper do that!
We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on Saddam's home. Walking down the crew entry steps with my lowest-bidder, Beretta 92F, 9 millimeter strapped smartly to my side, look around and thank God, not Allah, I'm an American and I'm on the winning team. Then I thank God I'm not in the Army.
Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your ass.
Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to mention chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior, cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine model. It is however, time to get out of this shit-hole. Hey copilot , clean yourself up! And how's
'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist."
God, I love this job!"
Ann Coulter- LIAR, LIAR, NOW YOU'RE FIRED
Yahoo! News - LIAR, LIAR, NOW YOU'RE FIRED
Ann C has got her facts all lined up on the Rather/Bush guard item. I Like It!!!
Ann C has got her facts all lined up on the Rather/Bush guard item. I Like It!!!
Monday, January 17, 2005
Power Line: President Bush's Second Term
Power Line: President Bush's Second Term
President Bush's Second Term
The London Times offers a balanced assessment of the prospects for President Bush's second term:
Most second-term presidencies are pale imitations of the first four years in power. They have, historically, been undercut by three factors: agenda exhaustion, personnel depletion and congressional erosion.
None of these constraints applies to this President. He still has plenty of proposals for domestic policy left in him. These range from making permanent tax cuts that were passed in his opening term and the partial privatisation of American pensions to his ambition to curtail the outrageous costs of the US legal system. His new Cabinet members are not noticeably weaker than his previous colleagues. His party runs each branch of Congress and, thanks to the November election results, with greater majorities. For the first time since 1937 a re-elected president who has been in Washington for four years starts again with congressional enhancement, not erosion.
This presidency will thus be different. Mr Bush will be more active at home than is typical of second-term chief executives. He will not be forced to immerse himself in foreign affairs and, when he does, the limitations on him will largely be practical (particularly the course of events in Iraq) and not political. He may also have a very distinct notion of what he wants his legacy to be than other presidents. Rather than engage in the implausible pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, he might aspire to be remembered as the man who won the War on Terror.
The wild card here is scandal. It has been the curse of second-term Administrations. It embarrassed Eisenhower, triggered the resignation of Nixon, shook the Reagan White House to its foundations and led Mr Clinton to be impeached by the House of Representatives before being acquitted in the Senate. If he can avoid such ethical quicksand, this President’s final few years in office could be surprisingly successful.
Mr Bush’s personal authority, at least until 2007, may be really exceptional. Only Franklin D. Roosevelt has been equivalently placed in the past 100 years.
I'm pretty sure that President Bush won't be brought low by scandal, although the Dems will promote every "scandal" they can get their hands on. Still, while the President looks very strong on paper, my guess is that predictions about his second term are nearly as likely to be off the mark as predictions about his first term were. Events are in the saddle, and most likely, events that we cannot now foresee will drive his administration in a direction we can't now predict.
Posted by Hindrocket at 09:37 AM
President Bush's Second Term
The London Times offers a balanced assessment of the prospects for President Bush's second term:
Most second-term presidencies are pale imitations of the first four years in power. They have, historically, been undercut by three factors: agenda exhaustion, personnel depletion and congressional erosion.
None of these constraints applies to this President. He still has plenty of proposals for domestic policy left in him. These range from making permanent tax cuts that were passed in his opening term and the partial privatisation of American pensions to his ambition to curtail the outrageous costs of the US legal system. His new Cabinet members are not noticeably weaker than his previous colleagues. His party runs each branch of Congress and, thanks to the November election results, with greater majorities. For the first time since 1937 a re-elected president who has been in Washington for four years starts again with congressional enhancement, not erosion.
This presidency will thus be different. Mr Bush will be more active at home than is typical of second-term chief executives. He will not be forced to immerse himself in foreign affairs and, when he does, the limitations on him will largely be practical (particularly the course of events in Iraq) and not political. He may also have a very distinct notion of what he wants his legacy to be than other presidents. Rather than engage in the implausible pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, he might aspire to be remembered as the man who won the War on Terror.
The wild card here is scandal. It has been the curse of second-term Administrations. It embarrassed Eisenhower, triggered the resignation of Nixon, shook the Reagan White House to its foundations and led Mr Clinton to be impeached by the House of Representatives before being acquitted in the Senate. If he can avoid such ethical quicksand, this President’s final few years in office could be surprisingly successful.
Mr Bush’s personal authority, at least until 2007, may be really exceptional. Only Franklin D. Roosevelt has been equivalently placed in the past 100 years.
I'm pretty sure that President Bush won't be brought low by scandal, although the Dems will promote every "scandal" they can get their hands on. Still, while the President looks very strong on paper, my guess is that predictions about his second term are nearly as likely to be off the mark as predictions about his first term were. Events are in the saddle, and most likely, events that we cannot now foresee will drive his administration in a direction we can't now predict.
Posted by Hindrocket at 09:37 AM
Power Line: What "gets overlooked if not ignored" in Iraq
Power Line: What "gets overlooked if not ignored" in Iraq: "What 'gets overlooked if not ignored' in Iraq
Chrenkoff has his latest installment of 'Good news from Iraq.' He prefaces this edition with a quote from Marine Cpl. Issac D. Pacheco:
[M]any service members shake their heads in frustration each time they see their daily rebuilding efforts ignored by the media in favor of the more 'sensational' car bomb and rocket attack stories. Not to say that tragedies don't happen - Iraq is a war zone - but there is so much more happening that gets overlooked if not ignored.
Chrenkoff adds:
It has been a mission of this fortnightly column, now in its nineteenth edition, to bring to readers' attention all that 'gets overlooked if not ignored' in Iraq: the advancements of the political and civil society, the rebirth of freedom, economic growth and reconstruction progress, generosity of foreigners and positive role played by the Coalition troops in rebuilding the country, and unremarked upon security successes. Contrary to some critics, the intention has never been to whitewash the situation in Iraq or to downplay the negative; the violence, bloodshed, disappointments and frustrations are all there for everyone to see and read about in the mainstream media on a daily basis. But to point out positive developments is not to deny the bad news, merely to provide a more complete picture. As voters faced with the defining foreign policy issue of the new millennium we owe it to ourselves to be fully informed about the state of affairs in Iraq. And that means both the car bombs and rebuilt hospitals.
Among the highlights: (1) the transformation of Sadr City from an insurgents' nest to a peaceful hotbed of political activity (and thus a place overlooked if not ignored by the MSM) and (2) the overwhelming support by Iraqi women for both the elections and the general American effort to create a more free socieity (a phenomenon overlooked if not ignored by most American feminists).
In addition, Chrenkoff provides the useful perspective of Carlos Valenzuela, a U.N. representative from Columbia, who knows a thing or two about holding elections in a difficult and violent envirionment.
Belmont Club has more on the Iraqi elections. The picture it presents is mixed, and identifies Mosul as the primary election-day battleground."
Chrenkoff has his latest installment of 'Good news from Iraq.' He prefaces this edition with a quote from Marine Cpl. Issac D. Pacheco:
[M]any service members shake their heads in frustration each time they see their daily rebuilding efforts ignored by the media in favor of the more 'sensational' car bomb and rocket attack stories. Not to say that tragedies don't happen - Iraq is a war zone - but there is so much more happening that gets overlooked if not ignored.
Chrenkoff adds:
It has been a mission of this fortnightly column, now in its nineteenth edition, to bring to readers' attention all that 'gets overlooked if not ignored' in Iraq: the advancements of the political and civil society, the rebirth of freedom, economic growth and reconstruction progress, generosity of foreigners and positive role played by the Coalition troops in rebuilding the country, and unremarked upon security successes. Contrary to some critics, the intention has never been to whitewash the situation in Iraq or to downplay the negative; the violence, bloodshed, disappointments and frustrations are all there for everyone to see and read about in the mainstream media on a daily basis. But to point out positive developments is not to deny the bad news, merely to provide a more complete picture. As voters faced with the defining foreign policy issue of the new millennium we owe it to ourselves to be fully informed about the state of affairs in Iraq. And that means both the car bombs and rebuilt hospitals.
Among the highlights: (1) the transformation of Sadr City from an insurgents' nest to a peaceful hotbed of political activity (and thus a place overlooked if not ignored by the MSM) and (2) the overwhelming support by Iraqi women for both the elections and the general American effort to create a more free socieity (a phenomenon overlooked if not ignored by most American feminists).
In addition, Chrenkoff provides the useful perspective of Carlos Valenzuela, a U.N. representative from Columbia, who knows a thing or two about holding elections in a difficult and violent envirionment.
Belmont Club has more on the Iraqi elections. The picture it presents is mixed, and identifies Mosul as the primary election-day battleground."
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Power Line: Islamist Murder In Jersey City?
Power Line: Islamist Murder In Jersey City?: "The brutal murder of a family of Coptic Christians in Jersey City, New Jersey may have been carried out by Muslim fanatics in retaliation for the expression of 'anti-Muslim' views on the internet. The New York Post reports:"
Power Line: The crisis that wasn't
Power Line: The crisis that wasn't: "Remeber all those stories about the Bush spending spree and the huge deficit crisis it was creating? Well, that deficit is now shrinking rapidly. And, while you're not likely to find out about this from the MSM, Lawrence Kudlow has the story in the Washington Times.
Kudlow points out that since the end of last September, tax collections have grown at 10.5 percent, while federal cash outlays have risen only 6.1 percent. At this rate, the 2005 deficit would drop to $355 billion from $413 in 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product the deficit would fall to 2.9 percent from last year's 3.6 percent.
It appears, then, that the Bush deficits were product of the recession he inhertied and the slowdown caused by 9/11. Similarly, it appears that the Bush tax cuts, by stimulating the economy, has produced an explosion in tax revenues that is causing the deficit to narrow significantly. But, again, don't expect to hear this from the MSM.
In a sense, it isn't news that tax cuts have led to growth, which has produced revenue, which has shrunk the deficit. This is how it always seems to work. Still, it would be nice if the MSM briefly acknowledged the recurrence of this phenomenon before turning to the latest 'crises' of Bush economics -- the trade deficit and the decline of the dollar."
Kudlow points out that since the end of last September, tax collections have grown at 10.5 percent, while federal cash outlays have risen only 6.1 percent. At this rate, the 2005 deficit would drop to $355 billion from $413 in 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product the deficit would fall to 2.9 percent from last year's 3.6 percent.
It appears, then, that the Bush deficits were product of the recession he inhertied and the slowdown caused by 9/11. Similarly, it appears that the Bush tax cuts, by stimulating the economy, has produced an explosion in tax revenues that is causing the deficit to narrow significantly. But, again, don't expect to hear this from the MSM.
In a sense, it isn't news that tax cuts have led to growth, which has produced revenue, which has shrunk the deficit. This is how it always seems to work. Still, it would be nice if the MSM briefly acknowledged the recurrence of this phenomenon before turning to the latest 'crises' of Bush economics -- the trade deficit and the decline of the dollar."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
