The Chaplains
Oliver North (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20050326.shtml)
March 26, 2005
"Blessed Be the Lord ... Who Trains My Arms for Battle" -- Psalm 144:1
"The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that is where I will be." -- Father Tim Vakoc, Army chaplain
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- War can bring out the worst in man. The crucible of combat tests one's faith in self, in fellow man -- even faith in God.
It is particularly so in this war on terror -- where at any moment a brutal, suicidal and fanatical enemy can blow himself to pieces just to kill an American. Yet on Easter Sunday in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops brave these dangers daily, tens of thousands of young Americans will attend Resurrection services, where they will pray for their enemies. Those who lead those Easter rituals, the holiest in Christendom, are garbed in the same sun-bleached camouflage as the troops kneeling before them. We call them chaplains. They are part of what make us "different" from our enemy -- and they are a remarkable lot.
My wife and I were married before a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marine Base at Quantico. When I was wounded in Vietnam, it was Cmdr. Jake Laboon, our regimental chaplain, who called out "take this one next," as the triage corpsmen ran in to get another litter patient for emergency surgery.
Chaplains Bob Beddingfield and Don Dulligan spent months in the field with my Marines -- braving enemy fire to minister to them. As our children were born, other chaplains baptized them in chapels around the country. To say that these "men of the cloth" were an important part of my life in the service would be an understatement. And so it is today for the young Americans I see on my trips to Southwest Asia.
The chaplains in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and offshore in the Persian Gulf -- are cut from the same bolt of "cloth" as those I recall from my days in uniform. They minister to a "flock" -- one of the youngest in the world -- full of Americans only a few months out of high school, all of whom are scared, whether they show it or not.
By the time these "parishioners" return to the United States, they will have confronted more suffering and death -- and had more responsibility -- than their civilian contemporaries will experience the rest of their lives. Yet, if the statistics are right, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a lower incidence of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" than any troops in history. Thanks for that should go, in part, to the chaplains.
Two years ago this week, I was covering the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for Fox News as they battled their way north toward Baghdad. In the aftermath of furious gunfights, I saw chaplains tending the wounded, comforting friends of the fallen and encouraging the weary. On numerous occasions, I've heard chaplains like Carey Cash, Frank Holley and Brian Weigelt remind young warriors that -- despite the horror of combat, the incredible fatigue and the terrifying sights, sounds and smells of war -- the God who made them did not intend that they descend into savagery.
After the capture of Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, the true nature of our opponent became evident. Iraq was flooded with foreign "jihadists" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who encouraged brutal, inhuman atrocities in an effort to break the spirit of the Iraqi people -- and the Americans who had come to offer them the hope of freedom. The "slaughter houses" in Fallujah -- where American, Iraqi and other hostages were beheaded by masked terrorists posing for cameras -- exemplify the stark difference between "us" and "them."
After a Marine-Army assault liberated the city from the terrorists who had ruled it for months, Chaplain Bill Divine told a group of Marines at a memorial service for their fallen comrades, "There is nothing more Christian than what we are doing here."
Liberal critics of military chaplains take statements like that out of a spiritual context and try to give it a secular intent. But Devine wasn't making a political statement -- nor one intended to enflame the passions of Islamic radicals who hate Christians and Jews. Rather, his words refer to the mission of ridding the country of those who would prevent the Iraqi people from ever enjoying their God-given freedom. Who better to give that message than a chaplain -- and who better to receive it than those who had just paid a terrible price vanquishing real evil?
Thankfully, the detractors have not yet had their day. We've had military chaplains since the Continental Congress created them on July 29, 1775, at the request of George Washington. "By God's grace" -- words Washington used more than once -- we have had great chaplains ministering to our warriors -- and setting an example -- in every war and conflict since. Often, their example reminds us of what Easter is all about.
On Feb. 1, 1943, the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Greenland. Four chaplains -- one Jewish, two Protestant and one Roman Catholic -- distributed life jackets to those unable to make it into lifeboats. When the jackets ran out, they gave their own to the next four soldiers in line. The four chaplains were among the 672 who perished in the icy waters. Their sacrifice allowed others to live and still inspires others to better lives.
Today, Father Tim Vakoc, quoted above, slips in and out of a coma. Last May, while ministering to U.S. soldiers near Mosul, he suffered a terrible head injury when his Humvee hit an Improvised Explosive Device. Vakoc was the first chaplain wounded in Iraq. He, too, was living the meaning Easter.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
What are Evolutionists hiding?
Christianity Today, April 2005
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Rick Santorum CHRISTIAN!
Sen. Rick Santorum: I Draw No Line Between My Faith and My Decisions
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The Terrorists want out!
Power LineTerrorists Want Out?
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Power Line: March 2005 Archives
Power Line: March 2005 Archives
Terrorists Want Out?
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Terrorists Want Out?
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Power Line: March 2005 Archives
Power Line: March 2005 ArchivesTerrorists Want Out?
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Liberals were, by and large, surprised when socialism collapsed in Russia and throughout Europe fifteen years ago. (Of course, to be fair, that might be because they were relying on the CIA's rosy reports on conditions in the Soviet Union.) Likewise, I think, liberals will be surprised, and in some instances disappointed, as the Iraq "insurgency" winds down much faster than is now expected.
We're a day late on this, but if you haven't already seen it, check out the Financial Times' "Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy:'"
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.
Heh.
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
For an illustration of why "insurgents" are increasingly afraid to come out of hiding, see Blackfive's post, including after action report, on a recent encounter between a handful of American MPs and a considerably larger group of heavily-armed terrorists who attacked a convoy.
The terrorists had handcuffs, apparently intending to take hostages for later beheading, and a video camera to document their exploit for Arabic television. But things didn't turn out quite as planned. You can link to the terrorists' video off Blackfive, too; it was recovered after the gun battle. The guy who shot it isn't going to win any prizes for cinematography, and it ends just as the armored humvees show up, signalling the beginning of the gun battle. Still, it's pretty interesting.
Call me an optimist, but I think events in Iraq are moving rapidly toward a happier and more peaceful future.
UPDATE: Austin Bay adds more, including the observation that if the Sunni insurgents want to come in from the cold, their "get out of jail free" card could be turning in Zarqawi.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Moving comments on The Wounded Veterans
In Iraq for 365: Veterans and this country Veterans and this country
One man was missing an eye. Another had no left arm. Others had extreme coughs and limps. All appeared poor, wearing stained sweat pants and old shirts and out-of-style tattered shoes. They were Veterans. The heart and soul of America. And there they sat at the Milwaukee Veteran’s Hospital awaiting treatment. What they’ve seen and been through could only be understood by somebody else who’d lived through it. Many probably held their buddies as his final breath left his lungs. Yet, they are poor and take the Metro bus for their medical treatment; they can’t afford cars.
As I stood in the lobby of the hospital awaiting to register with the VA, my heart was filled with agony. It hurt to see these men. Not because they were a sight for sore eyes, but because they sacrificed so much for their country and “shabby” medical treatment hardly seems like a just reward. Why is it this country will dish out millions to pay the salary of an NBA player, but only pay its police officers and soldiers an average of $30,000? What’s more is an injured Veteran receives disability, but the most you can receive off of full disability is less than my yearly salary.
I very badly wanted to walk up to one man in particular and say “I’m sorry.” He was a black man and could not stop shaking. He stuttered and had a limp in his right leg. He still wore his old issued field jacket; no doubt the same one he wore in Vietnam. I don’t know what’s wrong with him, other than the obvious. Unlike the others I saw, he didn’t take the bus or drive. He had a backpack and after his appointment, he walked away from the hospital. I assume he was homeless.
I’m sure at one point in his life he was an up and comer. A kid with dreams to be a baseball player or a store owner. But his life was changed after his country asked a favor. He may not have wanted to serve, but he selflessly dodged bullets and chased the enemy through tunnels and slept at night praying he wakes up in the morning. And now he needs a favor from his country, and all “We the People” can offer is pro-rated medical care and a discount on a loan. It hardly seems fair. Even still, I think respect is probably what he desires most or a simple thank you from the same generation who once spat on him. Rather, he’s looked at as a bum.
It’s easy for people to say… “the war was a long time ago. People need to just get over it.” No doubt, these naysayers are the same people who would rather read about latest updates on Michael Jackson’s trial rather than a short bio of a deceased soldier. I wonder sometimes if our country has its priorities right. Then, I open the newspaper and Martha Stewart is on the front page while the war is under “international” news buried inside. To say the least, it’s just frustrating.
One man was missing an eye. Another had no left arm. Others had extreme coughs and limps. All appeared poor, wearing stained sweat pants and old shirts and out-of-style tattered shoes. They were Veterans. The heart and soul of America. And there they sat at the Milwaukee Veteran’s Hospital awaiting treatment. What they’ve seen and been through could only be understood by somebody else who’d lived through it. Many probably held their buddies as his final breath left his lungs. Yet, they are poor and take the Metro bus for their medical treatment; they can’t afford cars.
As I stood in the lobby of the hospital awaiting to register with the VA, my heart was filled with agony. It hurt to see these men. Not because they were a sight for sore eyes, but because they sacrificed so much for their country and “shabby” medical treatment hardly seems like a just reward. Why is it this country will dish out millions to pay the salary of an NBA player, but only pay its police officers and soldiers an average of $30,000? What’s more is an injured Veteran receives disability, but the most you can receive off of full disability is less than my yearly salary.
I very badly wanted to walk up to one man in particular and say “I’m sorry.” He was a black man and could not stop shaking. He stuttered and had a limp in his right leg. He still wore his old issued field jacket; no doubt the same one he wore in Vietnam. I don’t know what’s wrong with him, other than the obvious. Unlike the others I saw, he didn’t take the bus or drive. He had a backpack and after his appointment, he walked away from the hospital. I assume he was homeless.
I’m sure at one point in his life he was an up and comer. A kid with dreams to be a baseball player or a store owner. But his life was changed after his country asked a favor. He may not have wanted to serve, but he selflessly dodged bullets and chased the enemy through tunnels and slept at night praying he wakes up in the morning. And now he needs a favor from his country, and all “We the People” can offer is pro-rated medical care and a discount on a loan. It hardly seems fair. Even still, I think respect is probably what he desires most or a simple thank you from the same generation who once spat on him. Rather, he’s looked at as a bum.
It’s easy for people to say… “the war was a long time ago. People need to just get over it.” No doubt, these naysayers are the same people who would rather read about latest updates on Michael Jackson’s trial rather than a short bio of a deceased soldier. I wonder sometimes if our country has its priorities right. Then, I open the newspaper and Martha Stewart is on the front page while the war is under “international” news buried inside. To say the least, it’s just frustrating.
Moving comments on The Wounded Veterans
In Iraq for 365: Veterans and this country Veterans and this country
One man was missing an eye. Another had no left arm. Others had extreme coughs and limps. All appeared poor, wearing stained sweat pants and old shirts and out-of-style tattered shoes. They were Veterans. The heart and soul of America. And there they sat at the Milwaukee Veteran’s Hospital awaiting treatment. What they’ve seen and been through could only be understood by somebody else who’d lived through it. Many probably held their buddies as his final breath left his lungs. Yet, they are poor and take the Metro bus for their medical treatment; they can’t afford cars.
As I stood in the lobby of the hospital awaiting to register with the VA, my heart was filled with agony. It hurt to see these men. Not because they were a sight for sore eyes, but because they sacrificed so much for their country and “shabby” medical treatment hardly seems like a just reward. Why is it this country will dish out millions to pay the salary of an NBA player, but only pay its police officers and soldiers an average of $30,000? What’s more is an injured Veteran receives disability, but the most you can receive off of full disability is less than my yearly salary.
I very badly wanted to walk up to one man in particular and say “I’m sorry.” He was a black man and could not stop shaking. He stuttered and had a limp in his right leg. He still wore his old issued field jacket; no doubt the same one he wore in Vietnam. I don’t know what’s wrong with him, other than the obvious. Unlike the others I saw, he didn’t take the bus or drive. He had a backpack and after his appointment, he walked away from the hospital. I assume he was homeless.
I’m sure at one point in his life he was an up and comer. A kid with dreams to be a baseball player or a store owner. But his life was changed after his country asked a favor. He may not have wanted to serve, but he selflessly dodged bullets and chased the enemy through tunnels and slept at night praying he wakes up in the morning. And now he needs a favor from his country, and all “We the People” can offer is pro-rated medical care and a discount on a loan. It hardly seems fair. Even still, I think respect is probably what he desires most or a simple thank you from the same generation who once spat on him. Rather, he’s looked at as a bum.
It’s easy for people to say… “the war was a long time ago. People need to just get over it.” No doubt, these naysayers are the same people who would rather read about latest updates on Michael Jackson’s trial rather than a short bio of a deceased soldier. I wonder sometimes if our country has its priorities right. Then, I open the newspaper and Martha Stewart is on the front page while the war is under “international” news buried inside. To say the least, it’s just frustrating.
One man was missing an eye. Another had no left arm. Others had extreme coughs and limps. All appeared poor, wearing stained sweat pants and old shirts and out-of-style tattered shoes. They were Veterans. The heart and soul of America. And there they sat at the Milwaukee Veteran’s Hospital awaiting treatment. What they’ve seen and been through could only be understood by somebody else who’d lived through it. Many probably held their buddies as his final breath left his lungs. Yet, they are poor and take the Metro bus for their medical treatment; they can’t afford cars.
As I stood in the lobby of the hospital awaiting to register with the VA, my heart was filled with agony. It hurt to see these men. Not because they were a sight for sore eyes, but because they sacrificed so much for their country and “shabby” medical treatment hardly seems like a just reward. Why is it this country will dish out millions to pay the salary of an NBA player, but only pay its police officers and soldiers an average of $30,000? What’s more is an injured Veteran receives disability, but the most you can receive off of full disability is less than my yearly salary.
I very badly wanted to walk up to one man in particular and say “I’m sorry.” He was a black man and could not stop shaking. He stuttered and had a limp in his right leg. He still wore his old issued field jacket; no doubt the same one he wore in Vietnam. I don’t know what’s wrong with him, other than the obvious. Unlike the others I saw, he didn’t take the bus or drive. He had a backpack and after his appointment, he walked away from the hospital. I assume he was homeless.
I’m sure at one point in his life he was an up and comer. A kid with dreams to be a baseball player or a store owner. But his life was changed after his country asked a favor. He may not have wanted to serve, but he selflessly dodged bullets and chased the enemy through tunnels and slept at night praying he wakes up in the morning. And now he needs a favor from his country, and all “We the People” can offer is pro-rated medical care and a discount on a loan. It hardly seems fair. Even still, I think respect is probably what he desires most or a simple thank you from the same generation who once spat on him. Rather, he’s looked at as a bum.
It’s easy for people to say… “the war was a long time ago. People need to just get over it.” No doubt, these naysayers are the same people who would rather read about latest updates on Michael Jackson’s trial rather than a short bio of a deceased soldier. I wonder sometimes if our country has its priorities right. Then, I open the newspaper and Martha Stewart is on the front page while the war is under “international” news buried inside. To say the least, it’s just frustrating.
EconoPundit
EconoPundit: "New report from the Pew Hispanic Center on the magnitude of undocumented immigration."
Monday, March 21, 2005
Chrenkoff
Chrenkoff: "New poll from Iraq
Thanks to our special correspondent and translator Haider Ajina, here's the latest opinion poll of 970 residents of Baghdad, published in the March 21 edition of 'Iraquna' newspaper:
'Are you in favor of implementing Islamic Sharia and an Islamic government?
Yes - 12.5%
No - 83.9%
Don�t Know - 3.6%
'Do you support cutting relations with Jordan? [background]
Yes - 85.2%
No - 14.1%
Don�t know - less than 1%
'Do you support what Al-Sadr followers did in Basrah? [background]
Yes - 6.6%
No - 90.4%
Don�t know - 3%'
As Haider comments, 'most Iraqis have favored a secular government for some time and are continuing to ask for a secular government. They know what a theocracy is like, they have one next door and it does what it can to destabilize Iraq.'"
Thanks to our special correspondent and translator Haider Ajina, here's the latest opinion poll of 970 residents of Baghdad, published in the March 21 edition of 'Iraquna' newspaper:
'Are you in favor of implementing Islamic Sharia and an Islamic government?
Yes - 12.5%
No - 83.9%
Don�t Know - 3.6%
'Do you support cutting relations with Jordan? [background]
Yes - 85.2%
No - 14.1%
Don�t know - less than 1%
'Do you support what Al-Sadr followers did in Basrah? [background]
Yes - 6.6%
No - 90.4%
Don�t know - 3%'
As Haider comments, 'most Iraqis have favored a secular government for some time and are continuing to ask for a secular government. They know what a theocracy is like, they have one next door and it does what it can to destabilize Iraq.'"
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Jihadpundit: Fanatically opposed to Islamic fanaticism
Jihadpundit: Fanatically opposed to Islamic fanaticism: "Student activists actually protesting against anti-democratic forces? I know, it sounds too good to be true, but it is anyway: Student bodies demand ban on Jamaat-e-Bangladesh politics
[World News]: By Nazrul Islam Dhaka, Mar.15 : An alliance of six opposition-backed student organisations on Tuesday demanded the imposition of a ban on the kind of politics practiced by the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, which is a part of the Khaleda Zia-led ruling coalition.
'The armed men of the organisation [Jamaat] have been creating anarchy in the country exploiting the common pious people in the country in name of Islam,' Liakot Sikder, the president of Bangladesh Chhatra League, the student front of the main opposition Awami League, told a rally on the Dhaka University campus.
He accused the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh of sheltering religious zealots, who wanted to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic state. The newly formed student alliance, comprising student wings of some left and social democratic parties, also blamed the Jamaat for the frequent incidents of violence taking place on college campuses.
Earlier, activists of the student alliance took out a procession and marched through the Dhaka University campus chanting slogans against radical forces. (ANI)
Heartening to see, so seldom reported. "
[World News]: By Nazrul Islam Dhaka, Mar.15 : An alliance of six opposition-backed student organisations on Tuesday demanded the imposition of a ban on the kind of politics practiced by the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, which is a part of the Khaleda Zia-led ruling coalition.
'The armed men of the organisation [Jamaat] have been creating anarchy in the country exploiting the common pious people in the country in name of Islam,' Liakot Sikder, the president of Bangladesh Chhatra League, the student front of the main opposition Awami League, told a rally on the Dhaka University campus.
He accused the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh of sheltering religious zealots, who wanted to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic state. The newly formed student alliance, comprising student wings of some left and social democratic parties, also blamed the Jamaat for the frequent incidents of violence taking place on college campuses.
Earlier, activists of the student alliance took out a procession and marched through the Dhaka University campus chanting slogans against radical forces. (ANI)
Heartening to see, so seldom reported. "
Babalu Blog: Cuban Mythology (Updated)
Babalu Blog: Cuban Mythology (Updated): "Cuban Mythology (Updated)
Every single time the island of Cuba and fidel castro's revolution are covered anywhere in the media one of the points always mentioned is Cuba's free healthcare. You can practically time it. If it's in print, you get the lead issue in the first and second paragraph, a mention of fidel castro or one of his cronies in the third paragraph and then the plug for the lauded free healthcare available to Cubans in the fourth. I dont think Ive ever read an article about castro or Cuba where the 'healthcare' isnt mentioned.
Every single castro supporter clings to this healthcare thing like it is some kind of holy grail. In a debate, the fact that Cuba has the most political prisoners in the world is ignored. The fact that Cubans on the island lack even the most basic of necessities is ignored. Tourism apartheid is ignored. Everything is ignored save for the free healthcare and 100% literacy.
Of course, none of these Free healthcare! cheerleaders have ever been to a Cuban hospital. They've never been to a Cuban clinic. Hospitals and clinics serving the average Cuban, that is.
Take a look at these pictures:" SEE LINK ABOVE FOR COMPLETE STORY AND DISCUSTING PICS!
Every single time the island of Cuba and fidel castro's revolution are covered anywhere in the media one of the points always mentioned is Cuba's free healthcare. You can practically time it. If it's in print, you get the lead issue in the first and second paragraph, a mention of fidel castro or one of his cronies in the third paragraph and then the plug for the lauded free healthcare available to Cubans in the fourth. I dont think Ive ever read an article about castro or Cuba where the 'healthcare' isnt mentioned.
Every single castro supporter clings to this healthcare thing like it is some kind of holy grail. In a debate, the fact that Cuba has the most political prisoners in the world is ignored. The fact that Cubans on the island lack even the most basic of necessities is ignored. Tourism apartheid is ignored. Everything is ignored save for the free healthcare and 100% literacy.
Of course, none of these Free healthcare! cheerleaders have ever been to a Cuban hospital. They've never been to a Cuban clinic. Hospitals and clinics serving the average Cuban, that is.
Take a look at these pictures:" SEE LINK ABOVE FOR COMPLETE STORY AND DISCUSTING PICS!
The MIRT & Stealth EVP preemptive traffic devices at SkyOptics.com - Authorized Dealer
The MIRT & Stealth EVP preemptive traffic devices at SkyOptics.com - Authorized Dealer: "The Mirt Traffic Control Preemptive Device for only $299.99!!"
KRT Wire | 03/16/2005 | U.S. officials worry about civilians obtaining traffic-light changers
KRT Wire | 03/16/2005 | U.S. officials worry about civilians obtaining traffic-light changers: "U.S. officials worry about civilians obtaining traffic-light changers
BY AMAN BATHEJA
Knight Ridder Newspapers
FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - The tag lines on various Web sites make them seem too good to be true.
'CHANGE STOPLIGHTS FROM RED TO GREEN IN SECONDS!'
'NOW YOU CONTROL THE INTERSECTIONS!'
The devices, mobile infrared transmitters, allow a person to change an upcoming traffic light from red to green from as far as 1,500 feet.
They are intended for emergency personnel, but sales of the devices to civilians on the Internet are making authorities nervous.
While the devices can cost more than $1,000 each from official dealers such as 3M, various Web sites sell knockoffs for less than $200.
Most of the Internet sites selling the devices advertise them for emergency personnel, but some broaden the definition to include private investigators and funeral homes. Some sites also claim to target groups that have a right to the technology but could afford only the cheaper versions, like volunteer fire departments.
Due mostly to the availability of the cheaper versions online, police and fire officials have been hearing accounts of signal changers being used by civilians in other states, Aghamalian said.
'We can't have that type of technology in the wrong hands,' said Brandon Aghamalian, director of governmental relations for Fort Worth, Texas.
Four bills before the Texas Legislature this session propose to make it illegal for anyone but emergency personnel to possess a signal changer.
Using such a device is already against the law because it is illegal to tamper with a traffic control device, said Tela Mange, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety.
A bill by state Sen. Kim Brimer, R-Fort Worth, would make possessing a signal changer a Class B misdemeanor. A bill proposed by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, would make possession a third-degree felony.
There have been no reported problems with unauthorized use of the devices locally, said Harry Jones, supervisor of the Fort Worth Police Department's traffic division.
---
Traffic Signal Changers
For emergency vehicles racing toward a crisis, signal changers can mean the difference between life and death. They allow emergency crews to respond to an emergency more quickly and reduce the chance of an accident when they are passing through intersections.
When a signal changer on a traffic light detects a properly equipped emergency vehicle approaching, the light responds accordingly. If the light is red, the signal changer will immediately give vehicles in other directions a yellow light, followed by a red light. Then the emergency vehicle will be given a green light.
If the light is already green, it will remain green until the vehicle has passed.
---
� 2005, Fort Worth Star-Telegram."
BY AMAN BATHEJA
Knight Ridder Newspapers
FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - The tag lines on various Web sites make them seem too good to be true.
'CHANGE STOPLIGHTS FROM RED TO GREEN IN SECONDS!'
'NOW YOU CONTROL THE INTERSECTIONS!'
The devices, mobile infrared transmitters, allow a person to change an upcoming traffic light from red to green from as far as 1,500 feet.
They are intended for emergency personnel, but sales of the devices to civilians on the Internet are making authorities nervous.
While the devices can cost more than $1,000 each from official dealers such as 3M, various Web sites sell knockoffs for less than $200.
Most of the Internet sites selling the devices advertise them for emergency personnel, but some broaden the definition to include private investigators and funeral homes. Some sites also claim to target groups that have a right to the technology but could afford only the cheaper versions, like volunteer fire departments.
Due mostly to the availability of the cheaper versions online, police and fire officials have been hearing accounts of signal changers being used by civilians in other states, Aghamalian said.
'We can't have that type of technology in the wrong hands,' said Brandon Aghamalian, director of governmental relations for Fort Worth, Texas.
Four bills before the Texas Legislature this session propose to make it illegal for anyone but emergency personnel to possess a signal changer.
Using such a device is already against the law because it is illegal to tamper with a traffic control device, said Tela Mange, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety.
A bill by state Sen. Kim Brimer, R-Fort Worth, would make possessing a signal changer a Class B misdemeanor. A bill proposed by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, would make possession a third-degree felony.
There have been no reported problems with unauthorized use of the devices locally, said Harry Jones, supervisor of the Fort Worth Police Department's traffic division.
---
Traffic Signal Changers
For emergency vehicles racing toward a crisis, signal changers can mean the difference between life and death. They allow emergency crews to respond to an emergency more quickly and reduce the chance of an accident when they are passing through intersections.
When a signal changer on a traffic light detects a properly equipped emergency vehicle approaching, the light responds accordingly. If the light is red, the signal changer will immediately give vehicles in other directions a yellow light, followed by a red light. Then the emergency vehicle will be given a green light.
If the light is already green, it will remain green until the vehicle has passed.
---
� 2005, Fort Worth Star-Telegram."
Monday, March 14, 2005
ChrenkoffYou know they are serious, when...
Chrenkoff
You know they are serious, when...
First off, we've had the Hizbollah, pro-Syrian, pro-government rally, which according to various estimates attracted somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million people to the center of Beirut.
Now, we have an opposition, anti-Syrian, anti-Government rally, with anywhere between 800,000 and 1.3 million people in the streets.
Lebanon's total population is 3.7 million.
To get your head around the magnitude of these events, think the United States. Think the Presidential campaign 2004. Think a Kerry rally, somewhere outside Boston, attracting somewhere between 40 and 80 million people. Then think a Bush rally, on the outsikirts of Dallas, with a field crowded with between 63 and 103 million Americans.
That's somewhere between one third and two thirds of the US population coming out into the street, and the lower overall estimate of just over 100 million people protesting is not significantly lower than the total number of people who have voted at the 2004 presidential election (over 120 million).
And everyone thinks that the Americans are passionate about politics!
But speaking of knowing when they are not serious... Amir Taheri has another good opinion piece about the reluctance of the Western anti-war crowd to support democracy throughout the Middle East. "There are, as yet, no signs that the 'Western street' may, at some point, come out in support of the new 'Arab street'," he writes.
Indeed, over the last three years, millions marched around the world to get the US troops out of Iraq. Over the last 15 or even 30 years - and much more importantly, over the last few weeks - how many in the West marched to get the Syrian troops out of Lebanon?
Taheri wonders: "Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism? Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein?"
No - it's because the Western left is now isolationist. It has been following, with a significant time lapse, the transition from Trotskyism-Leninism to Stalinism. Just like the Soviet communists had once raged with revolutionary fervor and dreamed of spreading dictatorship of the proletariat across Europe and then the rest of the world, only to eventually settle for "socialism in one country", so had the Western left-of-centrists once dreamed of spreading democracy, freedom and human rights around the world, only to champion today the doctrine of "democracy in one country" - ours.
So if the critics of the Bush Administration like to point out to the Trotyskite roots of neo-conservatism, that's fair enough as far as it goes, but they should accept that by the same token today's left is Stalinis
You know they are serious, when...
First off, we've had the Hizbollah, pro-Syrian, pro-government rally, which according to various estimates attracted somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million people to the center of Beirut.
Now, we have an opposition, anti-Syrian, anti-Government rally, with anywhere between 800,000 and 1.3 million people in the streets.
Lebanon's total population is 3.7 million.
To get your head around the magnitude of these events, think the United States. Think the Presidential campaign 2004. Think a Kerry rally, somewhere outside Boston, attracting somewhere between 40 and 80 million people. Then think a Bush rally, on the outsikirts of Dallas, with a field crowded with between 63 and 103 million Americans.
That's somewhere between one third and two thirds of the US population coming out into the street, and the lower overall estimate of just over 100 million people protesting is not significantly lower than the total number of people who have voted at the 2004 presidential election (over 120 million).
And everyone thinks that the Americans are passionate about politics!
But speaking of knowing when they are not serious... Amir Taheri has another good opinion piece about the reluctance of the Western anti-war crowd to support democracy throughout the Middle East. "There are, as yet, no signs that the 'Western street' may, at some point, come out in support of the new 'Arab street'," he writes.
Indeed, over the last three years, millions marched around the world to get the US troops out of Iraq. Over the last 15 or even 30 years - and much more importantly, over the last few weeks - how many in the West marched to get the Syrian troops out of Lebanon?
Taheri wonders: "Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism? Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein?"
No - it's because the Western left is now isolationist. It has been following, with a significant time lapse, the transition from Trotskyism-Leninism to Stalinism. Just like the Soviet communists had once raged with revolutionary fervor and dreamed of spreading dictatorship of the proletariat across Europe and then the rest of the world, only to eventually settle for "socialism in one country", so had the Western left-of-centrists once dreamed of spreading democracy, freedom and human rights around the world, only to champion today the doctrine of "democracy in one country" - ours.
So if the critics of the Bush Administration like to point out to the Trotyskite roots of neo-conservatism, that's fair enough as far as it goes, but they should accept that by the same token today's left is Stalinis
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Jack Kelly: The hubris of Giuliana Sgrena
Jack Kelly: The hubris of Giuliana Sgrena: "k Kelly: The hubris of Giuliana Sgrena
A naive Italian communist journalist got herself into big trouble in Baghdad
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Giuliana Sgrena does not lack a sense of self-importance. The 56-year-old journalist for the Italian communist newspaper Il Manifesto thinks she knows so many deep dark secrets the U.S. military tried to shut her up permanently.
Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).
Sgrena went to Iraq to report on the heroic resistance to the American imperialists. Dutch journalist Harald Doornbos rode in the airplane to Baghdad with her.
'Be careful not to get kidnapped,' Doornbos warned Sgrena.
'You don't understand the situation,' she responded, according to Doornbos' account last week in Nederlands Dagblad. (Excerpts were translated into English and posted on a Dutch writer's Web blog.) 'The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers. The enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear.'
Sgrena left her hotel the morning of Feb. 4 to interview refugees from Fallujah, the resistance stronghold captured by U.S. Marines in November. The interviews didn't go well.
'The refugees ... would not listen to me,' she said. 'I had in front of me the accurate confirmation of the analysis of what the Iraqi society had become as a result of the war and they would throw their truth in my face.'
Sgrena's feelings were hurt that the refugees could be so curt to her: 'I who had risked everything, challenging the Italian government who didn't want journalists to reach Iraq and the Americans who don't want our work to be witnessed of what really became of that country with the war and notwithstanding that which they call elections.' (Maybe it reads better in Italian, or maybe she just can't write worth a damn.)
She got nabbed on her way back to her hotel. Sgrena told her captors she was on their side, and suggested they kidnap an American soldier instead. But the U.S. government doesn't pay ransoms.
The Italian government did pay a ransom estimated by various sources at between $1 million and $10 million, and Sgrena was released into the custody of Italian intelligence officers. On the night of March 4, their vehicle approached a checkpoint near Baghdad International Airport. The car did not stop. U.S. troops opened fire. Nicola Calipari was killed, Sgrena was slightly wounded.
Sgrena said the soldiers deliberately tried to kill her, but didn't hazard a guess as to how the soldiers knew she was in that vehicle. According to the U.S. embassy and the Third Infantry Division, the Italians did not inform the Americans she'd been released. And Calipari had rented a nondescript sedan to pick up Sgrena, rather than utilize one of the Italian embassy's armored SUVs, which the soldiers might have recognized.
Sgrena and the driver said they approached the checkpoint slowly. But 'slowly' seems to be a relative term for Italian drivers, and for communists. An Army officer told ABC News the car may have been going 100 mph when it was fired upon.
Sgrena claims the Americans shot without warning. 'A tank started to shoot at us without any sign or any light,' she told reporters March 7.
The soldiers say they used lights, and hand signals, and fired warning shots before shooting into the engine block to stop the vehicle. The car's driver said the soldiers did shine a spotlight, but opened up almost immediately afterwards.
Sgrena said 'the tank' fired 300-400 shots at her car. But photographs of it published March 8 by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica indicate the vehicle suffered remarkably little damage for such a fusillade. There is a single bullet hole in the windshield, but the window glass and the fenders are otherwise intact, as is the hood.
Perhaps the soldiers were remarkably lousy shots. But if they were trying to kill Sgrena, why did they take her to the hospital instead of finishing her off?
There are questions that need answers. The Italians say they notified the Americans of Sgrena's release, but the Americans deny it. Was the car going 'slowly,' as the Italians claim, or was it trying to run through the checkpoint, as the Americans say?
But there is no doubt about the credibility of Giuliana Sgrena. She entitled her story 'My Truth,' perhaps to distinguish it from the bourgeois concept of truth that depends on adherence to fact.
Many on the left in America embraced Sgrena's 'truth,' while refusing to give their countrymen the benefit of the doubt. But hey, liberals support our troops. They say so all the time.
"
A naive Italian communist journalist got herself into big trouble in Baghdad
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Giuliana Sgrena does not lack a sense of self-importance. The 56-year-old journalist for the Italian communist newspaper Il Manifesto thinks she knows so many deep dark secrets the U.S. military tried to shut her up permanently.
Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).
Sgrena went to Iraq to report on the heroic resistance to the American imperialists. Dutch journalist Harald Doornbos rode in the airplane to Baghdad with her.
'Be careful not to get kidnapped,' Doornbos warned Sgrena.
'You don't understand the situation,' she responded, according to Doornbos' account last week in Nederlands Dagblad. (Excerpts were translated into English and posted on a Dutch writer's Web blog.) 'The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers. The enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear.'
Sgrena left her hotel the morning of Feb. 4 to interview refugees from Fallujah, the resistance stronghold captured by U.S. Marines in November. The interviews didn't go well.
'The refugees ... would not listen to me,' she said. 'I had in front of me the accurate confirmation of the analysis of what the Iraqi society had become as a result of the war and they would throw their truth in my face.'
Sgrena's feelings were hurt that the refugees could be so curt to her: 'I who had risked everything, challenging the Italian government who didn't want journalists to reach Iraq and the Americans who don't want our work to be witnessed of what really became of that country with the war and notwithstanding that which they call elections.' (Maybe it reads better in Italian, or maybe she just can't write worth a damn.)
She got nabbed on her way back to her hotel. Sgrena told her captors she was on their side, and suggested they kidnap an American soldier instead. But the U.S. government doesn't pay ransoms.
The Italian government did pay a ransom estimated by various sources at between $1 million and $10 million, and Sgrena was released into the custody of Italian intelligence officers. On the night of March 4, their vehicle approached a checkpoint near Baghdad International Airport. The car did not stop. U.S. troops opened fire. Nicola Calipari was killed, Sgrena was slightly wounded.
Sgrena said the soldiers deliberately tried to kill her, but didn't hazard a guess as to how the soldiers knew she was in that vehicle. According to the U.S. embassy and the Third Infantry Division, the Italians did not inform the Americans she'd been released. And Calipari had rented a nondescript sedan to pick up Sgrena, rather than utilize one of the Italian embassy's armored SUVs, which the soldiers might have recognized.
Sgrena and the driver said they approached the checkpoint slowly. But 'slowly' seems to be a relative term for Italian drivers, and for communists. An Army officer told ABC News the car may have been going 100 mph when it was fired upon.
Sgrena claims the Americans shot without warning. 'A tank started to shoot at us without any sign or any light,' she told reporters March 7.
The soldiers say they used lights, and hand signals, and fired warning shots before shooting into the engine block to stop the vehicle. The car's driver said the soldiers did shine a spotlight, but opened up almost immediately afterwards.
Sgrena said 'the tank' fired 300-400 shots at her car. But photographs of it published March 8 by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica indicate the vehicle suffered remarkably little damage for such a fusillade. There is a single bullet hole in the windshield, but the window glass and the fenders are otherwise intact, as is the hood.
Perhaps the soldiers were remarkably lousy shots. But if they were trying to kill Sgrena, why did they take her to the hospital instead of finishing her off?
There are questions that need answers. The Italians say they notified the Americans of Sgrena's release, but the Americans deny it. Was the car going 'slowly,' as the Italians claim, or was it trying to run through the checkpoint, as the Americans say?
But there is no doubt about the credibility of Giuliana Sgrena. She entitled her story 'My Truth,' perhaps to distinguish it from the bourgeois concept of truth that depends on adherence to fact.
Many on the left in America embraced Sgrena's 'truth,' while refusing to give their countrymen the benefit of the doubt. But hey, liberals support our troops. They say so all the time.
"
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Friday, March 11, 2005
Anatomy of Credit Card Numbers
Anatomy of Credit Card Numbers
by Michael Gilleland, Merriam Park Software
Introduction
Major Industry Identifier
Issuer Identifier
Account Number
Check Digit
Examples
Java Source Code
Introduction
This is not an essay on credit cards per se. If that's what you're looking for, I recommend Joe Ziegler's excellent series Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Credit Cards. This essay has a narrower focus -- to explore the anatomy of your credit card number, and to provide Java source code which determines if a given credit card number might be valid.
Specifications for credit card numbering have been drawn up by the International Standards Organization (ISO/IEC 7812-1:1993) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI X4.13). These eminent organizations refuse to make their publications freely available on-line, and so the following information on the format of credit card numbers comes largely from an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) draft by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd, "ISO 7812/7816 Numbers and the Domain Name System (DNS)" (draft-eastlake-card-map-08, expires August 2001), available at the time of this writing at http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-eastlake-card-map-08.html. I have not linked to this URL, because individual versions of IETF drafts are notoriously ephemeral.
Digit numbering in this essay is left to right. The "first" digit, therefore, means the leftmost digit.
Major Industry Identifier
The first digit of your credit card number is the Major Industry Identifier (MII), which represents the category of entity which issued your credit card. Different MII digits represent the following issuer categories:
MII Digit Value Issuer Category
0 ISO/TC 68 and other industry assignments
1 Airlines
2 Airlines and other industry assignments
3 Travel and entertainment
4 Banking and financial
5 Banking and financial
6 Merchandizing and banking
7 Petroleum
8 Telecommunications and other industry assignments
9 National assignment
For example, American Express, Diner's Club, and Carte Blanche are in the travel and entertainment category, VISA, MasterCard, and Discover are in the banking and financial category, and SUN Oil and Exxon are in the petroleum category.
Issuer Identifier
The first 6 digits of your credit card number (including the initial MII digit) form the issuer identifier. This means that the total number of possible issuers is a million (10 raised to the sixth power, or 1,000,000).
Some of the better known issuer identifiers are listed in the following table:
Issuer Identifier Card Number Length
Diner's Club/Carte Blanche 300xxx-305xxx,
36xxxx, 38xxxx 14
American Express 34xxxx, 37xxxx 15
VISA 4xxxxx 13, 16
MasterCard 51xxxx-55xxxx 16
Discover 6011xx 16
If the MII digit is 9, then the next three digits of the issuer identifier are the 3-digit country codes defined in ISO 3166, and the remaining final two digits of the issuer identifier can be defined by the national standards body of the specified country in whatever way it wishes.
Account Number
Digits 7 to (n - 1) of your credit card number are your individual account identifier. The maximum length of a credit card number is 19 digits. Since the initial 6 digits of a credit card number are the issuer identifier, and the final digit is the check digit, this means that the maximum length of the account number field is 19 - 7, or 12 digits. Each issuer therefore has a trillion (10 raised to the 12th power, or 1,000,000,000,000) possible account numbers.
If we consider the large number of potential customers and usurious interest rates charged by issuers, there is obviously a lot of money to be made in the credit card industry. In more civilized ages, people believed that usury was a grievous offense contrary to nature or a mortal sin, not an acceptable business practice (Aristotle, Politics 1.10; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 13.4; Dante, Inferno 11.94-111; etc.).
Check Digit
The final digit of your credit card number is a check digit, akin to a checksum. The algorithm used to arrive at the proper check digit is called the Luhn algorithm, after IBM scientist Hans Peter Luhn (1896-1964), who was awarded US Patent 2950048 ("Computer for Verifying Numbers") for the technique in 1960. For details about Luhn's life, see
* Biography on the American Society for Information Science and Technology's Web site, at http://www.asis.org/Features/Pioneers/luhn.htm.
* Notes compiled by Susan K. Soy on "H.P. Luhn and Automatic Indexing" at http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/organizing/l391d2c.htm
Thanks to Aleksandar Janicijevic for directing me to information about H.P. Luhn.
The most succint description of the Luhn algorithm I have found comes from the hacker publication phrack 47-8: "For a card with an even number of digits, double every odd numbered digit and subtract 9 if the product is greater than 9. Add up all the even digits as well as the doubled-odd digits, and the result must be a multiple of 10 or it's not a valid card. If the card has an odd number of digits, perform the same addition doubling the even numbered digits instead."
The bit about even and odd is a little confusing. The main point is that you don't want to double the check digit, and this can easily be done by starting with the check digit, going backwards, and doubling every other digit. See the source code below for details.
Examples
These examples are drawn from junk mail I received from credit card issuers in August 2001. Some of this junk mail contained glossy pictures of credit cards, and the sample numbers come directly from two of these pictures.
4408 0412 3456 7890
The first credit card offer showed a picture of a card with the number 4408 0412 3456 7890.
The Major Industry Identifier (MII) is 4 (banking and financial), the issuer identifier is 440804 (a VISA partner), the account number is 123456789, and the check digit is 0.
Let's apply the Luhn check to 4408 0412 3456 7890. In the following table,
* The top row is the original number.
* In the second row, we multiply alternate digits by 2. Don't multiply the check digit by 2.
* In the third row, we force all digits to be less than 10, by subtracting 9 where necessary.
* The bottom row contains the digits to be added together.
4 4 0 8 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
4 x 2 = 8 4 0 x 2 = 0 8 0 x 2 = 0 4 1 x 2 = 2 2 3 x 2 = 6 4 5 x 2 = 10 6 7 x 2 = 14 8 9 x 2 = 18 0
8 4 0 8 0 4 2 2 6 4 10 - 9 = 1 6 14 - 9 = 5 8 18 - 9 = 9 0
8 4 0 8 0 4 2 2 6 4 1 6 5 8 9 0
If we add all of the digits in the bottom row together, we get 67, which is not a multiple of 10, and therefore we conclude that the number 4408 0412 3456 7890 is an invalid credit card number.
By changing the check digit from 0 to 3, we arrive at the number 4408 0412 3456 7893, which does pass the Luhn check, since the sum of the digits in the bottom row would be 70, which is divisible by 10. 4408 0412 3456 7893 is, on the face of it, a valid credit card number.
4417 1234 5678 9112
The second credit card offer showed a picture of a card with the number 4417 1234 5678 9112.
The Major Industry Identifier (MII) is 4 (banking and financial), the issuer identifier is 441712 (a VISA partner), the account number is 345678911, and the check digit is 2.
Let's apply the Luhn check to 4417 1234 5678 9112, as we did in the previous example.
4 4 1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2
4 x 2 = 8 4 1 x 2 = 2 7 1 x 2 = 2 2 3 x 2 = 6 4 5 x 2 = 10 6 7 x 2 = 14 8 9 x 2 = 18 1 1 x 2 = 2 2
8 4 2 7 2 2 6 4 10 - 9 = 1 6 14 - 9 = 5 8 18 - 9 = 9 1 2 2
8 4 2 7 2 2 6 4 1 6 5 8 9 1 2 2
If we add all of the digits in the bottom row together, we get 69, which is not a multiple of 10, and therefore we conclude that the number 4417 1234 5678 9112 is an invalid credit card number.
By changing the check digit from 2 to 3, we arrive at the number 4417 1234 5678 9113, which does pass the Luhn check, since the sum of the digits in the bottom row would be 70, which is divisible by 10. 4417 1234 5678 9113 is, on the face of it, a valid credit card number.
Warning
These two credit card offers contained pictures with numbers which the Luhn check proved to be invalid. A change to their check digits made them ostensibly valid. But if I were you, I wouldn't try to charge anything with them.
Java Source Code
The following simple Java class is free for you to use as you wish, without any restrictions or guarantees.
//---------------------------------------------------------
// Checks for valid credit card number using Luhn algorithm
//---------------------------------------------------------
public abstract class LuhnCheck {
//--------------------------------
// Filter out non-digit characters
//--------------------------------
private static String getDigitsOnly (String s) {
StringBuffer digitsOnly = new StringBuffer ();
char c;
for (int i = 0; i < s.length (); i++) {
c = s.charAt (i);
if (Character.isDigit (c)) {
digitsOnly.append (c);
}
}
return digitsOnly.toString ();
}
//-------------------
// Perform Luhn check
//-------------------
public static boolean isValid (String cardNumber) {
String digitsOnly = getDigitsOnly (cardNumber);
int sum = 0;
int digit = 0;
int addend = 0;
boolean timesTwo = false;
for (int i = digitsOnly.length () - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
digit = Integer.parseInt (digitsOnly.substring (i, i + 1));
if (timesTwo) {
addend = digit * 2;
if (addend > 9) {
addend -= 9;
}
}
else {
addend = digit;
}
sum += addend;
timesTwo = !timesTwo;
}
int modulus = sum % 10;
return modulus == 0;
}
//-----
// Test
//-----
public static void main (String[] args) {
String cardNumber = "4408 0412 3456 7890";
boolean valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4408 0412 3456 7893";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4417 1234 5678 9112";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4417 1234 5678 9113";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
}
}
by Michael Gilleland, Merriam Park Software
Introduction
Major Industry Identifier
Issuer Identifier
Account Number
Check Digit
Examples
Java Source Code
Introduction
This is not an essay on credit cards per se. If that's what you're looking for, I recommend Joe Ziegler's excellent series Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Credit Cards. This essay has a narrower focus -- to explore the anatomy of your credit card number, and to provide Java source code which determines if a given credit card number might be valid.
Specifications for credit card numbering have been drawn up by the International Standards Organization (ISO/IEC 7812-1:1993) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI X4.13). These eminent organizations refuse to make their publications freely available on-line, and so the following information on the format of credit card numbers comes largely from an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) draft by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd, "ISO 7812/7816 Numbers and the Domain Name System (DNS)" (draft-eastlake-card-map-08, expires August 2001), available at the time of this writing at http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-eastlake-card-map-08.html. I have not linked to this URL, because individual versions of IETF drafts are notoriously ephemeral.
Digit numbering in this essay is left to right. The "first" digit, therefore, means the leftmost digit.
Major Industry Identifier
The first digit of your credit card number is the Major Industry Identifier (MII), which represents the category of entity which issued your credit card. Different MII digits represent the following issuer categories:
MII Digit Value Issuer Category
0 ISO/TC 68 and other industry assignments
1 Airlines
2 Airlines and other industry assignments
3 Travel and entertainment
4 Banking and financial
5 Banking and financial
6 Merchandizing and banking
7 Petroleum
8 Telecommunications and other industry assignments
9 National assignment
For example, American Express, Diner's Club, and Carte Blanche are in the travel and entertainment category, VISA, MasterCard, and Discover are in the banking and financial category, and SUN Oil and Exxon are in the petroleum category.
Issuer Identifier
The first 6 digits of your credit card number (including the initial MII digit) form the issuer identifier. This means that the total number of possible issuers is a million (10 raised to the sixth power, or 1,000,000).
Some of the better known issuer identifiers are listed in the following table:
Issuer Identifier Card Number Length
Diner's Club/Carte Blanche 300xxx-305xxx,
36xxxx, 38xxxx 14
American Express 34xxxx, 37xxxx 15
VISA 4xxxxx 13, 16
MasterCard 51xxxx-55xxxx 16
Discover 6011xx 16
If the MII digit is 9, then the next three digits of the issuer identifier are the 3-digit country codes defined in ISO 3166, and the remaining final two digits of the issuer identifier can be defined by the national standards body of the specified country in whatever way it wishes.
Account Number
Digits 7 to (n - 1) of your credit card number are your individual account identifier. The maximum length of a credit card number is 19 digits. Since the initial 6 digits of a credit card number are the issuer identifier, and the final digit is the check digit, this means that the maximum length of the account number field is 19 - 7, or 12 digits. Each issuer therefore has a trillion (10 raised to the 12th power, or 1,000,000,000,000) possible account numbers.
If we consider the large number of potential customers and usurious interest rates charged by issuers, there is obviously a lot of money to be made in the credit card industry. In more civilized ages, people believed that usury was a grievous offense contrary to nature or a mortal sin, not an acceptable business practice (Aristotle, Politics 1.10; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 13.4; Dante, Inferno 11.94-111; etc.).
Check Digit
The final digit of your credit card number is a check digit, akin to a checksum. The algorithm used to arrive at the proper check digit is called the Luhn algorithm, after IBM scientist Hans Peter Luhn (1896-1964), who was awarded US Patent 2950048 ("Computer for Verifying Numbers") for the technique in 1960. For details about Luhn's life, see
* Biography on the American Society for Information Science and Technology's Web site, at http://www.asis.org/Features/Pioneers/luhn.htm.
* Notes compiled by Susan K. Soy on "H.P. Luhn and Automatic Indexing" at http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/organizing/l391d2c.htm
Thanks to Aleksandar Janicijevic for directing me to information about H.P. Luhn.
The most succint description of the Luhn algorithm I have found comes from the hacker publication phrack 47-8: "For a card with an even number of digits, double every odd numbered digit and subtract 9 if the product is greater than 9. Add up all the even digits as well as the doubled-odd digits, and the result must be a multiple of 10 or it's not a valid card. If the card has an odd number of digits, perform the same addition doubling the even numbered digits instead."
The bit about even and odd is a little confusing. The main point is that you don't want to double the check digit, and this can easily be done by starting with the check digit, going backwards, and doubling every other digit. See the source code below for details.
Examples
These examples are drawn from junk mail I received from credit card issuers in August 2001. Some of this junk mail contained glossy pictures of credit cards, and the sample numbers come directly from two of these pictures.
4408 0412 3456 7890
The first credit card offer showed a picture of a card with the number 4408 0412 3456 7890.
The Major Industry Identifier (MII) is 4 (banking and financial), the issuer identifier is 440804 (a VISA partner), the account number is 123456789, and the check digit is 0.
Let's apply the Luhn check to 4408 0412 3456 7890. In the following table,
* The top row is the original number.
* In the second row, we multiply alternate digits by 2. Don't multiply the check digit by 2.
* In the third row, we force all digits to be less than 10, by subtracting 9 where necessary.
* The bottom row contains the digits to be added together.
4 4 0 8 0 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
4 x 2 = 8 4 0 x 2 = 0 8 0 x 2 = 0 4 1 x 2 = 2 2 3 x 2 = 6 4 5 x 2 = 10 6 7 x 2 = 14 8 9 x 2 = 18 0
8 4 0 8 0 4 2 2 6 4 10 - 9 = 1 6 14 - 9 = 5 8 18 - 9 = 9 0
8 4 0 8 0 4 2 2 6 4 1 6 5 8 9 0
If we add all of the digits in the bottom row together, we get 67, which is not a multiple of 10, and therefore we conclude that the number 4408 0412 3456 7890 is an invalid credit card number.
By changing the check digit from 0 to 3, we arrive at the number 4408 0412 3456 7893, which does pass the Luhn check, since the sum of the digits in the bottom row would be 70, which is divisible by 10. 4408 0412 3456 7893 is, on the face of it, a valid credit card number.
4417 1234 5678 9112
The second credit card offer showed a picture of a card with the number 4417 1234 5678 9112.
The Major Industry Identifier (MII) is 4 (banking and financial), the issuer identifier is 441712 (a VISA partner), the account number is 345678911, and the check digit is 2.
Let's apply the Luhn check to 4417 1234 5678 9112, as we did in the previous example.
4 4 1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2
4 x 2 = 8 4 1 x 2 = 2 7 1 x 2 = 2 2 3 x 2 = 6 4 5 x 2 = 10 6 7 x 2 = 14 8 9 x 2 = 18 1 1 x 2 = 2 2
8 4 2 7 2 2 6 4 10 - 9 = 1 6 14 - 9 = 5 8 18 - 9 = 9 1 2 2
8 4 2 7 2 2 6 4 1 6 5 8 9 1 2 2
If we add all of the digits in the bottom row together, we get 69, which is not a multiple of 10, and therefore we conclude that the number 4417 1234 5678 9112 is an invalid credit card number.
By changing the check digit from 2 to 3, we arrive at the number 4417 1234 5678 9113, which does pass the Luhn check, since the sum of the digits in the bottom row would be 70, which is divisible by 10. 4417 1234 5678 9113 is, on the face of it, a valid credit card number.
Warning
These two credit card offers contained pictures with numbers which the Luhn check proved to be invalid. A change to their check digits made them ostensibly valid. But if I were you, I wouldn't try to charge anything with them.
Java Source Code
The following simple Java class is free for you to use as you wish, without any restrictions or guarantees.
//---------------------------------------------------------
// Checks for valid credit card number using Luhn algorithm
//---------------------------------------------------------
public abstract class LuhnCheck {
//--------------------------------
// Filter out non-digit characters
//--------------------------------
private static String getDigitsOnly (String s) {
StringBuffer digitsOnly = new StringBuffer ();
char c;
for (int i = 0; i < s.length (); i++) {
c = s.charAt (i);
if (Character.isDigit (c)) {
digitsOnly.append (c);
}
}
return digitsOnly.toString ();
}
//-------------------
// Perform Luhn check
//-------------------
public static boolean isValid (String cardNumber) {
String digitsOnly = getDigitsOnly (cardNumber);
int sum = 0;
int digit = 0;
int addend = 0;
boolean timesTwo = false;
for (int i = digitsOnly.length () - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
digit = Integer.parseInt (digitsOnly.substring (i, i + 1));
if (timesTwo) {
addend = digit * 2;
if (addend > 9) {
addend -= 9;
}
}
else {
addend = digit;
}
sum += addend;
timesTwo = !timesTwo;
}
int modulus = sum % 10;
return modulus == 0;
}
//-----
// Test
//-----
public static void main (String[] args) {
String cardNumber = "4408 0412 3456 7890";
boolean valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4408 0412 3456 7893";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4417 1234 5678 9112";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
cardNumber = "4417 1234 5678 9113";
valid = LuhnCheck.isValid (cardNumber);
System.out.println (cardNumber + ": " + valid);
}
}
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
From Proverbial Wife
Fresh from the Mind of God
When I look at her and touch her and smell her, I breathe His presence, so sweet and subtle. She began as His thought, conceived in perfect love and painstakingly let go into a fallen world. In her purity, I find traces of Eden, of humanity as God intended, but her fragility reminds me of how easily we were, are, broken.
Yet the Creator goes on creating, knowing some will seek Him out to find wholeness, while most will be in eternal bondage to the original sin of pride, bandaging themselves and hobbling along until their days are finally, mercifully, ended. They will have exchanged the intangible truth for the material lie, transcendance for mere existence, and a relationship with the One who thought them into being for the meaningless companionship of self.
Oh, little one, so fresh from the mind of God, the most untainted of His creation, yet already flawed by your very nature, you are a precious glimpse into the divine. To have carried you inside my body, to nourish you now from my flesh--such is the design of the nurturing Father who made you--I am blessed beyond my own understanding. May you always see Him as clearly as I see Him in you.
When I look at her and touch her and smell her, I breathe His presence, so sweet and subtle. She began as His thought, conceived in perfect love and painstakingly let go into a fallen world. In her purity, I find traces of Eden, of humanity as God intended, but her fragility reminds me of how easily we were, are, broken.
Yet the Creator goes on creating, knowing some will seek Him out to find wholeness, while most will be in eternal bondage to the original sin of pride, bandaging themselves and hobbling along until their days are finally, mercifully, ended. They will have exchanged the intangible truth for the material lie, transcendance for mere existence, and a relationship with the One who thought them into being for the meaningless companionship of self.
Oh, little one, so fresh from the mind of God, the most untainted of His creation, yet already flawed by your very nature, you are a precious glimpse into the divine. To have carried you inside my body, to nourish you now from my flesh--such is the design of the nurturing Father who made you--I am blessed beyond my own understanding. May you always see Him as clearly as I see Him in you.
From Proverbial Wife
Fresh from the Mind of God
When I look at her and touch her and smell her, I breathe His presence, so sweet and subtle. She began as His thought, conceived in perfect love and painstakingly let go into a fallen world. In her purity, I find traces of Eden, of humanity as God intended, but her fragility reminds me of how easily we were, are, broken.
Yet the Creator goes on creating, knowing some will seek Him out to find wholeness, while most will be in eternal bondage to the original sin of pride, bandaging themselves and hobbling along until their days are finally, mercifully, ended. They will have exchanged the intangible truth for the material lie, transcendance for mere existence, and a relationship with the One who thought them into being for the meaningless companionship of self.
Oh, little one, so fresh from the mind of God, the most untainted of His creation, yet already flawed by your very nature, you are a precious glimpse into the divine. To have carried you inside my body, to nourish you now from my flesh--such is the design of the nurturing Father who made you--I am blessed beyond my own understanding. May you always see Him as clearly as I see Him in you.
When I look at her and touch her and smell her, I breathe His presence, so sweet and subtle. She began as His thought, conceived in perfect love and painstakingly let go into a fallen world. In her purity, I find traces of Eden, of humanity as God intended, but her fragility reminds me of how easily we were, are, broken.
Yet the Creator goes on creating, knowing some will seek Him out to find wholeness, while most will be in eternal bondage to the original sin of pride, bandaging themselves and hobbling along until their days are finally, mercifully, ended. They will have exchanged the intangible truth for the material lie, transcendance for mere existence, and a relationship with the One who thought them into being for the meaningless companionship of self.
Oh, little one, so fresh from the mind of God, the most untainted of His creation, yet already flawed by your very nature, you are a precious glimpse into the divine. To have carried you inside my body, to nourish you now from my flesh--such is the design of the nurturing Father who made you--I am blessed beyond my own understanding. May you always see Him as clearly as I see Him in you.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Everything I Know Is Wrong: Solar Flare Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
Everything I Know Is Wrong: Solar Flare Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss: "March 01, 2005
Solar Flare Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
'Scientists,' as the press almost universally labels anonymous theoreticians, have discovered that the 60% reduction in Arctic ozone was mostly due to the largest solar flares ever recorded.
Sun's Temper Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.
A massive low-pressure system that confines air over the Arctic then conspired to deplete ozone.
Upper-atmosphere winds associated with the system, called the polar stratospheric vortex, sped up in February and March of 2004 to the fastest speeds ever recorded, the new study found. The spinning vortex allowed nitrogen gas to sink from the high stratosphere, some 20 miles up, to lower altitudes.
The nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone.
'This decline was completely unexpected,' said Cora Randall, a physicist at the University of Colorado, Boulder who led the study. 'The findings point out a critical need to better understand the processes occurring in the ozone layer.'
Aaaugh! Even though they admit to complete surprise over the results of these completely natural phenomena in the Northern Hemisphere, they purport to know the exact cause of a similar thinning of the ozone layer in the Southern Hemisphere.
The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.
If the reader is not confused enough by one flip in logic, fear not--they flop right back again.
The new study suggests a better understanding is needed of how the Sun itself alters the ozone layer.
'No one predicted the dramatic loss of ozone in the upper stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere in the spring of 2004,' Randall said. 'That we can still be surprised illustrates the difficulties in separating atmospheric effects due to natural and human-induced causes.'
Advice to scientists: When you don't know say, 'I don't know.'"
Solar Flare Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
'Scientists,' as the press almost universally labels anonymous theoreticians, have discovered that the 60% reduction in Arctic ozone was mostly due to the largest solar flares ever recorded.
Sun's Temper Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.
A massive low-pressure system that confines air over the Arctic then conspired to deplete ozone.
Upper-atmosphere winds associated with the system, called the polar stratospheric vortex, sped up in February and March of 2004 to the fastest speeds ever recorded, the new study found. The spinning vortex allowed nitrogen gas to sink from the high stratosphere, some 20 miles up, to lower altitudes.
The nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone.
'This decline was completely unexpected,' said Cora Randall, a physicist at the University of Colorado, Boulder who led the study. 'The findings point out a critical need to better understand the processes occurring in the ozone layer.'
Aaaugh! Even though they admit to complete surprise over the results of these completely natural phenomena in the Northern Hemisphere, they purport to know the exact cause of a similar thinning of the ozone layer in the Southern Hemisphere.
The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.
If the reader is not confused enough by one flip in logic, fear not--they flop right back again.
The new study suggests a better understanding is needed of how the Sun itself alters the ozone layer.
'No one predicted the dramatic loss of ozone in the upper stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere in the spring of 2004,' Randall said. 'That we can still be surprised illustrates the difficulties in separating atmospheric effects due to natural and human-induced causes.'
Advice to scientists: When you don't know say, 'I don't know.'"
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Airborne Combat Engineer: The Freshour Pauza Semi-Auto .50 BMG
Airborne Combat Engineer: The Freshour Pauza Semi-Auto .50 BMG: "Saturday, 26 February 2005
The Freshour Pauza Semi-Auto .50 BMG
This 'P-50' semi-auto .50 BMG was designed by Robert Pauza and is sold (with rifle or carbine length barrel) by Freshour Manufacturing (Ron Freshour, CEO) in Texas City, Texas.
You'll find a couple of short video clips of it being fired from the prone position and off the hip at the Freshour site."
The Freshour Pauza Semi-Auto .50 BMG
This 'P-50' semi-auto .50 BMG was designed by Robert Pauza and is sold (with rifle or carbine length barrel) by Freshour Manufacturing (Ron Freshour, CEO) in Texas City, Texas.
You'll find a couple of short video clips of it being fired from the prone position and off the hip at the Freshour site."
Belmont Club More on W Churchill
Belmont ClubThe Cancer Ward
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for linking to an Inside Denver article on Ward Churchill which catalogues the lengthy history of his denunciation by bona-fide Indians before Colorado University. His accusers include his ex-inlaws. Some excerpts:
David Bradley, a Santa Fe-area American Indian artist whose feud with Churchill has endured more than a decade, says he told CU a long time ago that Churchill should be fired. ...
Vernon Bellecourt, an American Indian Movement activist, says he first approached the university with questions about the veracity of Churchill's claim to American Indian heritage in 1986. "We went out there with a stack of documents to tell them about him," Bellecourt said. "I made a special trip to Colorado and went to the university.
"We told the university he wasn't Indian and was disruptive in the community," said Carole Standing Elk, a California Indian activist. "We said, 'He doesn't represent us, and how did you put him in the ethnic studies department?' "
"I sent a letter to the university in 1992 saying he's not a native person," said Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Morning Star Institute. She says she received a response from a university official saying Churchill had not been hired because he was an American Indian.
Bradley, a Chippewa, said there are several reasons he and Churchill clashed. ... In 1994, Bradley contacted CU, lodging his complaint with Evelyn Hu-De-Hart, then director for CU's Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America. ...
Rhonda Kelly, 41, of Winnipeg, the older sister of Churchill's deceased third wife, Leah Renae Kelly, also contacted CU. ... Churchill later published a book of Kelly's writings, In My Own Voice. In a lengthy preface, he contended that the American Indian woman's alcoholism and other personal troubles could be traced ... Rhonda Kelly, a second-year law student, has produced a 15-point brief of inaccuracies she said she has found in Churchill's preface. She has asked the book's publisher to remove it from circulation, and to ask a man writing a screenplay based on the book to desist. ... He said his wife was a victim of acute alcoholism and that he "fought a long and lonely battle to save her." ... Churchill, in the wake of Leah Kelly's death, established a fund at CU for Rhonda Kelly's two children and contributed $200. ... "My sister Leah Renae Kelly had so much promise, but ... she instead turned to alcohol to escape the torment and humiliation in her marital home."
Controversy, or perhaps more accurately, acrimony, has been on Churchill like a cheap suit from the git-go. At least some of the accusations leveled against him received official cognizance from the University, which used the equal opportunity argument as a justification for retaining him, whatever he was and whatever he claimed to be.
"However, given the fact that equal opportunity is the law of the land and that positions in the public sector are to be awarded to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and based only on their ability to do the job, the university does not believe that any attempt to remove Mr. Churchill because of his ethnicity or race would be appropriate. Even if Mr. Churchill is not an American Indian, as he claims, Title VII protects Caucasians as well as persons of color. Further, it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving. ... observation and self-identification are the most reliable indicators of one's racial grouping."
But allowing a person to adopt any race that he chooses makes a nonsense of racial preferences. There is an inner and inescapable logical contradiction between adopting a policy based on racial diversity and then making race, in turn, a dependent on some other variable. By transitivity, the policy based on 'racial diversity' would really be driven by this hidden variable, which is a function of 'consciousness'. In other words, 'racial diversity' becomes a dummy for ideological quotas. In plain English: "all your base are belong to us".
posted by wretchard at 2:03 AM
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for linking to an Inside Denver article on Ward Churchill which catalogues the lengthy history of his denunciation by bona-fide Indians before Colorado University. His accusers include his ex-inlaws. Some excerpts:
David Bradley, a Santa Fe-area American Indian artist whose feud with Churchill has endured more than a decade, says he told CU a long time ago that Churchill should be fired. ...
Vernon Bellecourt, an American Indian Movement activist, says he first approached the university with questions about the veracity of Churchill's claim to American Indian heritage in 1986. "We went out there with a stack of documents to tell them about him," Bellecourt said. "I made a special trip to Colorado and went to the university.
"We told the university he wasn't Indian and was disruptive in the community," said Carole Standing Elk, a California Indian activist. "We said, 'He doesn't represent us, and how did you put him in the ethnic studies department?' "
"I sent a letter to the university in 1992 saying he's not a native person," said Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Morning Star Institute. She says she received a response from a university official saying Churchill had not been hired because he was an American Indian.
Bradley, a Chippewa, said there are several reasons he and Churchill clashed. ... In 1994, Bradley contacted CU, lodging his complaint with Evelyn Hu-De-Hart, then director for CU's Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America. ...
Rhonda Kelly, 41, of Winnipeg, the older sister of Churchill's deceased third wife, Leah Renae Kelly, also contacted CU. ... Churchill later published a book of Kelly's writings, In My Own Voice. In a lengthy preface, he contended that the American Indian woman's alcoholism and other personal troubles could be traced ... Rhonda Kelly, a second-year law student, has produced a 15-point brief of inaccuracies she said she has found in Churchill's preface. She has asked the book's publisher to remove it from circulation, and to ask a man writing a screenplay based on the book to desist. ... He said his wife was a victim of acute alcoholism and that he "fought a long and lonely battle to save her." ... Churchill, in the wake of Leah Kelly's death, established a fund at CU for Rhonda Kelly's two children and contributed $200. ... "My sister Leah Renae Kelly had so much promise, but ... she instead turned to alcohol to escape the torment and humiliation in her marital home."
Controversy, or perhaps more accurately, acrimony, has been on Churchill like a cheap suit from the git-go. At least some of the accusations leveled against him received official cognizance from the University, which used the equal opportunity argument as a justification for retaining him, whatever he was and whatever he claimed to be.
"However, given the fact that equal opportunity is the law of the land and that positions in the public sector are to be awarded to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and based only on their ability to do the job, the university does not believe that any attempt to remove Mr. Churchill because of his ethnicity or race would be appropriate. Even if Mr. Churchill is not an American Indian, as he claims, Title VII protects Caucasians as well as persons of color. Further, it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving. ... observation and self-identification are the most reliable indicators of one's racial grouping."
But allowing a person to adopt any race that he chooses makes a nonsense of racial preferences. There is an inner and inescapable logical contradiction between adopting a policy based on racial diversity and then making race, in turn, a dependent on some other variable. By transitivity, the policy based on 'racial diversity' would really be driven by this hidden variable, which is a function of 'consciousness'. In other words, 'racial diversity' becomes a dummy for ideological quotas. In plain English: "all your base are belong to us".
posted by wretchard at 2:03 AM
Friday, February 25, 2005
HOW-TO: Get videos and DVDs
HOW-TO: Get videos and DVDs onto your Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) for free - Engadget - www.engadget.com: "HOW-TO: Get videos and DVDs onto your Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) for free"
DeepBurner - Powerful CD and DVD burning package// Freeware
DeepBurner - Powerful CD and DVD burning package: "DeepBurner - Powerful CD and DVD Burning Packageorganizer
DeepBurner is an advanced and powerful CD and DVD burning package that utilizes power and efficiency. It takes away the hassle of making CDs, DVDs, autoruns, creating and printing labels and booklets. The program supports a very wide range of internal and external (USB 2.0 and FireWire) CD and DVD writers. Burn any data, copy discs, make backups, burn astonishing photo cd albums, make ISO CDs and Video DVDs with just one easy to handle software- DeepBurner."
DeepBurner is an advanced and powerful CD and DVD burning package that utilizes power and efficiency. It takes away the hassle of making CDs, DVDs, autoruns, creating and printing labels and booklets. The program supports a very wide range of internal and external (USB 2.0 and FireWire) CD and DVD writers. Burn any data, copy discs, make backups, burn astonishing photo cd albums, make ISO CDs and Video DVDs with just one easy to handle software- DeepBurner."
Monday, February 21, 2005
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Bad Example
Bad Example: "ON THE USS CARTER (AGAIN)
Good points from BadExample!
"So, the USS Carter (a fast attack submarine) is being commissioned, and folks are having a field day with it, since Carter was a crappy president.
All well and good.
But after you get done making your killer rabbit jokes, please keep in mind that American Sailors will be serving on board that boat. Show them some respect.
I blogged about this last June when they first announced that the sub would be called the Carter, and I think the bulk of that bears re-posting. I'd also suggest reading the comments to the original post, as one of my readers was kind enough to provide more details on Carter's career.
Anyway, here's what I had to say then:
As I pointed out in my tribute to Reagan, Carter was an incompetent bungler of a President who did little-to-nothing right, and mostly-to-everything wrong, both in domestic and foreign policy. His record stands on its own and I won't re-hash it here.
However, before he was President, he was an officer in the US Navy, and a damn fine one. He graduated from the Naval Academy, and he was one of the few officers chosen by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover to help develop the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program. You've probably never heard of Rickover, but suffice it to say that he was to the Nuke Program what Patton was to the European Theater during WWII. He was a fanatic about the virtues of nuclear power as a means of powering Naval vessels, and with his eccentric personality and his insatiable drive for perfection, he made the dream a reality. He was EXTRAORDINARILY particular about whom he chose to work on this project. In his eyes, Carter measured up. Mere words cannot express the honor so bestowed.
During his time as a Nuke, Carter was attached to one of the first nuclear submarines, the USS Seawolf - the first of a class of ships, the last of which is now being christened with his name some 50 years later. Considering that he was there at the beginning, it's fitting that his name should be attached to the ending.
And considering that Carter is the ONLY President who ever qualified to command a submarine, it is doubly fitting.
So even though I have no love for Carter the politician, and even less for Carter the post-Presidential diplomat, I have nothing but the highest respect for Carter the Naval Officer. He served his country to a degree that few men can claim the equal of, and I believe with all my heart that any Sailor attached to the USS Jimmy Carter can serve aboard her with the greatest of pride and honor."
Good points from BadExample!
"So, the USS Carter (a fast attack submarine) is being commissioned, and folks are having a field day with it, since Carter was a crappy president.
All well and good.
But after you get done making your killer rabbit jokes, please keep in mind that American Sailors will be serving on board that boat. Show them some respect.
I blogged about this last June when they first announced that the sub would be called the Carter, and I think the bulk of that bears re-posting. I'd also suggest reading the comments to the original post, as one of my readers was kind enough to provide more details on Carter's career.
Anyway, here's what I had to say then:
As I pointed out in my tribute to Reagan, Carter was an incompetent bungler of a President who did little-to-nothing right, and mostly-to-everything wrong, both in domestic and foreign policy. His record stands on its own and I won't re-hash it here.
However, before he was President, he was an officer in the US Navy, and a damn fine one. He graduated from the Naval Academy, and he was one of the few officers chosen by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover to help develop the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program. You've probably never heard of Rickover, but suffice it to say that he was to the Nuke Program what Patton was to the European Theater during WWII. He was a fanatic about the virtues of nuclear power as a means of powering Naval vessels, and with his eccentric personality and his insatiable drive for perfection, he made the dream a reality. He was EXTRAORDINARILY particular about whom he chose to work on this project. In his eyes, Carter measured up. Mere words cannot express the honor so bestowed.
During his time as a Nuke, Carter was attached to one of the first nuclear submarines, the USS Seawolf - the first of a class of ships, the last of which is now being christened with his name some 50 years later. Considering that he was there at the beginning, it's fitting that his name should be attached to the ending.
And considering that Carter is the ONLY President who ever qualified to command a submarine, it is doubly fitting.
So even though I have no love for Carter the politician, and even less for Carter the post-Presidential diplomat, I have nothing but the highest respect for Carter the Naval Officer. He served his country to a degree that few men can claim the equal of, and I believe with all my heart that any Sailor attached to the USS Jimmy Carter can serve aboard her with the greatest of pride and honor."
Rethinking the 'Clinton' Surplus
The Skeptical Optimist says in "Rethinking the surplus:", "The chart below shows what caused my detour; for me, it was deja-vu, because it reminded me of one undeniable point: Our 1990's decision to reduce national security spending, i.e., our decision not to invest 'The Peace Dividend' in enhancing future peace prospects, was a huge factor in the creation of the falsely-revered surplus. (Falsely-revered because it made only a small dent in our ho-hum debt burden.)
Would the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and Langley have used a reinvested Peace Dividend to successfully counter the asymmetric threats which subsequently destroyed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killed seventeen servicemen on the USS Cole, or murdered thousands on 9-11-01? Maybe, maybe not; "
Interesting Curves. What surplus?
Would the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and Langley have used a reinvested Peace Dividend to successfully counter the asymmetric threats which subsequently destroyed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killed seventeen servicemen on the USS Cole, or murdered thousands on 9-11-01? Maybe, maybe not; "
Interesting Curves. What surplus?
EconoPundit
EconoPundit: "At last, undeniable proof sea levels are rising!
What's that? You say this all happened some time ago? Okay, sorry...
Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:56 AM"
What's that? You say this all happened some time ago? Okay, sorry...
Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:56 AM"
The Star Online: Survey: 77% of Chinese women can afford what they want
The Star Online: Survey: 77% of Chinese women can afford what they want
"Survey: 77% of Chinese women can afford what they want
CHINESE women have a strong say in household purchases, though it’s usually the men who foot the bill, a recent survey indicates.
Synovate, affiliated with the British group Aegis, polled almost 4,000 women in nine countries such as China, the United States and Japan last month about their attitudes towards financial matters.
In China, 314 women aged 15-64 were interviewed.
Almost nine out of 10 Chinese married women or those living with a partner claimed to have at least an equal say in big-ticket purchases such as property and cars, third behind Britain and France.
Although 74% of respondents said their partners earned more, 75% disagreed that whoever holds the money holds the power in the relationship.
Apart from having unrestricted access to their men's wallet, 77% of Chinese women said they can pretty much afford what they want without asking for money from their partners, second behind British women.
Hong Yuanyuan, a China Network Communications Group Corp staffer, said she can decide on all small purchases, and, as for big items, she “decides all the details after settling on basic principles with her husband.”
Hong’s husband Zhang Ying, who earns double what Hong does and can afford most purchases, attributes the situation to a “mutual respect” in the family relationship.
“I don’t care about details. It seems better not to be fussy about whatever she has bought,” he said.
The findings also show that half of Chinese respondents subscribe to the philosophy that “my partner’s money is my money, my money is mine.”
Larry Wu, director of Synovate China, explained: “The money earned by women is a bonus to them. It is still part of the family wealth, but Chinese women tend to keep part of that money as their own savings.”
He said the survey reflects a deeper involvement of Chinese women in family financial issues compared to just a decade ago.
And Wang Zhenyu, an expert in family issues at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the survey results are similar to those she found eight years ago, which indicated that Chinese women enjoy a high employment rate and a considerably high-degree of financial independence. – China Daily "
© 1995-2004 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
"Survey: 77% of Chinese women can afford what they want
CHINESE women have a strong say in household purchases, though it’s usually the men who foot the bill, a recent survey indicates.
Synovate, affiliated with the British group Aegis, polled almost 4,000 women in nine countries such as China, the United States and Japan last month about their attitudes towards financial matters.
In China, 314 women aged 15-64 were interviewed.
Almost nine out of 10 Chinese married women or those living with a partner claimed to have at least an equal say in big-ticket purchases such as property and cars, third behind Britain and France.
Although 74% of respondents said their partners earned more, 75% disagreed that whoever holds the money holds the power in the relationship.
Apart from having unrestricted access to their men's wallet, 77% of Chinese women said they can pretty much afford what they want without asking for money from their partners, second behind British women.
Hong Yuanyuan, a China Network Communications Group Corp staffer, said she can decide on all small purchases, and, as for big items, she “decides all the details after settling on basic principles with her husband.”
Hong’s husband Zhang Ying, who earns double what Hong does and can afford most purchases, attributes the situation to a “mutual respect” in the family relationship.
“I don’t care about details. It seems better not to be fussy about whatever she has bought,” he said.
The findings also show that half of Chinese respondents subscribe to the philosophy that “my partner’s money is my money, my money is mine.”
Larry Wu, director of Synovate China, explained: “The money earned by women is a bonus to them. It is still part of the family wealth, but Chinese women tend to keep part of that money as their own savings.”
He said the survey reflects a deeper involvement of Chinese women in family financial issues compared to just a decade ago.
And Wang Zhenyu, an expert in family issues at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the survey results are similar to those she found eight years ago, which indicated that Chinese women enjoy a high employment rate and a considerably high-degree of financial independence. – China Daily "
© 1995-2004 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
A Western Heart
A Western Heart
Great Quote, "the United Nations itself had been founded, according to its own charter:
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Yet, this organization that supposedly sees individualism and human rights and dignity as its aims, has done nothing to spread democracy. Even the first purpose, which is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, has been largely ignored, efforts only being extended when the United States is party to military confrontation."
Western Heart thinks UN should be replaced and gives an alternative.
Great Quote, "the United Nations itself had been founded, according to its own charter:
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Yet, this organization that supposedly sees individualism and human rights and dignity as its aims, has done nothing to spread democracy. Even the first purpose, which is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, has been largely ignored, efforts only being extended when the United States is party to military confrontation."
Western Heart thinks UN should be replaced and gives an alternative.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
EconoPundit Problems in Europe
EconoPundit
"Europe is facing real problems. But they are not the ones that American free-market critics recount with such grim glee. Yes, the European Commission periodically makes an ass of itself, aspiring to regulate the size of condoms and the curvature of cucumbers. The much-vaunted Stability Pact to constrain national expenditure and debt has broken down in acrimony, though with no discernible damage to the euro it was designed to protect. And pensions and other social provisions will be seriously underfunded in decades to come unless Europeans have more children, welcome more immigrants, work a few more years before retiring, take somewhat less generous unemployment compensation, and make it easier for businesses to employ young people. But these are not deep structural failings of the European way of life: they are difficult policy choices with political consequences. None of them implies the dismantling of the welfare state...
Europe's true dilemmas lie elsewhere. In the Netherlands, in Paris and Antwerp and other cities, antagonism and incomprehension between the indigenous local population and a fast-growing minority of Muslims (one million in the Netherlands, over five million in France, perhaps 13 million in the EU to date) has already moved on from graffiti and no-go zones to arson, assaults, and assassinations. Turks, Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, and others have been arriving in Western Europe since the 1960s. We are now seeing the emergence of a third generation: in large part unemployed, angry, alienated, and increasingly open to the communitarian appeal of radical Islam...." discussed.
"Europe is facing real problems. But they are not the ones that American free-market critics recount with such grim glee. Yes, the European Commission periodically makes an ass of itself, aspiring to regulate the size of condoms and the curvature of cucumbers. The much-vaunted Stability Pact to constrain national expenditure and debt has broken down in acrimony, though with no discernible damage to the euro it was designed to protect. And pensions and other social provisions will be seriously underfunded in decades to come unless Europeans have more children, welcome more immigrants, work a few more years before retiring, take somewhat less generous unemployment compensation, and make it easier for businesses to employ young people. But these are not deep structural failings of the European way of life: they are difficult policy choices with political consequences. None of them implies the dismantling of the welfare state...
Europe's true dilemmas lie elsewhere. In the Netherlands, in Paris and Antwerp and other cities, antagonism and incomprehension between the indigenous local population and a fast-growing minority of Muslims (one million in the Netherlands, over five million in France, perhaps 13 million in the EU to date) has already moved on from graffiti and no-go zones to arson, assaults, and assassinations. Turks, Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, and others have been arriving in Western Europe since the 1960s. We are now seeing the emergence of a third generation: in large part unemployed, angry, alienated, and increasingly open to the communitarian appeal of radical Islam...." discussed.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Telegraph | Money | India and China battle over Russian oil
Telegraph | Money | India and China battle over Russian oil"
India and China battle over Russian oil
By Malcolm Moore (Filed: 14/02/2005)
India is fighting China in the battle for Russian oil by angling for a supply deal and a stake in Yuganskneftegaz, the oil unit that was seized from Yukos and is now owned by Rosneft, the state oil company.
Mani Shankar Aiyar, India's petroleum minister, will visit Russia on February 21 to discuss the possibility of the country taking a 15pc to 20pc stake in the oil unit, which is still the focus of legal action in the US. "There are no full stops and the dialogue is continuing," he said.
The fact that Yukos has threatened to sue anyone who interferes with its former unit has not put India or China off. China has offered $6billion (£3.34billion) to fund the purchase of Yugansk, in return for a guaranteed 360m barrels of oil over the next five years. India has been offered a similar quota but wants a slice of equity for its national oil company ONGC.
Rosneft paid $9billion for Yugansk, which pumps about a million barrels a day, through a holding company called Baikal Finance. Yukos has filed for damages concerning the sale of Yugansk, and is petitioning for $20billion from Rosneft, Gazprom and their subsidiaries. Yukos also said it would pursue Deutsche Bank, a situation that could see the German bank threatened in the US.
One source claimed Yukos had discovered proof that Deutsche had played a role in the sale of Yugansk, a situation that would put it in clear contravention of the US bankruptcy court that ruled that the auction should be delayed.
Yukos returns to court on Wednesday to persuade the judge that it should be allowed to continue its bankruptcy proceedings, and to plead that any claims against the company from the Russian government be heard in an international arbitration forum. Under its new plan for repaying creditors, the Russian government has slipped substantially down the list of importance.
Meanwhile, a former Russian prime minister has hit out at the destruction of Yukos and the climate of uncertainty that it has brought to the economic outlook in Russia. Yegor Gaidar, who was briefly prime minister under Boris Yeltsin and is a noted free-market economist, told a group of institutional investors in London last week: "What they are doing could be explained rationally only if the goal was to stop economic growth.
"Growth is very difficult to stop. It is very robust. Even the 1998 crisis only stopped growth for one year. So it is a very ambitious target but then, as Stalin said 'There are no fortresses that the Bolsheviks cannot storm'."
He added: "Ten days ago we held a seminar with Russian government officials to try to set the agenda for this year. They asked how could we compensate for the negative effects. The answer is that it is impossible. You cannot compensate for this sense of unpredictability by any improvement in regulations when Russians really do not believe that tax and property rules will be upheld. No laws will resolve this problem."
Mr Gaidar also called on the government not to bow to political pressure to use the country's savings to cut taxes. Russia has been building a budgetary stabilisation fund off the back of recent high oil prices, which amounts to 647.2billion roubles (£12.3billion)."
India and China battle over Russian oil
By Malcolm Moore (Filed: 14/02/2005)
India is fighting China in the battle for Russian oil by angling for a supply deal and a stake in Yuganskneftegaz, the oil unit that was seized from Yukos and is now owned by Rosneft, the state oil company.
Mani Shankar Aiyar, India's petroleum minister, will visit Russia on February 21 to discuss the possibility of the country taking a 15pc to 20pc stake in the oil unit, which is still the focus of legal action in the US. "There are no full stops and the dialogue is continuing," he said.
The fact that Yukos has threatened to sue anyone who interferes with its former unit has not put India or China off. China has offered $6billion (£3.34billion) to fund the purchase of Yugansk, in return for a guaranteed 360m barrels of oil over the next five years. India has been offered a similar quota but wants a slice of equity for its national oil company ONGC.
Rosneft paid $9billion for Yugansk, which pumps about a million barrels a day, through a holding company called Baikal Finance. Yukos has filed for damages concerning the sale of Yugansk, and is petitioning for $20billion from Rosneft, Gazprom and their subsidiaries. Yukos also said it would pursue Deutsche Bank, a situation that could see the German bank threatened in the US.
One source claimed Yukos had discovered proof that Deutsche had played a role in the sale of Yugansk, a situation that would put it in clear contravention of the US bankruptcy court that ruled that the auction should be delayed.
Yukos returns to court on Wednesday to persuade the judge that it should be allowed to continue its bankruptcy proceedings, and to plead that any claims against the company from the Russian government be heard in an international arbitration forum. Under its new plan for repaying creditors, the Russian government has slipped substantially down the list of importance.
Meanwhile, a former Russian prime minister has hit out at the destruction of Yukos and the climate of uncertainty that it has brought to the economic outlook in Russia. Yegor Gaidar, who was briefly prime minister under Boris Yeltsin and is a noted free-market economist, told a group of institutional investors in London last week: "What they are doing could be explained rationally only if the goal was to stop economic growth.
"Growth is very difficult to stop. It is very robust. Even the 1998 crisis only stopped growth for one year. So it is a very ambitious target but then, as Stalin said 'There are no fortresses that the Bolsheviks cannot storm'."
He added: "Ten days ago we held a seminar with Russian government officials to try to set the agenda for this year. They asked how could we compensate for the negative effects. The answer is that it is impossible. You cannot compensate for this sense of unpredictability by any improvement in regulations when Russians really do not believe that tax and property rules will be upheld. No laws will resolve this problem."
Mr Gaidar also called on the government not to bow to political pressure to use the country's savings to cut taxes. Russia has been building a budgetary stabilisation fund off the back of recent high oil prices, which amounts to 647.2billion roubles (£12.3billion)."
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Chrenkoff
Chrenkoff
Thats the attitude of our MSM: "the sleazy UN goings-on in Congo (or the Balkans for that matter) will not elicit the same sort of salivating fascination from our Western media as reports of military misdeeds in Iraq. The reason is simple: the perpetrators are not American, and the victims are African. The former is arguably more important a factor than the latter; if the Marines were raping Rwandan women we wouldn't be able to turn on the news without another live report from the dark heart of Africa.
As it is in Congo, the locals are being abused multilaterally with no oil wells in sight; so, no story. Pity the Congalese, because if anything, the plight of their country deserves far more attention than it's currently getting. Since 1998, some 3.3 million people have died (that's 33 times the unreal leftoid figure of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians) and 2.25 million have been displaced as a result of the conflict, a savage struggle over political influence and the prodigious bounty of mineral resources and precious stones. Foreign corporations are profiting out of the scramble, but there's no Halliburton in sight and far too many of the companies are European (only 8 out of 85 implicated in illegal exploitation of Congalese resources are American firms).
The media yawns and the world nods off. A combination of four widely-held beliefs will conspire to keep the fate of Congo and many other places from generating sufficient levels of international outrage: American misdeeds are the worst in the world; there are worse misdeeds in the world, but that's to be expected of others, so who cares? now back to American misdeeds; American misdeeds are the most offensive because America holds itself to the higher moral standard than others; American misdeeds deserves the most attention because by publicizing them within the Western world you actually have the greatest chance of affecting change (this is a sort of backhand, and often unintended, compliment to the strength of the American political system).
Whichever way you look at it, it would have been better for the Congalese had their country been invaded by the US: for a right-winger this would hold a promise of bringing peace and stability there; for a left-winger it would provide a spur into action to expose and publicize the Congolese disaster. From either point of view, the people of Congo would be now better off." Read the whole story!
Thats the attitude of our MSM: "the sleazy UN goings-on in Congo (or the Balkans for that matter) will not elicit the same sort of salivating fascination from our Western media as reports of military misdeeds in Iraq. The reason is simple: the perpetrators are not American, and the victims are African. The former is arguably more important a factor than the latter; if the Marines were raping Rwandan women we wouldn't be able to turn on the news without another live report from the dark heart of Africa.
As it is in Congo, the locals are being abused multilaterally with no oil wells in sight; so, no story. Pity the Congalese, because if anything, the plight of their country deserves far more attention than it's currently getting. Since 1998, some 3.3 million people have died (that's 33 times the unreal leftoid figure of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians) and 2.25 million have been displaced as a result of the conflict, a savage struggle over political influence and the prodigious bounty of mineral resources and precious stones. Foreign corporations are profiting out of the scramble, but there's no Halliburton in sight and far too many of the companies are European (only 8 out of 85 implicated in illegal exploitation of Congalese resources are American firms).
The media yawns and the world nods off. A combination of four widely-held beliefs will conspire to keep the fate of Congo and many other places from generating sufficient levels of international outrage: American misdeeds are the worst in the world; there are worse misdeeds in the world, but that's to be expected of others, so who cares? now back to American misdeeds; American misdeeds are the most offensive because America holds itself to the higher moral standard than others; American misdeeds deserves the most attention because by publicizing them within the Western world you actually have the greatest chance of affecting change (this is a sort of backhand, and often unintended, compliment to the strength of the American political system).
Whichever way you look at it, it would have been better for the Congalese had their country been invaded by the US: for a right-winger this would hold a promise of bringing peace and stability there; for a left-winger it would provide a spur into action to expose and publicize the Congolese disaster. From either point of view, the people of Congo would be now better off." Read the whole story!
2Slick's Forum: Thinking Outside the Box
2Slick's Forum: Thinking Outside the Box''
A suggestion for the first major decision of the new government: a new name for the country.
'Iraq' has a history basically from WWI, and the British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last vestige of the Muslim Caliphate. The problem is (besides a name imposed by the British Empire) that the name does nothing to unify or appeal to the people who live their now. There is no overwhelming sense of Iraqi nationalism- no ethnic, religious, political or cultural unifying theme in Iraq.
I would suggest that the new government look to the rich history of the region - the birthplace of civilization, and appeal to the historical significance of the area within Iraq's borders. By going back before the birth of Islam, you bypass the Shia-Sunni strife, and going back far enough you can claim the first modern culture in the world. Call the new Nation Sumer or Babylon appeals to the pride, nationalism, and helps redefine an identity. That identity will be key in defeating the Sunni-Shia-Kurd-insurgent factions as they struggle to find a place in the new country. Calling it Babylon appeals to the people and helps them define themselves in a new way, outside of the horrible history of the last century - much in the same way Egypt or Syria claim a historic heritage to the ancient civilizations, the newly elected government should choose a new name that unifies the country, appeals to their rich history, and by passes the existing divisions with a goal of building a newer, stronger nation.
Anyway, just a thought. If I lived there, I'd want people to identify themselves as a Babylonian (or Sumerian, whatever - Babylon may have poor connotations to the Christian world) than a Sunni, or Shia, or Kurd - it's a way to build some unity, and capitalize on the promise of the elections. "
A suggestion for the first major decision of the new government: a new name for the country.
'Iraq' has a history basically from WWI, and the British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last vestige of the Muslim Caliphate. The problem is (besides a name imposed by the British Empire) that the name does nothing to unify or appeal to the people who live their now. There is no overwhelming sense of Iraqi nationalism- no ethnic, religious, political or cultural unifying theme in Iraq.
I would suggest that the new government look to the rich history of the region - the birthplace of civilization, and appeal to the historical significance of the area within Iraq's borders. By going back before the birth of Islam, you bypass the Shia-Sunni strife, and going back far enough you can claim the first modern culture in the world. Call the new Nation Sumer or Babylon appeals to the pride, nationalism, and helps redefine an identity. That identity will be key in defeating the Sunni-Shia-Kurd-insurgent factions as they struggle to find a place in the new country. Calling it Babylon appeals to the people and helps them define themselves in a new way, outside of the horrible history of the last century - much in the same way Egypt or Syria claim a historic heritage to the ancient civilizations, the newly elected government should choose a new name that unifies the country, appeals to their rich history, and by passes the existing divisions with a goal of building a newer, stronger nation.
Anyway, just a thought. If I lived there, I'd want people to identify themselves as a Babylonian (or Sumerian, whatever - Babylon may have poor connotations to the Christian world) than a Sunni, or Shia, or Kurd - it's a way to build some unity, and capitalize on the promise of the elections. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
