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
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
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.
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
