I hope to post a series of potential presidential resumes in the hopes of raising awareness of the candidates and their beliefs. Hopefully someone will emerge and inspire me, but, so far, nobody has. Up first...
Barack Obama
Read Ben Shapiro's dissection of Obama's The Audacity of Hope to discover what Obama really stands for, and what he admires. I'll highlight the key aspects of Shapiro's piece:
"Obama is a fervent believer in global warming and wants to dramatically raise fuel efficiency standards as well as taxes on oil companies. He wants to raise minimum wage and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Though he says he's for free trade, he voted against CAFTA. He wants to spend billions more dollars on early education, though Head Start has been a debacle. He wants to heavily regulate health care and, in doing so, essentially nationalize it. He wants to raise taxes across the board.
"He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, '[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do.' (191) This is Marxist trash. 'Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power,' Marx wrote in 'The Communist Manifesto.' Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's precisely how Obama views private property: 'I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.' (193)"
Here is where he stands on abortion - and he calls himself a man of faith? Supporting Roe v. Wade, approving of embryonic stem cell research, and voting in favor of $100 million essentially to be allocated to promote underage promiscuity does NOT strike me as being overly religious...
He's okay with the idea of flag burning.
He voted against the Bush tax cuts which have resulted in the DOW setting multiple record highs this year, along with the lowest unemployment rate in 5 years, back in October. He's also against personal retirement accounts to reform a disastrous Social Security program.
He voted against the appointment of Justice Sam Alito, supposedly on the basis of his record of siding with "the powerful over the powerless." Read up on Sam Alito at The Moderate Voice and let me know if it sounds like someone you can get behind - sounds good to me.
He voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act - you know, because he doesn't want to infringe upon our individual rights...and I guess implementation of the Patriot Act hasn't been successful since 9/11, right?
He loves illegal aliens.
He favors universal health care, Hillary's pet project. That sounds rosy, right?...well, here's the truth from John Stossel.
After reviewing all this material, I'm not so sure Obama's a moderate - sounds like a loony lefty to me. More profiles to come - as always, additional information is always welcome.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
What’s In A Name?
I’ll start this game…how about “Mohammed” (and its derivatives)? (from America Alone by Mark Steyn):
“…Not long after September 11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line, but if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.
“A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.
“A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammed (CH: the “Biography” shows the timeline of the murders).
“A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.
“A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.
“A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.
“A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.
“A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.
“A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.
“A group of Dearborn, Michigan, men charged with cigarette racketeering in order to fund Hezbollah? Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud, Mohammed Fawzi Zeidan, and Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud.
“A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani, and Yasim Abdi Mohamed….
“…when I made my observation about multiple Mohammeds in the news, Merle Ricklefs, a professor at the National University of Singapore and South-East Asian editor of the sixteen-volume Encyclopedia of Islam, remarked sarcastically, ‘Deep thinking, indeed.’ Well, gosh, maybe it’s not terribly sophisticated. But then again, when you’re dealing with fellows who decapitate female aid workers in Iraq and engage in mass slaughter of Russian schoolchildren, maybe sophistication isn’t always helpful. Particularly when sophistication seems mostly to be a form of obfuscation by experts wedded to the notion that Islam is something that simply can’t be understood unless you’ve read all sixteen volumes of their Encyclopedia, or, better yet, written them. For those of us who aren’t professors of Islamic studies, the obvious course is to step back and try to work from first principles: What’s happening? Who’s doing it? The five-thousand-guys-named-Mo routine meets the ‘reasonable man’ test: it’s the first thing an averagely well-informed person who’s not a muticulti apologist notices – here’s the evening news and here comes another Mohammed.”
Well…glad to know SOMEONE thinks I’m a “reasonable man”…
What do you suppose is now the most common baby boy's name in Britain?...
MOHAMMED.
I think it's fitting to throw in another endorsement for sensible Melanie Phillips' Londonistan.
Who’s got another name?
“…Not long after September 11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line, but if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.
“A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.
“A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammed (CH: the “Biography” shows the timeline of the murders).
“A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.
“A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.
“A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.
“A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.
“A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.
“A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.
“A group of Dearborn, Michigan, men charged with cigarette racketeering in order to fund Hezbollah? Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud, Mohammed Fawzi Zeidan, and Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud.
“A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani, and Yasim Abdi Mohamed….
“…when I made my observation about multiple Mohammeds in the news, Merle Ricklefs, a professor at the National University of Singapore and South-East Asian editor of the sixteen-volume Encyclopedia of Islam, remarked sarcastically, ‘Deep thinking, indeed.’ Well, gosh, maybe it’s not terribly sophisticated. But then again, when you’re dealing with fellows who decapitate female aid workers in Iraq and engage in mass slaughter of Russian schoolchildren, maybe sophistication isn’t always helpful. Particularly when sophistication seems mostly to be a form of obfuscation by experts wedded to the notion that Islam is something that simply can’t be understood unless you’ve read all sixteen volumes of their Encyclopedia, or, better yet, written them. For those of us who aren’t professors of Islamic studies, the obvious course is to step back and try to work from first principles: What’s happening? Who’s doing it? The five-thousand-guys-named-Mo routine meets the ‘reasonable man’ test: it’s the first thing an averagely well-informed person who’s not a muticulti apologist notices – here’s the evening news and here comes another Mohammed.”
Well…glad to know SOMEONE thinks I’m a “reasonable man”…
What do you suppose is now the most common baby boy's name in Britain?...
MOHAMMED.
I think it's fitting to throw in another endorsement for sensible Melanie Phillips' Londonistan.
Who’s got another name?
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Should John Kerry be Thrown in Jail?
First, a little background as to why this question may be legitimate: the text of the Logan Act:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned no more than three years, or both.
“This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”
Follow the link for more of the historical background of the act. There seem to be no prosecutions under the act, with some historical references. But, in this time of war, I wonder if the act will gain more prominence…here’s why:
1) John Kerry is planning to begin his own “Middle East Tour: 2006” with stops in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. The purpose of the trip? According to The Boston Globe, “he will meet with the head(s) of state in all of those countries.” Hmmm…I wonder if he will discuss “any disputes or controversies” those countries have had with the United States recently…
Just look at the way liberals gush over him on his website. A few samples:
“Not surprisingly, those fine folks currently inhabiting the West Wing don't like this latest example of Senator Kerry working hard to carry out the wishes of the American people one little bit.”
“The more that Dems like Senator Kerry can show that the U.S. is NOT George Bush, the more we can show a different, better vision for how America can be in the world, the better it will be for America, and - hopefully - the more likely more Americans will wake up and continue to elect thinking, rational, mature people (usually Democrats) to run the country.”
“This is the sort of leadership I long to see in our country. This is the reason why the rest of the world respects John Kerry. It's one of the many reasons I respect him. I'm glad that we have people like him out there trying to neutralize some of the damage our president has done to our ability to get along with the rest of the world. It's a dangerous trip, and Senator Kerry has my utmost appreciation for undertaking it.”
Ugh. Were these people raised on Kool-Aid or what? (or maybe just this book – via Mary Katharine Ham)
Note that Kerry cites Ronald Reagan’s negotiating with Soviets after referring to them as the “evil empire”…ummm, quick point here: REAGAN WAS THE PRESIDENT. Nice try.
2) Bill Richardson of New Mexico meets with North Korean officials. What is going on here? The news brief plainly states: “Richardson will not be acting as an official representative of the Bush administration at Friday's meeting.” Okay – then it’s a VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Plain and simple! Unintentionally or not, the piece makes it quite clear that Richardson’s main motivation for the meeting is to bolster his chances for a presidential run in 2008. This makes me sick – turning your back on the United States in the hopes of representing it as President? What sense does this make?
Despite claims that he won’t make an official decision until January, there’s reason to believe that he’s running – he said so. Apparently, his two distinct advantages are his “diplomatic skill” and his “Hispanic heritage” – from Fox News:
“‘I am Hispanic, which I believe is an asset,’ Richardson said. ‘But I'm not running as an Hispanic, I am running as an American who is proud to be Hispanic.’”
We’ll see about that when the campaign starts – I’m sure he’ll provide us with plenty of material.
I don’t know what will come of either of these meetings. But, as far as I’m concerned, the results of the meetings really are not the point. What’s more important to recognize is that these two Democratic representatives are undermining the role of the Commander-in-Chief and taking foreign policy into their own hands. Since they are both doing so without consent from the United States, they should be punished accordingly, under the Logan Act.
Isn’t it clear that people like Kerry and Richardson DON’T have the interests of the American people at heart? Political posturing at the potential expense of our national security is an absolute disgrace and should be viewed as such. Let’s hope other Dems don’t follow in their footsteps the second they get a whiff of power…
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned no more than three years, or both.
“This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”
Follow the link for more of the historical background of the act. There seem to be no prosecutions under the act, with some historical references. But, in this time of war, I wonder if the act will gain more prominence…here’s why:
1) John Kerry is planning to begin his own “Middle East Tour: 2006” with stops in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. The purpose of the trip? According to The Boston Globe, “he will meet with the head(s) of state in all of those countries.” Hmmm…I wonder if he will discuss “any disputes or controversies” those countries have had with the United States recently…
Just look at the way liberals gush over him on his website. A few samples:
“Not surprisingly, those fine folks currently inhabiting the West Wing don't like this latest example of Senator Kerry working hard to carry out the wishes of the American people one little bit.”
“The more that Dems like Senator Kerry can show that the U.S. is NOT George Bush, the more we can show a different, better vision for how America can be in the world, the better it will be for America, and - hopefully - the more likely more Americans will wake up and continue to elect thinking, rational, mature people (usually Democrats) to run the country.”
“This is the sort of leadership I long to see in our country. This is the reason why the rest of the world respects John Kerry. It's one of the many reasons I respect him. I'm glad that we have people like him out there trying to neutralize some of the damage our president has done to our ability to get along with the rest of the world. It's a dangerous trip, and Senator Kerry has my utmost appreciation for undertaking it.”
Ugh. Were these people raised on Kool-Aid or what? (or maybe just this book – via Mary Katharine Ham)
Note that Kerry cites Ronald Reagan’s negotiating with Soviets after referring to them as the “evil empire”…ummm, quick point here: REAGAN WAS THE PRESIDENT. Nice try.
2) Bill Richardson of New Mexico meets with North Korean officials. What is going on here? The news brief plainly states: “Richardson will not be acting as an official representative of the Bush administration at Friday's meeting.” Okay – then it’s a VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Plain and simple! Unintentionally or not, the piece makes it quite clear that Richardson’s main motivation for the meeting is to bolster his chances for a presidential run in 2008. This makes me sick – turning your back on the United States in the hopes of representing it as President? What sense does this make?
Despite claims that he won’t make an official decision until January, there’s reason to believe that he’s running – he said so. Apparently, his two distinct advantages are his “diplomatic skill” and his “Hispanic heritage” – from Fox News:
“‘I am Hispanic, which I believe is an asset,’ Richardson said. ‘But I'm not running as an Hispanic, I am running as an American who is proud to be Hispanic.’”
We’ll see about that when the campaign starts – I’m sure he’ll provide us with plenty of material.
I don’t know what will come of either of these meetings. But, as far as I’m concerned, the results of the meetings really are not the point. What’s more important to recognize is that these two Democratic representatives are undermining the role of the Commander-in-Chief and taking foreign policy into their own hands. Since they are both doing so without consent from the United States, they should be punished accordingly, under the Logan Act.
Isn’t it clear that people like Kerry and Richardson DON’T have the interests of the American people at heart? Political posturing at the potential expense of our national security is an absolute disgrace and should be viewed as such. Let’s hope other Dems don’t follow in their footsteps the second they get a whiff of power…
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Do Moonbats Fly North?
After Obama-mania left New Hampshire, Howie Carr points out the evidence:
“New Hampshire is Blue Hampshire. It’s gone from the Granite State to the Granola State. From Live Free or Die to just plain Live Free. No wonder the Old Man of the Mountain toppled over. Who would have ever predicted that New Hampshire would someday send clones of Bernie Sanders and Cindy Sheehan to Congress?
“This is all very depressing to the Massachusetts natives who fled north thinking they could escape the insanity. ‘Where do I go next?’ one of them moaned to me Monday
“In 2004, many New Hampshire Republicans thought the state was stolen from George Bush by busloads of Bay State students who allegedly took advantage of notoriously lax same-day registration.
“Now the moonbats will be heading north, and they’ll be staying, at least until the presidential primary.
“But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. This blue tidal wave should save the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire is no longer out of the mainstream. It’s as nutty as everywhere else.”
I wasn’t too convinced after reading this piece, so I went looking for answers – and I found some.
1) They certainly teach in New Hampshire. Nutty Professor William Woodward “teaches” at the University of New Hampshire, spouting wild conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 – at a public university, funded by taxpayer money. He’s a member of the unhinged wacko group “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” whose main contention is that 9/11 was an inside job. Peruse the website and try not to vomit. Here is one article that I HAD to read (and no I did NOT write it – can you TELL?):
“If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.
“To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism.”
There’s that whole “Bush is a Nazi” thing again…
Here is more on Woodward’s moonbat antics.
2) They certainly vote that way in New Hampshire. Take a look at this op-ed from the Washington Post. The figures point to a staggering voting trend in New Hampshire – the inclination to vote Democrat. Hmmm…wonder why that is, since, as the column points out, the state hasn’t been under complete Democratic control since 1874…
Maybe because…
3) People from Massachusetts DO move there! Look at this staggering statistic:
“…on net, 78,201 former Massachusetts residents fled to the Granite State between 1990 and 2002 - with a sharp acceleration in movement over the last five years. In 1997-98, on net, the Bay State lost 5,014 residents; that number almost doubled to 9,953 by 2001-2002, a 98.5% increase.”
And we all know how blue a state Massachusetts is. But has the moonbattery affected all New Hampshire residents?
4) I don’t think so, but hopefully Republicans don’t follow the logic of Mary Maxwell, who calls herself a “Republican” – thankfully, she only won 11% of the vote in the Republican primary. From her website:
a) she is against increases in defense (read: “military”) spending
b) she is against the Patriot Act
c) she thinks, no, IS CERTAIN, that 9/11 was an inside job
d) she thinks Donald Rumsfeld is sociopathic
Sound like a Republican to you? More like a moonbat to me…
But at least now we know: Moonbats do indeed fly North…now, what to do about it…
“New Hampshire is Blue Hampshire. It’s gone from the Granite State to the Granola State. From Live Free or Die to just plain Live Free. No wonder the Old Man of the Mountain toppled over. Who would have ever predicted that New Hampshire would someday send clones of Bernie Sanders and Cindy Sheehan to Congress?
“This is all very depressing to the Massachusetts natives who fled north thinking they could escape the insanity. ‘Where do I go next?’ one of them moaned to me Monday
“In 2004, many New Hampshire Republicans thought the state was stolen from George Bush by busloads of Bay State students who allegedly took advantage of notoriously lax same-day registration.
“Now the moonbats will be heading north, and they’ll be staying, at least until the presidential primary.
“But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. This blue tidal wave should save the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire is no longer out of the mainstream. It’s as nutty as everywhere else.”
I wasn’t too convinced after reading this piece, so I went looking for answers – and I found some.
1) They certainly teach in New Hampshire. Nutty Professor William Woodward “teaches” at the University of New Hampshire, spouting wild conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 – at a public university, funded by taxpayer money. He’s a member of the unhinged wacko group “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” whose main contention is that 9/11 was an inside job. Peruse the website and try not to vomit. Here is one article that I HAD to read (and no I did NOT write it – can you TELL?):
“If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.
“To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism.”
There’s that whole “Bush is a Nazi” thing again…
Here is more on Woodward’s moonbat antics.
2) They certainly vote that way in New Hampshire. Take a look at this op-ed from the Washington Post. The figures point to a staggering voting trend in New Hampshire – the inclination to vote Democrat. Hmmm…wonder why that is, since, as the column points out, the state hasn’t been under complete Democratic control since 1874…
Maybe because…
3) People from Massachusetts DO move there! Look at this staggering statistic:
“…on net, 78,201 former Massachusetts residents fled to the Granite State between 1990 and 2002 - with a sharp acceleration in movement over the last five years. In 1997-98, on net, the Bay State lost 5,014 residents; that number almost doubled to 9,953 by 2001-2002, a 98.5% increase.”
And we all know how blue a state Massachusetts is. But has the moonbattery affected all New Hampshire residents?
4) I don’t think so, but hopefully Republicans don’t follow the logic of Mary Maxwell, who calls herself a “Republican” – thankfully, she only won 11% of the vote in the Republican primary. From her website:
a) she is against increases in defense (read: “military”) spending
b) she is against the Patriot Act
c) she thinks, no, IS CERTAIN, that 9/11 was an inside job
d) she thinks Donald Rumsfeld is sociopathic
Sound like a Republican to you? More like a moonbat to me…
But at least now we know: Moonbats do indeed fly North…now, what to do about it…
Monday, December 11, 2006
Who Is Aung San Suu Kyi?
You should know. More from CNN.
Some quick facts:
1) She was freely elected by the Burmese people with an overwhelming 82% majority in 1990 – a general election called for by the military junta in power. The party she represented is called the National League for Democracy.
2) The military did not recognize her victory, instead putting Suu Kyi under house arrest.
3) She was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 – her sons accepted the honor on her behalf in Oslo, Norway.
4) She has not seen her children since 1999, as they live in the United Kingdom, and she is again under house arrest.
5) Suu Kyi was supposed to be granted freedom from house arrest in May of this year, but the Burmese government extended the house arrest for another year – she is still being held under Burma’s State Protection Act.
Myanmar has drawn comparisons to North Korea, primarily for three reasons: geographic location, military rule, and closed economies. But some hope:
“Unlike North Korea, however, Burma's military government (which refers to the country as Myanmar) faces a significant opposition movement. Likewise, the military junta, which has failed to recognize the 1990 elections won by the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), appears to be on the threshold of reintroducing some measure of democracy.
“Although opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the NLD has boycotted the national convention, the 1,000- plus delegates at the convention plan to complete a new constitution by year's end as part of the government's ‘seven-stage path to democracy.’
“The government promises to put the new constitution to a vote in a national referendum followed by multiparty elections that reserve a certain portion of seats in the new parliament for the government party.”
More reason for a newly elected government? Human rights abuse and underage military service (from the same source):
“…critics of the regime describe a dismal human rights situation. Human Rights Watch has cited the regime for the detention of 1,300 political prisoners, the killing of protesters, and the use of 70,000 child soldiers, which is the largest concentration of under-18 conscripts in the world.
“According to Jeremy Woodrum of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, ‘over a million refugees, most of them from eastern Burma along the border with Thailand and China, are fleeing because the regime has burned down 3,000 villages over the last 10 years’ as part of an effort to target civilian populations in areas that provide a base for ethnic armies.
“This flow of refugees, as well as drug trafficking and the spread of infectious diseases, has made it very difficult for Asia to ignore Burma. These problems extend beyond the region as well. ‘Burma presents a serious security threat to the region and requires attention from the United States and the U.N. Security Council,’ argued Green, citing how the Security Council is moving forward to address Burma's rights record.”
So what has the United States been doing? As recently as September, First Lady Laura Bush called for Suu Kyi’s release, while also asking for action from the U.N. Security Council – action which has been slow. Here’s why (emphasis mine):
“‘It's really important for Burma's neighbors to speak with one voice,’ the first lady said. While the United States believes strong sanctions are the best way to force change in the country, others favor discussions with the generals.”
Discussions with hostile regimes…sound familiar?
More on U.S. policy towards Myanmar, as well as comparisons to North Korea, here.
The European Union has also tried to crack down on Myanmar. So has Amnesty International.
Also, this past November, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party asked for U.N. help, though there have been claims from both China and Russia that Myanmar represents no threat to stability in the Southeast Asian region…
Really? I suppose China and Russia don’t consider money-laundering a threat. Or a potential AIDS pandemic. Or the outflow of Burmese refugees to neighboring countries, numbering in the millions… primarily for the sex trade industry.
I’ll continue to track her story. I’ll leave you with her Nobel Prize acceptance speech from 1991. Who could predict that “Burma's long struggle for peace, freedom and democracy” would reach such epic proportions…
Some quick facts:
1) She was freely elected by the Burmese people with an overwhelming 82% majority in 1990 – a general election called for by the military junta in power. The party she represented is called the National League for Democracy.
2) The military did not recognize her victory, instead putting Suu Kyi under house arrest.
3) She was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 – her sons accepted the honor on her behalf in Oslo, Norway.
4) She has not seen her children since 1999, as they live in the United Kingdom, and she is again under house arrest.
5) Suu Kyi was supposed to be granted freedom from house arrest in May of this year, but the Burmese government extended the house arrest for another year – she is still being held under Burma’s State Protection Act.
Myanmar has drawn comparisons to North Korea, primarily for three reasons: geographic location, military rule, and closed economies. But some hope:
“Unlike North Korea, however, Burma's military government (which refers to the country as Myanmar) faces a significant opposition movement. Likewise, the military junta, which has failed to recognize the 1990 elections won by the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), appears to be on the threshold of reintroducing some measure of democracy.
“Although opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the NLD has boycotted the national convention, the 1,000- plus delegates at the convention plan to complete a new constitution by year's end as part of the government's ‘seven-stage path to democracy.’
“The government promises to put the new constitution to a vote in a national referendum followed by multiparty elections that reserve a certain portion of seats in the new parliament for the government party.”
More reason for a newly elected government? Human rights abuse and underage military service (from the same source):
“…critics of the regime describe a dismal human rights situation. Human Rights Watch has cited the regime for the detention of 1,300 political prisoners, the killing of protesters, and the use of 70,000 child soldiers, which is the largest concentration of under-18 conscripts in the world.
“According to Jeremy Woodrum of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, ‘over a million refugees, most of them from eastern Burma along the border with Thailand and China, are fleeing because the regime has burned down 3,000 villages over the last 10 years’ as part of an effort to target civilian populations in areas that provide a base for ethnic armies.
“This flow of refugees, as well as drug trafficking and the spread of infectious diseases, has made it very difficult for Asia to ignore Burma. These problems extend beyond the region as well. ‘Burma presents a serious security threat to the region and requires attention from the United States and the U.N. Security Council,’ argued Green, citing how the Security Council is moving forward to address Burma's rights record.”
So what has the United States been doing? As recently as September, First Lady Laura Bush called for Suu Kyi’s release, while also asking for action from the U.N. Security Council – action which has been slow. Here’s why (emphasis mine):
“‘It's really important for Burma's neighbors to speak with one voice,’ the first lady said. While the United States believes strong sanctions are the best way to force change in the country, others favor discussions with the generals.”
Discussions with hostile regimes…sound familiar?
More on U.S. policy towards Myanmar, as well as comparisons to North Korea, here.
The European Union has also tried to crack down on Myanmar. So has Amnesty International.
Also, this past November, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party asked for U.N. help, though there have been claims from both China and Russia that Myanmar represents no threat to stability in the Southeast Asian region…
Really? I suppose China and Russia don’t consider money-laundering a threat. Or a potential AIDS pandemic. Or the outflow of Burmese refugees to neighboring countries, numbering in the millions… primarily for the sex trade industry.
I’ll continue to track her story. I’ll leave you with her Nobel Prize acceptance speech from 1991. Who could predict that “Burma's long struggle for peace, freedom and democracy” would reach such epic proportions…
The Dennis Prager Mess
Here is the column that started it all. Keith Ellison, newly elected Democratic Congressman in Minnesota, is a Muslim.
Who cares, right? No big deal. First Muslim Congressman – great for diversity, multiculturalism, blah blah blah…
Ellison has stated that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.
BIG PROBLEM.
Last time I checked, this country was not founded on Islamic principles – but Judeo-Christian ones (check out Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior). Therefore, if Ellison is going to swear to uphold the principles of THIS COUNTRY (and NOT of any religion), then his oath should be taken on the Bible. This is not a religious issue, but a values issue. It is not being disrespectful to Islam, the Koran, or Keith Ellison himself. He is free to practice his religion and serve the people of Minnesota.
But he has to recognize that this country comes first – and he was elected to uphold, rather than subvert, its values. It also shows, yet again, a lack of assimilation. If you live in the United States – play by the rules. Or we should kick you out.
So who, exactly, is Keith Ellison? Power line did some digging:
“Keith Ellison is the endorsed Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota's solidly Democratic Fifth District (Minneapolis). Ellison's local leadership of the Nation of Islam, his defense of the ‘truth’ of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as ‘the most racist white people,’ his affiliation with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis, his support of the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf, his outrageous attacks on law enforcement authorities, his demand that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, his concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur on the lam in Havana -- not one of these elements of Ellison's public record has seen the light of day in the local media.”
More background from the Washington Times, which highlights Democratic disapproval with Ellison’s ties to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations):
“But it is top Democrats who have issued some of the most stinging rebukes of CAIR. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR ‘is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.’ Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR ‘has ties to terrorism.’ Mr. Schumer has special disdain for Mr. Awad and CAIR's other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, saying in a 2003 hearing that both men have ‘intimate connections with Hamas.’"
If you need to be reminded about Hamas, read this.
So what will happen if Ellison takes his oath on the Koran, instead of the Bible?
Prager’s take: “Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.”
This is dead on. As Monica Crowley has repeatedly noted on her radio program, radical Islamists are patient. Any small step into infiltrating American culture will be viewed as a huge victory. As I’ve blogged about before, whether it’s “Flying While Muslim!”, not being allowed to pray while at the gym, or not taking an oath of office on a Bible, the wheels are in motion – not for “tolerance”, but radical takeover.
Here is Prager’s follow-up responding to the original outrage over the first column:
“Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.
“You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.
“America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.”
Keith Ellison is forcing the issue here. Bring both books if you want, but stop crying racism and Islamophobia every time someone wants to stand up for America.
I praise Dennis Prager – do you?
Who cares, right? No big deal. First Muslim Congressman – great for diversity, multiculturalism, blah blah blah…
Ellison has stated that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.
BIG PROBLEM.
Last time I checked, this country was not founded on Islamic principles – but Judeo-Christian ones (check out Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior). Therefore, if Ellison is going to swear to uphold the principles of THIS COUNTRY (and NOT of any religion), then his oath should be taken on the Bible. This is not a religious issue, but a values issue. It is not being disrespectful to Islam, the Koran, or Keith Ellison himself. He is free to practice his religion and serve the people of Minnesota.
But he has to recognize that this country comes first – and he was elected to uphold, rather than subvert, its values. It also shows, yet again, a lack of assimilation. If you live in the United States – play by the rules. Or we should kick you out.
So who, exactly, is Keith Ellison? Power line did some digging:
“Keith Ellison is the endorsed Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota's solidly Democratic Fifth District (Minneapolis). Ellison's local leadership of the Nation of Islam, his defense of the ‘truth’ of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as ‘the most racist white people,’ his affiliation with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis, his support of the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf, his outrageous attacks on law enforcement authorities, his demand that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, his concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur on the lam in Havana -- not one of these elements of Ellison's public record has seen the light of day in the local media.”
More background from the Washington Times, which highlights Democratic disapproval with Ellison’s ties to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations):
“But it is top Democrats who have issued some of the most stinging rebukes of CAIR. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR ‘is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect.’ Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR ‘has ties to terrorism.’ Mr. Schumer has special disdain for Mr. Awad and CAIR's other co-founder, Omar Ahmad, saying in a 2003 hearing that both men have ‘intimate connections with Hamas.’"
If you need to be reminded about Hamas, read this.
So what will happen if Ellison takes his oath on the Koran, instead of the Bible?
Prager’s take: “Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.”
This is dead on. As Monica Crowley has repeatedly noted on her radio program, radical Islamists are patient. Any small step into infiltrating American culture will be viewed as a huge victory. As I’ve blogged about before, whether it’s “Flying While Muslim!”, not being allowed to pray while at the gym, or not taking an oath of office on a Bible, the wheels are in motion – not for “tolerance”, but radical takeover.
Here is Prager’s follow-up responding to the original outrage over the first column:
“Why wouldn't Ellison bring a Bible along with the Koran? That he chose not to is the narcissism of multiculturalism that I referred to: The individual's culture trumps the national culture.
“You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.
“America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in.”
Keith Ellison is forcing the issue here. Bring both books if you want, but stop crying racism and Islamophobia every time someone wants to stand up for America.
I praise Dennis Prager – do you?
Debunking Global Warming
Here it is.
I’m in the process of reading it and will probably highlight some stuff later. I just hope I don’t fall asleep while doing so (thanks Tim for that link).
I’m in the process of reading it and will probably highlight some stuff later. I just hope I don’t fall asleep while doing so (thanks Tim for that link).
How A Gym Becomes A Mosque
Via Debbie Schlussel.
The headline in the Detroit News Online makes sure to mention that Wardeh Sultan, the woman who was interrupted while praying at a gym and complained about it, is a “Dearborn resident.” Okay, so she’s a United States citizen. Great. Now that that has been established, we’re going to complain about civil rights abuse:
“Fitness USA, a gym chain, is investigating an alleged civil rights violation involving a local Muslim woman who says her afternoon prayer was interrupted by a fellow patron, and that her complaint to management about the situation was rejected.
“‘The manager told me, 'You have to respect her (the patron), but she does not have to respect your God,' said Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn. ‘I’ve had my membership for seven or eight years, and I've never had a problem with praying there.’
“‘I told that manager, 'I can't believe you said that,' Sultan said. ‘Honestly, I feel humiliated and I feel ashamed, right now, to go back to Fitness USA.’”
Here’s the response from the gym (emphasis mine):
“‘We will, as we will with any complaint involving our staff and a member, be doing a full and thorough investigation of the matter and take any appropriate action we need to take,’ said Jodi Berry, executive director of Fitness USA. ‘We want every member to get a good exercise experience every time they come to the club.’"
An EXERCISE experience – not a PRAYER experience. But here’s the clincher of the article, the last thought columnist Gregg Krupa leaves for his audience:
“‘We're here in the great United States and for this happening, it truly breaks my heart,’ she said. ‘You know, things are starting to change backwards, instead of frontward. We need to keep this United States, our country, up on our shoulders. We don't want it to go down.’”
Well, Sultan did get one thing right – things ARE starting to change BACKWARDS. And it starts with people like her. Now, I’m not overly familiar with the Muslim faith, but I would venture a guess and say that there’s no requirement for someone of that faith to pray in a gym. I can certainly sympathize with adhering to your religion, praying five times a day, and all that. But AT THE GYM?
Sultan’s defender, Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says that it’s okay for Christians and Jews to pray openly and publicly, but not Muslims. If anyone has ever seen a Christian or a Jew pray openly in a gym, please let me know. As Schlussel notes, if she saw ANYONE openly praying at a gym, regardless of faith, that would disturb her.
Why? Because it’s a GYM – not a house of worship.
Don’t be surprised if this gym designates a “non-denominational” prayer room, or something like that, to appease these whiners.
Is there any such thing as assimilation anymore?
The headline in the Detroit News Online makes sure to mention that Wardeh Sultan, the woman who was interrupted while praying at a gym and complained about it, is a “Dearborn resident.” Okay, so she’s a United States citizen. Great. Now that that has been established, we’re going to complain about civil rights abuse:
“Fitness USA, a gym chain, is investigating an alleged civil rights violation involving a local Muslim woman who says her afternoon prayer was interrupted by a fellow patron, and that her complaint to management about the situation was rejected.
“‘The manager told me, 'You have to respect her (the patron), but she does not have to respect your God,' said Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn. ‘I’ve had my membership for seven or eight years, and I've never had a problem with praying there.’
“‘I told that manager, 'I can't believe you said that,' Sultan said. ‘Honestly, I feel humiliated and I feel ashamed, right now, to go back to Fitness USA.’”
Here’s the response from the gym (emphasis mine):
“‘We will, as we will with any complaint involving our staff and a member, be doing a full and thorough investigation of the matter and take any appropriate action we need to take,’ said Jodi Berry, executive director of Fitness USA. ‘We want every member to get a good exercise experience every time they come to the club.’"
An EXERCISE experience – not a PRAYER experience. But here’s the clincher of the article, the last thought columnist Gregg Krupa leaves for his audience:
“‘We're here in the great United States and for this happening, it truly breaks my heart,’ she said. ‘You know, things are starting to change backwards, instead of frontward. We need to keep this United States, our country, up on our shoulders. We don't want it to go down.’”
Well, Sultan did get one thing right – things ARE starting to change BACKWARDS. And it starts with people like her. Now, I’m not overly familiar with the Muslim faith, but I would venture a guess and say that there’s no requirement for someone of that faith to pray in a gym. I can certainly sympathize with adhering to your religion, praying five times a day, and all that. But AT THE GYM?
Sultan’s defender, Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says that it’s okay for Christians and Jews to pray openly and publicly, but not Muslims. If anyone has ever seen a Christian or a Jew pray openly in a gym, please let me know. As Schlussel notes, if she saw ANYONE openly praying at a gym, regardless of faith, that would disturb her.
Why? Because it’s a GYM – not a house of worship.
Don’t be surprised if this gym designates a “non-denominational” prayer room, or something like that, to appease these whiners.
Is there any such thing as assimilation anymore?
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Global Warming Madness – Maybe I was RIGHT?
Look what I found via the Washington Times. Here’s the most important excerpt (emphasis mine):
"’Senator Inhofe believes that poorly conceived policy decisions will result from the media's nonstop hyping of 'extreme scenarios' and dire climate predictions,’ said committee Communications Director Marc Morano. ‘This hearing will serve to advance the interests of sound science and encourage rational policy decisions.’"
What “nonstop hyping”??? Well, let’s see what causes global warming:
1) The sun causes global warming.
2) Trees cause global warming.
3) Deforestation also causes global warming.
4) Humans (in particular, President Bush) cause global warming – ESPECIALLY when there are too many of them.
5) Power plants, cars, airplanes, and buildings cause global warming.
6) Agriculture causes global warming.
7) Watching TV or listening to a stereo cause global warming.
8) Cigarette smoking causes global warming.
9) Dandruff causes global warming.
10) Flatulent sheep (I can’t make this up) cause global warming.
This seems to be only a partial list! The world is doomed – just look at what global warming DOES:
1) worsens allergies
2) increases stress levels
3) destroys bananas (but, fortunately, also helps to grow them)
4) causes bubonic plague
5) causes blizzards
6) leads the Earth to spin out of control
7) destroys gene pools
8) reduces fertility in humans (which has to be a good thing, right? Too many of us already…)
9) no maple syrup???
10) changes the sex of an animal
Again – there’s WAY more that global warming does (see Spiked) according to…well, everyone.
I’m very much looking forward to this hearing – aren’t you?
"’Senator Inhofe believes that poorly conceived policy decisions will result from the media's nonstop hyping of 'extreme scenarios' and dire climate predictions,’ said committee Communications Director Marc Morano. ‘This hearing will serve to advance the interests of sound science and encourage rational policy decisions.’"
What “nonstop hyping”??? Well, let’s see what causes global warming:
1) The sun causes global warming.
2) Trees cause global warming.
3) Deforestation also causes global warming.
4) Humans (in particular, President Bush) cause global warming – ESPECIALLY when there are too many of them.
5) Power plants, cars, airplanes, and buildings cause global warming.
6) Agriculture causes global warming.
7) Watching TV or listening to a stereo cause global warming.
8) Cigarette smoking causes global warming.
9) Dandruff causes global warming.
10) Flatulent sheep (I can’t make this up) cause global warming.
This seems to be only a partial list! The world is doomed – just look at what global warming DOES:
1) worsens allergies
2) increases stress levels
3) destroys bananas (but, fortunately, also helps to grow them)
4) causes bubonic plague
5) causes blizzards
6) leads the Earth to spin out of control
7) destroys gene pools
8) reduces fertility in humans (which has to be a good thing, right? Too many of us already…)
9) no maple syrup???
10) changes the sex of an animal
Again – there’s WAY more that global warming does (see Spiked) according to…well, everyone.
I’m very much looking forward to this hearing – aren’t you?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
What's the Point of the Pope's Visit?
It seems as if the Muslim and Catholic worlds are light years apart. I try to understand where the Muslim faith is coming from, but I can't help but be bombarded by the actions of so-called Muslim extremists, especially in response to outreach efforts by the non-Muslim world, but in particular, Pope Benedict XVI.
As I see it, the firestorm essentially began back in September, when the Pope delivered a speech in Regensburg, Germany. Here's the excerpt which angered many Muslims (I tried to contextualize it as much as possible, so it is rather dense and extensive. Emphasis mine):
"ON HOLY WAR
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
"In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'
"ON RELIGION AND REASON
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.
"At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" (via BBC - full text here)
After reviewing the speech in full, it seems to me that the Pope's main point was to attempt to distance religion from extremist behavior (in particular, violence) because it is intrinsically against God's will. Also, the union of religion and reason should draw people to come to this conclusion naturally, by themselves. What's wrong with that?
Let's see if Muslim extremists are combining religion with reason - since they belong to the "religion of peace":
1) Not when they attack the Vatican website. The quote that follows is from an Al-Qaeda website, encouraging violence, as noted in the article:
"With Allah's blessing, the attack will succeed thanks to the help of our brothers if we all attack simultaneously. We ask all our brothers to be present at the hour of the attack for a joint action, because they (Catholics) have struck our religion. They must be fought and deserve to be attacked and not only on their Internet site.”
How peaceful is this? The conclusion that Catholics "have struck our religion" is preposterous and shows no room for reason. The Pope has even reached out to Islam, which I'll get to later.
2) Not when they circulate defamed pictures of the Pope all over Al-Qaeda websites. Of particular noteworthiness, the translation of the script in the picture calls for the Pope's beheading. Cries to behead seem popular among Muslim extremists - just look here, here, and here. Now, that can't be considered reasonable, can it?
3) Not when, in response, Muslim extremists shoot and murder an Italian nun, execution style. Sister Leonella served in Somalia, working at a children's hospital in the capital of Mogadishu. Since 2002, she worked at the SOS Kindergarten hospital in Mogadishu. She was shot three times, execution style, was heard uttering her pardons as her last words, and died at the hospital. If anyone is questioning whether this is a reactionary killing, Sober Truth has the sober truth:
"Sister Leonella has now made quite a statement of her own. Has she not voiced agreement with the Pope through her death? Is it not unreasonable to kill a servant of mercy in Mogadishu in response to being offended by something the Pope said at a lecture in Germany? And what if her death proves not to be linked to B-16’s speech? Is it not, then, even more unreasonable for this servant to have been killed simply because she was not a Muslim?"
Spot. On. I couldn't have said it better myself.
4) Not when they threaten suicide attacks and dismiss apologies from the Pope. Personally, I don't feel that the Pope should have apologized at all - but he felt compelled to acknowledge that he offended some in the Muslim community, and apologized for that.
Apparently, that is not nearly enough for Muslim extremists. Or the New York Times, for that matter. Muslim extremists expected a personal apology for their own misinterpretation - that's just going too far. The Pope recognized that some Muslims were outraged at his words, and addressed them appropriately - implicitly asking for a true understanding of what he said.
But they will have none of it. The "religion of peace" threatens suicide attacks on his life.
Real reasonable.
As I said before, the Pope has made a concerted effort to reach out to the religion of Islam. According to the AP (via CNN) , the Pope has encouraged Turkey's efforts to become the first Muslim country of the European Union, and made sure to take off his shoes before entering one of Turkey's most famous mosques. He even called the divide among Christian denominations as a "scandal to the world" (be on the lookout for radical Christians calling for beheadings, slaying nuns...)...
But the most important call Pope Benedict XVI may have made was for the idea of "'reciprocity' -- that Muslim demands for greater respect in the West must be matched by increased tolerance and freedoms for Christians in Islamic nations." I don't know that there's any concept more valuable than this. But how do you begin to attempt achieving this goal with so much conflict?
Not with Al-Qaeda:
"A statement claiming to be from al Qaeda in Iraq denounced the pope's visit as part of a 'crusader campaign' against Islam and an attempt to 'extinguish the burning ember of Islam' in Turkey. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the declaration -- posted on several Islamic militant Web sites -- shows the need for faiths to fight 'violence in the name of God.'"
Again, I ask: What's the point of the Pope's visit?
I've come no closer to that answer.
As I see it, the firestorm essentially began back in September, when the Pope delivered a speech in Regensburg, Germany. Here's the excerpt which angered many Muslims (I tried to contextualize it as much as possible, so it is rather dense and extensive. Emphasis mine):
"ON HOLY WAR
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
"In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'
"ON RELIGION AND REASON
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.
"At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" (via BBC - full text here)
After reviewing the speech in full, it seems to me that the Pope's main point was to attempt to distance religion from extremist behavior (in particular, violence) because it is intrinsically against God's will. Also, the union of religion and reason should draw people to come to this conclusion naturally, by themselves. What's wrong with that?
Let's see if Muslim extremists are combining religion with reason - since they belong to the "religion of peace":
1) Not when they attack the Vatican website. The quote that follows is from an Al-Qaeda website, encouraging violence, as noted in the article:
"With Allah's blessing, the attack will succeed thanks to the help of our brothers if we all attack simultaneously. We ask all our brothers to be present at the hour of the attack for a joint action, because they (Catholics) have struck our religion. They must be fought and deserve to be attacked and not only on their Internet site.”
How peaceful is this? The conclusion that Catholics "have struck our religion" is preposterous and shows no room for reason. The Pope has even reached out to Islam, which I'll get to later.
2) Not when they circulate defamed pictures of the Pope all over Al-Qaeda websites. Of particular noteworthiness, the translation of the script in the picture calls for the Pope's beheading. Cries to behead seem popular among Muslim extremists - just look here, here, and here. Now, that can't be considered reasonable, can it?
3) Not when, in response, Muslim extremists shoot and murder an Italian nun, execution style. Sister Leonella served in Somalia, working at a children's hospital in the capital of Mogadishu. Since 2002, she worked at the SOS Kindergarten hospital in Mogadishu. She was shot three times, execution style, was heard uttering her pardons as her last words, and died at the hospital. If anyone is questioning whether this is a reactionary killing, Sober Truth has the sober truth:
"Sister Leonella has now made quite a statement of her own. Has she not voiced agreement with the Pope through her death? Is it not unreasonable to kill a servant of mercy in Mogadishu in response to being offended by something the Pope said at a lecture in Germany? And what if her death proves not to be linked to B-16’s speech? Is it not, then, even more unreasonable for this servant to have been killed simply because she was not a Muslim?"
Spot. On. I couldn't have said it better myself.
4) Not when they threaten suicide attacks and dismiss apologies from the Pope. Personally, I don't feel that the Pope should have apologized at all - but he felt compelled to acknowledge that he offended some in the Muslim community, and apologized for that.
Apparently, that is not nearly enough for Muslim extremists. Or the New York Times, for that matter. Muslim extremists expected a personal apology for their own misinterpretation - that's just going too far. The Pope recognized that some Muslims were outraged at his words, and addressed them appropriately - implicitly asking for a true understanding of what he said.
But they will have none of it. The "religion of peace" threatens suicide attacks on his life.
Real reasonable.
As I said before, the Pope has made a concerted effort to reach out to the religion of Islam. According to the AP (via CNN) , the Pope has encouraged Turkey's efforts to become the first Muslim country of the European Union, and made sure to take off his shoes before entering one of Turkey's most famous mosques. He even called the divide among Christian denominations as a "scandal to the world" (be on the lookout for radical Christians calling for beheadings, slaying nuns...)...
But the most important call Pope Benedict XVI may have made was for the idea of "'reciprocity' -- that Muslim demands for greater respect in the West must be matched by increased tolerance and freedoms for Christians in Islamic nations." I don't know that there's any concept more valuable than this. But how do you begin to attempt achieving this goal with so much conflict?
Not with Al-Qaeda:
"A statement claiming to be from al Qaeda in Iraq denounced the pope's visit as part of a 'crusader campaign' against Islam and an attempt to 'extinguish the burning ember of Islam' in Turkey. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the declaration -- posted on several Islamic militant Web sites -- shows the need for faiths to fight 'violence in the name of God.'"
Again, I ask: What's the point of the Pope's visit?
I've come no closer to that answer.
New Title!
Admittedly, my title was boring.
So I've changed it to try to spurn discussion among readers who disagree...though, it seeems as if all my readers disagree with ME! There's so much I want to talk about, and I don't have the time to respond to every comment that's left, so I'm using the title as an open invitation to those who actually DO agree with me to voice their opinion in support and help the debate. If nobody does in fact agree with me, naturally I'll continue to have to defend myself! (which I obviously don't mind doing)
Of course, there would be no debate if people didn't disagree, so, those who have been commenting, I appreciate it! It makes the blog much better and more interesting, and hopefully useful.
Thanks everyone!
So I've changed it to try to spurn discussion among readers who disagree...though, it seeems as if all my readers disagree with ME! There's so much I want to talk about, and I don't have the time to respond to every comment that's left, so I'm using the title as an open invitation to those who actually DO agree with me to voice their opinion in support and help the debate. If nobody does in fact agree with me, naturally I'll continue to have to defend myself! (which I obviously don't mind doing)
Of course, there would be no debate if people didn't disagree, so, those who have been commenting, I appreciate it! It makes the blog much better and more interesting, and hopefully useful.
Thanks everyone!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Abortion, Personal Freedoms, and the Breakdown of the Family...
Does anyone care about "family" anymore? Or is it all about "personal freedom"?
I'm disturbed to think it's the latter...why? A few reasons.
For one, abortion has lost its stigma. This, according to the medical editor of London's Telegraph. This article is so ridiculous. Here's the first gem (emphasis mine):
"Ms [Anne] Furedi [the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service - BPAS] said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. 'Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,' she said. 'The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,' she said.
A victim of uncontrolled fertility? This is so absurd, I can barely even address it. Who are these "many groups of people in society" who think that women get uncontrollably pregnant and must have abortions? I wonder if there's a stigma associated with adoption? I'm just glad Ms. Furedi explains that "parenting is considered...very important...these days..."...because you know, in the past, parents shirked their duties all the time - she says this as if it's a revelation among this generation! LUDICROUS.
Actually, it seems, "these days", everybody is a "victim" of something!
Is anyone a victim of abortion, though? Just checking...
Gem #2 (emphasis mine):
"The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception."
Okay, doesn't "failing" to use something imply that an attempt was made to use it in the first place? Did the couple try to buy condoms but have no cash? Could the woman not swallow the morning-after pill? I just don't get this...
Gem #3, in two parts:
"Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year....
"BPAS...says the law should be changed to make abortion easier."
Apparently, 165,500 abortions are NOT ENOUGH for BPAS - they need more...the article concludes that abortions are on the rise! How much easier does it have to be?
Of course, when women decide to "go through" with the pregnancy, odds are more likely that the child will be born out of wedlock...bringing me to my second reason why "family" doesn't matter anymore.
We're back in the U.S. now. Here is the latest report from government health officials on out-of-wedlock births. The mind-blowing stat? 37% of all births are now out-of-wedlock.
The argument? Those who don't see marriage as an important institution anymore feel that co-habitation or single-parenting are at the very least acceptable, if not preferrable, to marriage.
The argument is wrong.
Here's a study on co-habitation and its effects. Among its findings:
1) The types of people who cohabit or more inclined to be risk-takers and have little interest in commitment
2) people who cohabit may consider the situation a "trial marriage"
3) decisions about bills and routines are different
4) it's not definite that marriage is in the future
Here's another study, this one from Ohio State. A quick excerpt on some of its findings:
"Fewer than one-third of the couples (32 percent) concurred that they had definite plans to marry. Another 42 percent disagreed about the future of their relationship. Others either agreed they wouldn’t marry or thought they would eventually marry.
“'Our results indicate that couples who use cohabitation as a trial period to test compatibility are far less likely to marry than couples who agree that there are definite marriage plans and a specific wedding date,'” [OSU Professor Sharon] Sassler said."
The idea of a "trial marriage" scares me. One would think it would involve "trial in-laws", "trial children" and "trial parenting."
What happens when the trial is over?
That's where the 37% figure comes from. Again, family doesn't matter anymore. Personal freedom trumps everything else in our society.
In defense of this statistic, at least the children are born, rather than aborted. Abortion - the ultimate personal freedom, right?
Let's debunk...
1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - look earlier to this post. If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER
Okay, that's enough for now. I realize this post is a bit disjointed, I may clean it up a bit. But lastly, I want to leave you with the highly disturbing story of Amy Richards (I believe registration to the New York Times may be required - it's free. DO IT) and the euphemism of "selective reduction"...
If you've gotten this far, this is the most important part of the entire post. I hope that you're OUTRAGED...
I'm disturbed to think it's the latter...why? A few reasons.
For one, abortion has lost its stigma. This, according to the medical editor of London's Telegraph. This article is so ridiculous. Here's the first gem (emphasis mine):
"Ms [Anne] Furedi [the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service - BPAS] said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. 'Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days,' she said. 'The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility,' she said.
A victim of uncontrolled fertility? This is so absurd, I can barely even address it. Who are these "many groups of people in society" who think that women get uncontrollably pregnant and must have abortions? I wonder if there's a stigma associated with adoption? I'm just glad Ms. Furedi explains that "parenting is considered...very important...these days..."...because you know, in the past, parents shirked their duties all the time - she says this as if it's a revelation among this generation! LUDICROUS.
Actually, it seems, "these days", everybody is a "victim" of something!
Is anyone a victim of abortion, though? Just checking...
Gem #2 (emphasis mine):
"The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception."
Okay, doesn't "failing" to use something imply that an attempt was made to use it in the first place? Did the couple try to buy condoms but have no cash? Could the woman not swallow the morning-after pill? I just don't get this...
Gem #3, in two parts:
"Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year....
"BPAS...says the law should be changed to make abortion easier."
Apparently, 165,500 abortions are NOT ENOUGH for BPAS - they need more...the article concludes that abortions are on the rise! How much easier does it have to be?
Of course, when women decide to "go through" with the pregnancy, odds are more likely that the child will be born out of wedlock...bringing me to my second reason why "family" doesn't matter anymore.
We're back in the U.S. now. Here is the latest report from government health officials on out-of-wedlock births. The mind-blowing stat? 37% of all births are now out-of-wedlock.
The argument? Those who don't see marriage as an important institution anymore feel that co-habitation or single-parenting are at the very least acceptable, if not preferrable, to marriage.
The argument is wrong.
Here's a study on co-habitation and its effects. Among its findings:
1) The types of people who cohabit or more inclined to be risk-takers and have little interest in commitment
2) people who cohabit may consider the situation a "trial marriage"
3) decisions about bills and routines are different
4) it's not definite that marriage is in the future
Here's another study, this one from Ohio State. A quick excerpt on some of its findings:
"Fewer than one-third of the couples (32 percent) concurred that they had definite plans to marry. Another 42 percent disagreed about the future of their relationship. Others either agreed they wouldn’t marry or thought they would eventually marry.
“'Our results indicate that couples who use cohabitation as a trial period to test compatibility are far less likely to marry than couples who agree that there are definite marriage plans and a specific wedding date,'” [OSU Professor Sharon] Sassler said."
The idea of a "trial marriage" scares me. One would think it would involve "trial in-laws", "trial children" and "trial parenting."
What happens when the trial is over?
That's where the 37% figure comes from. Again, family doesn't matter anymore. Personal freedom trumps everything else in our society.
In defense of this statistic, at least the children are born, rather than aborted. Abortion - the ultimate personal freedom, right?
Let's debunk...
1) "It's my body." It's not. It's a body within the womb of a woman. Isn't this undeniable?
2) "I'm not "pro-abortion" - I'm "pro-choice"...ummm - you're pro-abortion. Plain and simple. You can call me anti-choice all you want. As far as abortion goes, I am both pro-life and anti-choice. Those who are "pro-choice" are also "pro-abortion"
3) "safe, legal and rare" - look earlier to this post. If 165,500 abortions in Britain alone in one year is rare...I'd hate to know the definition of "common"...
4) "but abortion should be a last resort" - well, if you're not aborting a human life, why should it matter when you have an abortion? If there is no moral attachment, and abortion is purely a physical procedure, then all forms of abortion should be legal. But, oftentimes, that's not the case. Why? Proponents refuse to acknowledge publicly the moral component, that's why. But they limit the types of abortion (i.e., partial-birth, late-term) to seem sympathetic when all they're really doing is killing the baby earlier.
5) "I have freedom to do what I want - the government can't tell me what to do" - this is true. The government can't tell you that you can't get pregnant. The government can't say you can't get pregnant out of wedlock. But the government can legislate based on moral absolutes - this is one of them: MURDER
Okay, that's enough for now. I realize this post is a bit disjointed, I may clean it up a bit. But lastly, I want to leave you with the highly disturbing story of Amy Richards (I believe registration to the New York Times may be required - it's free. DO IT) and the euphemism of "selective reduction"...
If you've gotten this far, this is the most important part of the entire post. I hope that you're OUTRAGED...
Rampant Racism, Part 2...
First, more on the Sean Bell case...
Let's see, how to fight perceived racism...
With violence? And relieving oneself of blame before the violence even begins?...
That doesn't sound like a reasonable, viable option, does it?...
But it is, according to NYC Councilman Charles Barron. He's been quoted as saying "...don't blame me if there's an explosion in our community" and "I'm not asking my people to do anything passive anymore....We're not the only ones that can bleed."
Who are "his people"...I wonder...those who instigate and perpetuate violence and absolve themselves of wrongdoing or responsibility? Are those "his people"?
Maybe it's people who believe in reparations. Millions for Reparations.
Barron submitted a "resolution" back in 2002 to the New York City Council proposing the creation of a Reparations Commission. (See this on his website as well - under "Track Record") Also, here's the text of a resloution he co-sponsored in 2005 for two separate reparations claims.
The reparations site's slogan: "They Stole Us, They Sold Us, They Owe Us! Reparations Now."
A quote from Malcolm X, taken from the website (assuming this is a philosophy of the organization):
"If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers for over 400 years with no pay...We were sold from plantation to plantation like you sell a horse, or a cow, or a chicken, or a bushel of wheat...All that money...is what gives the present generation of American whites the ability to walk around the earth with their chest out...like they have some kind of economic ingenuity. Your father isn't here to pay. My father isn't here to collect. But I'm here to collect and you're here to pay."
Is this broad enough for anyone? I didn't realize every white person in America today is a descendant of a slaveowner, and every black person, the descendant of a slave. I'd like to see the proof of that...
What is provable is that black people owned slaves, too.
Millions for Reparations also exploits its own cause by enabling viewers to download images of slaves to use as tools of propaganda - isn't that great?
Here's a reasonable take on the reparations issue from Thomas Sowell.
Enough about Barron. Let's move back to the Bell case...
Also representing the Bell family is Al Sharpton, notorious for popping up whenever black people are victimized. Debbie Schlussel reminds us of his penchant for inciting violence and racist beliefs. His partner in crime, Jesse Jackson, claims this was a "civil rights violation." (Schlussel comments on him as well).
If these are the people the Bell family want representing them, that's fine. But here's what Bell's father has to say:
"Bell's father, William, spoke to NY1 Tuesday night. He says while his son's death has left him shattered, he doesn't think the shooting was racially motivated.
'"I want to make sure that's clear, Color has nothing to do with it. It's the human being that got lost, not the color of his skin,' he said."
Amen to that.
Who knows, maybe Sharpton, Jackson, and Barron will surprise me. If their pasts are any indication, they won't. But I can hope...
Mind you, I'm not against a review of this case - far from it. Fifty shots seems excessive, especially if reports are true that the men were unarmed. But much controversy surrounds this case, including the actions of the victims with police before the shooting, as I noted earlier. Let's not let accusations of racism cloud the job that should be done here - an investigation of this specific case, absent of color.
Third stop: Boston. Boston University's College Republicans are stirring up controversy with a schloarship for white students...
Here's what the student body president has to say:
"Brooke Feldman, student body president at BU, said that the Student Union would not move to censor the College Republicans, but that it would probably hold a forum next month on race-based programs that includes representatives from all sides of the issue.
'"I don't believe we have a right to endorse or censor a group,' she said. 'We want to have an open discussion on the implication of the scholarship and a larger conversation on affirmative action.'"
I wonder what that conversation on affirmative action would include - maybe, that it's wrong? That it's racist? That it's not really about "redressing past wrongs" but about "lowering standards"???
Probably not.
It does seem that people around the U.S. are taking notice, however, of the wrongs of affirmative action. Here's the result of a Michigan ballot initiative to ban the consideration of race and gender in "college admissions, public hiring and contracting." And Roger Williams University offered "white" scholarships before BU, back in 2004.
I understand some Republicans have distanced themselves from supporting the BU scholarship. I don't personally think the scholarship is a good idea. But if it results in ignoring racial factors altogether, then I can say it was worth it.
Thoughts?
Let's see, how to fight perceived racism...
With violence? And relieving oneself of blame before the violence even begins?...
That doesn't sound like a reasonable, viable option, does it?...
But it is, according to NYC Councilman Charles Barron. He's been quoted as saying "...don't blame me if there's an explosion in our community" and "I'm not asking my people to do anything passive anymore....We're not the only ones that can bleed."
Who are "his people"...I wonder...those who instigate and perpetuate violence and absolve themselves of wrongdoing or responsibility? Are those "his people"?
Maybe it's people who believe in reparations. Millions for Reparations.
Barron submitted a "resolution" back in 2002 to the New York City Council proposing the creation of a Reparations Commission. (See this on his website as well - under "Track Record") Also, here's the text of a resloution he co-sponsored in 2005 for two separate reparations claims.
The reparations site's slogan: "They Stole Us, They Sold Us, They Owe Us! Reparations Now."
A quote from Malcolm X, taken from the website (assuming this is a philosophy of the organization):
"If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers for over 400 years with no pay...We were sold from plantation to plantation like you sell a horse, or a cow, or a chicken, or a bushel of wheat...All that money...is what gives the present generation of American whites the ability to walk around the earth with their chest out...like they have some kind of economic ingenuity. Your father isn't here to pay. My father isn't here to collect. But I'm here to collect and you're here to pay."
Is this broad enough for anyone? I didn't realize every white person in America today is a descendant of a slaveowner, and every black person, the descendant of a slave. I'd like to see the proof of that...
What is provable is that black people owned slaves, too.
Millions for Reparations also exploits its own cause by enabling viewers to download images of slaves to use as tools of propaganda - isn't that great?
Here's a reasonable take on the reparations issue from Thomas Sowell.
Enough about Barron. Let's move back to the Bell case...
Also representing the Bell family is Al Sharpton, notorious for popping up whenever black people are victimized. Debbie Schlussel reminds us of his penchant for inciting violence and racist beliefs. His partner in crime, Jesse Jackson, claims this was a "civil rights violation." (Schlussel comments on him as well).
If these are the people the Bell family want representing them, that's fine. But here's what Bell's father has to say:
"Bell's father, William, spoke to NY1 Tuesday night. He says while his son's death has left him shattered, he doesn't think the shooting was racially motivated.
'"I want to make sure that's clear, Color has nothing to do with it. It's the human being that got lost, not the color of his skin,' he said."
Amen to that.
Who knows, maybe Sharpton, Jackson, and Barron will surprise me. If their pasts are any indication, they won't. But I can hope...
Mind you, I'm not against a review of this case - far from it. Fifty shots seems excessive, especially if reports are true that the men were unarmed. But much controversy surrounds this case, including the actions of the victims with police before the shooting, as I noted earlier. Let's not let accusations of racism cloud the job that should be done here - an investigation of this specific case, absent of color.
Third stop: Boston. Boston University's College Republicans are stirring up controversy with a schloarship for white students...
Here's what the student body president has to say:
"Brooke Feldman, student body president at BU, said that the Student Union would not move to censor the College Republicans, but that it would probably hold a forum next month on race-based programs that includes representatives from all sides of the issue.
'"I don't believe we have a right to endorse or censor a group,' she said. 'We want to have an open discussion on the implication of the scholarship and a larger conversation on affirmative action.'"
I wonder what that conversation on affirmative action would include - maybe, that it's wrong? That it's racist? That it's not really about "redressing past wrongs" but about "lowering standards"???
Probably not.
It does seem that people around the U.S. are taking notice, however, of the wrongs of affirmative action. Here's the result of a Michigan ballot initiative to ban the consideration of race and gender in "college admissions, public hiring and contracting." And Roger Williams University offered "white" scholarships before BU, back in 2004.
I understand some Republicans have distanced themselves from supporting the BU scholarship. I don't personally think the scholarship is a good idea. But if it results in ignoring racial factors altogether, then I can say it was worth it.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Rampant Racism...
Racism is everywhere these days, isn't it?
First stop: New York City. The tragic story of Sean Bell. Unfortunate set of circumstances leading to an untimely death? Absolutely. Excessive forced used? Mayor Bloomberg thinks so.
Racist? Debatable. Keep in mind the backgrounds of the officers: two black, two white, one Hispanic.
Linked to Michael Richards' rant at a comedy club? ABSURD.
No surprise Amnesty International is weighing in:
"Police violence has shown its ugly face in New York yet again. This tragedy is not an isolated incident -- it is part of a pattern of questionable police tactics and abuse. The question should not be 'is this case another Amadou Diallo?' but 'why is the NYPD still shooting unarmed black men?'"
Is Amnesty International right? I don't think so...what's really going on here?
Here seems to be a good round-up from New York Daily News. Note that the names of only the white officers on duty have been released.
Also, take note of the criminal records of the victims. The New York Times explains that Joseph Guzman, present with Sean Bell that night, "has a criminal record including convictions for robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal sale of a controlled substance." (emphasis mine). And, according to Wikipedia, Sean Bell was a criminal four times over... It's also being reported that Mr. Bell used his vehicle as a weapon by "(ramming) into an undercover officer and then (hitting) an unmarked NYPD minivan twice." as a precursor to the shooting outside the nightclub.
Justification for 50 shots being fired? Not sure anyone could defend that...
Racism?
Debatable...
Second stop: Minneapolis. Six Muslims cry "flying while Muslim!" after being removed from a flight last Monday from Minneapolis, bound for Phoenix.
Racism!!! Islamophobia!!!
Really? Kirsten Powers (a Democrat, no less!) doesn't think so. If the imams' actions were only religious, as Kirsten says, they may have a case - I can honestly agree with that. Maybe public prayer should be kept silent in respect for other people, but that's not a debate I'm going to have here. It doesn't appear that religion was their only motivation, however...it seems as if the "Minneapolis Six" did at least the following (via Sister Toldjah):
1) "switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks,"
2) "spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden."
3) "asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized."
Also, of note, the six tickets were one-way tickets.
To me, regardless of your religion, race, sex, whatever - these actions are at the very least, suspicious, and should be treated as such. It seems to be the classic case of "threat profiling" versus "racial profiling". All the factors I listed above constituted a threat to the safety of everyone on that flight, and the crew responded appropriately.
What's the response of the Democrats? Let's hope Sheila Jackson-Lee's is not typical:
"(the September 11 terrorist attacks) cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans...Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment."
Like she has the right to talk, being banned from Continental Airlines and all...
As for Omar Shahin, the "leader" of the Minneapolis Six? Well, he has ties to KindHearts, a Muslim charitable organization whose assets have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department.
Why? They have provided funding to Hamas.
Why is that problematic? Because Hamas does things like this. And this. And this. And this.
AND MUCH MORE.
Robert Spencer's take, via Front Page Mag:
"If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness. Shahin has complained that he was 'humiliated' and that the way the imams were treated was 'terrible.' Indeed. It is terrible. It is terrible that he and the other imams who were taken off the plane, as well as other Islamic leaders in America, have allowed those who commit violence in the name of their religion to do so unimpeded and unchallenged. It is terrible that these and other Islamic scholars have responded only with vilification when asked about the teachings of their faith that promote violence, instead of with honest dialogue and attempts to reform those teachings. It is terrible that, if they were indeed removed from the plane for praying, they are among those who have allowed their religion to become so associated with violence that American citizens on an airplane become alarmed at the sight of Islamic prayer.
"In a sane world, officials would tell the imams that if they’re upset about being taken off the plane, they should redouble their anti-terror efforts in the Muslim community in the U.S. – which are sorely deficient in any case. They would ascribe their inconveniencing to the sacrifices that are incumbent upon all of us during wartime. But instead, they are compared to Rosa Parks, and it is likely that their canonization is just beginning.
"Osama bin Laden, who predicted after 9/11 that soon many more planes would be falling out of the skies, is no doubt enjoying the spectacle."
Finally, here's Mona Charen's take.
Racism? Nope.
Threat profiling? ABSOLUTELY.
First stop: New York City. The tragic story of Sean Bell. Unfortunate set of circumstances leading to an untimely death? Absolutely. Excessive forced used? Mayor Bloomberg thinks so.
Racist? Debatable. Keep in mind the backgrounds of the officers: two black, two white, one Hispanic.
Linked to Michael Richards' rant at a comedy club? ABSURD.
No surprise Amnesty International is weighing in:
"Police violence has shown its ugly face in New York yet again. This tragedy is not an isolated incident -- it is part of a pattern of questionable police tactics and abuse. The question should not be 'is this case another Amadou Diallo?' but 'why is the NYPD still shooting unarmed black men?'"
Is Amnesty International right? I don't think so...what's really going on here?
Here seems to be a good round-up from New York Daily News. Note that the names of only the white officers on duty have been released.
Also, take note of the criminal records of the victims. The New York Times explains that Joseph Guzman, present with Sean Bell that night, "has a criminal record including convictions for robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal sale of a controlled substance." (emphasis mine). And, according to Wikipedia, Sean Bell was a criminal four times over... It's also being reported that Mr. Bell used his vehicle as a weapon by "(ramming) into an undercover officer and then (hitting) an unmarked NYPD minivan twice." as a precursor to the shooting outside the nightclub.
Justification for 50 shots being fired? Not sure anyone could defend that...
Racism?
Debatable...
Second stop: Minneapolis. Six Muslims cry "flying while Muslim!" after being removed from a flight last Monday from Minneapolis, bound for Phoenix.
Racism!!! Islamophobia!!!
Really? Kirsten Powers (a Democrat, no less!) doesn't think so. If the imams' actions were only religious, as Kirsten says, they may have a case - I can honestly agree with that. Maybe public prayer should be kept silent in respect for other people, but that's not a debate I'm going to have here. It doesn't appear that religion was their only motivation, however...it seems as if the "Minneapolis Six" did at least the following (via Sister Toldjah):
1) "switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks,"
2) "spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden."
3) "asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized."
Also, of note, the six tickets were one-way tickets.
To me, regardless of your religion, race, sex, whatever - these actions are at the very least, suspicious, and should be treated as such. It seems to be the classic case of "threat profiling" versus "racial profiling". All the factors I listed above constituted a threat to the safety of everyone on that flight, and the crew responded appropriately.
What's the response of the Democrats? Let's hope Sheila Jackson-Lee's is not typical:
"(the September 11 terrorist attacks) cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans...Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment."
Like she has the right to talk, being banned from Continental Airlines and all...
As for Omar Shahin, the "leader" of the Minneapolis Six? Well, he has ties to KindHearts, a Muslim charitable organization whose assets have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department.
Why? They have provided funding to Hamas.
Why is that problematic? Because Hamas does things like this. And this. And this. And this.
AND MUCH MORE.
Robert Spencer's take, via Front Page Mag:
"If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness. Shahin has complained that he was 'humiliated' and that the way the imams were treated was 'terrible.' Indeed. It is terrible. It is terrible that he and the other imams who were taken off the plane, as well as other Islamic leaders in America, have allowed those who commit violence in the name of their religion to do so unimpeded and unchallenged. It is terrible that these and other Islamic scholars have responded only with vilification when asked about the teachings of their faith that promote violence, instead of with honest dialogue and attempts to reform those teachings. It is terrible that, if they were indeed removed from the plane for praying, they are among those who have allowed their religion to become so associated with violence that American citizens on an airplane become alarmed at the sight of Islamic prayer.
"In a sane world, officials would tell the imams that if they’re upset about being taken off the plane, they should redouble their anti-terror efforts in the Muslim community in the U.S. – which are sorely deficient in any case. They would ascribe their inconveniencing to the sacrifices that are incumbent upon all of us during wartime. But instead, they are compared to Rosa Parks, and it is likely that their canonization is just beginning.
"Osama bin Laden, who predicted after 9/11 that soon many more planes would be falling out of the skies, is no doubt enjoying the spectacle."
Finally, here's Mona Charen's take.
Racism? Nope.
Threat profiling? ABSOLUTELY.
More Global Warming Madness...
We're all going to die!!!
Well, not all of us...
500 million of us will survive - according to a claim from "controversial climate scientist" James Lovelock. If you're a Darwiniac, better get to the gym!
I have to admit - I'm seeing signs of global warming everywhere, though.
Like here. And here. And here. And here.
Great piece from Mary Katharine Ham on the whole nonsense, making a fantastic distinction between "global warming" and the more in-vogue "climate change" (need to cover all your bases, right?).
Interestingly, what is one of James Lovelock's main solutions to combat the global warming crisis? Nuclear power.
Hmmm...how do liberals feel about nuclear power? We know they are all for saving the planet, right?
Let's see - AlterNet calls it "madness." Al Gore doesn't see it as a solution.
Apparently, they are out of touch with 61% of the American population. But is that anything new? According to a 2001 poll conducted by the Associated Press, "Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to support (nuclear power)."
Maybe Republicans are more "in touch"? John McCain is.
Though, Democrats like Hillary Clinton (!) seem to be "warming" to the idea of nuclear power as a combatant to the impending "energy crisis." Interesting...
As far as I can see, nuclear power is the first step to energy independence. If a by-product to nuclear power is cleaning up the environment, why not?
Much more to discuss here in later posts as I gather more info - if anyone has anything, pass it along!
Well, not all of us...
500 million of us will survive - according to a claim from "controversial climate scientist" James Lovelock. If you're a Darwiniac, better get to the gym!
I have to admit - I'm seeing signs of global warming everywhere, though.
Like here. And here. And here. And here.
Great piece from Mary Katharine Ham on the whole nonsense, making a fantastic distinction between "global warming" and the more in-vogue "climate change" (need to cover all your bases, right?).
Interestingly, what is one of James Lovelock's main solutions to combat the global warming crisis? Nuclear power.
Hmmm...how do liberals feel about nuclear power? We know they are all for saving the planet, right?
Let's see - AlterNet calls it "madness." Al Gore doesn't see it as a solution.
Apparently, they are out of touch with 61% of the American population. But is that anything new? According to a 2001 poll conducted by the Associated Press, "Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to support (nuclear power)."
Maybe Republicans are more "in touch"? John McCain is.
Though, Democrats like Hillary Clinton (!) seem to be "warming" to the idea of nuclear power as a combatant to the impending "energy crisis." Interesting...
As far as I can see, nuclear power is the first step to energy independence. If a by-product to nuclear power is cleaning up the environment, why not?
Much more to discuss here in later posts as I gather more info - if anyone has anything, pass it along!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Something to Read
Per Chris, here's an interesting article to ponder.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Tim
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006423.htm
Happy Thanksgiving.
Tim
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006423.htm
Monday, November 20, 2006
Signing Off...
I won't have internet access for about a week, so I'll be back Sunday or Monday with another entry. I'm sure much will happen in the upcoming week, leave me any ideas here!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Good News from Iraq?
Discovered this website when reading comments posted on Mona Charen's latest article:
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
A great resource to learn that not all is lost.
Two pieces I particularly enjoyed:
IA building trust with citizens they protect
and...
Soldiers Deliver Supplies to Iraqi Children
Too bad all we hear about from MSM sources are stories like this from the Washington Post which essentially blame America for 655,000 Iraqi deaths, or like this from ABC News which doesn't fail to point out the October death toll of U.S. forces in Iraq, but offers no explanation as to why that could be.
I'm sick of this war-bashing. Can't something, anything be publicized to give us hope in the mission?
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
Thank God I found this website.
Much more news will be highlighted from this website in the future.
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
A great resource to learn that not all is lost.
Two pieces I particularly enjoyed:
IA building trust with citizens they protect
and...
Soldiers Deliver Supplies to Iraqi Children
Too bad all we hear about from MSM sources are stories like this from the Washington Post which essentially blame America for 655,000 Iraqi deaths, or like this from ABC News which doesn't fail to point out the October death toll of U.S. forces in Iraq, but offers no explanation as to why that could be.
I'm sick of this war-bashing. Can't something, anything be publicized to give us hope in the mission?
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
Thank God I found this website.
Much more news will be highlighted from this website in the future.
Why I Don't Really "Hate" Michael J. Fox...
Apparently I need to clarify my last post to some...
1) First off, I didn't realize I linked to an article which required registration - sorry about that. The gist of the article can be found from the Life Issues website:
"One Study of Parkinson's patients showed an average improvement of sixty-one percent increase of coordination, as well as fewer symptoms after transplants of the patient's own neuronal stem cells."
Now, the quote is a bit misleading, I'll be upfront about that. The patient size was quite small, and the use of the word "patient's" makes me wonder if only one person experienced the improvement, or if all participants did, and this is just a typo in the study. Looking through the study myself, it's pretty dense, and I haven't determined that. Though, again, the results seem promising that adult stem cell therapy can produce positive results for Parkinson's patients.
2) I don't really hate Michael J. Fox - but I do hate what he did. Please note that not once did I make fun of Michael J. Fox or deny the fact that he has a right to his opinion - I actually came right out front and said he can support any candidate, and we want him to get better. I feel this is universally accepted...
The comment posted to my website, however, did make fun of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was likely "doping up or something" while apologizing for his actions against Michael J. Fox. Do I condone what Rush Limbaugh did in mimicing Fox's symptoms? No. But did he have a valid argument to make? Yes - and here's why:
a) Rush supposed that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms...was he? I don't know...but was it a valid question? Well, he has admitted to doing as much in his "Lucky Man" memoirs...(emphasis mine)
"Arranging life in order to be 'on' in public, and 'off' for as little time as possible, is a balancing act for any P.D.er. In my case, the gut-wrenching prospect of losing my balance, figuratively or literally, on The Late Show, say, or at a public event where there was no way to avoid close scrutiny, loomed ever larger the longer I remained in the closet.
"Learning to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance, sometimes within minutes of my cue, became a process of continuous tweaking and refining - lots of trial with little room for error. Timing a punchline was a joke if I hadn't timed my meds accurately. I became a virtuoso at manipulating drug intake, so that I'd peak at exactly the right time and place."
Now, this was written back in 2002, so who's to say he is still a "virtuoso" at faking his symptoms? I don't know, but, again, isn't the question worth asking?
b) Michael J. Fox admitted not reading the bill he advocated in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous: (per page 2 - again, emphasis mine)
"Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, 'You betray me with a kiss.' And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
(Quick aside: page 1 of the transcript of this interview, look at the tone of Stephanopolous's questioning, Fox's response, and the joint response following Fox:
"Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?
Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting.
(LAUGHTER) "
But there's no such thing as media bias, right?)
So, now we know that Michael J. Fox was uninformed at least when he campaigned for Claire McCaskill, and possibly Ben Cardin and others. Fine. Be uniformed, misinformed, whatever - lots of voters are. But do other voters pretend they are experts in a field in which they have no expertise? Are other voters aware of their "human shield" status when entering themselves into public discussion? As Ann Coulter said about the "Jersey Girls," we have a right to respond to you...
c) Fox makes the distinction in this ABC interview between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, admitting common ground with Jim Talent and Michael Steele. He did not make this distinction in the campaign ad for Ben Cardin, however - here it is right on Ben Cardin's website.
Sure seems like he's posing as an expert, doesn't it? Sounds like he knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising, though we know it's basically been a dead-end thus far. He also says "Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It's why I support Ben Cardin." Sounds like the implication is that Michael Steele didn't support life-saving stem cell research! Who could vote for him?
People with Multiple Sclerosis could, for one.
Put in this perspective, don't Fox and Cardin seem tasteless?
3) A USA Today article from 2004 was left for me to read to make the argument that "both sides do it." Fine - I never said that only one side was guilty. But I don't see that point made in this article. Is there a slant? The article busily quotes University of Wisconsin "research pioneer" James Thomson for his viewpoint in the last section of the article. Excerpts, including the "last impression":
"If politics were not involved, 'the field of embryonic stem cell research would be much more advanced than it is today,' research pioneer Thomson says.
"It is difficult to estimate just how damaging the current restrictions have been to the field to date, but if the current restrictions are not eventually lifted, patients will suffer needlessly."
And...
"And despite all the debate, embryonic stem cells may end up offering insight that is more scientific than therapeutic, Thomson says. 'The real lasting contribution of human embryonic stem cell research may be increased knowledge of the human body, which could change human medicine even more dramatically than new transplantation therapies.'"
Where do you think USA Today stands on this issue? Need more?
Senator Sam Browback, Republican and outspoken against embryonic stem cell research, is described as "complaining" when he speaks out against the viewpoint of the President's Council. And read this excerpt attempting to highlight the two differences:
"Opponents cannot even agree on terminology. Brownback believes all cloning is reproductive, his aides say. Research supporters suggest therapeutic cloning, in which harvested stem cells are transplanted into a patient, involves research embryos that would never produce cloned children."
So, one opinion is based entirely on "belief" while another is based on "research"...what's the connotation there? And who are these research supporters, anyway? There's no support to this statement. And what exactly is a "research embryo"? I don't know, but I'm glad I wasn't labeled as such...
4) From the comment left on the last post:
"I will even say this: I don’t care if the government funds embryonic stem cell research. I recognize that there are tax payers who may not want their money contributing to something that they are morally opposed to. The private sector can, and will handle it fine without government money."
Well, I care. The moral aspect is only a part of it. If the private sector can handle it without government money, why aren't they? Because they don't have the private sector support to finance the research that scientists want to do (or, the amount of money that scientists want). Again, maybe because the research has produced no tangible results.
5) "I do understand the logic of your interpretation of these cells being 'human beings', but the fact of the matter is without further intervention this material will not become a person. In this way it becomes a kin to a woman’s eggs or a man’s sperm."
In no way is the fertilization of the woman's eggs and the man's sperm akin to the two as separate entities. When they are separated, they do not produce life itself. When they are joined, they do. It's that simple.
6) "I do have issue with your dismissal of embryonic stem cell research. First off comparing the accomplishments of adult stem cell research to embryonic stem cell research is a bit of a cheap shot."
This is no cheap shot. The distinction between the types of research has been made necessary because of people like Michael J. Fox. The merits comparing the two is a natural by-product of Fox's misrepresentation of the facts. To call my comparison a "cheap shot," I feel, is a real mischaracterization, and only defends the ideas of Fox and others (if only indirectly).
7) "I believe both should be researched, and if some one does not like the idea of the embryonic stem cell research than they should avoid any treatment which could possibly become a result of it."
This is kind of like saying "If someone doesn't agree with racism, then don't be mean to black people."...Racism itself is morally objectionable, as is creating human life for the purposes of destroying it. Racism produced great riches for those who practiced it (i.e., slaveowners), and its victims were left forever wounded...does that mean that, if you know racism is morally wrong, you should let others practice it? Of course not. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. If you know it to be morally wrong, should you let others practice it?...
I also have to address one last topic: the fact that my ideas about when human life begins are dismissed as being "religious" and have no connection to "science". This really angers me. Science and religion can be used in conjunction with each other. This from the Pro-Life Physicians website:
"How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called 'Basics of Biology' gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted)."
Now, it does make an exception for cloning, but it doesn't say what the exception is (I wish it did, actually). But it does define "conception" and does not specify that conception has to take place in the mother's womb. Further,
"Genetically and biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, but this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it."...
Especially if it's being produced outside the mother's body in a petri dish!
More evidence (emphasis mine):
"...Some claim that the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), formed by the implantation of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum, can be treated differently from a zygote, formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. The argument is made that the product of SCNT, called a "clonote," is different from a zygote because they are created differently and because they are intended for different purposes. Systems biology denies, however, that one can know what something is if one knows only where it comes from. It is also inaccurate to define something based upon its intended use. Scientifically, the key to knowing what something is, is to know what determined trajectory that something will actively follow. A zygote is clearly a determined embodied process with a human trajectory as known by the way it is manifest."
This underscores my earlier point that I didn't realize that intention was part of the definition of cloning. I don't believe it is - and it's comforting to know that others agree with me.
One more point:
"Perhaps in order to determine if a clone is a human, we should ask: was Dolly a sheep? If Dolly walked like a sheep, sounded like a sheep and looked like a sheep, then it must have been a sheep. Which is to say, it began its life as a SCNT and became a sheep.
Although SCNT is a form of asexual reproduction, once the transfer is made and a stimulus applied to effect the first cell division, that is the moment equivalent to fertilization. So, yes, a human clone is a human being. Even with the prospect of being flawed, as was suspected of Dolly."
So, now at least you know that there are some in the scientific community who see the combination of religion and science as useful in debating the "right to life" topic.
Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming.
1) First off, I didn't realize I linked to an article which required registration - sorry about that. The gist of the article can be found from the Life Issues website:
"One Study of Parkinson's patients showed an average improvement of sixty-one percent increase of coordination, as well as fewer symptoms after transplants of the patient's own neuronal stem cells."
Now, the quote is a bit misleading, I'll be upfront about that. The patient size was quite small, and the use of the word "patient's" makes me wonder if only one person experienced the improvement, or if all participants did, and this is just a typo in the study. Looking through the study myself, it's pretty dense, and I haven't determined that. Though, again, the results seem promising that adult stem cell therapy can produce positive results for Parkinson's patients.
2) I don't really hate Michael J. Fox - but I do hate what he did. Please note that not once did I make fun of Michael J. Fox or deny the fact that he has a right to his opinion - I actually came right out front and said he can support any candidate, and we want him to get better. I feel this is universally accepted...
The comment posted to my website, however, did make fun of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was likely "doping up or something" while apologizing for his actions against Michael J. Fox. Do I condone what Rush Limbaugh did in mimicing Fox's symptoms? No. But did he have a valid argument to make? Yes - and here's why:
a) Rush supposed that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms...was he? I don't know...but was it a valid question? Well, he has admitted to doing as much in his "Lucky Man" memoirs...(emphasis mine)
"Arranging life in order to be 'on' in public, and 'off' for as little time as possible, is a balancing act for any P.D.er. In my case, the gut-wrenching prospect of losing my balance, figuratively or literally, on The Late Show, say, or at a public event where there was no way to avoid close scrutiny, loomed ever larger the longer I remained in the closet.
"Learning to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance, sometimes within minutes of my cue, became a process of continuous tweaking and refining - lots of trial with little room for error. Timing a punchline was a joke if I hadn't timed my meds accurately. I became a virtuoso at manipulating drug intake, so that I'd peak at exactly the right time and place."
Now, this was written back in 2002, so who's to say he is still a "virtuoso" at faking his symptoms? I don't know, but, again, isn't the question worth asking?
b) Michael J. Fox admitted not reading the bill he advocated in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous: (per page 2 - again, emphasis mine)
"Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, 'You betray me with a kiss.' And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
(Quick aside: page 1 of the transcript of this interview, look at the tone of Stephanopolous's questioning, Fox's response, and the joint response following Fox:
"Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?
Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting.
(LAUGHTER) "
But there's no such thing as media bias, right?)
So, now we know that Michael J. Fox was uninformed at least when he campaigned for Claire McCaskill, and possibly Ben Cardin and others. Fine. Be uniformed, misinformed, whatever - lots of voters are. But do other voters pretend they are experts in a field in which they have no expertise? Are other voters aware of their "human shield" status when entering themselves into public discussion? As Ann Coulter said about the "Jersey Girls," we have a right to respond to you...
c) Fox makes the distinction in this ABC interview between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, admitting common ground with Jim Talent and Michael Steele. He did not make this distinction in the campaign ad for Ben Cardin, however - here it is right on Ben Cardin's website.
Sure seems like he's posing as an expert, doesn't it? Sounds like he knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising, though we know it's basically been a dead-end thus far. He also says "Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It's why I support Ben Cardin." Sounds like the implication is that Michael Steele didn't support life-saving stem cell research! Who could vote for him?
People with Multiple Sclerosis could, for one.
Put in this perspective, don't Fox and Cardin seem tasteless?
3) A USA Today article from 2004 was left for me to read to make the argument that "both sides do it." Fine - I never said that only one side was guilty. But I don't see that point made in this article. Is there a slant? The article busily quotes University of Wisconsin "research pioneer" James Thomson for his viewpoint in the last section of the article. Excerpts, including the "last impression":
"If politics were not involved, 'the field of embryonic stem cell research would be much more advanced than it is today,' research pioneer Thomson says.
"It is difficult to estimate just how damaging the current restrictions have been to the field to date, but if the current restrictions are not eventually lifted, patients will suffer needlessly."
And...
"And despite all the debate, embryonic stem cells may end up offering insight that is more scientific than therapeutic, Thomson says. 'The real lasting contribution of human embryonic stem cell research may be increased knowledge of the human body, which could change human medicine even more dramatically than new transplantation therapies.'"
Where do you think USA Today stands on this issue? Need more?
Senator Sam Browback, Republican and outspoken against embryonic stem cell research, is described as "complaining" when he speaks out against the viewpoint of the President's Council. And read this excerpt attempting to highlight the two differences:
"Opponents cannot even agree on terminology. Brownback believes all cloning is reproductive, his aides say. Research supporters suggest therapeutic cloning, in which harvested stem cells are transplanted into a patient, involves research embryos that would never produce cloned children."
So, one opinion is based entirely on "belief" while another is based on "research"...what's the connotation there? And who are these research supporters, anyway? There's no support to this statement. And what exactly is a "research embryo"? I don't know, but I'm glad I wasn't labeled as such...
4) From the comment left on the last post:
"I will even say this: I don’t care if the government funds embryonic stem cell research. I recognize that there are tax payers who may not want their money contributing to something that they are morally opposed to. The private sector can, and will handle it fine without government money."
Well, I care. The moral aspect is only a part of it. If the private sector can handle it without government money, why aren't they? Because they don't have the private sector support to finance the research that scientists want to do (or, the amount of money that scientists want). Again, maybe because the research has produced no tangible results.
5) "I do understand the logic of your interpretation of these cells being 'human beings', but the fact of the matter is without further intervention this material will not become a person. In this way it becomes a kin to a woman’s eggs or a man’s sperm."
In no way is the fertilization of the woman's eggs and the man's sperm akin to the two as separate entities. When they are separated, they do not produce life itself. When they are joined, they do. It's that simple.
6) "I do have issue with your dismissal of embryonic stem cell research. First off comparing the accomplishments of adult stem cell research to embryonic stem cell research is a bit of a cheap shot."
This is no cheap shot. The distinction between the types of research has been made necessary because of people like Michael J. Fox. The merits comparing the two is a natural by-product of Fox's misrepresentation of the facts. To call my comparison a "cheap shot," I feel, is a real mischaracterization, and only defends the ideas of Fox and others (if only indirectly).
7) "I believe both should be researched, and if some one does not like the idea of the embryonic stem cell research than they should avoid any treatment which could possibly become a result of it."
This is kind of like saying "If someone doesn't agree with racism, then don't be mean to black people."...Racism itself is morally objectionable, as is creating human life for the purposes of destroying it. Racism produced great riches for those who practiced it (i.e., slaveowners), and its victims were left forever wounded...does that mean that, if you know racism is morally wrong, you should let others practice it? Of course not. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. If you know it to be morally wrong, should you let others practice it?...
I also have to address one last topic: the fact that my ideas about when human life begins are dismissed as being "religious" and have no connection to "science". This really angers me. Science and religion can be used in conjunction with each other. This from the Pro-Life Physicians website:
"How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called 'Basics of Biology' gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted)."
Now, it does make an exception for cloning, but it doesn't say what the exception is (I wish it did, actually). But it does define "conception" and does not specify that conception has to take place in the mother's womb. Further,
"Genetically and biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, but this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it."...
Especially if it's being produced outside the mother's body in a petri dish!
More evidence (emphasis mine):
"...Some claim that the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), formed by the implantation of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum, can be treated differently from a zygote, formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. The argument is made that the product of SCNT, called a "clonote," is different from a zygote because they are created differently and because they are intended for different purposes. Systems biology denies, however, that one can know what something is if one knows only where it comes from. It is also inaccurate to define something based upon its intended use. Scientifically, the key to knowing what something is, is to know what determined trajectory that something will actively follow. A zygote is clearly a determined embodied process with a human trajectory as known by the way it is manifest."
This underscores my earlier point that I didn't realize that intention was part of the definition of cloning. I don't believe it is - and it's comforting to know that others agree with me.
One more point:
"Perhaps in order to determine if a clone is a human, we should ask: was Dolly a sheep? If Dolly walked like a sheep, sounded like a sheep and looked like a sheep, then it must have been a sheep. Which is to say, it began its life as a SCNT and became a sheep.
Although SCNT is a form of asexual reproduction, once the transfer is made and a stimulus applied to effect the first cell division, that is the moment equivalent to fertilization. So, yes, a human clone is a human being. Even with the prospect of being flawed, as was suspected of Dolly."
So, now at least you know that there are some in the scientific community who see the combination of religion and science as useful in debating the "right to life" topic.
Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Why I Hate Michael J. Fox...
Remember Alex P. Keaton? The Republican son from Family Ties?
He's gone.
Enter: Michael J. Fox - Stem Cell Crusader.
Does Michael J. Fox have a right to support Claire McCaskill, Ben Cardin, and others for political office? No doubt...
Does he have a right to lie to the American people to persuade their vote? No way...
Here's Amendment 2. Keep in mind this is for a Constitutional Amendment - very important.
Now, you may think that the Amendment bans the idea of human cloning, as it says: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
Fair enough, right? Wrong. Here's why, from the proposed, and now passed, Amendment:
"(1) 'Blastocyst' means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
"(2) 'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being."
What does the term "blastocyst" look like it means to you? Sounds like the early stages of a human being to me...and what two activities lead to the creation of a "blastocyst"? Well, one would be fertilization. We all know what fertilization leads to. What's the other one? "Somatic cell nuclear transfer"...
Hmmm...
Could that be...CLONING????
According to the bill, my conclusion is preposterous. Cloning involves implantation in a uterus...I didn't realize the definition of cloning involved "intention"...
So, if you create human life for the purposes of destroying it (to borrow a phrase from Laura Ingraham), that's not cloning. But if you implant the "product" of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" into a uterus which could result in the birth of a human being, THAT'S "cloning"...
OUTRAGEOUS.
Back to Michael J. Fox. He claimed that both Jim Talent and Michael Steele did not support life-saving stem cell research, implying that neither one of them cares about his fate. First off, does anybody know anyone who doesn't support adult stem cell research? Here is just one summary of the wonders of adult stem cell research. Real progress has been made for patients with the following (not an all-inclusive list):
1) spinal cord injuries
2) skull bone damage
3) damaged heart muscles
4) blindness
5) Crohn's disease (definition)
6) lupus
7) multiple sclerosis
8) leukemia
9) rheumatoid arthritis
and...guess what?
10) Parkinson's disease
Hopefully Michael J. Fox is aware of this.
What has embryonic stem cell research produced, in the way of cures? Ummm...nothing. But they may produce brain tumors...
I don't think we need to add that to the list of Fox's ailments...
Look, we all want Michael J. Fox to get better, right? Of course we do. But do we really want him misleading the public at large to push his own misled agenda? I don't think so...
Too bad the campaign was a success.
He's gone.
Enter: Michael J. Fox - Stem Cell Crusader.
Does Michael J. Fox have a right to support Claire McCaskill, Ben Cardin, and others for political office? No doubt...
Does he have a right to lie to the American people to persuade their vote? No way...
Here's Amendment 2. Keep in mind this is for a Constitutional Amendment - very important.
Now, you may think that the Amendment bans the idea of human cloning, as it says: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
Fair enough, right? Wrong. Here's why, from the proposed, and now passed, Amendment:
"(1) 'Blastocyst' means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
"(2) 'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being."
What does the term "blastocyst" look like it means to you? Sounds like the early stages of a human being to me...and what two activities lead to the creation of a "blastocyst"? Well, one would be fertilization. We all know what fertilization leads to. What's the other one? "Somatic cell nuclear transfer"...
Hmmm...
Could that be...CLONING????
According to the bill, my conclusion is preposterous. Cloning involves implantation in a uterus...I didn't realize the definition of cloning involved "intention"...
So, if you create human life for the purposes of destroying it (to borrow a phrase from Laura Ingraham), that's not cloning. But if you implant the "product" of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" into a uterus which could result in the birth of a human being, THAT'S "cloning"...
OUTRAGEOUS.
Back to Michael J. Fox. He claimed that both Jim Talent and Michael Steele did not support life-saving stem cell research, implying that neither one of them cares about his fate. First off, does anybody know anyone who doesn't support adult stem cell research? Here is just one summary of the wonders of adult stem cell research. Real progress has been made for patients with the following (not an all-inclusive list):
1) spinal cord injuries
2) skull bone damage
3) damaged heart muscles
4) blindness
5) Crohn's disease (definition)
6) lupus
7) multiple sclerosis
8) leukemia
9) rheumatoid arthritis
and...guess what?
10) Parkinson's disease
Hopefully Michael J. Fox is aware of this.
What has embryonic stem cell research produced, in the way of cures? Ummm...nothing. But they may produce brain tumors...
I don't think we need to add that to the list of Fox's ailments...
Look, we all want Michael J. Fox to get better, right? Of course we do. But do we really want him misleading the public at large to push his own misled agenda? I don't think so...
Too bad the campaign was a success.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Why Global Warming is a CROCK...
Got your attention???
Admittedly, do I know enough about global warming to prove/disprove the theory? Of course not...BUT, do I believe it is the source of intensifying hurricanes, warming temperatures, polar ice caps melting, etc.? Not yet...
And here's why.
First, just today, here's news out of Kenya, via CNN:
"Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
"Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a 'shade' from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."...
And...
"The American scientist [Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist] said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels -- main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.
"Nairobi conference participants agreed.
"'Yes, by all means, do all the research,'" Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, said.
"But 'if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,' Pachauri said."
Of course, we must do the research!!! So how are these scientists going to fund their pollution of the Earth? Well, Britain has a great idea:
"Hard-working families face crippling new bills as the Government fights global warming with a raft of stinging taxes.
"Typical families with two children could have to pay up to £1,300 more every year, according to estimates."...
And...
"Prof Julian Morris, environmental economist at Buckingham University and director of the International Policy Network, said: “I’m afraid it will be Sun readers who will be most affected by these changes.
“'The price of their cheap flights will rise, making a short break abroad more costly.'
“'The cost of visiting their family will rise, because of increased petrol duty.'
“'And people will effectively be forced to buy energy-saving televisions and long-life lightbulbs by a nannying Government. Their whole way of life will alter forever.'”
If you're a sane person, you HAVE to find this INsane, right??? Taxing people to raise revenue to fight GLOBAL WARMING? Since when is it the role of government to raise money for scientists by taxing its citizens??? Can't scientists fund their research through the private sector like EVERYONE ELSE, instead of forcing the government to raise money for them? This echoes Missouri's Amendment 2 which inconceivably just passed and makes cloning constitutional. Embryonic stem-cell research has proven a "Bridge to Nowhere", which is why there's no private sector funding for it. Solution? Legislate it.
Disgraceful. But I digress. That topic is worthy of a LENGTHY discussion later...
Need more evidence of the craziness of global warming?
Check out Alternate Energy Sources, which claims global warming causes or increases the risk of the following:
1) lung disease
2) cardiovascular problems
3) cancer
4) injury from flying debris
5) intestinal disease
6) economic hardship
7) starvation
8) spread of infection
9) overpopulation
10) war
According to the site, it also discriminates against poor people and the elderly.
How devastating! Solution? Well, it's twofold:
"Therefore government- and private citizen policy around committed relationship, rather than individual competition, is a prime recipe for dealing with the health effects of global warming."
Yes! Eliminate competition and have the government take care of us!
If anyone cares to point out the evidence on this website, versus the supposition, please do...
Still not convinced???
The state of California SUED auto manufacturers over global warming back in September.
"'Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars, and the price tag is increasing,'" Attorney General Bill Lockyer said."
Where is the EVIDENCE??? This is just another empty statement! He has no support for this claim...and, why single out six car manufacturers (as the article points out)? Why not sue people who don't "recycle, reduce and reuse?" Why not sue global warming hypocrites who roll into Berkley with a pollutant-heavy motorcade? Or, why not sue Hollywood liberals who claim to be Earth crusaders but fly around in private jets???
I feel like this is a popular topic and one that will be revisited soon. This should be enough to digest for now...
Admittedly, do I know enough about global warming to prove/disprove the theory? Of course not...BUT, do I believe it is the source of intensifying hurricanes, warming temperatures, polar ice caps melting, etc.? Not yet...
And here's why.
First, just today, here's news out of Kenya, via CNN:
"Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
"Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a 'shade' from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."...
And...
"The American scientist [Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist] said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels -- main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.
"Nairobi conference participants agreed.
"'Yes, by all means, do all the research,'" Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, said.
"But 'if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,' Pachauri said."
Of course, we must do the research!!! So how are these scientists going to fund their pollution of the Earth? Well, Britain has a great idea:
"Hard-working families face crippling new bills as the Government fights global warming with a raft of stinging taxes.
"Typical families with two children could have to pay up to £1,300 more every year, according to estimates."...
And...
"Prof Julian Morris, environmental economist at Buckingham University and director of the International Policy Network, said: “I’m afraid it will be Sun readers who will be most affected by these changes.
“'The price of their cheap flights will rise, making a short break abroad more costly.'
“'The cost of visiting their family will rise, because of increased petrol duty.'
“'And people will effectively be forced to buy energy-saving televisions and long-life lightbulbs by a nannying Government. Their whole way of life will alter forever.'”
If you're a sane person, you HAVE to find this INsane, right??? Taxing people to raise revenue to fight GLOBAL WARMING? Since when is it the role of government to raise money for scientists by taxing its citizens??? Can't scientists fund their research through the private sector like EVERYONE ELSE, instead of forcing the government to raise money for them? This echoes Missouri's Amendment 2 which inconceivably just passed and makes cloning constitutional. Embryonic stem-cell research has proven a "Bridge to Nowhere", which is why there's no private sector funding for it. Solution? Legislate it.
Disgraceful. But I digress. That topic is worthy of a LENGTHY discussion later...
Need more evidence of the craziness of global warming?
Check out Alternate Energy Sources, which claims global warming causes or increases the risk of the following:
1) lung disease
2) cardiovascular problems
3) cancer
4) injury from flying debris
5) intestinal disease
6) economic hardship
7) starvation
8) spread of infection
9) overpopulation
10) war
According to the site, it also discriminates against poor people and the elderly.
How devastating! Solution? Well, it's twofold:
"Therefore government- and private citizen policy around committed relationship, rather than individual competition, is a prime recipe for dealing with the health effects of global warming."
Yes! Eliminate competition and have the government take care of us!
If anyone cares to point out the evidence on this website, versus the supposition, please do...
Still not convinced???
The state of California SUED auto manufacturers over global warming back in September.
"'Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars, and the price tag is increasing,'" Attorney General Bill Lockyer said."
Where is the EVIDENCE??? This is just another empty statement! He has no support for this claim...and, why single out six car manufacturers (as the article points out)? Why not sue people who don't "recycle, reduce and reuse?" Why not sue global warming hypocrites who roll into Berkley with a pollutant-heavy motorcade? Or, why not sue Hollywood liberals who claim to be Earth crusaders but fly around in private jets???
I feel like this is a popular topic and one that will be revisited soon. This should be enough to digest for now...
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
An American Hero...
On the heels of Veterans' Day weekend, a story you may not be aware of, but should be...I first heard on The O'Reilly Factor...
From the Marine Corps Website...
THESE are the stories we need to hear about, and too often don't...
Jason Dunham will be the second recipient of the Medal of Honor for the Iraq War, the first Marine.
"The few. The proud." is all too appropriate. May he rest in peace. Please keep the Dunham family (Jason's parents and three siblings survive him) in your prayers...
From the Marine Corps Website...
THESE are the stories we need to hear about, and too often don't...
Jason Dunham will be the second recipient of the Medal of Honor for the Iraq War, the first Marine.
"The few. The proud." is all too appropriate. May he rest in peace. Please keep the Dunham family (Jason's parents and three siblings survive him) in your prayers...
Londonistan revisited...
I didn't think it would be this soon!
But here comes Tony Blair, succumbing to world opinion. From the Times Online:
"The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
"Mr Blair said there could be a new 'partnership' with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.
"The Prime Minister tried to exploit moves in Washington to rethink strategy on Iraq by holding out the prospect of engagement with two countries once dubbed by President Bush as part of the 'axis of evil'. For the first time he also explicitly ruled out military action against Iran.
"And, in words clearly directed at Mr Bush as he prepares for his final two years in power, Mr Blair called for the United States to lead a new drive towards peace in the Middle East, including peace in Palestine and the Lebanon, arguing that ultimately it was the only way to defeat al-Qaeda."
Iran, stop supporting terrorism? Hmmm...
Michelle Malkin on Iran providing long-range missiles to Hezbollah.
Here's President Ahmadenijad's solution to the Middle East Crisis, back in August.
And, Mr. Blair, how long has Iran been supporting terrorist acts?...
...oh, at least 23 years now...
When do you think Iran will stop its nuclear ambitions? I think never. From this Yahoo piece:
"The U.S. and some of its allies allege that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and are suspicious of its intentions after Tehran concealed parts of its nuclear development from U.N. inspectors for many years.
Iran claims its program is peaceful and for generating electricity."
Who believes this claim? Not me.
Let's connect the dots people. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."...
But here comes Tony Blair, succumbing to world opinion. From the Times Online:
"The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
"Mr Blair said there could be a new 'partnership' with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.
"The Prime Minister tried to exploit moves in Washington to rethink strategy on Iraq by holding out the prospect of engagement with two countries once dubbed by President Bush as part of the 'axis of evil'. For the first time he also explicitly ruled out military action against Iran.
"And, in words clearly directed at Mr Bush as he prepares for his final two years in power, Mr Blair called for the United States to lead a new drive towards peace in the Middle East, including peace in Palestine and the Lebanon, arguing that ultimately it was the only way to defeat al-Qaeda."
Iran, stop supporting terrorism? Hmmm...
Michelle Malkin on Iran providing long-range missiles to Hezbollah.
Here's President Ahmadenijad's solution to the Middle East Crisis, back in August.
And, Mr. Blair, how long has Iran been supporting terrorist acts?...
...oh, at least 23 years now...
When do you think Iran will stop its nuclear ambitions? I think never. From this Yahoo piece:
"The U.S. and some of its allies allege that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and are suspicious of its intentions after Tehran concealed parts of its nuclear development from U.N. inspectors for many years.
Iran claims its program is peaceful and for generating electricity."
Who believes this claim? Not me.
Let's connect the dots people. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)