By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Aug 26, 4:00 AM ET
PARIS - When Guy Colombier pulls his economy car up to a Paris pump, he allows himself just 15 Euros ($18) worth of gas - barely enough for three gallons. Since prices started rising rapidly earlier this year, says Mr. Colombier, a printing press worker, "I drive a lot more slowly ... and I'm looking for a place to live closer to where I work."
ADVERTISEMENT
Colombier's pain is shared by drivers all over Europe, where fuel prices are the highest in the world: a gallon of gas in Amsterdam now costs $7.13, compared with just $2.61 in America. The contrast in prices and environmental policies - and the dramatically different behaviors they inspire - signals a widening transatlantic energy gap. And it raises the question: Does Europe offer America a glimpse of its future?
Indeed, while Europeans have learned to cope with expensive fuel (mostly due to taxes), there's scant evidence yet that US drivers are adopting their conservation tactics.
"Societies adjust over decades to higher fuel prices," says Jos Dings, head of Transport and Energy, a coalition of European environmental NGOs. "They find many mechanisms."
Chief among them, say experts, is the habit of driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. While the average light duty vehicle on US highways gets 21.6 miles per gallon (m.p.g.), according to a study by the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), in Paris, its European counterpart manages 32.1 m.p.g.
"European consumers are very sensitive to fuel economy and sophisticated about engine options," says Lew Fulton, a transport analyst with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). "European car magazines are full of comparisons of fuel costs over the life of a vehicle."
Europe's cars: 40 percent are diesel
That approach has given a special boost to diesel cars, which make up more than 40 percent of European car sales, compared with just 4 percent in the US.
Just ahead of Colombier in the line at the gas station Thursday was Nicole Marie, a high school teacher, who was using her husband's diesel Audi, rather than her own gasoline-powered car, to take her daughter to Normandy for a final week of vacation by the sea.
"I only use my car in town," she says. "We bought a diesel car deliberately because it is cheaper to run."
That is partly because the French government encourages the use of more- efficient diesel fuel by taxing it less heavily. Only in four European countries is diesel more expensive than gasoline, the way it is in America.
But efficiency alone does not explain the huge disparity between fuel-use figures on either side of the Atlantic: European per capita consumption of gas and diesel stood at 286 liters a year in 2001, compared to 1,624 in the US, according to IEA figures.
The nature of cities plays a role, too. "America has built its entire society around the car, which enabled suburbs," points out Mr. Dings. "European cities have denser centers where cars are often not practical."
In Paris, for example, about half the trips people make are by foot, by bicycle, or on public transport, says UNEP's Mr. Fulton. In America, that figure is more like 20 percent.
Impact of fuel tax
"The single most effective measure" that has brought down motorists' fuel use in Europe, however, is taxation, says Dings.
On average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.
In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.
"There is really good evidence that higher prices reduce traffic," says Stephen Glaister, a professor of transportation at London's Imperial College. "If fuel prices go up 10 percent ... fuel consumed goes down by about 7 percent, as people start to use fuel more efficiently, not accelerating so aggressively and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It does change people's behavior."
The US authorities, however, "are unwilling to use resource price as part of their strategy" to conserve oil, says Lee Schipper, head of transportation research at the Washington-based World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.
"The biggest hole in our policy today is fuel taxation," he adds. "Tax increases are something Americans should do but don't know how to do, and I wonder if they will ever be able to.
"Consumers want muscle cars, manufacturers say they make what the consumer wants, and the government panders to both constituencies," Mr. Schipper continues. "It's a vicious cycle."
Europeans may drive smaller cars, but there are few signs that the current record gas prices are making them drive less.
Germans who live close to the Czech Republic can drive across the border to take advantage of the lowest prices in Europe, but most people "cannot react to [the prices] because they still need to drive a lot," says Jürgen Albrecht, an official with Germany's largest auto club, the ADAC. "I can't say I'm not going to drive the 50 kilometers [31 miles] to work because of the high gas prices. It doesn't work that way."
"Most people have no alternative, particularly those who live in rural areas," says Paul Hodgson of the RAC, the British motoring association. "A lot of motorists tell us that if there was a decent and affordable public transport system they would use that ... but we are still a long way from having an alternative."
Prices vary widely across Europe. The Greeks, for example, are getting off comparatively lightly, with just $4.32 a gallon. But they're not exactly celebrating.
On the Greek isles, where almost everything comes in by boat, residents are hit even harder by rising fuel prices. "Whatever you do, it all comes back to gasoline," huffs Dimitra Vogiatzi, who sells produce on the far-flung island of Patmos, as she slams closed her massive ledger.
Ms. Vogiatzi has been obliged to raise her prices, and more and more of her customers are buying on credit, she complains. "Imagine if we need a doctor, or someone has to have a baby," she adds. "All the boat fares, coming and going - isn't that gasoline?"
Though shipping costs in the Aegean may remain high, European Union regulations are forcing vehicle manufacturers to make their products even more efficient than they already are.
Though their primary motivation is to reduce CO2 emissions, in line with targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, bio-fuel and hybrid cars are still so rare that increased fuel efficiency is the fastest route to lower emissions, says Dolf Gielen, an expert at the IEA.
CO2 emissions from new European cars fell by 12 percent from 1995 to 2003, according to Mr. Gielen, and manufacturers have voluntarily pledged to reduce them by a further 14 per cent by 2008, he adds.
European governments are proposing tax breaks to encourage motorists to take advantage of these possibilities. Belgian drivers who buy a low-emissions vehicle get a 15 percent price rebate; Spain cuts $865 from the cost of registering a car if it replaces a car using leaded gas more than 10 years old; Hungary waives registration tax for hybrid cars.
End of the road for SUVs?
Though US vehicles' fuel efficiency has improved greatly over the past 30 years, overall consumption has risen in the past decade because consumers and manufacturers have used the leeway offered by the new technology to buy and build bigger and more powerful vehicles, experts say.
Environmentalists wonder whether the current price spike in gas prices might lead to a lasting change in US behavior. "The exciting thing now is that we are almost at the real high point of prices in 1981," says Mr. Schipper. "We'll see if American manufacturers, authorities, and drivers realize that these prices may now be locked in."
"Sales of big SUVs have been dropping in the last few months," points out Fulton. "We are now at the point where people believe this is real and they are reacting. The longer it goes on, the more they will react."
• Mark Rice-Oxley in London, Andreas Tzortzis in Berlin, and John Thorne in Patmos contributed to this article.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
War Protestors--Be Strategic
There are a lot of people protesting the war and they are using every form of media to their advantage. I think it is great that in the United States we have the freedom of voice and I would not begin to say the Iraq War Protestors should "shut up." I hope they continue to voice their opinion of the war. But I wish they would voice their opinion strategically.
During the Vietnam War protestors in the United States bolstered the enemy to continue their fight. "Those who initially objected to the involvement in Vietnam fell into three broad categories: people with left-wing political opinions who wanted an NLF victory; pacifists who opposed all wars; and liberals who believed that the best way of stopping the spread of communism was by encouraging democratic, rather than authoritarian governments. (1)"
Memoirs and documents released by the North Vietnamese since the Vietnam War tell of the reliance upon the anti-war movement in the United States in helping to fight the American's.
Cindy Sheehan says that Bush killed her son by sending him to Iraq. Insurgents killed your son Ms. Sheehan. Insurgents hate Democracy, Jews and Christians. Like it or not the insurgents consider Democracy, Judaism and Christianity one and the same. Whenever a war protestor calls the insurgent a "freedom fighter" the insurgent and his/her allies around the world are bolstered to continue attacking.
Those who protest the Iraq war should do so but they should be strategic about it. Writing letters to Congress and telephoning state representatives are two ways to maintain free expression and do so in a way that does not aid enemy insurgents in Iraq or their supporters around the world. Protest marches and OpEd pieces are perfectly fine so long as the rhetoric is carefully worded. Calling Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" as and making comments such as "we are losing the war", "we are in a quagmire", "Bush lied", "this war is immoral", and "all this for oil" do nothing but bolster the enemy. If someone wants to believe these things go right ahead and tell your Congressional representatives who have the real power to work on your behalf to bring the troops home. In public be reserved when our troops are in combat.
1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm
During the Vietnam War protestors in the United States bolstered the enemy to continue their fight. "Those who initially objected to the involvement in Vietnam fell into three broad categories: people with left-wing political opinions who wanted an NLF victory; pacifists who opposed all wars; and liberals who believed that the best way of stopping the spread of communism was by encouraging democratic, rather than authoritarian governments. (1)"
Memoirs and documents released by the North Vietnamese since the Vietnam War tell of the reliance upon the anti-war movement in the United States in helping to fight the American's.
Cindy Sheehan says that Bush killed her son by sending him to Iraq. Insurgents killed your son Ms. Sheehan. Insurgents hate Democracy, Jews and Christians. Like it or not the insurgents consider Democracy, Judaism and Christianity one and the same. Whenever a war protestor calls the insurgent a "freedom fighter" the insurgent and his/her allies around the world are bolstered to continue attacking.
Those who protest the Iraq war should do so but they should be strategic about it. Writing letters to Congress and telephoning state representatives are two ways to maintain free expression and do so in a way that does not aid enemy insurgents in Iraq or their supporters around the world. Protest marches and OpEd pieces are perfectly fine so long as the rhetoric is carefully worded. Calling Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" as and making comments such as "we are losing the war", "we are in a quagmire", "Bush lied", "this war is immoral", and "all this for oil" do nothing but bolster the enemy. If someone wants to believe these things go right ahead and tell your Congressional representatives who have the real power to work on your behalf to bring the troops home. In public be reserved when our troops are in combat.
1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Anti-War Folks Targeting Heroes
Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.
According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.
One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."
Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.
On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.
But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."
The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.
"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.
"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.
The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."
Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.
"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.
"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.
But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.
According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.
One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."
Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.
On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.
But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."
The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.
"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.
"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.
The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."
Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.
"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.
"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.
But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
Cindy Sheehan: "Peace" mom
There has been a whole heck of a lot in the news lately regarding Cindy Sheehan who lost her 24 year old son in Iraq. She has become the face of the peace movement. I use peace figuratively because the type of peace she and her followers espouse I have already discussed throughout this blog.
Losing someone is tragic and I can speak this for personal experience. I have lost many people in my life and a few of them were in accidents that were not their fault. Cindy's son died because of insurgents in Iraq. Terrorists.
Cindy was interviewed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller on August 6, 2005. In this interview (that has never made it to the main stream media, no surprise, she makes the following statements to questions Mr. Knoller asked her:
1. "Iraq was not a terrorist state."
2. "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in."
3. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."
Sadly, Ms. Sheehan is very much mistaken and has allowed the emotion of her loss to cloud her logic. Let's look at the truth.
1. Was Iraq a State sponsor of terror? On July 22, 2002 Palestinian Kefauah Eshatah had a picture taken of her by REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah. Kefauah was posed in front of a picture of her son who killed himself in a suicide bombing. Kefauah is pictured holding up a compensation check for $10,000 which she received from the pro-Iraqi faction ALF (Arab Liberation Front). Saddam Hussein has given millions to families who have lost men fighting Israel. Pro-Iraqi Palestinian officials say Iraq has paid at least $5 million to Gaza families.
2. We have decimated the country? No, actually aside from the suicide and car bombing terrorists the country would be in pretty good shape.
3. The borders are open: Cindy, Cindy, Cindy... the borders were open long before the United States took out Saddam. That region of the world has always been pourous and will probably always be relatively pourous.
4. "Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in." So... the insurgents and terrorists are "freedom fighters"? What was your son who died for what he believed in? I want to have sympathy for this woman but I also want her to be logical. These people who are going to Iraq to fight are not Freedom fighters. At least not in the definition most people use. They want freedom... to go back to Saddam era politics or create a Fundamentalist Islamic State that does not recognize basic human rights.
5. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country." Cindy, there is no shortage of Islamic Fundamentalists and the presence of the United States has done very little to change this. The only thing that is true is that Iraq has become the hub for terrorist acts and I would much prefer that they happen in Iraq than in your home state. Let's not forget that the United States was not in Afghanistan in 2000 or 2001, but the Taliban support for Osama Bin Laden's network had no problem perpetrating 9-11. For your logic to be even remotely feasable the real terrorists should have come with the political support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait where the United States has bases.
Now, before someone points out and says, "most of the terrorists were Saudi." Yes, that is true... and they followed Osama who was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.
Cindy, when you call these people "Freedom Fighters" you empower them with your message. When people by into your illogical conclusions they add more voices to a false justice. Your voice, and those before yours, only add to the enemy and result in more deaths... perhaps even leading to the death of your son. Now you are doing what is going to kill another woman's boy.
What the United States needs to do is maintain its resolve against terrorism and fight it where it spawns, grows, infests and congregates.
Losing someone is tragic and I can speak this for personal experience. I have lost many people in my life and a few of them were in accidents that were not their fault. Cindy's son died because of insurgents in Iraq. Terrorists.
Cindy was interviewed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller on August 6, 2005. In this interview (that has never made it to the main stream media, no surprise, she makes the following statements to questions Mr. Knoller asked her:
1. "Iraq was not a terrorist state."
2. "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in."
3. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."
Sadly, Ms. Sheehan is very much mistaken and has allowed the emotion of her loss to cloud her logic. Let's look at the truth.
1. Was Iraq a State sponsor of terror? On July 22, 2002 Palestinian Kefauah Eshatah had a picture taken of her by REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah. Kefauah was posed in front of a picture of her son who killed himself in a suicide bombing. Kefauah is pictured holding up a compensation check for $10,000 which she received from the pro-Iraqi faction ALF (Arab Liberation Front). Saddam Hussein has given millions to families who have lost men fighting Israel. Pro-Iraqi Palestinian officials say Iraq has paid at least $5 million to Gaza families.
2. We have decimated the country? No, actually aside from the suicide and car bombing terrorists the country would be in pretty good shape.
3. The borders are open: Cindy, Cindy, Cindy... the borders were open long before the United States took out Saddam. That region of the world has always been pourous and will probably always be relatively pourous.
4. "Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in." So... the insurgents and terrorists are "freedom fighters"? What was your son who died for what he believed in? I want to have sympathy for this woman but I also want her to be logical. These people who are going to Iraq to fight are not Freedom fighters. At least not in the definition most people use. They want freedom... to go back to Saddam era politics or create a Fundamentalist Islamic State that does not recognize basic human rights.
5. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country." Cindy, there is no shortage of Islamic Fundamentalists and the presence of the United States has done very little to change this. The only thing that is true is that Iraq has become the hub for terrorist acts and I would much prefer that they happen in Iraq than in your home state. Let's not forget that the United States was not in Afghanistan in 2000 or 2001, but the Taliban support for Osama Bin Laden's network had no problem perpetrating 9-11. For your logic to be even remotely feasable the real terrorists should have come with the political support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait where the United States has bases.
Now, before someone points out and says, "most of the terrorists were Saudi." Yes, that is true... and they followed Osama who was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.
Cindy, when you call these people "Freedom Fighters" you empower them with your message. When people by into your illogical conclusions they add more voices to a false justice. Your voice, and those before yours, only add to the enemy and result in more deaths... perhaps even leading to the death of your son. Now you are doing what is going to kill another woman's boy.
What the United States needs to do is maintain its resolve against terrorism and fight it where it spawns, grows, infests and congregates.
How Old is T-Rex?
In 1993, a report surfaced in the journal Science that a T-rex fossil found in the United States contained fresh bone tissue with nucleated blood cells. Since organic molecules of this type can only be preserved (even in the best circumstances) for a few thousand years, this becomes compelling evidence that this animal was possibly alive when Noah was building the ark.
A graduate student named Mary Schweitzer from the Museum of the Rockies in Montana found the fresh bone tissue; upon thorough microscopic investigation, she reportedly discovered nucleated blood cells still present in the tissue. She said that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it…the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
She showed the slide to her boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, and he told her to prove that they were not blood cells. She worked on this research for nearly seven years, and reported in Earth Magazine (June 1997, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 54-58) that “so far, we haven’t been able to.” Dr. Horner and Edwin Dobbs, who co-authored Dinosaur Lives that same year (1997), reported that, “under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she’d discovered where in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.
A graduate student named Mary Schweitzer from the Museum of the Rockies in Montana found the fresh bone tissue; upon thorough microscopic investigation, she reportedly discovered nucleated blood cells still present in the tissue. She said that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it…the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
She showed the slide to her boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, and he told her to prove that they were not blood cells. She worked on this research for nearly seven years, and reported in Earth Magazine (June 1997, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 54-58) that “so far, we haven’t been able to.” Dr. Horner and Edwin Dobbs, who co-authored Dinosaur Lives that same year (1997), reported that, “under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she’d discovered where in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Similarities between Bush and Truman (David Shuster)
If you've been watching Hardball, you've seen some of our reports that dip into the vast NBC archives to put current political events in perspective with previous presidents, lawmakers, and etc. I'm excited to tell you that we are going to offer some of those same stories here on our blog. For example, for Hardball I've been working on a report that compares the challenges President Bush is facing with those of Harry S. Truman.
Truman was our 33rd President. He took over following the death in 1944 of President Roosevelt and had to deal immediately with a host of foreign policy issues. The video we have is remarkable. There was the conclusion of the war in Europe, the Potsdam conference when allied leaders (Truman, Churchill, Stalin...) decided how to handle a defeated Germany, and the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan. Three years later, in 1948, Truman held on to the Presidency by just four percentage points. Last fall, after four years dominated by 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq... President Bush held on to his presidency by three points. Like President Bush's critics, Harry Truman's considered him not up to the job of President. Truman was a folksy man who popularized simple phrases (i.e. "The buck stops here.") President Bush is a folksy man who tends to see the world in black and white.
There are other similarities as well... Despite a growing economy and job growth, President Bush's approval rating is falling because of problems in Iraq. President Truman's approval fell even lower because of the war in Korea. President Bush felt the sting of allegations that his White House leaked classified information. President Truman was hurt by allegations that his State Department was riddled with communists.
Today, historians regard Harry Truman as one of our nation's best Presidents. His huge U.S. investment in rebuilding post-war Japan and Germany paid off... and Truman's policy of containing Soviet expansionism was a role model throughout the cold war. The question with President Bush, of course, is whether his huge war on terror investment in Iraq will pay off and whether history judges him to be a treasured President like Truman or somebody regarded far less.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086
Truman was our 33rd President. He took over following the death in 1944 of President Roosevelt and had to deal immediately with a host of foreign policy issues. The video we have is remarkable. There was the conclusion of the war in Europe, the Potsdam conference when allied leaders (Truman, Churchill, Stalin...) decided how to handle a defeated Germany, and the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan. Three years later, in 1948, Truman held on to the Presidency by just four percentage points. Last fall, after four years dominated by 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq... President Bush held on to his presidency by three points. Like President Bush's critics, Harry Truman's considered him not up to the job of President. Truman was a folksy man who popularized simple phrases (i.e. "The buck stops here.") President Bush is a folksy man who tends to see the world in black and white.
There are other similarities as well... Despite a growing economy and job growth, President Bush's approval rating is falling because of problems in Iraq. President Truman's approval fell even lower because of the war in Korea. President Bush felt the sting of allegations that his White House leaked classified information. President Truman was hurt by allegations that his State Department was riddled with communists.
Today, historians regard Harry Truman as one of our nation's best Presidents. His huge U.S. investment in rebuilding post-war Japan and Germany paid off... and Truman's policy of containing Soviet expansionism was a role model throughout the cold war. The question with President Bush, of course, is whether his huge war on terror investment in Iraq will pay off and whether history judges him to be a treasured President like Truman or somebody regarded far less.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Next Conservatism: The Danger of the Ideological State
Free Congress Foundation. 2004 http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050816.asp
By Paul M. Weyrich
August 16, 2005
If there is one clear lesson from the 20th century, it is that all ideologies are dangerous. As Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is not an ideology, it is the negation of ideology. Conservatism values what has grown up over time, over many generations, in the form of traditions, customs and habits. Ideology, in contrast, says that on the basis of such-and-such a philosophy, certain things must be true. When reality contradicts that deduction, reality must be suppressed. And when an ideology takes over a state, the power of the state is used to accomplish that suppression. The state’s citizens are forced to mouth lies.
One of the new facts the next conservatism must address is the fact that America, for the first time in its history, has become an ideological state. The ideology commonly known as “political correctness” or “multiculturalism” now shapes the actions of government in thousands of ways. Under the rubric of “hate crimes,” it sentences American citizens to additional time in jail for political thoughts. As “affirmative action,” it “privileges” women, blacks and homosexuals over heterosexual white males. In some cases, it requires private businesses to give their employees “sensitivity training,” psychological conditioning in obedience to the state ideology, including its demand that everyone express approval of homosexuality. Employees who demur lose their jobs.
It is ironic that after the catastrophic failure of ideologies in the 20th century in Russia, Germany, Italy and many other countries, America should now head down the same road. How did it happen? While conservatives slept, ideology crept in on little cat feet, taking over all our cultural institutions, just as Gramsci demanded in his “long march.” As I have said before, culture is more powerful than politics.
What should the next conservatism do about it? First, it needs to reveal this ideology for what it is. In terms of its historical origins and basic nature, it is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The translation was undertaken largely by the unorthodox Marxists of the Frankfurt School – Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Reich and Marcuse, to
name the most important players. Contrary to Marx, they said that the culture is not just part of society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They concluded that for Communism to be possible in the West, traditional Western culture and the Christian religion first had to be destroyed – a destruction to be accomplished by “critical theory” and “studies in prejudice,” to use their terms. Most important, they realized they could not destroy our historic culture through philosophical arguments. They turned instead to a much more powerful weapon, psychological conditioning, in effect crossing Marx with Freud. Marcuse then injected the whole poisonous brew into the baby boom generation in the 1960s. The result? A brilliant success for them: America now has a Marxist ideology, not the Marxism of the Soviet Union but cultural Marxism, imbedded in and supported by the power of the state.
The next conservatism needs to shout from the housetops, “People, here’s what this stuff really is. It's not about ‘being nice’ or ‘toleration.’ It’s about destroying our culture and our religion, and it is succeeding.”
Then, when we have the American people behind us, which we will once they learn the real nature of “PC,” we need to comb through every law, every government regulation, every federal office and department and weed the cultural Marxism out. The goal should not be to replace it with any ideology of our own – again, if we are real conservatives, we don’t have one – but to restore a non-ideological American state, which is what we had up until the wretched 1960s.
Cultural Marxism is a particularly nasty ideology, as we see all around us in its products (just turn on the television; the cultural Marxists took over Hollywood decades ago). But all ideology is wrong, because the concept of ideology is wrong in itself. Society cannot be made to fit some abstract scheme dreamed up by this or that thinker, and attempts to make it do so always result in disaster. To see the truth, all we need to do is compare most aspects of life in America in the 1950s, our last non-ideological decade, with life now. The next conservatism should work to get our old country back.
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
By Paul M. Weyrich
August 16, 2005
If there is one clear lesson from the 20th century, it is that all ideologies are dangerous. As Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is not an ideology, it is the negation of ideology. Conservatism values what has grown up over time, over many generations, in the form of traditions, customs and habits. Ideology, in contrast, says that on the basis of such-and-such a philosophy, certain things must be true. When reality contradicts that deduction, reality must be suppressed. And when an ideology takes over a state, the power of the state is used to accomplish that suppression. The state’s citizens are forced to mouth lies.
One of the new facts the next conservatism must address is the fact that America, for the first time in its history, has become an ideological state. The ideology commonly known as “political correctness” or “multiculturalism” now shapes the actions of government in thousands of ways. Under the rubric of “hate crimes,” it sentences American citizens to additional time in jail for political thoughts. As “affirmative action,” it “privileges” women, blacks and homosexuals over heterosexual white males. In some cases, it requires private businesses to give their employees “sensitivity training,” psychological conditioning in obedience to the state ideology, including its demand that everyone express approval of homosexuality. Employees who demur lose their jobs.
It is ironic that after the catastrophic failure of ideologies in the 20th century in Russia, Germany, Italy and many other countries, America should now head down the same road. How did it happen? While conservatives slept, ideology crept in on little cat feet, taking over all our cultural institutions, just as Gramsci demanded in his “long march.” As I have said before, culture is more powerful than politics.
What should the next conservatism do about it? First, it needs to reveal this ideology for what it is. In terms of its historical origins and basic nature, it is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The translation was undertaken largely by the unorthodox Marxists of the Frankfurt School – Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Reich and Marcuse, to
name the most important players. Contrary to Marx, they said that the culture is not just part of society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They concluded that for Communism to be possible in the West, traditional Western culture and the Christian religion first had to be destroyed – a destruction to be accomplished by “critical theory” and “studies in prejudice,” to use their terms. Most important, they realized they could not destroy our historic culture through philosophical arguments. They turned instead to a much more powerful weapon, psychological conditioning, in effect crossing Marx with Freud. Marcuse then injected the whole poisonous brew into the baby boom generation in the 1960s. The result? A brilliant success for them: America now has a Marxist ideology, not the Marxism of the Soviet Union but cultural Marxism, imbedded in and supported by the power of the state.
The next conservatism needs to shout from the housetops, “People, here’s what this stuff really is. It's not about ‘being nice’ or ‘toleration.’ It’s about destroying our culture and our religion, and it is succeeding.”
Then, when we have the American people behind us, which we will once they learn the real nature of “PC,” we need to comb through every law, every government regulation, every federal office and department and weed the cultural Marxism out. The goal should not be to replace it with any ideology of our own – again, if we are real conservatives, we don’t have one – but to restore a non-ideological American state, which is what we had up until the wretched 1960s.
Cultural Marxism is a particularly nasty ideology, as we see all around us in its products (just turn on the television; the cultural Marxists took over Hollywood decades ago). But all ideology is wrong, because the concept of ideology is wrong in itself. Society cannot be made to fit some abstract scheme dreamed up by this or that thinker, and attempts to make it do so always result in disaster. To see the truth, all we need to do is compare most aspects of life in America in the 1950s, our last non-ideological decade, with life now. The next conservatism should work to get our old country back.
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
Will Roberts leave you?
On Tue Aug 16 USAToday.com posted an oped piece. It can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-15-our-view_x.htm
The writer, who is not identified for probably good reason, runs the typical liberal slants we have all come to know. In the first place the writer says, "Ask people about personal privacy, and most will see it as a top priority and a fundamental right. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important." The logic used is the dangerous sort of thing conservatives have spoken out about on numerous occassions. Notice how the liberals have slowly but surely begun to twist the debate from abortion to "personal privacy". Make no mistake about this slippery slope. To the liberals abortion = personal privacy and when they use the words they are interchangeable. When a USA Weekend poll is taken what they ask is whether protecting personal privacy is important. When 88% of the population agrees there is a large chunk that do not "get" the sly liberalism USA Today uses.
And then we move to the next issue, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." Notice the deep rhetoric in this statement and the appeal to fear when the writer says, "may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." First one needs to remember the dual use of "privacy rights" when Liberals use the phrase. Second one needs to step through the opaque film to see the real image they are trying to portray; that somehow Robert's will destroy privacy rights. As if he alone would sit upon the bench and judge without peers. Not only is this faulty logic but this writer, if I am judging the piece through the mirror of a liberal, is in this case not talking only about privacy rights as abortion but has placed the phrase here as a ruse. S/he is saying that all privacy rights would no longer exist, including but not limited to, abortion.
Finally when we reach paragraph three we get to the meat of this authors deception. S/he says, "The conservatives' primary grievance is with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that women, not the state, get to decide whether to end their pregnancies by abortion." I truly love the biased hypocricy of the left media. Why does this author not come out and look in the mirror and say, "the liberals' primary grievance with a possible Robert's appointment is what he would say about Roe v. Wade." Instead they skirt the issue and present any number of red herrings to sway their audience away from the truth.
The writer does not stop there, however, and concludes this farce with the following, "But by questioning the unpinning of Roe, they call into doubt many earlier rulings that keep the government from meddling in people's lives." This needs a rather detailed rebuttal. First, the underpinning of Roe is whether a woman has the right to an abortion or whether the unborn have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, these "earlier rulings" the writer says kept the government from meddling in people's lives has been affirmed in the examples the writer has given but only in the first part of his/her rhetorical question. Using his/her own words, "What are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful searches and the like other than respect for privacy?" Make it a point to read carefully how this author has blended the obvious Constitutional intent with what has clearly not been expressed in his/her rhetorical question which I bolded. What are these privacy rights guranteed in the Constitution which deserve the phrase "and the like"?
From this point on the logic teeters and collapses. Here is the context:
"Starting in the 19th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the privacy of the mail and that individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.
Thus it was no stretch when, in 1965, the court overturned a Connecticut law banning birth control. Surely, the court ruled, the right of privacy prohibited police searches of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms." That decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, was the foundation for Roe."
Notice the illogic the left uses to compare the "privacy" to destroy the genetic explosion between two DNA's that becomes (at some point) a living human being with things such as the mail and the right to refuse medical treatment. In the case of medical treatment the rulings were due to the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion (Jehovah's Witnesses).
Next the author postulates another red herring when saying, "To the anguish of those who want government in the bedroom and other personal places, privacy rights now protect unmarried and same-sex couples and individuals." Rather than dealing with the debate about homosexuality whether monogomous or not and heterosexuality, monogomous or not, the author diverts attention away and says there are people who "want government in the bedroom." The people the author refers to are of course "conservatives" and in particular "christian conservatives" who are demonized as "NeoCons" and other such neologisms. I don't know a single conservative who wants a government official walking into the bedroom on an illegal search. The issue is not "what happens in the bedroom". The issue is on moral grounds of right and wrong. This author doesn't appear to have any desire in debating the larger moral questions which s/he has introduced and his/her point is obvious an appeal to fear. Consider for example the closing paragraphs:
"Roberts' record on the issue is scanty, but legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote raise questions as to whether he accepts current law on privacy. As a Justice Department lawyer in 1981, for example, Roberts drafted an article that referred to "the so-called 'right to privacy,' " and asserted that "such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution." Whether that was Roberts' view, or merely what his bosses wanted to hear, isn't clear."
In the first place his record is scanty but apparently we can judge his real views based upon "legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote" when he was working for his "bosses". The author says it isn't clear but when we return to the opening silos of rhetorical fear mongering we see that the author clearly says it is clear, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." I realize the author used the phrase "may soon call into question". The author did this to try and cover him/herself. However based upon the interpretation I have provided--dualism of definition for example--the author clearly has a position s/he is trying to hide.
Now we have the fomal conclusion which tries to tie into the opening remarks, "Far clearer is that few would want a nation in which there was no limit on government intrusion into personal lives. In the confirmation hearings that begin next month, the Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line."
While the author has a clear position s/he at the same time attempts to sway the audience away from the "wait and see when there are Senate Hearings" position even though s/he mentions this in closing. If this was the authors position the Oped piece could have been shortened simply, which I will show shortly.
In the meantime recognize again the use of polling numbers and the distortion in questioning when one realizes the liberal dualism of abortion and "right to privacy" as equal definitions. Next look at the hysteria the author wishes to create that suggests anyone wants "no limit on government intrusion into personal lives".
This article could have been non-enflamatory and stuck just to the facts without the use of partisan rhetoric (which I believe most American's are sick of--though I have done no formal poll). Here is what I would have written:
Ask people about personal privacy in all its debated forms, and most will see it as a top concern with a fundamental differing set of questions and opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important. But where these individuals fall in their personal views of what privacy does and does not constitute the poll does not ask.
But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist for some people and their interpretation of their rights.
The Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line.
Now see...isn't that clearer and filled with less rhetoric. It says all that needs to be said without being inflamatory or inciting fear...not to mention it is unbiased.
The left has a lot to learn...
The writer, who is not identified for probably good reason, runs the typical liberal slants we have all come to know. In the first place the writer says, "Ask people about personal privacy, and most will see it as a top priority and a fundamental right. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important." The logic used is the dangerous sort of thing conservatives have spoken out about on numerous occassions. Notice how the liberals have slowly but surely begun to twist the debate from abortion to "personal privacy". Make no mistake about this slippery slope. To the liberals abortion = personal privacy and when they use the words they are interchangeable. When a USA Weekend poll is taken what they ask is whether protecting personal privacy is important. When 88% of the population agrees there is a large chunk that do not "get" the sly liberalism USA Today uses.
And then we move to the next issue, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." Notice the deep rhetoric in this statement and the appeal to fear when the writer says, "may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." First one needs to remember the dual use of "privacy rights" when Liberals use the phrase. Second one needs to step through the opaque film to see the real image they are trying to portray; that somehow Robert's will destroy privacy rights. As if he alone would sit upon the bench and judge without peers. Not only is this faulty logic but this writer, if I am judging the piece through the mirror of a liberal, is in this case not talking only about privacy rights as abortion but has placed the phrase here as a ruse. S/he is saying that all privacy rights would no longer exist, including but not limited to, abortion.
Finally when we reach paragraph three we get to the meat of this authors deception. S/he says, "The conservatives' primary grievance is with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that women, not the state, get to decide whether to end their pregnancies by abortion." I truly love the biased hypocricy of the left media. Why does this author not come out and look in the mirror and say, "the liberals' primary grievance with a possible Robert's appointment is what he would say about Roe v. Wade." Instead they skirt the issue and present any number of red herrings to sway their audience away from the truth.
The writer does not stop there, however, and concludes this farce with the following, "But by questioning the unpinning of Roe, they call into doubt many earlier rulings that keep the government from meddling in people's lives." This needs a rather detailed rebuttal. First, the underpinning of Roe is whether a woman has the right to an abortion or whether the unborn have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, these "earlier rulings" the writer says kept the government from meddling in people's lives has been affirmed in the examples the writer has given but only in the first part of his/her rhetorical question. Using his/her own words, "What are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful searches and the like other than respect for privacy?" Make it a point to read carefully how this author has blended the obvious Constitutional intent with what has clearly not been expressed in his/her rhetorical question which I bolded. What are these privacy rights guranteed in the Constitution which deserve the phrase "and the like"?
From this point on the logic teeters and collapses. Here is the context:
"Starting in the 19th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the privacy of the mail and that individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.
Thus it was no stretch when, in 1965, the court overturned a Connecticut law banning birth control. Surely, the court ruled, the right of privacy prohibited police searches of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms." That decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, was the foundation for Roe."
Notice the illogic the left uses to compare the "privacy" to destroy the genetic explosion between two DNA's that becomes (at some point) a living human being with things such as the mail and the right to refuse medical treatment. In the case of medical treatment the rulings were due to the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion (Jehovah's Witnesses).
Next the author postulates another red herring when saying, "To the anguish of those who want government in the bedroom and other personal places, privacy rights now protect unmarried and same-sex couples and individuals." Rather than dealing with the debate about homosexuality whether monogomous or not and heterosexuality, monogomous or not, the author diverts attention away and says there are people who "want government in the bedroom." The people the author refers to are of course "conservatives" and in particular "christian conservatives" who are demonized as "NeoCons" and other such neologisms. I don't know a single conservative who wants a government official walking into the bedroom on an illegal search. The issue is not "what happens in the bedroom". The issue is on moral grounds of right and wrong. This author doesn't appear to have any desire in debating the larger moral questions which s/he has introduced and his/her point is obvious an appeal to fear. Consider for example the closing paragraphs:
"Roberts' record on the issue is scanty, but legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote raise questions as to whether he accepts current law on privacy. As a Justice Department lawyer in 1981, for example, Roberts drafted an article that referred to "the so-called 'right to privacy,' " and asserted that "such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution." Whether that was Roberts' view, or merely what his bosses wanted to hear, isn't clear."
In the first place his record is scanty but apparently we can judge his real views based upon "legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote" when he was working for his "bosses". The author says it isn't clear but when we return to the opening silos of rhetorical fear mongering we see that the author clearly says it is clear, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." I realize the author used the phrase "may soon call into question". The author did this to try and cover him/herself. However based upon the interpretation I have provided--dualism of definition for example--the author clearly has a position s/he is trying to hide.
Now we have the fomal conclusion which tries to tie into the opening remarks, "Far clearer is that few would want a nation in which there was no limit on government intrusion into personal lives. In the confirmation hearings that begin next month, the Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line."
While the author has a clear position s/he at the same time attempts to sway the audience away from the "wait and see when there are Senate Hearings" position even though s/he mentions this in closing. If this was the authors position the Oped piece could have been shortened simply, which I will show shortly.
In the meantime recognize again the use of polling numbers and the distortion in questioning when one realizes the liberal dualism of abortion and "right to privacy" as equal definitions. Next look at the hysteria the author wishes to create that suggests anyone wants "no limit on government intrusion into personal lives".
This article could have been non-enflamatory and stuck just to the facts without the use of partisan rhetoric (which I believe most American's are sick of--though I have done no formal poll). Here is what I would have written:
Ask people about personal privacy in all its debated forms, and most will see it as a top concern with a fundamental differing set of questions and opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important. But where these individuals fall in their personal views of what privacy does and does not constitute the poll does not ask.
But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist for some people and their interpretation of their rights.
The Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line.
Now see...isn't that clearer and filled with less rhetoric. It says all that needs to be said without being inflamatory or inciting fear...not to mention it is unbiased.
The left has a lot to learn...
Of Faith and Reasoning--From Streetwalker
Several powerful forms of reasoning for the existence of God take an indirect approach. C.S. Lewis once penned in one of his writings that God is much like the sun... We cannot look directly at God, but without Him we could not see anything else. The underlying principle behind Lewis' words begins with this: Everyone at some point or other eventually confronts two fundamental questions:
1) Is there a God?
2) What is His nature?
Whether the effort to arrive at a resolution is made formally or informally, every individual will make their most important decisions in life as though there is a God or there's not (However, this is more autobiographical in nature and tells us nothing of whether or not the philosophy claimed corresponds with reality. For our purposes, we'll be examining the logical outworkings of our choices at this stage of development).
Acknowledging one might well take issue with the assumption smuggled in (2), let me assure the reader my traditional gender-specific reference is made purely for argument's sake, and that the answer to even that conflict falls within the scope of the question: Is it within God's nature that we should call God a "He"? Yet the broader issue the question seeks to elicit is: based on our response, how then should we align our lives accordingly?
And though our conclusions to those two questions will form the basis for every important decision we make in life, our choices here have an even more profound effect --They delineate what we will allow to qualify as reliable "knowledge".
There are varying theories of "knowledge". And it is precisely for this reason why I believe many atheists, agnostics, and theists have a difficult time communicating with one another.... not necessarily because neither have done their homework, rather they haven't agreed which homework is worth doing. Lewis' words underscore a chief characteristic of the Christian worldview: God is the very point of reference from which all else is accounted for, apart from which life reduces to one big question mark. The atheist however, must pull himself by his metaphysical bootstraps and decide his own destiny, draw his own boundaries, conjure up a meaning for life and suffering, and then perhaps try to gain an enduring sense of purpose from everyday living. In this light, the rejection of God appears about as liberating as an abandonment o'er the wastelands of fragmentary ruin and insignificance. There's no ultimate authority to turn to for answers and justice anymore. When prodded to turn from God in the midst of suffering, G.K. Chesterton asked the pivotal question: "Fine... but in heaven's name, to what??"
From this perspective, we might well argue that for the Christian, although the peripheral questions haven't been given an immediate answer, all the root ones have been addressed. Yet, the skeptic seems to be in a different battle altogether, for while all the periphery impulses have been indulged, the core of what really matters remains a big mystery. Perhaps this is precisely why many attempts at finding this universal meaning have often been plagued by never-ending battles with nihilism. Nihilism is much like a philosophical cancer poisoning the mind of a thinker to conclude that "Life is meaningless", and as such any "meaning" we try to confer to life is equally meaningless. As with the Kurt Cobains of our generation, misery then becomes not just a moment, but a way of life. So what's that to say of the problem of death? "What's preventing me from suicide," as Jean Paul Sartre once pondered. Albert Camus echoed the same sentiment.
Centuries' worth of heavyweight thinking in our quest for Godless meaning --through and beyond the enlightenment-- have only brought us to a nihilistic age... an age where rather than admit defeat, the willful skeptic would instead champion relativism in Marxist-like bravado as though it were some kind of marvelous achievement. Such unyielding obstinance brings a tyranny all its own. In our search for autonomy, freedom is lost at the altar of determinism. Mired in pitiless incongruence, the state of philosophical order remains in shambles.
Deep-rooted questions of meaning in our time are now dismissed as expressions of weakness... And the faithful are derided as lesser mortals falling prey to that weakness. The strong would move beyond any primitive notions of some imaginary God-parent taking care of humanity despite the massive amount of suffering present in our world. We would pull ourselves by sheer volition and fabricate our own purpose, our own meaning, and never dare think of what will become of us in the hereafter. After all, such lower-level questioning is reflective of a genetic inferiority destined to perish with the dinosaurs; but until then, secular society "puts up with" the masses living under the intoxication of superstitious belief. One day, the sobering realization of the death of God will become agonizingly clear in cataclysmic epiphany... and for a time, society will descend into madness and bloodshed. But such things must come if we are to liberate ourselves from the shackles of religion and finally build a utopian society where man can finally become his own God, ruler of his universe.
Such were the prognostications of Fredreich Nietzsche, German philosopher of the nineteenth century, and extremely acidic in his disposition against Christendom. A giant among atheists, this man was perhaps one of the more honest and insightful individuals on the consequential effects of God's eviction from the moral consciousness of an entire people. So what happens when an entire generation is raised in a culture where the very atmosphere is tangible with this cloud of pessimism? Arrogantly, many are content to bloody themselves against the goads of life, determined to find their own way, never turning towards Transcendence for the answer... and why? Out of a sheer antipathy for the supernatural? What an awesome responsibility! To play God in our lives and in someone else's life out of sheer arrogant pride -- doesn't that strike us in the least bit as terrifying? When life is meaningless, then any behavior from that foundation of reality is equally meaningless and inconsequential. What moral obligation then do we have to be kind or even tolerant of our neighbor if life has no purpose? In a world bereft of any such thing as a way "things ought to be", can we really trust ourselves and one another to live peaceably?
One may interject and say, “These are all theories, aren't they?" No sir. Nietzsche’s prognostications were correct.... In fact, by some accounts, more blood has indeed been spilled in the 20th century alone than the other nineteen put together; the result of a will that would not bend a knee to Christ's teachings. C.S. Lewis once cogently remarked that in the end, either we will bend our knee in reverence and say, "Thy will be done," or God will turn to us and declare, "Alright then... Your will be done!"
Let me summarize with some final thoughts...
Firstly, this is an all-important question, and so to hide behind a mask of facetiousness and laughter is to miss the gravity of the matter. Too often people resort to mockery as a mind-numbing shield from having to face the more glaring questions stalking our existence. I trust, dear reader, you are not one of them....
Secondly, when we broach the issues at hand, we do so from the basis of our presuppositions. Some forms of argumentation will be very convincing to one set of individuals because it comports with how their rules of reasoning dictates one comes to reliable knowledge. However, to the opposing encampment, there is a sense that an incomplete or otherwise false premise has led to an incomplete or false conclusion. It is often helpful then to first begin by pointing out how popular methods of reasoning between groups have been ineffective, and have brought us to many inexorable points of arbitrariness. We might begin by asking of the skeptic just what qualifies as “evidence”?
Lastly, a concession that none of this necessarily constitutes God's existence by way of pure reason. It does, however provide some insight into the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often this is hastily dismissed as an indication of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of a weak temperament. However, these are matters every worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important isn’t really an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. One must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions stalking each individual where they are. It is no wonder that many life-shaping philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined --not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by-- but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped:
“Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!"
There is a real existential rub behind the questions at hand...
Therein lies a key to finding the answers.
Lets not run from that.
1) Is there a God?
2) What is His nature?
Whether the effort to arrive at a resolution is made formally or informally, every individual will make their most important decisions in life as though there is a God or there's not (However, this is more autobiographical in nature and tells us nothing of whether or not the philosophy claimed corresponds with reality. For our purposes, we'll be examining the logical outworkings of our choices at this stage of development).
Acknowledging one might well take issue with the assumption smuggled in (2), let me assure the reader my traditional gender-specific reference is made purely for argument's sake, and that the answer to even that conflict falls within the scope of the question: Is it within God's nature that we should call God a "He"? Yet the broader issue the question seeks to elicit is: based on our response, how then should we align our lives accordingly?
And though our conclusions to those two questions will form the basis for every important decision we make in life, our choices here have an even more profound effect --They delineate what we will allow to qualify as reliable "knowledge".
There are varying theories of "knowledge". And it is precisely for this reason why I believe many atheists, agnostics, and theists have a difficult time communicating with one another.... not necessarily because neither have done their homework, rather they haven't agreed which homework is worth doing. Lewis' words underscore a chief characteristic of the Christian worldview: God is the very point of reference from which all else is accounted for, apart from which life reduces to one big question mark. The atheist however, must pull himself by his metaphysical bootstraps and decide his own destiny, draw his own boundaries, conjure up a meaning for life and suffering, and then perhaps try to gain an enduring sense of purpose from everyday living. In this light, the rejection of God appears about as liberating as an abandonment o'er the wastelands of fragmentary ruin and insignificance. There's no ultimate authority to turn to for answers and justice anymore. When prodded to turn from God in the midst of suffering, G.K. Chesterton asked the pivotal question: "Fine... but in heaven's name, to what??"
From this perspective, we might well argue that for the Christian, although the peripheral questions haven't been given an immediate answer, all the root ones have been addressed. Yet, the skeptic seems to be in a different battle altogether, for while all the periphery impulses have been indulged, the core of what really matters remains a big mystery. Perhaps this is precisely why many attempts at finding this universal meaning have often been plagued by never-ending battles with nihilism. Nihilism is much like a philosophical cancer poisoning the mind of a thinker to conclude that "Life is meaningless", and as such any "meaning" we try to confer to life is equally meaningless. As with the Kurt Cobains of our generation, misery then becomes not just a moment, but a way of life. So what's that to say of the problem of death? "What's preventing me from suicide," as Jean Paul Sartre once pondered. Albert Camus echoed the same sentiment.
Centuries' worth of heavyweight thinking in our quest for Godless meaning --through and beyond the enlightenment-- have only brought us to a nihilistic age... an age where rather than admit defeat, the willful skeptic would instead champion relativism in Marxist-like bravado as though it were some kind of marvelous achievement. Such unyielding obstinance brings a tyranny all its own. In our search for autonomy, freedom is lost at the altar of determinism. Mired in pitiless incongruence, the state of philosophical order remains in shambles.
Deep-rooted questions of meaning in our time are now dismissed as expressions of weakness... And the faithful are derided as lesser mortals falling prey to that weakness. The strong would move beyond any primitive notions of some imaginary God-parent taking care of humanity despite the massive amount of suffering present in our world. We would pull ourselves by sheer volition and fabricate our own purpose, our own meaning, and never dare think of what will become of us in the hereafter. After all, such lower-level questioning is reflective of a genetic inferiority destined to perish with the dinosaurs; but until then, secular society "puts up with" the masses living under the intoxication of superstitious belief. One day, the sobering realization of the death of God will become agonizingly clear in cataclysmic epiphany... and for a time, society will descend into madness and bloodshed. But such things must come if we are to liberate ourselves from the shackles of religion and finally build a utopian society where man can finally become his own God, ruler of his universe.
Such were the prognostications of Fredreich Nietzsche, German philosopher of the nineteenth century, and extremely acidic in his disposition against Christendom. A giant among atheists, this man was perhaps one of the more honest and insightful individuals on the consequential effects of God's eviction from the moral consciousness of an entire people. So what happens when an entire generation is raised in a culture where the very atmosphere is tangible with this cloud of pessimism? Arrogantly, many are content to bloody themselves against the goads of life, determined to find their own way, never turning towards Transcendence for the answer... and why? Out of a sheer antipathy for the supernatural? What an awesome responsibility! To play God in our lives and in someone else's life out of sheer arrogant pride -- doesn't that strike us in the least bit as terrifying? When life is meaningless, then any behavior from that foundation of reality is equally meaningless and inconsequential. What moral obligation then do we have to be kind or even tolerant of our neighbor if life has no purpose? In a world bereft of any such thing as a way "things ought to be", can we really trust ourselves and one another to live peaceably?
One may interject and say, “These are all theories, aren't they?" No sir. Nietzsche’s prognostications were correct.... In fact, by some accounts, more blood has indeed been spilled in the 20th century alone than the other nineteen put together; the result of a will that would not bend a knee to Christ's teachings. C.S. Lewis once cogently remarked that in the end, either we will bend our knee in reverence and say, "Thy will be done," or God will turn to us and declare, "Alright then... Your will be done!"
Let me summarize with some final thoughts...
Firstly, this is an all-important question, and so to hide behind a mask of facetiousness and laughter is to miss the gravity of the matter. Too often people resort to mockery as a mind-numbing shield from having to face the more glaring questions stalking our existence. I trust, dear reader, you are not one of them....
Secondly, when we broach the issues at hand, we do so from the basis of our presuppositions. Some forms of argumentation will be very convincing to one set of individuals because it comports with how their rules of reasoning dictates one comes to reliable knowledge. However, to the opposing encampment, there is a sense that an incomplete or otherwise false premise has led to an incomplete or false conclusion. It is often helpful then to first begin by pointing out how popular methods of reasoning between groups have been ineffective, and have brought us to many inexorable points of arbitrariness. We might begin by asking of the skeptic just what qualifies as “evidence”?
Lastly, a concession that none of this necessarily constitutes God's existence by way of pure reason. It does, however provide some insight into the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often this is hastily dismissed as an indication of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of a weak temperament. However, these are matters every worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important isn’t really an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. One must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions stalking each individual where they are. It is no wonder that many life-shaping philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined --not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by-- but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped:
“Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!"
There is a real existential rub behind the questions at hand...
Therein lies a key to finding the answers.
Lets not run from that.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Christians as bad as Taliban: And other ridiculous comparisons
Why do logical people--and I do believe these people are logical-- continue to compare christians and the Taliban or some Islamic terrorist-like organization? Perhaps on paper it sounds funny, perhaps it is just a personal "dig" at christians throughout the world and particularly here at home in the United States. Perhaps the comparison is meant to garner "recommendations" by those who are like-minded...or simply to gain "recommendations" because point givers don't bother to consider the truth.
Let's discuss the truth.
The Daily Star, a free press newspaper based in Lebanon provided some startling numbers in a recent article. Readers will find the link below this blog entry. The polling suggests that support for suicide bombings are dropping in Muslim nations, however let's keep a focus on what the numbers are currently. "In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15 percent or fewer now say such actions are justifiable." Really? 15%! In Pakistan, only 25 percent now take that view... In Lebanon, 39 percent now regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified... In Jordan, a majority 57 percent now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defense of Islam...
In Iraq nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56 percent in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."
So, are Christian's as bad as the Taliban and other Islamic extremists? Find me 56% of the Christian population that believes Christians should blow themselves up in abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors. Direct me to 39% or 25% or how about the small number of 15% who believe Christians should blow themselves up and take out civilians who believe in abortion. Maybe 5% of the christian world believes we should blow ourselves and civilian women and children if we believe "christianity" is under attack? Could there be 3%? How about 1%? Infact I suggest that the actual percentage if a poll were conducted would find a statitstical zero.
I don't know the reasons people post and make such comparisons but they are ridiculous and don't deserve the attention some people are giving. Due to the number of statements I see I figured I owe a bit or rational logic to the situation.
If you are interested in searching more polls I suggest the following key-word search on google:
"Muslim" + "Polls" + "Terrorism" + "Suicide Bombings"
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17226#
Let's discuss the truth.
The Daily Star, a free press newspaper based in Lebanon provided some startling numbers in a recent article. Readers will find the link below this blog entry. The polling suggests that support for suicide bombings are dropping in Muslim nations, however let's keep a focus on what the numbers are currently. "In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15 percent or fewer now say such actions are justifiable." Really? 15%! In Pakistan, only 25 percent now take that view... In Lebanon, 39 percent now regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified... In Jordan, a majority 57 percent now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defense of Islam...
In Iraq nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56 percent in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."
So, are Christian's as bad as the Taliban and other Islamic extremists? Find me 56% of the Christian population that believes Christians should blow themselves up in abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors. Direct me to 39% or 25% or how about the small number of 15% who believe Christians should blow themselves up and take out civilians who believe in abortion. Maybe 5% of the christian world believes we should blow ourselves and civilian women and children if we believe "christianity" is under attack? Could there be 3%? How about 1%? Infact I suggest that the actual percentage if a poll were conducted would find a statitstical zero.
I don't know the reasons people post and make such comparisons but they are ridiculous and don't deserve the attention some people are giving. Due to the number of statements I see I figured I owe a bit or rational logic to the situation.
If you are interested in searching more polls I suggest the following key-word search on google:
"Muslim" + "Polls" + "Terrorism" + "Suicide Bombings"
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17226#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)