I know that I appear to be all over the board when it comes to what I post and when I post it, but when I read things that really capture my interest I want to share them. Like the following article; It really says how I feel about the war on terrorism, which is what is going on in the middle east including Iraq for those that don't have a clue. It really gets to the heart of the matter and seems to be what President Bush has eluded to all along. Enjoy!-Jamey Green
December 28, 2005
The Big Story of 2005 (Someone Tell The New York Times)
By Austin Bay
In December 2004, I wrote a column that led with this line: "Mark it on your calendar: Next month, the Arab Middle East will revolt."
The column placed the January 2005 Palestinian and Iraqi elections in historical context. These were not the revolutions of generals with tanks and terrorists with fatwas, but the slow revolutions of the ballot box, with political moderates and liberal reformers the genuinely revolutionary vanguard. To massage Churchill's phrase, these revolts were the beginning of democratic politics, where "jaw jaw" begins to replace "war war" and "terror terror."
These slow revolts against tyranny and terror continue, and are the "big story" of 2005 and the truly "big history" of our time.
Partisan, ignorant, fear-filled rhetoric tends to obscure this big history, in part because the big story moves slowly. The democratic revolt is grand drama, but it doesn't cram into a daily news cycle, much less into "news updates" every 30 minutes.
Television, the medium where image is a tyrant, finds incremental economic and political development a particularly frustrating story to tell. A brick is visually boring -- a bomb is not. The significance of a brick takes time to explain, time to establish context, while a spectacular explosion incites immediate visceral and emotional responses. In the long term, hope may propel millions -- hope that democracy will replace tyranny and terror. But in the short haul, violence and vile rhetoric, like sex and celebrity, guarantee an immediate audience.
So the "big stories" get lost in the momentum of the "now."
In April 2004, I interviewed former U.S. Sen. (and 9/11 commission member) Bob Kerrey. The subject was Iraq and the War on Terror in "historical terms." Kerrey had argued in a speech he gave in late 2003 that "20 years from now, we'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn't worth the effort. This is not just another democracy. This (Iraq) is a democracy in the Arab world."
"If you look beyond the short-term violence and instability (in Iraq)," Kerrey told me, "you do see significant activities on the part of the Iraqi people that indicate they understand the commitment necessary to govern themselves. ... There are going to be in the short term terrifying, confusing moments, (like) attacks on Iraqi police headquarters. The intent (by the opposition) is to produce destabilization, to cause people to say, 'Let's get out of here; they don't like us.' ... If we stay, then I am very confident that Iraq will build a stable democracy ..."
That's a clear statement of U.S. strategy in Iraq. Here's my formulation, from February 2003: "Removing Saddam begins the reconfiguration of the Middle East, a dangerous, expensive process, but one that will lay the foundation for true states where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy and where terrorists are prosecuted, not promoted."
Implementing the policies and sustaining the will to achieve these goals is of course immensely difficult. It's a painfully slow process -- too slow, it appears, for television.
The Iraqi people, however, see it. In October, after the Iraqi constitutional vote, an Iraqi friend of mine dropped me an e-mail: "Major players (in Iraq) are coming more and more to realize that dialogue, alliances, common interests and just plain politics is the way to win -- not violence, intimidation and terror. So this (lesson) is apparently slowly 'sinking in' in our confused and frightened Iraqi mentality."
Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said that the constitution is "a sign of civilization. ... This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."
Jaafari echoed a sentiment I heard last year while serving on active duty in Iraq. Several Iraqis told me they knew democracy was "our big chance." One man said it was Iraq's chance to "escape bad history." To paraphrase a couple of other Iraqis, toppling Saddam and building a more open society was a chance "to enter the modern world."
The great democratic revolts are profoundly promising history. They are the big story of 2005 -- and, for that matter, the next three or four decades.
Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I was really uptight today as I learned that a Christian, conservative judge was the one that shot down the possibility of Public schools in PA offering the view of "Intelligent Design" along with those theories of Darwinism (Evolution).
I wonder if he truly believes that the evolution theory holds any water. One of the reasons this came to the judge is because of many scientist who believe that the complexity of certain objects studied is so great that to think of any other theory aside from Intelligent Design would seem absurd.
The judge sited another reason that seemed strange to me; he said that intelligent design was not a theory it was a religious view. If it is but a religious view, and you believe it, wouldn't that make it a theory to you? See #6 in the following dictionary definition;
Theory;
1 : analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
My point is can you really say that proof lies with the theory of evolution as opposed to the belief in the bibles account? Throughout history the bible has a much better track record that Darwin does.
The judge also takes that same old tired approach that is suppose to scare everybody away; the infamous "separation of church and state" argument. So in light of his obvious lack of historical accuracy I am reprinting an article from The Christian Law Association. Please take time to read this and study what this great country was really founded on and not what some nuts are trying to make it into.
-Jamey Green
Americans are generally uninformed when it comes to the United States Constitution. The results of a 2001 survey show that 84% of adults don’t know that freedom of religion is one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment! On the flip side, the majority of Americans wrongly believe that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is actually found in the Constitution.
Here is what the First Amendment actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As Christians we have come to associate the phrase “Separation of Church and State” with the government’s current hostility towards religion in the public arena. It is important, therefore, that we understand the “truth” about how this phrase became a part of constitutional case law and our culture.
Intent of First Amendment
The First Amendment was intended to forbid the federal government from establishing a national religion. The American people favored this because they had seen the harmful effects of established churches in most of the colonies. In Massachusetts, for example, Baptist pastors such as Isaac Backus were imprisoned for refusing to pay state taxes to support the established (Congregational) church.
In Virginia, the established Church of England had used the Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws of 1611 to compel daily church attendance. Willful failure to attend divine services could result in a loss of wages, whipping, imprisonment, or even death! Although Christians not belonging to the Church of England won the right to practice their faith in Virginia without fear of persecution in 1699, the state government still tried to exercise control in religious matters.
In the 1780s, the Virginia legislature considered a general tax bill for the support of “Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Payment was mandatory. As a result, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other denominations vehemently opposed the bill. In 1785, James Madison expressed their sentiments well:
[T]hat religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right...We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
The bill not only failed, but also served to promote the successful passage of Thomas Jefferson’s “Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom” in 1786. Under this Virginia law, the people could not be forced to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. There could be no punishment for religious opinions or belief. Freedom of religious expression replaced the sin and tyranny of compelling a man to contribute to the spread of opinions that he disbelieved and abhorred.
Virginia’s religious freedom law laid a foundation for the passage of the First Amendment. By 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified, most of the colonies saw the merits of not establishing a national religion. The 1631 sentiments of Rhode Island’s Roger Williams were echoed in all but Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts:
God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut rejoiced at the election of Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States. On October 7, they wrote to Jefferson, their fellow believer in religious liberty, saying: “[We] believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State.” The Danbury Baptists complained to Jefferson of religious laws made by Connecticut’s government. They feared the Congregationalist Church would become the state-sponsored religion and expressed approval for Jefferson’s refusal to “assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Although the Danbury Baptists understood that Jefferson, as President, could not “destroy the laws of each State,” they expressed hope that his sentiment would affect the States “like the radiant beams of the sun.”
It was Jefferson’s response to this letter that is the origin of the infamous phrase “Separation of Church and State.” Jefferson’s reply on January 1, 1802, showed his agreement with the Danbury Baptists that:
Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [View a draft of Jefferson's handwritten letter provided by the Library of Congress. Large file: 2.3mb]
In referring to this “wall of separation” Jefferson was borrowing from the metaphor of Roger Williams, a fellow Baptist and Rhode Island’s champion of religious freedom. Williams had previously written of “a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”
Interpretations of the “Wall of Separation”
Christian scholars interpret Jefferson’s Danbury letter in its context. They accept Jefferson’s view that religion is a personal matter that should not be regulated by the federal government and that the federal government has no power to change law in the States. They interpret the “wall of separation” in the same way as Roger Williams: as a wall to protect God’s garden from the world, to protect the church from the government.
In contrast, non-Christian scholars lift the Danbury letter out of its historical context. They turn the “wall” metaphor on its head and use it to protect the government from the church. This results in a concerted effort to rid government of any religious influence. Hence, the opposition to Bible reading in schools, the Boy Scouts, official proclamations promoting religious events, nativity scenes in public displays, the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings, prayer in public places, etc. They fail to recognize that the Danbury Baptists would never have rejoiced at Jefferson’s election if he stood for removal of religious influence on the government.
In 1947, the Supreme Court made the situation worse. This is when the Court gave the “wall” metaphor constitutional standing in Everson v. Board of Education. In this case, the court said:
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Note: no breach of the wall was found in Everson. The New Jersey statute permitting the state to reimburse parents for the expense of busing their children to and from private, including parochial, schools was upheld.)
In the Everson case the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to individual states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this only the federal government was precluded from establishing a religion. It is this Supreme Court case that stands in the way of individual states passing legislation that favors religion.
The Everson decision is a clear departure from the view of the Founding Fathers. The First Amendment was not intended to stop the states from establishing a church or favoring a particular religion. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists understood this. Jefferson’s reference to the legislature of “the whole American people” shows his understanding that the First Amendment applied to the federal government exclusively. Indeed, on January 23, 1808, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Miller saying:
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. . .
The Danbury Baptists did not even ask Jefferson to apply the First Amendment to the states. They acknowledged, “the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State.” Rather, they looked to Jefferson’s power of persuasion to prevail in Connecticut.
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
In the battleground to find the true meaning of the “wall of separation between Church and State” it is useful to consider the actions of the founders after the First Amendment was passed. A review of a sampling of their activities makes it is clear that the founders had no intention of neutralizing government from all religious reference:
• The House of Representatives called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving on September 24, 1789—the same day that it passed the First Amendment.
• From 1789 to today, Congress has authorized chaplains, paid by public funds, to offer prayers in Congress and in the armed services.
• Jefferson closed the Danbury letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a prayer: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”
• On the very day Jefferson sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists he was making plans to attend church services in the House of Representatives.
• Jefferson signed a treaty into law in 1803 that provided for a government-funded missionary to the Kaskaskia Indians.
• In response to Congress’ request of July 9, 1812, President James Madison issued a proclamation recommending a day of public humiliation and prayer to be observed by the people of the United States, with religious solemnity.
• In 1832 and 1833, Congress approved land grants to Columbian College (later George Washington University) and Georgetown University, Baptist and Jesuit schools respectively.
• The Ten Commandments are inscribed on the wall of the United States Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court begins each session with the prayer: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
• The ongoing use of the New England Primer in public schools despite its many religious references.
• Every president has invoked God’s name in a prayerful manner in his inaugural address.
Presidential Viewpoints
This month as we celebrate President’s Day, let us also consider the views of our first three Presidents on matters of church and state:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798
In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
—Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1805
The intent of the First Amendment and the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, clearly demonstrate how the words “the separation of church and state” were originally understood. These words were never intended to remove God from government; rather they were intended to keep government from controlling and manipulating religious practices. Unfortunately today, two hundred years after Jefferson wrote the phrase, these words have turned on those they were intended to protect.
I wonder if he truly believes that the evolution theory holds any water. One of the reasons this came to the judge is because of many scientist who believe that the complexity of certain objects studied is so great that to think of any other theory aside from Intelligent Design would seem absurd.
The judge sited another reason that seemed strange to me; he said that intelligent design was not a theory it was a religious view. If it is but a religious view, and you believe it, wouldn't that make it a theory to you? See #6 in the following dictionary definition;
Theory;
1 : analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
My point is can you really say that proof lies with the theory of evolution as opposed to the belief in the bibles account? Throughout history the bible has a much better track record that Darwin does.
The judge also takes that same old tired approach that is suppose to scare everybody away; the infamous "separation of church and state" argument. So in light of his obvious lack of historical accuracy I am reprinting an article from The Christian Law Association. Please take time to read this and study what this great country was really founded on and not what some nuts are trying to make it into.
-Jamey Green
Americans are generally uninformed when it comes to the United States Constitution. The results of a 2001 survey show that 84% of adults don’t know that freedom of religion is one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment! On the flip side, the majority of Americans wrongly believe that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is actually found in the Constitution.
Here is what the First Amendment actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As Christians we have come to associate the phrase “Separation of Church and State” with the government’s current hostility towards religion in the public arena. It is important, therefore, that we understand the “truth” about how this phrase became a part of constitutional case law and our culture.
Intent of First Amendment
The First Amendment was intended to forbid the federal government from establishing a national religion. The American people favored this because they had seen the harmful effects of established churches in most of the colonies. In Massachusetts, for example, Baptist pastors such as Isaac Backus were imprisoned for refusing to pay state taxes to support the established (Congregational) church.
In Virginia, the established Church of England had used the Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws of 1611 to compel daily church attendance. Willful failure to attend divine services could result in a loss of wages, whipping, imprisonment, or even death! Although Christians not belonging to the Church of England won the right to practice their faith in Virginia without fear of persecution in 1699, the state government still tried to exercise control in religious matters.
In the 1780s, the Virginia legislature considered a general tax bill for the support of “Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Payment was mandatory. As a result, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other denominations vehemently opposed the bill. In 1785, James Madison expressed their sentiments well:
[T]hat religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right...We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
The bill not only failed, but also served to promote the successful passage of Thomas Jefferson’s “Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom” in 1786. Under this Virginia law, the people could not be forced to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. There could be no punishment for religious opinions or belief. Freedom of religious expression replaced the sin and tyranny of compelling a man to contribute to the spread of opinions that he disbelieved and abhorred.
Virginia’s religious freedom law laid a foundation for the passage of the First Amendment. By 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified, most of the colonies saw the merits of not establishing a national religion. The 1631 sentiments of Rhode Island’s Roger Williams were echoed in all but Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts:
God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut rejoiced at the election of Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States. On October 7, they wrote to Jefferson, their fellow believer in religious liberty, saying: “[We] believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State.” The Danbury Baptists complained to Jefferson of religious laws made by Connecticut’s government. They feared the Congregationalist Church would become the state-sponsored religion and expressed approval for Jefferson’s refusal to “assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Although the Danbury Baptists understood that Jefferson, as President, could not “destroy the laws of each State,” they expressed hope that his sentiment would affect the States “like the radiant beams of the sun.”
It was Jefferson’s response to this letter that is the origin of the infamous phrase “Separation of Church and State.” Jefferson’s reply on January 1, 1802, showed his agreement with the Danbury Baptists that:
Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [View a draft of Jefferson's handwritten letter provided by the Library of Congress. Large file: 2.3mb]
In referring to this “wall of separation” Jefferson was borrowing from the metaphor of Roger Williams, a fellow Baptist and Rhode Island’s champion of religious freedom. Williams had previously written of “a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”
Interpretations of the “Wall of Separation”
Christian scholars interpret Jefferson’s Danbury letter in its context. They accept Jefferson’s view that religion is a personal matter that should not be regulated by the federal government and that the federal government has no power to change law in the States. They interpret the “wall of separation” in the same way as Roger Williams: as a wall to protect God’s garden from the world, to protect the church from the government.
In contrast, non-Christian scholars lift the Danbury letter out of its historical context. They turn the “wall” metaphor on its head and use it to protect the government from the church. This results in a concerted effort to rid government of any religious influence. Hence, the opposition to Bible reading in schools, the Boy Scouts, official proclamations promoting religious events, nativity scenes in public displays, the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings, prayer in public places, etc. They fail to recognize that the Danbury Baptists would never have rejoiced at Jefferson’s election if he stood for removal of religious influence on the government.
In 1947, the Supreme Court made the situation worse. This is when the Court gave the “wall” metaphor constitutional standing in Everson v. Board of Education. In this case, the court said:
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Note: no breach of the wall was found in Everson. The New Jersey statute permitting the state to reimburse parents for the expense of busing their children to and from private, including parochial, schools was upheld.)
In the Everson case the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to individual states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this only the federal government was precluded from establishing a religion. It is this Supreme Court case that stands in the way of individual states passing legislation that favors religion.
The Everson decision is a clear departure from the view of the Founding Fathers. The First Amendment was not intended to stop the states from establishing a church or favoring a particular religion. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists understood this. Jefferson’s reference to the legislature of “the whole American people” shows his understanding that the First Amendment applied to the federal government exclusively. Indeed, on January 23, 1808, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Miller saying:
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. . .
The Danbury Baptists did not even ask Jefferson to apply the First Amendment to the states. They acknowledged, “the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State.” Rather, they looked to Jefferson’s power of persuasion to prevail in Connecticut.
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
In the battleground to find the true meaning of the “wall of separation between Church and State” it is useful to consider the actions of the founders after the First Amendment was passed. A review of a sampling of their activities makes it is clear that the founders had no intention of neutralizing government from all religious reference:
• The House of Representatives called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving on September 24, 1789—the same day that it passed the First Amendment.
• From 1789 to today, Congress has authorized chaplains, paid by public funds, to offer prayers in Congress and in the armed services.
• Jefferson closed the Danbury letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a prayer: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”
• On the very day Jefferson sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists he was making plans to attend church services in the House of Representatives.
• Jefferson signed a treaty into law in 1803 that provided for a government-funded missionary to the Kaskaskia Indians.
• In response to Congress’ request of July 9, 1812, President James Madison issued a proclamation recommending a day of public humiliation and prayer to be observed by the people of the United States, with religious solemnity.
• In 1832 and 1833, Congress approved land grants to Columbian College (later George Washington University) and Georgetown University, Baptist and Jesuit schools respectively.
• The Ten Commandments are inscribed on the wall of the United States Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court begins each session with the prayer: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
• The ongoing use of the New England Primer in public schools despite its many religious references.
• Every president has invoked God’s name in a prayerful manner in his inaugural address.
Presidential Viewpoints
This month as we celebrate President’s Day, let us also consider the views of our first three Presidents on matters of church and state:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798
In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
—Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1805
The intent of the First Amendment and the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, clearly demonstrate how the words “the separation of church and state” were originally understood. These words were never intended to remove God from government; rather they were intended to keep government from controlling and manipulating religious practices. Unfortunately today, two hundred years after Jefferson wrote the phrase, these words have turned on those they were intended to protect.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
"Tookie Williams should not have had to Die"
Today in America there is a disease that spreads like an epidemic among people. We stand by and watch as it slowly kills, maims and destroys lives. All too often, once it appears it has already taken its toll and tragedy is just ahead. Like many debates that go on endlessly in our world of medicine and politics with no real conclusions or answers, the root cause of this disease too is debated.
The disease that I see feeding on our young people and infecting our nation is that of not being held accountable.
There is overwhelming evidence of this in our public school systems, in our families and on our jobs. It is all around us and has probably infected our on household if not our on selves. We have created and now are residing in a culture of unaccountability. We don't hold children responsible for their actions in order to correct them, (we make excuses for them); criminals in large part, especially those in pedophilia and sex crimes are not held responsible, (we make excuses for them). We have created excuses like racism, child abuse, alcohol, drugs, insanity, obesity, poor, rich, born with it, religion, my style, my daddy, my mommy, my brother, my sister, my dog ate my homework all have been used to desensitizing our thinking on the simple fact of accountability. We have lobbyist, organizations, government entities all that spend millions each year in pointless research and campaigns to explain how or why it was not someone's fault.
When I was young, my mother said in so many words, "if you do this or don't do what I tell you then this will happen". Guess what? "this" happened more than I care to mention. I am well aware that part of the problem I am trying to describe is caused by the very fact many do not have moms and dads like the one I described and lived with for years, but that can not become another excuse.
If you break it, you must pay for it. If you disobey, you must be corrected.
Our problem with this was not created overnight and the solution will certainly not come any faster, but it will never come if we do not see the error of our own ways and allow ourselves to be held accountable to those that are coming up by giving them an opportunity to be better, stronger, smarter and of a good character because of instruction tempered with discipline and administered in love.
Children should not have to touch the stove to know its hot, or walk into the path of an on coming car to realize the road is dangerous. If this analogy seems a little elementary and absurd to you, then where does your opinion lie with the way we allow men like Tookie Williams to realize all to late that judgment cometh.
Mankind has proven through the years that left to their own, morality will vanish and culture will be overtaken with lawlessness. This has been evident in the aftermath and study of many great cultures and peoples that have vanished.
People and their culture cannot live with out order and law. It will become depraved.
I wonder if Tookie had someone to smack his hand when he reached for the stove? I wonder if he perhaps had a teacher to look the other way when he did something wrong just to keep the peace? I wonder early in his criminal career if their was a lesser crime that he committed that went unpunished or was simply dismissed? What if any of this were true, could we draw on the assumption that any one of these scenarios could have created a turning point in his thinking and ultimately in his life. Nah! Its much easier to blame his color, or the state, or that he was poor or the governor or anybody but him. Truth is, we may all have a part in it.
This world is a scary and dangerous place. Children cannot be treated like wind-up dolls; just pull the string and let them go.
Tookie is the one who is responsible for his actions, but if all of the Hollywood stars, with their fame and fortune and lust to place blame anywhere except where it should go, could look back over his life with an objective eye they just might find a time and place that certain actions might have helped Tookie spare his own life.
Jamey Green
Today in America there is a disease that spreads like an epidemic among people. We stand by and watch as it slowly kills, maims and destroys lives. All too often, once it appears it has already taken its toll and tragedy is just ahead. Like many debates that go on endlessly in our world of medicine and politics with no real conclusions or answers, the root cause of this disease too is debated.
The disease that I see feeding on our young people and infecting our nation is that of not being held accountable.
There is overwhelming evidence of this in our public school systems, in our families and on our jobs. It is all around us and has probably infected our on household if not our on selves. We have created and now are residing in a culture of unaccountability. We don't hold children responsible for their actions in order to correct them, (we make excuses for them); criminals in large part, especially those in pedophilia and sex crimes are not held responsible, (we make excuses for them). We have created excuses like racism, child abuse, alcohol, drugs, insanity, obesity, poor, rich, born with it, religion, my style, my daddy, my mommy, my brother, my sister, my dog ate my homework all have been used to desensitizing our thinking on the simple fact of accountability. We have lobbyist, organizations, government entities all that spend millions each year in pointless research and campaigns to explain how or why it was not someone's fault.
When I was young, my mother said in so many words, "if you do this or don't do what I tell you then this will happen". Guess what? "this" happened more than I care to mention. I am well aware that part of the problem I am trying to describe is caused by the very fact many do not have moms and dads like the one I described and lived with for years, but that can not become another excuse.
If you break it, you must pay for it. If you disobey, you must be corrected.
Our problem with this was not created overnight and the solution will certainly not come any faster, but it will never come if we do not see the error of our own ways and allow ourselves to be held accountable to those that are coming up by giving them an opportunity to be better, stronger, smarter and of a good character because of instruction tempered with discipline and administered in love.
Children should not have to touch the stove to know its hot, or walk into the path of an on coming car to realize the road is dangerous. If this analogy seems a little elementary and absurd to you, then where does your opinion lie with the way we allow men like Tookie Williams to realize all to late that judgment cometh.
Mankind has proven through the years that left to their own, morality will vanish and culture will be overtaken with lawlessness. This has been evident in the aftermath and study of many great cultures and peoples that have vanished.
People and their culture cannot live with out order and law. It will become depraved.
I wonder if Tookie had someone to smack his hand when he reached for the stove? I wonder if he perhaps had a teacher to look the other way when he did something wrong just to keep the peace? I wonder early in his criminal career if their was a lesser crime that he committed that went unpunished or was simply dismissed? What if any of this were true, could we draw on the assumption that any one of these scenarios could have created a turning point in his thinking and ultimately in his life. Nah! Its much easier to blame his color, or the state, or that he was poor or the governor or anybody but him. Truth is, we may all have a part in it.
This world is a scary and dangerous place. Children cannot be treated like wind-up dolls; just pull the string and let them go.
Tookie is the one who is responsible for his actions, but if all of the Hollywood stars, with their fame and fortune and lust to place blame anywhere except where it should go, could look back over his life with an objective eye they just might find a time and place that certain actions might have helped Tookie spare his own life.
Jamey Green
Why not all executions deter murder
By Joanna Shepherd
ATLANTA – At approximately 12:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Dec. 13, Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in California. His execution was California's twelfth since 1977. Although California has the largest death row in the United States, with approximately 650 inmates, it has one of the lowest ratios of inmates executed to inmates on death row. California sentences many to death, but it executes few.
There are many moral and legal issues in the debate over capital punishment. One central issue is whether executions deter murder. Deterrence is the basis that many policymakers and courts cite for capital punishment. For example, in one of his presidential debates with Al Gore in 2000, President Bush stated that capital punishment deters crime and that deterrence is the only valid reason for capital punishment. Likewise, the Supreme Court, when it held in its landmark 1976 decision Gregg v. Georgia that capital punishment was constitutional, cited deterrence as one of its main reasons.
Theories are conflicting as to whether executions will reduce or increase murders. Executions may deter some criminals from committing murder because they raise the potential costs of committing a murder. Or, executions may lead to a brutalization effect, creating a climate of brutal violence and setting an example of killing to avenge grievances.
Recent empirical evidence initially seemed to confirm the deterrence theory. In the past decade, 12 empirical studies by economists, published in peer-reviewed journals, have found evidence consistent with a strong deterrent effect. Most of these studies, including three by me, use large data sets that combine information from all 50 states or all US counties over many years to show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders.
Although the previous studies estimated a national average deterrent effect, it is reasonable to assume that the deterrent effect will vary based on the great differences in states' application of the death penalty. For example, states vary widely in: their definitions of capital crimes, their frequency of imposing capital sentences, their frequency of executions, their methods of execution, and the publicity those executions receive.
In a study recently published by the Michigan Law Review, I use three well-known data sets common to empirical studies of crime and well-tested empirical methods. I find that the impact of executions differs among states with the death penalty. Although executions appear to deter crime in approximately one-fifth of these states, in the remaining 80 percent, executions show no deterrent effect. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions.
Why does this happen? One important factor is that, on average and with exceptions, the states where capital punishment deters murder tend to execute many more people than do the states where capital punishment incites crime or has no effect.
An intuitive explanation for this is that each execution creates two opposing reactions: a brutalization effect and a deterrent effect. For a state's first few executions, the deterrent effect is small. Only if a state executes many people does deterrence grow; only then do potential criminals become convinced that the state is serious about the punishment, so that they start to reduce their criminal activity. For most states, when the number of executions exceeds some threshold level, the deterrent effect begins to outweigh the brutalization effect. In the four-fifths of states where executions either increased murders or had no effect, the brutalization effect either counterbalances or outweighs the deterrent effect.
What about the earlier studies showing deterrence as a national average? These results appear to be caused by the few states with many executions and deterrence outweighing the many states with no deterrence or increased murders.
Will Stanley Williams's execution increase or decrease murders? If Williams had been executed in Texas, his execution would be expected to deter future murders. My study shows a strong deterrent effect there, seemingly motivated by the hundreds of people that Texas has executed in recent decades.
California is different. The three data sets that my recent paper analyzes vary by time period and other characteristics. Therefore, there are some differences among the data sets in the states that fall into each group: deterrent, no effect, and brutalization. Nevertheless, none of the data sets in California show that executions deter murder.
Perhaps this is explained by Williams being only the twelfth execution in California in the past quarter century, compared with the 650 on death row there. Perhaps this low ratio of executions to death-row inmates is not enough to convince potential criminals that the possibility of execution is a real threat that could be imposed on them.
However, it is possible that future executions in California may have a deterrent effect. Ten of California's 12 executions have taken place within the past decade. Perhaps the increased frequency will shift California to being a deterrence state. If so, the execution of Williams may save the lives of other potential murder victims. Only time, and future empirical analysis, will tell.
• Joanna Shepherd is an assistant professor of law at Emory Law School
By Joanna Shepherd
ATLANTA – At approximately 12:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Dec. 13, Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in California. His execution was California's twelfth since 1977. Although California has the largest death row in the United States, with approximately 650 inmates, it has one of the lowest ratios of inmates executed to inmates on death row. California sentences many to death, but it executes few.
There are many moral and legal issues in the debate over capital punishment. One central issue is whether executions deter murder. Deterrence is the basis that many policymakers and courts cite for capital punishment. For example, in one of his presidential debates with Al Gore in 2000, President Bush stated that capital punishment deters crime and that deterrence is the only valid reason for capital punishment. Likewise, the Supreme Court, when it held in its landmark 1976 decision Gregg v. Georgia that capital punishment was constitutional, cited deterrence as one of its main reasons.
Theories are conflicting as to whether executions will reduce or increase murders. Executions may deter some criminals from committing murder because they raise the potential costs of committing a murder. Or, executions may lead to a brutalization effect, creating a climate of brutal violence and setting an example of killing to avenge grievances.
Recent empirical evidence initially seemed to confirm the deterrence theory. In the past decade, 12 empirical studies by economists, published in peer-reviewed journals, have found evidence consistent with a strong deterrent effect. Most of these studies, including three by me, use large data sets that combine information from all 50 states or all US counties over many years to show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders.
Although the previous studies estimated a national average deterrent effect, it is reasonable to assume that the deterrent effect will vary based on the great differences in states' application of the death penalty. For example, states vary widely in: their definitions of capital crimes, their frequency of imposing capital sentences, their frequency of executions, their methods of execution, and the publicity those executions receive.
In a study recently published by the Michigan Law Review, I use three well-known data sets common to empirical studies of crime and well-tested empirical methods. I find that the impact of executions differs among states with the death penalty. Although executions appear to deter crime in approximately one-fifth of these states, in the remaining 80 percent, executions show no deterrent effect. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions.
Why does this happen? One important factor is that, on average and with exceptions, the states where capital punishment deters murder tend to execute many more people than do the states where capital punishment incites crime or has no effect.
An intuitive explanation for this is that each execution creates two opposing reactions: a brutalization effect and a deterrent effect. For a state's first few executions, the deterrent effect is small. Only if a state executes many people does deterrence grow; only then do potential criminals become convinced that the state is serious about the punishment, so that they start to reduce their criminal activity. For most states, when the number of executions exceeds some threshold level, the deterrent effect begins to outweigh the brutalization effect. In the four-fifths of states where executions either increased murders or had no effect, the brutalization effect either counterbalances or outweighs the deterrent effect.
What about the earlier studies showing deterrence as a national average? These results appear to be caused by the few states with many executions and deterrence outweighing the many states with no deterrence or increased murders.
Will Stanley Williams's execution increase or decrease murders? If Williams had been executed in Texas, his execution would be expected to deter future murders. My study shows a strong deterrent effect there, seemingly motivated by the hundreds of people that Texas has executed in recent decades.
California is different. The three data sets that my recent paper analyzes vary by time period and other characteristics. Therefore, there are some differences among the data sets in the states that fall into each group: deterrent, no effect, and brutalization. Nevertheless, none of the data sets in California show that executions deter murder.
Perhaps this is explained by Williams being only the twelfth execution in California in the past quarter century, compared with the 650 on death row there. Perhaps this low ratio of executions to death-row inmates is not enough to convince potential criminals that the possibility of execution is a real threat that could be imposed on them.
However, it is possible that future executions in California may have a deterrent effect. Ten of California's 12 executions have taken place within the past decade. Perhaps the increased frequency will shift California to being a deterrence state. If so, the execution of Williams may save the lives of other potential murder victims. Only time, and future empirical analysis, will tell.
• Joanna Shepherd is an assistant professor of law at Emory Law School
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Valerie Plame's Last Day at the CIA
Sources Confirm Betrayed Agent's Departure From Agency
By PETE YOST, AP
WASHINGTON (Dec. 10) - Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose exposure led to a criminal investigation of the Bush White House, spent her last day at the spy agency Friday.
Neither the agency nor Plame's husband would confirm her departure, but two people who have known Plame for a number of years confirmed she was leaving.
Married to Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was working at agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 2003 when her CIA status was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak. That triggered a probe that led to the recent indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically.
She was an employee in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.
"Her career was arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed by a mean political trick," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.
Plame's CIA connection was disclosed eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
In the preface to the paperback edition of his book, "The Politics of Truth," Wilson says that he and his wife were the focus of a "Republican smear machine."
Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, remains under investigation in the Plame probe. Libby, who resigned from the government the day of his indictment, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.
Plame has been cast by Bush administration defenders as "just a desk jockey at the CIA, someone who wasn't really undercover and a manipulative Mata Hari who aspired to bring down the Bush administration. All of that is false," said former CIA officer Larry Johnson, a friend of Plame. "At the end of the day, she was betrayed by her own government and they show no signs of remorse."
12-10-05 05:46 EST
This article is a wonderful example of how the news media loves to spin events and make them into something that never really existed before. Don't you like the way they refer to Mr Novak as a "conservative columnist", while they make Mrs V out to be this pitiful, poor, hardworking CIA agent equal to someone that had put her life on the line in high risk, covert, undercover operations in the face of terrible threats that can no longer do her job because someone knew she was married to Joe Wilson. And when the question came up about who told ole Joe to go to Africa and do a fact finding mission on discrediting the Presidents comments about intelligence reports from many other countries concerning "yellow cake" (something nuclear) they simply said, his wife did.
Lets stop here for just a moment- Did she have the authority to send him or even suggest that he be the one to go? (that would be like Bill Clinton having Monica handle the investigation of the stained dress)
I have not heard one news source ask that question, except Fox News, with no answers as of yet.
Has anyone actually read Joe's report. From what I can gather his report contained nothing that would show any contradiction to the initial intel reports that Bush had sourced. But the book he wrote about the trip states things somewhat differently. He simply opinionated his report based on his pre-conceived ideas and not on fact.
Lets face the truth!
1. She was not in danger
2. He should not be the one reseaching on CIA time and money.
3. They have pretty much concluded that no crime was committed surrounded the Plame game. Only mis-spoken answers to questioning by the investigators. (I could replay the tape with Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" over and over here but I won't)
At the end of this article it almost makes me sick the way they use the betrayal song, while democratic leaders pipe off sound bite after sound bite on how this war on terror is not able to be won. They throw dishonor in the face of every American soldier with the spin rhetoric they pump through their sewer channels everyday, and for what? Political gain. They have not gained anything yet in my opinion.. But it is certainly evident that they will stop at nothing to bring down this administration, even if it cost them their pride, dignity and integrity; not that there was much of that left in that party anyway.
Just don't spew your venom on our men and women of the military that fights for a cause you have obviously forgotten about.
Jamey Green
Sources Confirm Betrayed Agent's Departure From Agency
By PETE YOST, AP
WASHINGTON (Dec. 10) - Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose exposure led to a criminal investigation of the Bush White House, spent her last day at the spy agency Friday.
Neither the agency nor Plame's husband would confirm her departure, but two people who have known Plame for a number of years confirmed she was leaving.
Married to Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was working at agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 2003 when her CIA status was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak. That triggered a probe that led to the recent indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically.
She was an employee in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.
"Her career was arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed by a mean political trick," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.
Plame's CIA connection was disclosed eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
In the preface to the paperback edition of his book, "The Politics of Truth," Wilson says that he and his wife were the focus of a "Republican smear machine."
Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, remains under investigation in the Plame probe. Libby, who resigned from the government the day of his indictment, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.
Plame has been cast by Bush administration defenders as "just a desk jockey at the CIA, someone who wasn't really undercover and a manipulative Mata Hari who aspired to bring down the Bush administration. All of that is false," said former CIA officer Larry Johnson, a friend of Plame. "At the end of the day, she was betrayed by her own government and they show no signs of remorse."
12-10-05 05:46 EST
This article is a wonderful example of how the news media loves to spin events and make them into something that never really existed before. Don't you like the way they refer to Mr Novak as a "conservative columnist", while they make Mrs V out to be this pitiful, poor, hardworking CIA agent equal to someone that had put her life on the line in high risk, covert, undercover operations in the face of terrible threats that can no longer do her job because someone knew she was married to Joe Wilson. And when the question came up about who told ole Joe to go to Africa and do a fact finding mission on discrediting the Presidents comments about intelligence reports from many other countries concerning "yellow cake" (something nuclear) they simply said, his wife did.
Lets stop here for just a moment- Did she have the authority to send him or even suggest that he be the one to go? (that would be like Bill Clinton having Monica handle the investigation of the stained dress)
I have not heard one news source ask that question, except Fox News, with no answers as of yet.
Has anyone actually read Joe's report. From what I can gather his report contained nothing that would show any contradiction to the initial intel reports that Bush had sourced. But the book he wrote about the trip states things somewhat differently. He simply opinionated his report based on his pre-conceived ideas and not on fact.
Lets face the truth!
1. She was not in danger
2. He should not be the one reseaching on CIA time and money.
3. They have pretty much concluded that no crime was committed surrounded the Plame game. Only mis-spoken answers to questioning by the investigators. (I could replay the tape with Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" over and over here but I won't)
At the end of this article it almost makes me sick the way they use the betrayal song, while democratic leaders pipe off sound bite after sound bite on how this war on terror is not able to be won. They throw dishonor in the face of every American soldier with the spin rhetoric they pump through their sewer channels everyday, and for what? Political gain. They have not gained anything yet in my opinion.. But it is certainly evident that they will stop at nothing to bring down this administration, even if it cost them their pride, dignity and integrity; not that there was much of that left in that party anyway.
Just don't spew your venom on our men and women of the military that fights for a cause you have obviously forgotten about.
Jamey Green
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Night That The Light Went Out In Mississippi
Via Bitter who got it from Radley Balko of The Agitator.
Cory Maye sits on death row. His crime? He shot the son of the police chief. Why? Cause said son of a police chief was a member of a raiding party that busted in his house in the middle of the night unannounced serving a "no knock" warrant at the wrong damn address. Mr. Maye dutifully shot the armed intruder as I'd hope any one of you would do. But the problem is that despite it being justifiable you have a black man in Mississippi who shot the white son of a white police chief. He was charged & then convicted by an all white jury, based on the dislike of the defense attorney's closing statement & their belief that he was too uppity.
If the reports that Mr. Balko based his post on are accurate this is a gross disregard for justice & the law.
This story from WLBT written by Maggie Wade has a different take on things.
(FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE)
WWW.publicola.mu.nu/archives/2005/12/08.COM
Via Bitter who got it from Radley Balko of The Agitator.
Cory Maye sits on death row. His crime? He shot the son of the police chief. Why? Cause said son of a police chief was a member of a raiding party that busted in his house in the middle of the night unannounced serving a "no knock" warrant at the wrong damn address. Mr. Maye dutifully shot the armed intruder as I'd hope any one of you would do. But the problem is that despite it being justifiable you have a black man in Mississippi who shot the white son of a white police chief. He was charged & then convicted by an all white jury, based on the dislike of the defense attorney's closing statement & their belief that he was too uppity.
If the reports that Mr. Balko based his post on are accurate this is a gross disregard for justice & the law.
This story from WLBT written by Maggie Wade has a different take on things.
(FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE)
WWW.publicola.mu.nu/archives/2005/12/08.COM
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The following is a small excerpt from a very good article by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard.
Pump Up the Volume
Finally the "nonpolitical" White House gets wise.
by Fred Barnes
12/12/2005, Volume 011, Issue 13
Follow the link to read the rest of this article.
Pump Up the Volume
Finally the "nonpolitical" White House gets wise.
by Fred Barnes
12/12/2005, Volume 011, Issue 13
WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq.
Follow the link to read the rest of this article.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Following is a quote from a recent speech given by Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld; I don't think he could have defined it more clearly. This example shows how our media is covering Iraq and the lack there of.
"You couldn't tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties in a brief 40 days at Iwo Jima," Rumsfeld said of the World War Two battle against the Japanese for the small Pacific island.
''To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.''
"So too, in Iraq, it's appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for, or more accurately what they lived for," Rumsfeld said in his speech at the John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
"You couldn't tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties in a brief 40 days at Iwo Jima," Rumsfeld said of the World War Two battle against the Japanese for the small Pacific island.
''To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.''
"So too, in Iraq, it's appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for, or more accurately what they lived for," Rumsfeld said in his speech at the John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
December 3, 2005
The Stakes in Iraq
By Jon Kyl
"The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every ... transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men."
- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, #71
President Bush gave an important speech last week that stems directly from Hamilton's observation that responsible leaders must at times rise above transient public opinion influenced by clever politicians to guide society toward the greater good.
Recognizing that the protests of anti-war activists, amplified by partisan attacks, have begun to affect public support for our presence in Iraq, the President took to the podium at the U.S. Naval Academy to remind the nation of the nature of the enemy we face in Islamic extremism. Perhaps his most important message was that victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. national interest: what happens there will either embolden terrorists to expand their reach, or deal them a decisive and crippling blow. In a world of instant soundbites about casualties, and politicians focused on the next election, it falls to the Commander-in-Chief to constantly remind us of the big picture.
The Stakes in Iraq
By Jon Kyl
"The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every ... transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men."
- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, #71
President Bush gave an important speech last week that stems directly from Hamilton's observation that responsible leaders must at times rise above transient public opinion influenced by clever politicians to guide society toward the greater good.
Recognizing that the protests of anti-war activists, amplified by partisan attacks, have begun to affect public support for our presence in Iraq, the President took to the podium at the U.S. Naval Academy to remind the nation of the nature of the enemy we face in Islamic extremism. Perhaps his most important message was that victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. national interest: what happens there will either embolden terrorists to expand their reach, or deal them a decisive and crippling blow. In a world of instant soundbites about casualties, and politicians focused on the next election, it falls to the Commander-in-Chief to constantly remind us of the big picture.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation The House Democratic leader may have just handed a victory to the Congressional GOP. by William Kristol 11/30/2005 4:18:00 PM
Email a Friend
Respond to this article
Today, Nancy Pelosi endorsed withdrawal from Iraq. Her statement is a political opportunity for the GOP.
Until now, it seemed to me more likely than not that Democrats would win back the House in 2006: Bush's numbers are bad; the GOP is getting no credit for a strong economy (which could in any case weaken by a year from now); the Abramoff scandal is going to get bigger; twelve years in charge of the House, and three years in control of all three elected bodies, have created weariness and dissatisfaction with the GOP. All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi.
I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory.
It goes without saying that Bush should seek victory in Iraq regardless of Congressional elections, and regardless of polling results. But Republicans on the Hill, whose nervousness has in turn rattled
some in the White House, should now realize that the die is cast. If, a year from now, Iraq is judged to have been a mistake and to be a disaster, the Democrats will benefit--for that is the position of their leadership. But if Iraq is judged to be a war worth fighting and winning--a war we are proud our soldiers are fighting and which we expect to win--that judgment will benefit the GOP in a way it might not have until Pelosi's statement today.
So all Bush has to do is fight the war. And if he really wants to torment the Democrats--and advance the war effort--he could make Joe Lieberman Secretary of Defense.
--William Kristol
I like these guys at the Weekly Standard. They tell it like it is. Pelosi can't hide her true colours forever. Her, Hillary and many others have tried fervently in the past few years to appear to be somewhere in the middle. The truth is bound to come out.
Email a Friend
Respond to this article
Today, Nancy Pelosi endorsed withdrawal from Iraq. Her statement is a political opportunity for the GOP.
Until now, it seemed to me more likely than not that Democrats would win back the House in 2006: Bush's numbers are bad; the GOP is getting no credit for a strong economy (which could in any case weaken by a year from now); the Abramoff scandal is going to get bigger; twelve years in charge of the House, and three years in control of all three elected bodies, have created weariness and dissatisfaction with the GOP. All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi.
I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory.
It goes without saying that Bush should seek victory in Iraq regardless of Congressional elections, and regardless of polling results. But Republicans on the Hill, whose nervousness has in turn rattled
some in the White House, should now realize that the die is cast. If, a year from now, Iraq is judged to have been a mistake and to be a disaster, the Democrats will benefit--for that is the position of their leadership. But if Iraq is judged to be a war worth fighting and winning--a war we are proud our soldiers are fighting and which we expect to win--that judgment will benefit the GOP in a way it might not have until Pelosi's statement today.
So all Bush has to do is fight the war. And if he really wants to torment the Democrats--and advance the war effort--he could make Joe Lieberman Secretary of Defense.
--William Kristol
I like these guys at the Weekly Standard. They tell it like it is. Pelosi can't hide her true colours forever. Her, Hillary and many others have tried fervently in the past few years to appear to be somewhere in the middle. The truth is bound to come out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)