"The Scout Report," a weekly e-mail I receive from the good folks at http://scout.wisc.edu/ includes the following about blogs. I haven't posted for over a month, while life has speeded up a bit, but I hope to resume soon. These resources and suggestions are worth considering as we watch and participate in the amazing blog explosion.
"Code of conduct proposed for blogs
Web pioneers say code of conduct needed to clean up manners online http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=547872007
Bloggers disinclined toward suggestion of Net civility http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BUGH4P5G1S1.DTL
Bloggers code of conduct http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC
Blog 100 http://news.com.com/2310-10784_3-0.html
BuzzMachine http://www.buzzmachine.com/
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Legal Guide for Bloggers http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/
Internet Scout Project Weblog http://scout.wisc.edu/Weblog/
The modern blog evolved from the online diary, and reasonable estimates of the number of blogs approximate that there are over 60 million blogs. While most of the discourse and commentary on blogs remains civil, there have been a number of recent events that have caused some to wonder whether there should be an official blogging code of conduct. This past Sunday, Tim O’Reilly who is both a conference promoter and a primary figure in the Web 2.0 world posted some initial suggestions for just such a code. Of course, shortly after Reilly posted these suggestions, there was a veritable snowstorm of responses posted within the blogosphere, some of which were quite vitriolic, and others which were a bit more detached, but still upset. Jeff Jarvis, a professor at City University (and an active blogger), responded after hearing about this proposal by stating “I’m rather resentful of someone who has the temerity to tell me how they think I should behave.” Some of Reilly’s initial suggestions included banning anonymous comments, and he also called on bloggers to not post material that harasses others or is knowingly false. Not surprisingly, Reilly’s own blog was quickly filled with a variety of comments, including one user who quoted Benjamin Franklin and another who referenced the Council of Nicea and its attempt to reform the Christian church in the 4th century. [KMG]
The first link will take visitors to an insightful piece about this proposed code of conduct offered in this Tuesday’s online edition of the Scotsman. On a related note, the second link leads to a fine piece by the San Francisco Chronicle’s Verne Kopytoff on the reaction of bloggers to this proposed code. The third link whisks users away to the proposed code of conduct, which is referenced as a “starting point for discussion” on the whole matter. Given the sheer number of blogs, the fourth link will be most welcome. It is a listing of the top 100 blogs as determined by CNET News.com, complete with a smattering of recent posts. The fifth link leads to the very compelling blog of Jeff Jarvis, who is the director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. The sixth link is definitely worth a visit, as it contains a number of helpful sections on the legal liability of bloggers, and a FAQ on both intellectual property and defamation. Finally, the last link leads to our very own blog here at the Internet Scout Project. [KMG] "
Friday, April 13, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Dean of Islamic Scholarship: Europe Doomed, Israeli Leaders Must Wake Up
Professor Bernard Lewis, a Brit teaching for years at Columbia University, is probably the 
foremost western scholar of Islam. Among his many writings is The 
Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror . Unquestionably informed, he is also even-handed, irenic, and calm -- no enemy of Islam, while opposed to Islamism -- which makes his opinions about the dire condition of Europe (especially its Jews) and of Israel's tepid response to Islamism important and urgent. Read excerpts of a recent interview with The Jerusalem Post.
foremost western scholar of Islam. Among his many writings is The 
Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror . Unquestionably informed, he is also even-handed, irenic, and calm -- no enemy of Islam, while opposed to Islamism -- which makes his opinions about the dire condition of Europe (especially its Jews) and of Israel's tepid response to Islamism important and urgent. Read excerpts of a recent interview with The Jerusalem Post.
Monday, January 29, 2007
More Politics Than Science, Again: Global Warming
On PBS' "Now" last Friday, Laurie David, producer of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," proclaimed, with the certainty of a Puritan preacher, that the science is settled, global warming is happening at crisis levels, human activity is to blame -- 
and anyone who disagrees is sub-humanly ignorant (asserted in perhaps milder words pointing to a similar judgment). Passionate she was and attractive, because I think she's sincere in her passion.
But two people and a few facts leave me thinking she's two-thirds (or more) wrong: yes, global warming is happening (about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, pretty much everyone agrees) but no, not at crisis levels and not caused primarily by human fossil-fuels emissions.
The two people?
(1) Emeritus Professor William Gray, hurricane researcher at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, who knows that surface global temperature rises and falls for reasons that, as yet, we don't understand. He produces a graph showing such temperatures falling from the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s. Newsweek in 1975 (28 April) warned that lowered temperatures could result in lower harvests, leading to resulting famines that "could be catastrophic."
Let's see: I graduated from high school in 1974, and the only shortage that stands out from that time in my mind today is the humanly contrived gasoline shortages of 1973 and later. I don't remember missing a meal or any empty grocery shelves. Temps fell, yes; but no, no crisis, and no, human activity did not cause the fall.
Gray acknowledges that temps have been rising since the 1970s, but he attributes the current media-and-political "climate" about the rise to, well, forces driving media and politics. Media profits from crisis, which raises not temperatures but media and advertising $ale$. And, whatever viewpoint controls government agencies ends up controlling the intellectual output of researchers who profit from government-grant revenues.
Gray should know. After winning government NOAA grants for 30 years, after the Clinton administration arrived in 1993 (and gave the global-warming-crisis theory a home in government), his grant applications have been rejected. Every time. 13 times, to be exact. "A mild form of McCarthyism" he says, against anyone skeptical of the "crisis."
(2) Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT (now there's a title to kill for). He is an often-cited early voice debunking climate-change hysteria. And he's not cooling his debunking. The earth's "always warming and cooling," and the increase we've seen over the past century "is much smaller than (computer climate) models predict we should have seen" given the amount of CO2 we've added. And adding more CO2 may amplify the greenhouse effect less than the earliest additions of CO2 because it's "like painting a window with black paint. The first coat blocks out most of the light; adding three times as many coats doesn't do a heck of a lot."
Now the facts, quoted straight from Stuart Shepard (from whom the above, except for my opening paragraphs, is summarized):
"You've heard there's a consensus among scientists concerning catastrophic human-induced global warming.
"Let's knock that down in three steps.
"One, while there is consensus that the average global temperature has increased, there is not a consensus on:
* How much it has gone up.
* Whether it will continue to go up.
* How much humans are responsible.
* Whether warmer temperature presents a crisis of a benefit.
* Whether increased CO2 levels cause the warming or follow the warming.
* What public-policy action we should take, if any.
* Whether anything we do would have a significant impact.
* Whether anything we do might have the opposite of the desired effect.
. . .
"Two, when someone trumpets a consensus, they're taking the general agreement concerning warmer average temperatures and stretching it to fit everything they are about to tell us we should do -- which is deceitful at best, sinister at worst.
"Three, as Lindzen expressed it, 'Science, first of all, is not conducted by consensus and science is not a matter of authority; it's a process. And so whenever [people] hear politicians declare "the science is settled, the debate is over" and so on, they should be aware, they're not hearing about science.
"He said 'the debate is over' line may be a good political technique, but it's dishonest."
(S. Shepard, "Hot Air: Global warming is more about politics than science," Focus on the Family Action, Focus on the Family Citizen, November 2006, pp. 22--23.)
Concerning the politics of it all, E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, believes that recent attempts to get evangelical Christians on the warming-crisis bandwagon express "an intentional effort . . . to split the evangelical vote that has tended to be fairly strong pro-Republican in order to return control of the Congress to the Democratic Party" (Shepard, p. 23).
The Dems now control Congress, but I hope that the cautions Beisner and others of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance urge will help cool the hysteria (the real warming crisis!)
before it brakes economies, which will certainly hurt the poor (at home and abroad) far more than the middle class and the rich. Why don't we hear Al Gore et al estimate what their global-warming mitigations will cost the most vulnerable among us? (Watch Beisner et al present "Call to Truth, Prudence and the Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming" at the Heritage Foundation, July 25, 2006.)
and anyone who disagrees is sub-humanly ignorant (asserted in perhaps milder words pointing to a similar judgment). Passionate she was and attractive, because I think she's sincere in her passion.But two people and a few facts leave me thinking she's two-thirds (or more) wrong: yes, global warming is happening (about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, pretty much everyone agrees) but no, not at crisis levels and not caused primarily by human fossil-fuels emissions.
The two people?
(1) Emeritus Professor William Gray, hurricane researcher at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, who knows that surface global temperature rises and falls for reasons that, as yet, we don't understand. He produces a graph showing such temperatures falling from the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s. Newsweek in 1975 (28 April) warned that lowered temperatures could result in lower harvests, leading to resulting famines that "could be catastrophic."
Let's see: I graduated from high school in 1974, and the only shortage that stands out from that time in my mind today is the humanly contrived gasoline shortages of 1973 and later. I don't remember missing a meal or any empty grocery shelves. Temps fell, yes; but no, no crisis, and no, human activity did not cause the fall.
Gray acknowledges that temps have been rising since the 1970s, but he attributes the current media-and-political "climate" about the rise to, well, forces driving media and politics. Media profits from crisis, which raises not temperatures but media and advertising $ale$. And, whatever viewpoint controls government agencies ends up controlling the intellectual output of researchers who profit from government-grant revenues.
Gray should know. After winning government NOAA grants for 30 years, after the Clinton administration arrived in 1993 (and gave the global-warming-crisis theory a home in government), his grant applications have been rejected. Every time. 13 times, to be exact. "A mild form of McCarthyism" he says, against anyone skeptical of the "crisis."
(2) Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT (now there's a title to kill for). He is an often-cited early voice debunking climate-change hysteria. And he's not cooling his debunking. The earth's "always warming and cooling," and the increase we've seen over the past century "is much smaller than (computer climate) models predict we should have seen" given the amount of CO2 we've added. And adding more CO2 may amplify the greenhouse effect less than the earliest additions of CO2 because it's "like painting a window with black paint. The first coat blocks out most of the light; adding three times as many coats doesn't do a heck of a lot."
Now the facts, quoted straight from Stuart Shepard (from whom the above, except for my opening paragraphs, is summarized):
"You've heard there's a consensus among scientists concerning catastrophic human-induced global warming.
"Let's knock that down in three steps.
"One, while there is consensus that the average global temperature has increased, there is not a consensus on:
* How much it has gone up.
* Whether it will continue to go up.
* How much humans are responsible.
* Whether warmer temperature presents a crisis of a benefit.
* Whether increased CO2 levels cause the warming or follow the warming.
* What public-policy action we should take, if any.
* Whether anything we do would have a significant impact.
* Whether anything we do might have the opposite of the desired effect.
. . .
"Two, when someone trumpets a consensus, they're taking the general agreement concerning warmer average temperatures and stretching it to fit everything they are about to tell us we should do -- which is deceitful at best, sinister at worst.
"Three, as Lindzen expressed it, 'Science, first of all, is not conducted by consensus and science is not a matter of authority; it's a process. And so whenever [people] hear politicians declare "the science is settled, the debate is over" and so on, they should be aware, they're not hearing about science.
"He said 'the debate is over' line may be a good political technique, but it's dishonest."
(S. Shepard, "Hot Air: Global warming is more about politics than science," Focus on the Family Action, Focus on the Family Citizen, November 2006, pp. 22--23.)
Concerning the politics of it all, E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, believes that recent attempts to get evangelical Christians on the warming-crisis bandwagon express "an intentional effort . . . to split the evangelical vote that has tended to be fairly strong pro-Republican in order to return control of the Congress to the Democratic Party" (Shepard, p. 23).
The Dems now control Congress, but I hope that the cautions Beisner and others of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance urge will help cool the hysteria (the real warming crisis!)
before it brakes economies, which will certainly hurt the poor (at home and abroad) far more than the middle class and the rich. Why don't we hear Al Gore et al estimate what their global-warming mitigations will cost the most vulnerable among us? (Watch Beisner et al present "Call to Truth, Prudence and the Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming" at the Heritage Foundation, July 25, 2006.)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Political Correctness Gags Campus Health Services
UNPROTECTED: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student, by Anonymous, M.D. (aka Dr. Miriam Grossman, UCLA)
I haven't been planning to make political correctness (PC) the theme of this blog, but after posting about psychiatric malpractice, I've just heard a talk by a practicing campus psychiatrist that gave the same message: those promoting radical social change have perverted college health systems nationwide. The resulting PC climate intimidates doctors who know more than they're routinely telling student patients, doctors who therefore treat patients inadequately, doctors who therefore promote illness.
Watch Dr. Grossman's talk at the Family Research Council (25 January 07) . (Other coverage of the book exists at National Review Online, twice(!).)
Her book tells readers . . .
*"About an Ivy League university’s health website that okays risky behaviors including S&M, 'swinging,' and bestiality
* How campus health centers hound students to stop smoking, eat right, get enough sleep, and wear sunscreen, but tacitly approve of promiscuity, and whitewash the consequences of sexually transmitted infections
* How HIV education is distorted, causing hysteria among students who are at no risk for infection
* How campus counselors focus on sexual orientation, abuse, molestation, cigarettes and caffeine, but neglect to ask students about abortion
* How ideology-driven health services lead young women to believe they are just like men – and to pay a high price for it.
* How, despite strong evidence of significant health benefits of church attendance and faith in God, psychology remains anti-religion -- an irrational, out-dated prejudice Dr Anonymous calls 'theophobia.'
These are among her final words at today's talk: "Where I work [student health services at UCLA], it's very difficult to say the things I've just said, and that’s why I wrote the book anonymously. I went out on a limb." At her work, only one colleague has expressed support for Dr. Grossman’s views. "Miriam," she said, "This book completely validates me and everything I believe in."
Dr. Grossman continues, “But guess what? She told me that behind a closed door. Otherwise, mum’s the word. Many people in my profession are intimidated. The atmosphere on campus is intolerant. I do not know what’s going to face me when I go back to work on Monday. And this of course on a campus that celebrates diversity. I am looking for another job."
So much for the university born of Enlightenment.
I haven't been planning to make political correctness (PC) the theme of this blog, but after posting about psychiatric malpractice, I've just heard a talk by a practicing campus psychiatrist that gave the same message: those promoting radical social change have perverted college health systems nationwide. The resulting PC climate intimidates doctors who know more than they're routinely telling student patients, doctors who therefore treat patients inadequately, doctors who therefore promote illness.
Watch Dr. Grossman's talk at the Family Research Council (25 January 07) . (Other coverage of the book exists at National Review Online, twice(!).)
Her book tells readers . . .
*"About an Ivy League university’s health website that okays risky behaviors including S&M, 'swinging,' and bestiality
* How campus health centers hound students to stop smoking, eat right, get enough sleep, and wear sunscreen, but tacitly approve of promiscuity, and whitewash the consequences of sexually transmitted infections
* How HIV education is distorted, causing hysteria among students who are at no risk for infection
* How campus counselors focus on sexual orientation, abuse, molestation, cigarettes and caffeine, but neglect to ask students about abortion
* How ideology-driven health services lead young women to believe they are just like men – and to pay a high price for it.
* How, despite strong evidence of significant health benefits of church attendance and faith in God, psychology remains anti-religion -- an irrational, out-dated prejudice Dr Anonymous calls 'theophobia.'
(the above copied from sales copy at www. bn.com)
These are among her final words at today's talk: "Where I work [student health services at UCLA], it's very difficult to say the things I've just said, and that’s why I wrote the book anonymously. I went out on a limb." At her work, only one colleague has expressed support for Dr. Grossman’s views. "Miriam," she said, "This book completely validates me and everything I believe in."
Dr. Grossman continues, “But guess what? She told me that behind a closed door. Otherwise, mum’s the word. Many people in my profession are intimidated. The atmosphere on campus is intolerant. I do not know what’s going to face me when I go back to work on Monday. And this of course on a campus that celebrates diversity. I am looking for another job."
So much for the university born of Enlightenment.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Psychiatric Malpractice
Politics, not Science, Redefined Homosexuality as Normal in the 1970’s
I learned my first tidbit about this tectonic medical-social shift from a public radio show in 2002. What stuck in my mind was how a Honolulu bar party of closeted homosexual psychiatrists and one activist convinced a heterosexual psychiatrist to champion deleting homosexuality as a disease from the 1973 edition of the authoritative DSM (Diagnostics and Statistics Manual). The story is bigger than that nonetheless climactic event (see links below). But simply, in the words of Robert Bayer, historian of public health, the American Psychiatric Association “had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism …had compelled psychiatrists to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” (Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press [1987], p. 104).
In other words, a decision society had entrusted to the scientific expertise of an elite group society presumed to be specially, if not uniquely, qualified to decide, a decision that did nothing less than overhaul society, was made because a special-interest group demanded it, not because science and reason justified or compelled it. I doubt that very many people know this story, one more chapter of the unfortunately never-ending iterations of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes that is best not told in order to maintain the status quo of homosexual triumph over social well being. But once you hear the story, I think you will agree with me that the scientific community today should not continue to expect laypersons to trust its judgments just because those handing down such dicta wear lab coats monogrammed M.D. or Ph.D. We know, not only from this story but also from religious-like defenses of macro-evolution (supposedly caused by only one mechanism: impersonal, blind, natural selection), that social forces can and do trump rationality, even in the world of hard-shelled scientism. Without deep honesty (a virtue that, by its nature, exists only when one makes it a habit), desires, personal or social, will "cook the books" of evidence to conclude as near as possible to what one desires.
The paper I recommend: “The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components,” by Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.S., M.D.
The radio broadcast you can hear: “81 words.”
A classic book by a courageous psychiatrist who opposed the 1973 DSM changes and who has since suffered professionally because of his principled opposition: Homosexuality: A Freedom too Far. A Psychoanalyst Answers 1000 Questions about Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society, by Charles W. Socarides. Phoenix, AZ : Adam Margrave Books, 1995; ISBN: 0964664259. (Haven't read it yet but hope to. As one might expect, it is assailed by pro-homosex persons.)
I learned my first tidbit about this tectonic medical-social shift from a public radio show in 2002. What stuck in my mind was how a Honolulu bar party of closeted homosexual psychiatrists and one activist convinced a heterosexual psychiatrist to champion deleting homosexuality as a disease from the 1973 edition of the authoritative DSM (Diagnostics and Statistics Manual). The story is bigger than that nonetheless climactic event (see links below). But simply, in the words of Robert Bayer, historian of public health, the American Psychiatric Association “had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism …had compelled psychiatrists to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” (Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press [1987], p. 104).
In other words, a decision society had entrusted to the scientific expertise of an elite group society presumed to be specially, if not uniquely, qualified to decide, a decision that did nothing less than overhaul society, was made because a special-interest group demanded it, not because science and reason justified or compelled it. I doubt that very many people know this story, one more chapter of the unfortunately never-ending iterations of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes that is best not told in order to maintain the status quo of homosexual triumph over social well being. But once you hear the story, I think you will agree with me that the scientific community today should not continue to expect laypersons to trust its judgments just because those handing down such dicta wear lab coats monogrammed M.D. or Ph.D. We know, not only from this story but also from religious-like defenses of macro-evolution (supposedly caused by only one mechanism: impersonal, blind, natural selection), that social forces can and do trump rationality, even in the world of hard-shelled scientism. Without deep honesty (a virtue that, by its nature, exists only when one makes it a habit), desires, personal or social, will "cook the books" of evidence to conclude as near as possible to what one desires.
The paper I recommend: “The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components,” by Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.S., M.D.
The radio broadcast you can hear: “81 words.”
A classic book by a courageous psychiatrist who opposed the 1973 DSM changes and who has since suffered professionally because of his principled opposition: Homosexuality: A Freedom too Far. A Psychoanalyst Answers 1000 Questions about Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society, by Charles W. Socarides. Phoenix, AZ : Adam Margrave Books, 1995; ISBN: 0964664259. (Haven't read it yet but hope to. As one might expect, it is assailed by pro-homosex persons.)
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The wages of sin (economic & political)
Urge your representative and Senator to hike the minimum wage to $7.15 if . . .
* you think (some) politicians can make the economy work better than the market can
* you really think it's the government's job to decide what a living wage is ; that is, if you kind of like a Centralized Economy (Stalin's dream and the USSR's nightmare)
* you don't believe people who work hard and seek to become more skillful in their work can earn promotions and wage increases
* you want to increase unemployment (10% forced min. wage increase will raise unemployment 1% to 3%)
* you want the cost of everything touched by minimum-wage workers to increase (rising labor costs raise consumer prices)
* you want to see more jobs go overseas, where competent workers are already available for well below the current US federal minimum wage.
See what the folks at Acton have to say.
* you think (some) politicians can make the economy work better than the market can
* you really think it's the government's job to decide what a living wage is ; that is, if you kind of like a Centralized Economy (Stalin's dream and the USSR's nightmare)
* you don't believe people who work hard and seek to become more skillful in their work can earn promotions and wage increases
* you want to increase unemployment (10% forced min. wage increase will raise unemployment 1% to 3%)
* you want the cost of everything touched by minimum-wage workers to increase (rising labor costs raise consumer prices)
* you want to see more jobs go overseas, where competent workers are already available for well below the current US federal minimum wage.
See what the folks at Acton have to say.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Make A Wounded Fighter's New Year a Bit Happier
My friend Beth sent this suggestion to me, which I recommend heartily:
Walter Reed Hospital, Family Affairs, (202) 782-2071, confirmed that if you address a card as described below, your card WILL go to a soldier at the hospital. Your small act of kindness will be greatly appreciated.
Here's the address:
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001
Walter Reed Hospital, Family Affairs, (202) 782-2071, confirmed that if you address a card as described below, your card WILL go to a soldier at the hospital. Your small act of kindness will be greatly appreciated.
Here's the address:
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001
Monday, December 25, 2006
Merry Christmas!
Enjoy this short fantasy by J. B. Phillips. I commend it to you as "full disclosure" of what Christmas is all about. /mer
The Visited Planet
J. B. Phillips
(author, Your God Is Too Small ; paraphraser, The New Testament in Modern English)
Once upon a time a very young angel was being shown round the splendours and glories of the universes by a senior and experienced angel. To tell the truth, the little angel was beginning to be tired and a little bored. He had been shown whirling galaxies and blazing suns, infinite distances in the deathly cold of inter-stellar space, and to his mind there seemed to be an awful lot of it all. Finally he was shown the galaxy of which our planetary system is but a small part. As the two of them drew near to the star which we call our sun and to its circling planets, the senior angel pointed to a small and rather insignificant sphere turning very slowly on its axis. It looked as dull as a dirty tennis-ball to the little angel, whose mind was filled with the size and glory of what he had seen.
"I want you to watch that one particularly," said the senior angel, pointing with his finger.
"Well, it looks very small and rather dirty to me," said the little angel. "What's special about that one?"
"That," replied his senior solemnly, "is the Visited Planet."
"Visited?" said the little one. "you don't mean visited by --------?"
"Indeed I do. That ball, which I have no doubt looks to you small and insignificant and not perhaps overclean, has been visited by our young Prince of Glory." And at these words he bowed his head reverently.
"But how?" queried the younger one. "Do you mean that our great and glorious Prince, with all these wonders and splendours of His Creation, and millions more that I'm sure I haven't seen yet, went down in Person to this fifth-rate little ball? Why should He do a thing like that?"
"It isn't for us," said his senior a little stiffly, "to question His 'why's', except that I must point out to you that He is not impressed by size and numbers, as you seem to be. But that He really went I know, and all of us in Heaven who know anything know that. As to why He became one of them - how else do you suppose could He visit them?"
The little angel's face wrinkled in disgust.
"Do you mean to tell me," he said, "that He stooped so low as to become one of those creeping, crawling creatures of that floating ball?"
"I do, and I don't think He would like you to call them 'creeping, crawling creatures' in that tone of voice. For, strange as it may seem to us, He loves them. He went down to visit them to lift them up to become like Him."
The little angel looked blank. Such a thought was almost beyond his comprehension.
"Close your eyes for a moment," said the senior angel, "and we will go back in what they call Time."
While the little angel's eyes were closed and the two of them moved nearer to the spinning ball, it stopped its spinning, spun backwards quite fast for a while, and then slowly resumed its usual rotation.
"Now look!" And as the little angel did as he was told, there appeared here and there on the dull surface of the globe little flashes of light, some merely momentary and some persisting for quite a time.
"Well, what am I seeing now?" queried the little angel.
"You are watching this little world as it was some thousands of years ago," returned his companion. "Every flash and glow of light that you see is something of the Father's knowledge and wisdom breaking into the minds and hearts of people who live upon the earth. Not many people, you see, can hear His Voice or understand what He says, even though He is speaking gently and quietly to them all the time."
"Why are they so blind and deaf and stupid?" asked the junior angel rather crossly.
"It is not for us to judge them. We who live in the Splendour have no idea what it is like to live in the dark. We hear the music and the Voice like the sound of many waters every day of over lives, but to them - well, there is much darkness and much noise and much distraction upon the earth. Only a few who are quiet and humble and wise hear His Voice. But watch, for in a moment you will see something truly wonderful."
The Earth went on turning and circling round the sun, and then quite suddenly, in the upper half of the globe, there appeared a light, tiny but so bright in its intensity that both the angels hid their eyes.
"I think I can guess," said the little angel in a low voice. "That was the Visit, wasn't it?"
"Yes, that was the Visit. The Light Himself went down there and lived among them; but in a moment, and you will be able to tell that even with your eyes closed, the light will go out."
"But why? Could He not bear their darkness and stupidity? Did He have to return here?"
"No, it wasn't that" returned the senior angel. His voice was stern and sad. "They failed to recognise Him for Who He was - or at least only a handful knew Him. For the most part they preferred their darkness to His Light, and in the end they killed Him."
"The fools, the crazy fools! They don't deserve ----"
"Neither you nor I, nor any other angel, knows why they were so foolish and so wicked. Nor can we say what they deserve or don't deserve. But the fact remains, they killed our Prince of Glory while He was Man amongst them."
"And that I suppose was the end? I see the whole Earth has gone black and dark. All right, I won't judge them, but surely that is all they could expect?"
"Wait, we are still far from the end of the story of the Visited Planet. Watch now, but be ready to cover your eyes again."
In utter blackness the earth turned round three times, and then there blazed with unbearable radiance a point of light.
"What now?" asked the little angel, shielding his eyes.
"They killed Him all right, but He conquered death. The thing most of them dread and fear all their lives He broke and conquered. He rose again, and a few of them saw Him and from then on became His utterly devoted slaves."
"Thank God for that," said the little angel.
"Amen. Open your eyes now, the dazzling light has gone. The Prince has returned to His Home of Light. But watch the Earth now."
As they looked, in place of the dazzling light there was a bright glow which throbbed and pulsated. And then as the Earth turned many times little points of light spread out. A few flickered and died; but for the most part the lights burned steadily, and as they continued to watch, in many parts of the globe there was a glow over many areas.
"You see what is happening?" asked the senior angel. "The bright glow is the company of loyal men and women He left behind, and with His help they spread the glow and now lights begin to shine all over the Earth."
"Yes, yes," said the little angel impatiently, "but how does it end? Will the little lights join up with each other? Will it all be light, as it is in Heaven?"
His senior shook his head. "We simply do not know," he replied. "It is in the Father's hands. Sometimes it is agony to watch and sometimes it is joy unspeakable. The end is not yet. But now I am sure you can see why this little ball is so important. He has visited it; He is working out His Plan upon it."
"Yes, I see, though I don't understand. I shall never forget that this is the Visited Planet."
The Visited Planet
J. B. Phillips
(author, Your God Is Too Small ; paraphraser, The New Testament in Modern English)
Once upon a time a very young angel was being shown round the splendours and glories of the universes by a senior and experienced angel. To tell the truth, the little angel was beginning to be tired and a little bored. He had been shown whirling galaxies and blazing suns, infinite distances in the deathly cold of inter-stellar space, and to his mind there seemed to be an awful lot of it all. Finally he was shown the galaxy of which our planetary system is but a small part. As the two of them drew near to the star which we call our sun and to its circling planets, the senior angel pointed to a small and rather insignificant sphere turning very slowly on its axis. It looked as dull as a dirty tennis-ball to the little angel, whose mind was filled with the size and glory of what he had seen.
"I want you to watch that one particularly," said the senior angel, pointing with his finger.
"Well, it looks very small and rather dirty to me," said the little angel. "What's special about that one?"
"That," replied his senior solemnly, "is the Visited Planet."
"Visited?" said the little one. "you don't mean visited by --------?"
"Indeed I do. That ball, which I have no doubt looks to you small and insignificant and not perhaps overclean, has been visited by our young Prince of Glory." And at these words he bowed his head reverently.
"But how?" queried the younger one. "Do you mean that our great and glorious Prince, with all these wonders and splendours of His Creation, and millions more that I'm sure I haven't seen yet, went down in Person to this fifth-rate little ball? Why should He do a thing like that?"
"It isn't for us," said his senior a little stiffly, "to question His 'why's', except that I must point out to you that He is not impressed by size and numbers, as you seem to be. But that He really went I know, and all of us in Heaven who know anything know that. As to why He became one of them - how else do you suppose could He visit them?"
The little angel's face wrinkled in disgust.
"Do you mean to tell me," he said, "that He stooped so low as to become one of those creeping, crawling creatures of that floating ball?"
"I do, and I don't think He would like you to call them 'creeping, crawling creatures' in that tone of voice. For, strange as it may seem to us, He loves them. He went down to visit them to lift them up to become like Him."
The little angel looked blank. Such a thought was almost beyond his comprehension.
"Close your eyes for a moment," said the senior angel, "and we will go back in what they call Time."
While the little angel's eyes were closed and the two of them moved nearer to the spinning ball, it stopped its spinning, spun backwards quite fast for a while, and then slowly resumed its usual rotation.
"Now look!" And as the little angel did as he was told, there appeared here and there on the dull surface of the globe little flashes of light, some merely momentary and some persisting for quite a time.
"Well, what am I seeing now?" queried the little angel.
"You are watching this little world as it was some thousands of years ago," returned his companion. "Every flash and glow of light that you see is something of the Father's knowledge and wisdom breaking into the minds and hearts of people who live upon the earth. Not many people, you see, can hear His Voice or understand what He says, even though He is speaking gently and quietly to them all the time."
"Why are they so blind and deaf and stupid?" asked the junior angel rather crossly.
"It is not for us to judge them. We who live in the Splendour have no idea what it is like to live in the dark. We hear the music and the Voice like the sound of many waters every day of over lives, but to them - well, there is much darkness and much noise and much distraction upon the earth. Only a few who are quiet and humble and wise hear His Voice. But watch, for in a moment you will see something truly wonderful."
The Earth went on turning and circling round the sun, and then quite suddenly, in the upper half of the globe, there appeared a light, tiny but so bright in its intensity that both the angels hid their eyes.
"I think I can guess," said the little angel in a low voice. "That was the Visit, wasn't it?"
"Yes, that was the Visit. The Light Himself went down there and lived among them; but in a moment, and you will be able to tell that even with your eyes closed, the light will go out."
"But why? Could He not bear their darkness and stupidity? Did He have to return here?"
"No, it wasn't that" returned the senior angel. His voice was stern and sad. "They failed to recognise Him for Who He was - or at least only a handful knew Him. For the most part they preferred their darkness to His Light, and in the end they killed Him."
"The fools, the crazy fools! They don't deserve ----"
"Neither you nor I, nor any other angel, knows why they were so foolish and so wicked. Nor can we say what they deserve or don't deserve. But the fact remains, they killed our Prince of Glory while He was Man amongst them."
"And that I suppose was the end? I see the whole Earth has gone black and dark. All right, I won't judge them, but surely that is all they could expect?"
"Wait, we are still far from the end of the story of the Visited Planet. Watch now, but be ready to cover your eyes again."
In utter blackness the earth turned round three times, and then there blazed with unbearable radiance a point of light.
"What now?" asked the little angel, shielding his eyes.
"They killed Him all right, but He conquered death. The thing most of them dread and fear all their lives He broke and conquered. He rose again, and a few of them saw Him and from then on became His utterly devoted slaves."
"Thank God for that," said the little angel.
"Amen. Open your eyes now, the dazzling light has gone. The Prince has returned to His Home of Light. But watch the Earth now."
As they looked, in place of the dazzling light there was a bright glow which throbbed and pulsated. And then as the Earth turned many times little points of light spread out. A few flickered and died; but for the most part the lights burned steadily, and as they continued to watch, in many parts of the globe there was a glow over many areas.
"You see what is happening?" asked the senior angel. "The bright glow is the company of loyal men and women He left behind, and with His help they spread the glow and now lights begin to shine all over the Earth."
"Yes, yes," said the little angel impatiently, "but how does it end? Will the little lights join up with each other? Will it all be light, as it is in Heaven?"
His senior shook his head. "We simply do not know," he replied. "It is in the Father's hands. Sometimes it is agony to watch and sometimes it is joy unspeakable. The end is not yet. But now I am sure you can see why this little ball is so important. He has visited it; He is working out His Plan upon it."
"Yes, I see, though I don't understand. I shall never forget that this is the Visited Planet."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Ahmadinejad hostage-taker in 1979?
Daniel Pipes lends more credence to identifying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a 1979 invader of the US Embassy in Tehran. I think he was.
Netanyahu: "It's 1938, and Iran is Germany."
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking November 14 at the General Assembly of United Jewish Communities, declares that Hitler's 1938 Germany parallels accurately Ahmadinejad's Iran in 2006. But few listen and believe. Denial reigns, even as Mark Steyn's America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It confirms and extends Netanyahu's claims. Download the Prologue here, so you can start reading it before you have the whole book in your hands.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Jihad is Here -- Because of Radical Muslim Obsession
While I've taken a bit of solace in hearing that "only" 10 to 15% of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide are part of, or support, radical, militant Islam, evidence shows that "mainstream" Islam supports military jihad as well. For example, a school text used in Jordan and the Palestinian territories teaches "This religion [Islam] will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters.”
I can't find any solace in that. Nor can I in the soon-releasing, award-winning DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." See it low-res for free, and order it from the website. Donate a copy to your public library if it won't order it.
British cultural watchman Melanie Phillips says "[Obsession] should be made compulsory viewing for every politician and pundit who clings to the misguided belief that all we face is terrorism rooted in various grievances around the world. It is the single most powerful and terrifying public exposition of the fact that a global Islamic jihad is now being waged from Bali to Istanbul, from Chechnya to Madrid, from Morocco to Manhattan, from Thailand to Bloomsbury – and that the world that is under attack is deeply in denial about what it is facing." (See her Londonistan, which documents the UK's morphing into a jihadi haven.)
Among the insights from "Obsession" you may find hard to believe: America is the #1 enemy of Arabs and Islam, because America is dedicated to eliminating both(!). This propaganda fuels the call to jihad as defense of Islam and the honor of Allah.
Let's hope the partying Dems won't remain dim about why the war in Iraq matters as a key front -- among many -- against global jihad, and ditto for Afghanistan.
Even more, hope that the film can convince any doubters that jihad, whether fought on US territory or abroad, must be fought as a military and not primarily a law-enforcement action.
Jihad means war -- one Americans do not want and did not seek but that has been declared on them since at least the Muslim invasion and occupation of the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979. Anyone who insists on prosecuting this war as if prosecuting homicides in courts of law has already conceded victory to the armies of jihad.
We've been called up to combat, not to practice criminal law.
How do we win? As in all conflicts, one party loses the will to continue, and the other wins. Exactly what strategies and tactics will produce that result in this conflict, I do not know. But primarily prosecuting domestic terrorists in federal courts and dealing similarly with combatants detained outside the US will not defeat this foe.
Am I alarmist? Overreacting?
Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-born daughter of a jihad martyr and author of Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, tells fellow Americans, "America has to wake up. We are strangling ourselves with our political correctness."
I can't find any solace in that. Nor can I in the soon-releasing, award-winning DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." See it low-res for free, and order it from the website. Donate a copy to your public library if it won't order it.
British cultural watchman Melanie Phillips says "[Obsession] should be made compulsory viewing for every politician and pundit who clings to the misguided belief that all we face is terrorism rooted in various grievances around the world. It is the single most powerful and terrifying public exposition of the fact that a global Islamic jihad is now being waged from Bali to Istanbul, from Chechnya to Madrid, from Morocco to Manhattan, from Thailand to Bloomsbury – and that the world that is under attack is deeply in denial about what it is facing." (See her Londonistan, which documents the UK's morphing into a jihadi haven.)
Among the insights from "Obsession" you may find hard to believe: America is the #1 enemy of Arabs and Islam, because America is dedicated to eliminating both(!). This propaganda fuels the call to jihad as defense of Islam and the honor of Allah.Let's hope the partying Dems won't remain dim about why the war in Iraq matters as a key front -- among many -- against global jihad, and ditto for Afghanistan.
Even more, hope that the film can convince any doubters that jihad, whether fought on US territory or abroad, must be fought as a military and not primarily a law-enforcement action.
Jihad means war -- one Americans do not want and did not seek but that has been declared on them since at least the Muslim invasion and occupation of the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979. Anyone who insists on prosecuting this war as if prosecuting homicides in courts of law has already conceded victory to the armies of jihad.
We've been called up to combat, not to practice criminal law.
How do we win? As in all conflicts, one party loses the will to continue, and the other wins. Exactly what strategies and tactics will produce that result in this conflict, I do not know. But primarily prosecuting domestic terrorists in federal courts and dealing similarly with combatants detained outside the US will not defeat this foe.
Am I alarmist? Overreacting?
Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-born daughter of a jihad martyr and author of Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, tells fellow Americans, "America has to wake up. We are strangling ourselves with our political correctness."
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Muslims for America Endorses Senate Candidates
If anyone needs another bit of evidence that our political experiment does in fact draw everyone -- save felons -- who wants to participate to at least the virtual, cyber table, see whom Muslims for America endorses in today's US Senate elections.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Election Day Forecast: GOP Keeps Senate, Loses Less Than Expected in House
Late Signs Dispel GOP Gloom
Ann Coulter points out that the GOP has already defied historical trends in its majority government of legislative and executive branches for six years: "It at least seems clear that Democrat gains this year are going to fall far short of the historical average. No poll has the Democrats winning even half of their rightful midterm gains." Charles Krauthammer concurs, calling likely Democratic gains "the American people's usual response to entrenched power — a bracing and chastening contempt."
Today's NY Times revises its forecast of GOP gloom in conservatives' favor, drawing on polls that, even beyond the Times' reportage, show Republican lag decreasing widely. Throw in Saddam Hussein's ticket to the gallows after an unsurpassably open trial -- no small evidence of real change for the good in Iraq -- and I believe that the GOP base of disciplined voters will staunch predicted huge losses and perhaps pull off many slim-margin wins.
All that really matters at the national level, in my opinion, is giving President Bush a minimally cooperative Senate with which he can complete two key jobs in his remaining two years:
Ann Coulter points out that the GOP has already defied historical trends in its majority government of legislative and executive branches for six years: "It at least seems clear that Democrat gains this year are going to fall far short of the historical average. No poll has the Democrats winning even half of their rightful midterm gains." Charles Krauthammer concurs, calling likely Democratic gains "the American people's usual response to entrenched power — a bracing and chastening contempt."
Today's NY Times revises its forecast of GOP gloom in conservatives' favor, drawing on polls that, even beyond the Times' reportage, show Republican lag decreasing widely. Throw in Saddam Hussein's ticket to the gallows after an unsurpassably open trial -- no small evidence of real change for the good in Iraq -- and I believe that the GOP base of disciplined voters will staunch predicted huge losses and perhaps pull off many slim-margin wins.
All that really matters at the national level, in my opinion, is giving President Bush a minimally cooperative Senate with which he can complete two key jobs in his remaining two years:
- prosecuting the war against Islamofascism (God save us from Nancy Pelosi two clicks from the Oval Office; or from Harry Reid's directing the Senate!);
- and appointing up to two Supreme Court justices (both of which would likely replace aged liberal justices).
The economy has gone clearly to Republican credit and, confined as a stump issue now to rust- and textile-belt regions, has ceased to be a top-level national election issue. Republicans have already proven disunified regarding sound immigration policy, so GOP losses in Congress probably can't hurt this fiasco any more deeply than GOP governance in Congress already has.
What matters at the national level is enabling a President who has led steadily, courageously, and righteously to finish his term with success in those two top tasks. I agree with at least 17 points of Wayne Grudem's 18-point appreciative assessment of our President's stalwart service and leadership (immigration reform being the bone of contention). And, about the Iraq war, I cannot agree more:
"It is just that -- a war, and wars are not won quickly or easily. We were attacked in an act of war on 9/11, and we had been attacked by similar terrorists many times before that. Finally we are fighting back, against an invisible, very skillful, very evil enemy.
"When people complain, "It's not going well," I just think, "What you are saying is that we haven't won yet. But that is because there are still evil people in the world who want to destroy Iraq and eventually destroy Israel and destroy us, and in some countries their governments are not stopping them yet. So this is a huge task, but we have no choice but to go forward. There will only be one side left at the end of this war, and I want it to be us, not the Muslim terrorists."
"It seems to me that what we need as a country is to unite behind the President in this war, not attack every move he makes (isn't this what a country usually does in war?). For every U.S. soldier who dies there are many times more terrorists who are caught or killed (which I think in light of Rom. 13:4 is the right thing for civil government to do), and the terrorist movements simply cannot and will not continue a losing battle forever. Criticism of the war sounds to me like people are saying, "There are still some evil people in the world, therefore Bush is a bad President." That is misguided reasoning, because there will always be evil people in the world, and the God-given solution, according to Rom. 13:1-7, is to prevent them from harming others through the use of superior force by our military and police.
"That is what President Bush is doing, and I don't know if anyone else in the world could do any better. (Many nations are not even trying, just sitting back and letting us do the dirty work while they criticize!)"
More Republicans than Democrats Online; But Most "Moderate"
Most-Visited Sites Contrast Sharply
On the eve of nationwide elections, with the GOP "glum" (according to the New York Times) about looming Congressional losses, a recent Nielsen/Net Ratings report suggests that if ballots were cast online, Republicans would have a good chance of continuing to control both Congressional houses. Results of Nielsen's by-party study of Internet use show that "36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents."
"The Web site with the highest concentration of Republicans was RushLimbaugh.com, with an 84.8 percent Republican audience . . . . NewsMax.com and Bill O’Reilly.com ranked No. 2 and 3, with audiences that were 65.4 percent Republican. The Drudge Report and Salt Lake Tribune rounded out the top five Republican sites with 59.0 and 57.9 composition percent.
"Among Democrats, the top three sites were BlackAmericaWeb.com, AOL BlackVoices and BET.com with audiences that were 79.9 percent, 64.8 percent and 58.6 percent Democratic, respectively. Salon.com and Village Voice ranked fourth and fifth among Democrats, with 55.3 and 55.2 composition percent.
Online newspaper use by party should surprise no one: "WSJ.com has predominantly Republican readers, at 40.2 percent. Democrats make up 25.8 percent of WSJ.com’s readership, closely followed by Independents at 24.3 percent.
"The New York Times online is a favorite among Democrats, who make up 52.3 percent of its readership. Independents compose 22.6 percent and Republicans 18.3 percent."
The largest segment of respondents identified themselves as "Moderate," 36.1%, while 32.5% self-identified as "Conservative/Very Conservative," and only 19.8% chose "Liberal/Very Liberal" for themselves.
African-American respondents "were over twice as likely to be Democratic as the average Web user. Asians were 36 percent more likely than the average Web user to be Democratic, and Hispanics were 28 percent more likely." But whites were only "slightly more likely to be Republican."
Considered only by age or gender, respondents favored neither party.
On the eve of nationwide elections, with the GOP "glum" (according to the New York Times) about looming Congressional losses, a recent Nielsen/Net Ratings report suggests that if ballots were cast online, Republicans would have a good chance of continuing to control both Congressional houses. Results of Nielsen's by-party study of Internet use show that "36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents."
"The Web site with the highest concentration of Republicans was RushLimbaugh.com, with an 84.8 percent Republican audience . . . . NewsMax.com and Bill O’Reilly.com ranked No. 2 and 3, with audiences that were 65.4 percent Republican. The Drudge Report and Salt Lake Tribune rounded out the top five Republican sites with 59.0 and 57.9 composition percent.
"Among Democrats, the top three sites were BlackAmericaWeb.com, AOL BlackVoices and BET.com with audiences that were 79.9 percent, 64.8 percent and 58.6 percent Democratic, respectively. Salon.com and Village Voice ranked fourth and fifth among Democrats, with 55.3 and 55.2 composition percent.
Online newspaper use by party should surprise no one: "WSJ.com has predominantly Republican readers, at 40.2 percent. Democrats make up 25.8 percent of WSJ.com’s readership, closely followed by Independents at 24.3 percent.
"The New York Times online is a favorite among Democrats, who make up 52.3 percent of its readership. Independents compose 22.6 percent and Republicans 18.3 percent."
The largest segment of respondents identified themselves as "Moderate," 36.1%, while 32.5% self-identified as "Conservative/Very Conservative," and only 19.8% chose "Liberal/Very Liberal" for themselves.
African-American respondents "were over twice as likely to be Democratic as the average Web user. Asians were 36 percent more likely than the average Web user to be Democratic, and Hispanics were 28 percent more likely." But whites were only "slightly more likely to be Republican."
Considered only by age or gender, respondents favored neither party.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Kerry's Slip or Slur?
I want to give Sen. Kerry a lot of room to exegete his own words; however, his infamous remark about those "stuck in Iraq" for lack of education is, in my mind, imperious, befitting perhaps an aristocrat but not a democrat. Similarly for John O'Neill. More important, that slip-or-slur is empirically wrong: Dr. Tim Kane's study of data on all enlistees shows that "The average American enlistee is more educated — not less — than the average young civilian."
Kane's "Facts About Today’s Soldiers" includes these items that the stereotypical majority news coverage doesn't:
* The average reading level of new soldiers is roughly a full grade level higher than their civilian peers’.
* Enlistees’ high school graduation rate was 97 percent in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The civilian graduation rate is seventeen percentage points lower.
* The wealthiest 40 percent of neighborhoods in America are the home of 45.6 percent of 2005 enlistees. For every two U.S. recruits from the poorest neighborhoods, three come from the richest.
* There is no statistical evidence to support the claim that minorities are being targeted or exploited for military service. The 100 zip codes with the highest proportions of African-Americans were actually under-represented among military enlistees in 2005.
* Every U.S. military recruit of the last 33 years has been a volunteer.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Haggard Interview, Nov. 1 (& updates through Nov. 5)
Letters of Ted and Gayle Haggard to New Life Church, Nov. 5
New Life Church Overseers Dismiss Pastor Ted Haggard
in a Nov. 4 press release citing proof that "he has committed sexually immoral conduct."
Homosexual Escort's Charge Days before Colorado Marriage Vote Seems Opportunistic
New Life Church Pastor (Col. Springs) and National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard's unedited interview with Denver's 9News flatly but not passionately denies claims that he had sex with escort-accuser Mike Jones (who has now failed a polygraph). I am surprised that he does not deny the charges more forcefully and with a greater sense of surprise; however, such a response fits his public image: very likeable, irenic, and kind. Haggard denies being anti-homosexual even while supporting law defining marriage traditionally. So I believe his denial and certainly hope, for the sake of Haggard, his family, the church, and American evangelicals, that the charges are no more than a desperate, 11th-hour ploy to discourage values voters such that they won't vote Nov. 7.
Nov. 3 update: Rocky Mountain News reports that:
"KUSA-TV reported Thursday night that a voice analysis expert compared a voice mail recording provided by Jones to a recording of Haggard's speech and that they matched."
"Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that 'I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife.'"
"But KKTV in Colorado Springs reported that New Life Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley told a meeting of church elders Thursday night that Haggard had met with the church’s overseers earlier in the day and 'had admitted to some indiscretions.'"
"Parsley told the elders that Haggard had said some of the allegations were true, but not all of them."
Another RNM article discloses accuser Mike Jones' election motive: "[Jones] decided to come out with his story before the election to influence voters. . . . [Jones said] 'I had to catch him being a hypocrite.'"
New Life Church Overseers Dismiss Pastor Ted Haggard
in a Nov. 4 press release citing proof that "he has committed sexually immoral conduct."
Homosexual Escort's Charge Days before Colorado Marriage Vote Seems Opportunistic
New Life Church Pastor (Col. Springs) and National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard's unedited interview with Denver's 9News flatly but not passionately denies claims that he had sex with escort-accuser Mike Jones (who has now failed a polygraph). I am surprised that he does not deny the charges more forcefully and with a greater sense of surprise; however, such a response fits his public image: very likeable, irenic, and kind. Haggard denies being anti-homosexual even while supporting law defining marriage traditionally. So I believe his denial and certainly hope, for the sake of Haggard, his family, the church, and American evangelicals, that the charges are no more than a desperate, 11th-hour ploy to discourage values voters such that they won't vote Nov. 7.
Nov. 3 update: Rocky Mountain News reports that:
"KUSA-TV reported Thursday night that a voice analysis expert compared a voice mail recording provided by Jones to a recording of Haggard's speech and that they matched."
"Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that 'I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife.'"
"But KKTV in Colorado Springs reported that New Life Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley told a meeting of church elders Thursday night that Haggard had met with the church’s overseers earlier in the day and 'had admitted to some indiscretions.'"
"Parsley told the elders that Haggard had said some of the allegations were true, but not all of them."
Another RNM article discloses accuser Mike Jones' election motive: "[Jones] decided to come out with his story before the election to influence voters. . . . [Jones said] 'I had to catch him being a hypocrite.'"
Taxes, Welfare, Divorce: Unimagined Results Warn Against Homosex Marriage
"A leeetle more" humility, or "I'm a little leery."
In a remarkable essay (that by itself justifies the blogosphere), libertarian Jane Galt cites three American social reforms whose negative results far exceeded critics' fears and which caution against redefining marriage today:
(1) Federal income tax. When begun, a cap (10% ?) was dismissed as ridiculous because it was so outrageously high that Americans would surely revolt before paying it. Besides, a cap would invite taxes to rise to its level: No cap = a lower tax. But, as Galt points out, "a slow creep . . . eroded the American resistance to income taxation." What are you paying today?
(2) Public welfare. The widows and orphans pensions of the 1800's expanded into temporary support for unfortunate families. In the 1950's, reformers urged expanding aid to theretofore stigmatized unwed mothers, deriding any who objected that financing out-of-wedlock conception and birth would encourage its increase. "So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded," and public welfare finances it.
(3) Divorce. Because it was very hard to divorce in the 1800's and many experienced marital unhappiness of many degrees, reformers made divorce easier. Critics objected: "If you make divorce easier, . . . you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society." To which reformers rejoined: "That's ridiculous! . . . People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!"
"Ooops. When the law changed, the institution changed."
As with income tax and welfare, so with divorce: The first change, tiny and incremental, made the next one easier (and with less stigma); and "the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce"; or when (as in the 1990's) out-of-wedlock births exceeded 70% among American blacks (risen from 25% in the early 1960's); or when 35% became the de facto income tax cap (and 10% became the lowest; 2006).
Galt asks how well-meaning reformers could go so badly wrong (noting that reviled critics were right beyond even their own predictions). With regard to how liberalized public welfare undermined marriage (but with application to the other reforms, including homosex marriage), "I think the core problems are two. The first is that [reformers] looked only at individuals, and took instititutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn't a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against each other; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other."
"The second is that they didn't assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorian values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter."
And, as Galt cites G. K. Chesterton's analysis, "people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it" (as opposed to deforming it). (Reading the GKC excerpt alone is enough reason to move to Galt's essay.)
This reasoning leads her to plea "that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it."
While this post excerpts key arguments, please read Jane's essay and update.
In a remarkable essay (that by itself justifies the blogosphere), libertarian Jane Galt cites three American social reforms whose negative results far exceeded critics' fears and which caution against redefining marriage today:
(1) Federal income tax. When begun, a cap (10% ?) was dismissed as ridiculous because it was so outrageously high that Americans would surely revolt before paying it. Besides, a cap would invite taxes to rise to its level: No cap = a lower tax. But, as Galt points out, "a slow creep . . . eroded the American resistance to income taxation." What are you paying today?
(2) Public welfare. The widows and orphans pensions of the 1800's expanded into temporary support for unfortunate families. In the 1950's, reformers urged expanding aid to theretofore stigmatized unwed mothers, deriding any who objected that financing out-of-wedlock conception and birth would encourage its increase. "So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded," and public welfare finances it.
(3) Divorce. Because it was very hard to divorce in the 1800's and many experienced marital unhappiness of many degrees, reformers made divorce easier. Critics objected: "If you make divorce easier, . . . you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society." To which reformers rejoined: "That's ridiculous! . . . People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!"
"Ooops. When the law changed, the institution changed."
As with income tax and welfare, so with divorce: The first change, tiny and incremental, made the next one easier (and with less stigma); and "the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce"; or when (as in the 1990's) out-of-wedlock births exceeded 70% among American blacks (risen from 25% in the early 1960's); or when 35% became the de facto income tax cap (and 10% became the lowest; 2006).
Galt asks how well-meaning reformers could go so badly wrong (noting that reviled critics were right beyond even their own predictions). With regard to how liberalized public welfare undermined marriage (but with application to the other reforms, including homosex marriage), "I think the core problems are two. The first is that [reformers] looked only at individuals, and took instititutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn't a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against each other; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other."
"The second is that they didn't assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorian values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter."
And, as Galt cites G. K. Chesterton's analysis, "people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it" (as opposed to deforming it). (Reading the GKC excerpt alone is enough reason to move to Galt's essay.)
This reasoning leads her to plea "that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it."
While this post excerpts key arguments, please read Jane's essay and update.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Up to America, Again: No Nukes In Teheran
Time's passed for alternate measures
Daniel Pipes notes Europe's continued dithering and Teheran's hardening resolve to go nuclear. Evidence for the latter: "Hostile statements provoking the West"; "a mood of messianism in the upper reaches of the government"; and Iran's "urgent nuclear program."
"A focused, defiant, and determined Tehran contrasts with the muddled, feckless Russians, Arabs, Europeans, and Americans. A half year ago, a concerted external effort could still have prompted effective pressure from within Iranian society to halt the nuclear program, but that possibility now appears defunct. As the powers have mumbled, shuffled, and procrastinated, Iranians see their leadership effectively permitted to barrel ahead."
Three non-war alternatives are now too late for success: "threatening an economic embargo, rewarding Tehran for suspending its nuclear program, or helping Iranian anti-regime militias invade the country."
Thus the "key decision – war or acquiescence – will take place in Washington, not in New York, Vienna, or Tehran. (Or Tel Aviv.) The critical moment will arrive when the president of the United States confronts the choice whether or not to permit the Islamic Republic of Iran to acquire the Bomb. The timetable of the Iranian nuclear program being murky, that might be either George W. Bush or his successor."
Daniel Pipes notes Europe's continued dithering and Teheran's hardening resolve to go nuclear. Evidence for the latter: "Hostile statements provoking the West"; "a mood of messianism in the upper reaches of the government"; and Iran's "urgent nuclear program."
"A focused, defiant, and determined Tehran contrasts with the muddled, feckless Russians, Arabs, Europeans, and Americans. A half year ago, a concerted external effort could still have prompted effective pressure from within Iranian society to halt the nuclear program, but that possibility now appears defunct. As the powers have mumbled, shuffled, and procrastinated, Iranians see their leadership effectively permitted to barrel ahead."
Three non-war alternatives are now too late for success: "threatening an economic embargo, rewarding Tehran for suspending its nuclear program, or helping Iranian anti-regime militias invade the country."
Thus the "key decision – war or acquiescence – will take place in Washington, not in New York, Vienna, or Tehran. (Or Tel Aviv.) The critical moment will arrive when the president of the United States confronts the choice whether or not to permit the Islamic Republic of Iran to acquire the Bomb. The timetable of the Iranian nuclear program being murky, that might be either George W. Bush or his successor."
Pipes' analysis confirms the point of my post Oct. 3, 2006. Barring a providential or wholly miraculous intervention, if Teheran shall not have the Bomb, expect the US to stop its nuclear ambition by force. And yet another US stop along the Axis of Evil. (Despite the scoffing since the President named the Axis, events have confirmed that he is right.)
"They Voted": Why United 93 Passengers Foiled Islamist Hijacking 9/11
Passionate Eloquence Probes "The Heart of American Values"
Hear and share a compact, eloquent expression of what America is all about in Gary Bauer's recent speech (choose 10/30/2006) at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, TN. One of the finest civic speeches I've heard in years that should be anthologized for the future.
Hear and share a compact, eloquent expression of what America is all about in Gary Bauer's recent speech (choose 10/30/2006) at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, TN. One of the finest civic speeches I've heard in years that should be anthologized for the future.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Belarus: Update on New Life Church Hunger Strike
By Elizabeth Kendal
World Evangelical Alliance - Religious Liberty News & Analysis
The purpose of this brief posting is to update the situation in New Life Church, Minsk, Belarus and to provide resources to enable informed advocacy and prayer.
There are presently 119 Protestants on hunger strike. Around 30 of them are commencing their fourth week without food. This is courageous commitment in the extreme, but it is not glamorous. These believers are in great need of the LORD's intervention. (Proverbs 21:1, and 29:26). For background, see "Belarus: New Life Church Hunger Strike" WEA RLC New &
Analysis, 17 October 2006 (Link 1).
SUCCESSFUL RALLY
On Saturday 21 October some 2,000 Protestants rallied publicly in Bangalore Square, Minsk (with government permission) for an end to religious repression. This was a courageous and hugely significant public rally. (Photos - http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/10/23/protestant)
VISIT FROM MILINKEVICH
Alysksandr Milinkevich [democratic leader] has visited the hunger strikers in the New Life Church. He encouraged the believers and expressed great admiration for their faith and courage. "I see very strong and courageous people here, who have a deep faith in God, who believe in justice. These people are invincible, and they are fighting for the simplest right, the right for freedom of worship. It is one of the most important rights of a human. I greatly respect these people, I wish them courage, I wish them not to lose health in this struggle. I know that God is with those who are here, and God wouldn't leave them." (Link 2)
FRESH APPEAL: HOPES RAISED THEN DASHED
According to Forum 18, President Lukashenka reportedly indicated a desire to provide assistance to the church. His aide for ideology issued a "strong recommendation" to New Life's Pastor, Vyacheslav Goncharenko, that the church make a fresh appeal to the Higher Economic Court. New Life church submitted a fresh appeal to the court on 18 October. However, the believers vowed to continue their hunger strike saying the protest will not end until the church's land and building are legally returned and the church's right to worship in its own property is
officially, legally acknowledged. (Link 3)
On 25 October the church received a letter from the Supreme Economic Court informing them that their pastor faces a massive fine for non-compliance of earlier court rulings. Charter 97 comments, "The Supreme Economic Court has fallen short of Protestants' expectations." The following day, when relatives of two of the New Life hunger strikers attempted to meet with Deputy Director of The Minsk Mayor Mr Michael Titenkov, Svetlana Matskevich, wife of hunger striker Vladimir Matskevich, was forcefully detained by police and taken to the Moscow District Police Station of Minsk for identification.
HEALTH FAILING: SITUATION BECOMING CRITICAL
Back on 18 October, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty published a piece by Daisy Sindelar on Belarus' various hunger strikes. Sindelar writes, "Hernan Reyes, who oversees prisoner medical issues for the International Committee of the Red Cross, says determined strikers want to stay alive as long as they can.
"The longer they fast, the rationale goes, the more extreme their suffering -- and the more powerful their message. It only takes a few weeks for the physical pain of a fast to become profound.
"'You don't feel hunger after a few days because of the ketosis. You have ketones in your bloodstream, which actually stamp out sensations of hunger as we understand it,' Reyes says. 'But of course there are other sensations. After a couple of weeks you'll have what we call nystagmus, which means that you have these uncontrolled rapid eye movements which give you a feeling of dizziness or vertigo, and you feel like you just go off a carousel that's been spinning around very fast. And it's extremely unpleasant. People throw up, they can no longer drink their water. And this is definitely one phase of the hunger strike which all hunger strikers who reach it do remember.'
"That phase is rapidly approaching for the more than 150 Protestant believers in Belarus." (Link 4)
On 23 October volunteer doctors from the Union of Evangelic Baptist Christians recommended that Natallya Ivanova (60) end her fast because she was suffering acute cardiovascular insufficiency. Natallya was rushed to hospital on 24 October, seriously weakened and without a pulse.
On 26 October, Volha Kryshneva (50) was admitted to the intensive care unit of the regional hospital in Baraulyany, Minsk region with heart problems. She had been without food for 21 days. Olga Nikonova (48) was hospitalised to the 4th Clinic Hospital on 26 October with critical heart weakness.
RESOURCES
New Life church website (http://www.newlife.by/ ) is being continuously updated by New Life Church Youth Press Centre, which was founded just recently by New Life youths in response to the hunger strike. It is an excellent source of information, photographs, stories and links.
A 23 October report by CBN reporter Gailon Totheroh, "Belarus Christians Fast for Freedom" comes with a video and Totheroh's blog that includes information and addresses for advocacy.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45526.aspx
Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) Belarus: New Life church hunger strike. 17 October 2006 World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/view.htm?id=725
2) Alyaksandr Milinkevich Met Protestants on Hunger Strike 24 Oct 2006 http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/10/24/am
3) BELARUS: Government to make U-turn on charismatic church?
By Geraldine Fagan, Forum 18 News Service. 20 October 2006
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=858
4) Belarus: Are Hunger Strikes Losing Their Power To Persuade?
By Daisy Sindelar, RFE/RL 19 Oct 2006
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/F124A669-7855-4172-8021-2A58B8067BBE.html
-----------------------------------------
**WEA Religious Liberty News & Analysis**
-----------------------------------------
Please feel free to pass this along to others giving attribution to:
"World Evangelical Alliance - Religious Liberty News & Analysis."
World Evangelical Alliance - Religious Liberty News & Analysis
The purpose of this brief posting is to update the situation in New Life Church, Minsk, Belarus and to provide resources to enable informed advocacy and prayer.
There are presently 119 Protestants on hunger strike. Around 30 of them are commencing their fourth week without food. This is courageous commitment in the extreme, but it is not glamorous. These believers are in great need of the LORD's intervention. (Proverbs 21:1, and 29:26). For background, see "Belarus: New Life Church Hunger Strike" WEA RLC New &
Analysis, 17 October 2006 (Link 1).
SUCCESSFUL RALLY
On Saturday 21 October some 2,000 Protestants rallied publicly in Bangalore Square, Minsk (with government permission) for an end to religious repression. This was a courageous and hugely significant public rally. (Photos - http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/10/23/protestant)
VISIT FROM MILINKEVICH
Alysksandr Milinkevich [democratic leader] has visited the hunger strikers in the New Life Church. He encouraged the believers and expressed great admiration for their faith and courage. "I see very strong and courageous people here, who have a deep faith in God, who believe in justice. These people are invincible, and they are fighting for the simplest right, the right for freedom of worship. It is one of the most important rights of a human. I greatly respect these people, I wish them courage, I wish them not to lose health in this struggle. I know that God is with those who are here, and God wouldn't leave them." (Link 2)
FRESH APPEAL: HOPES RAISED THEN DASHED
According to Forum 18, President Lukashenka reportedly indicated a desire to provide assistance to the church. His aide for ideology issued a "strong recommendation" to New Life's Pastor, Vyacheslav Goncharenko, that the church make a fresh appeal to the Higher Economic Court. New Life church submitted a fresh appeal to the court on 18 October. However, the believers vowed to continue their hunger strike saying the protest will not end until the church's land and building are legally returned and the church's right to worship in its own property is
officially, legally acknowledged. (Link 3)
On 25 October the church received a letter from the Supreme Economic Court informing them that their pastor faces a massive fine for non-compliance of earlier court rulings. Charter 97 comments, "The Supreme Economic Court has fallen short of Protestants' expectations." The following day, when relatives of two of the New Life hunger strikers attempted to meet with Deputy Director of The Minsk Mayor Mr Michael Titenkov, Svetlana Matskevich, wife of hunger striker Vladimir Matskevich, was forcefully detained by police and taken to the Moscow District Police Station of Minsk for identification.
HEALTH FAILING: SITUATION BECOMING CRITICAL
Back on 18 October, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty published a piece by Daisy Sindelar on Belarus' various hunger strikes. Sindelar writes, "Hernan Reyes, who oversees prisoner medical issues for the International Committee of the Red Cross, says determined strikers want to stay alive as long as they can.
"The longer they fast, the rationale goes, the more extreme their suffering -- and the more powerful their message. It only takes a few weeks for the physical pain of a fast to become profound.
"'You don't feel hunger after a few days because of the ketosis. You have ketones in your bloodstream, which actually stamp out sensations of hunger as we understand it,' Reyes says. 'But of course there are other sensations. After a couple of weeks you'll have what we call nystagmus, which means that you have these uncontrolled rapid eye movements which give you a feeling of dizziness or vertigo, and you feel like you just go off a carousel that's been spinning around very fast. And it's extremely unpleasant. People throw up, they can no longer drink their water. And this is definitely one phase of the hunger strike which all hunger strikers who reach it do remember.'
"That phase is rapidly approaching for the more than 150 Protestant believers in Belarus." (Link 4)
On 23 October volunteer doctors from the Union of Evangelic Baptist Christians recommended that Natallya Ivanova (60) end her fast because she was suffering acute cardiovascular insufficiency. Natallya was rushed to hospital on 24 October, seriously weakened and without a pulse.
On 26 October, Volha Kryshneva (50) was admitted to the intensive care unit of the regional hospital in Baraulyany, Minsk region with heart problems. She had been without food for 21 days. Olga Nikonova (48) was hospitalised to the 4th Clinic Hospital on 26 October with critical heart weakness.
RESOURCES
New Life church website (http://www.newlife.by/ ) is being continuously updated by New Life Church Youth Press Centre, which was founded just recently by New Life youths in response to the hunger strike. It is an excellent source of information, photographs, stories and links.
A 23 October report by CBN reporter Gailon Totheroh, "Belarus Christians Fast for Freedom" comes with a video and Totheroh's blog that includes information and addresses for advocacy.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45526.aspx
Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) Belarus: New Life church hunger strike. 17 October 2006 World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/view.htm?id=725
2) Alyaksandr Milinkevich Met Protestants on Hunger Strike 24 Oct 2006 http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/10/24/am
3) BELARUS: Government to make U-turn on charismatic church?
By Geraldine Fagan, Forum 18 News Service. 20 October 2006
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=858
4) Belarus: Are Hunger Strikes Losing Their Power To Persuade?
By Daisy Sindelar, RFE/RL 19 Oct 2006
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/F124A669-7855-4172-8021-2A58B8067BBE.html
-----------------------------------------
**WEA Religious Liberty News & Analysis**
-----------------------------------------
Please feel free to pass this along to others giving attribution to:
"World Evangelical Alliance - Religious Liberty News & Analysis."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)