On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unamimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving. That proclamation is reproduced here in the same language and spelling as the original.
"The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:
The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."
The text of this proclamation prepared by Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300). Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN). Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute the text of the proclamation, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to Gerald Murphy and the National Public Telecomputing Network.
Tuesday, November 23
Take on the ACLU; Defend the Boy Scouts of America
On Saturday, November 20, Sen. Bill Frist (R TN) introduced a bill in the US Senate (S.3026). The Save Our Scouts bill says that no federal law, rule, regulation, or order shall limit any Federal agency from providing support to the Boy Scouts of America (or the Girl Scouts of America) -- including meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other scouting activities on federal property.
This bill is in response to a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU in which that organization charges that the U.S. government improperly supports the BSA because "God" is mentioned in the oath. In response to the lawsuit, the Pentagon sent out a worldwide direction to the military telling them to stop officially supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Senator Frist says, "This is merely the first salvo by the ACLU to end all federal support for the Boy Scouts of America. In their view, where there is government there cannot be faith.
"I was a Boy Scout. Harrison, Jonathon, and Bryan were Scouts. The BSA is congressionally chartered. It serves a patriotic, charitable, and educational purpose, and the federal government's support to the Boy Scouts is embodied in law. The Save Our Scouts bill reaffirms our longstanding commitment to the tradition of scouting by stating that no federal law, rule, regulation, or order shall limit any Federal agency from providing support to the Boy Scouts of America (or the Girl Scouts of America) -- including meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other scouting activities on federal property.
"I encourage each and every one of you that believes in Scouting or takes offense at the actions of the ACLU, to write your Senator or Representative urging them to support S. 3026, the Frist "Save Our Scouts" bill."
May I add that letters to the Pentagon would be in order, too -- to Secy Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense and to Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The more the better. Email might be best because most government offices don't receive postal mail promptly since it all has to be checked before delivery.
The Boy Scout organization has been a spectacular force in the formation of faith,ethics and morals in boys and young men in this country for decades. Someone should make a study of how many Boy Scouts worked their way from Cubs to Eagle Scout, then went on to study at a service academy, graduate and go on to honorably serve their country. I suspect the number would be astounding.
This is just another step in the ACLU's continuing campaign to de-Christianize America. If you haven't taken a stand, this would be a good place to start; if you have, here's another battle in the war. We've proved we can win some big ones; let's go after this one, too.
This bill is in response to a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU in which that organization charges that the U.S. government improperly supports the BSA because "God" is mentioned in the oath. In response to the lawsuit, the Pentagon sent out a worldwide direction to the military telling them to stop officially supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Senator Frist says, "This is merely the first salvo by the ACLU to end all federal support for the Boy Scouts of America. In their view, where there is government there cannot be faith.
"I was a Boy Scout. Harrison, Jonathon, and Bryan were Scouts. The BSA is congressionally chartered. It serves a patriotic, charitable, and educational purpose, and the federal government's support to the Boy Scouts is embodied in law. The Save Our Scouts bill reaffirms our longstanding commitment to the tradition of scouting by stating that no federal law, rule, regulation, or order shall limit any Federal agency from providing support to the Boy Scouts of America (or the Girl Scouts of America) -- including meetings, jamborees, camporees, or other scouting activities on federal property.
"I encourage each and every one of you that believes in Scouting or takes offense at the actions of the ACLU, to write your Senator or Representative urging them to support S. 3026, the Frist "Save Our Scouts" bill."
May I add that letters to the Pentagon would be in order, too -- to Secy Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense and to Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The more the better. Email might be best because most government offices don't receive postal mail promptly since it all has to be checked before delivery.
The Boy Scout organization has been a spectacular force in the formation of faith,ethics and morals in boys and young men in this country for decades. Someone should make a study of how many Boy Scouts worked their way from Cubs to Eagle Scout, then went on to study at a service academy, graduate and go on to honorably serve their country. I suspect the number would be astounding.
This is just another step in the ACLU's continuing campaign to de-Christianize America. If you haven't taken a stand, this would be a good place to start; if you have, here's another battle in the war. We've proved we can win some big ones; let's go after this one, too.
Editorial Commentary by Karyn Cantees Stagg
Educated People Can Be Bush Supporters is the headline the Charleston (West Virginia)Gazette put on this marvelous response to an editorial in which they called supporters of President Bush "uneducated." -- Sunnye
In response to your editorial titled "Puzzle," in which you questioned why half the voters support a president whose ability you question and challenge at every level, I ask, who the heck do you think you are? The editorial section of the paper has become offensive, with its condescending and arrogant tone, which is perplexing. Do you think that by talking down to Bush supporters you'll somehow shame them/me into voting for an elitist like Kerry, who has more interchangeable policy positions than a yoga instructor has poses?
Take for example this statement: "Educated, progressive people we know are unanimously disgusted by Bush." Surely this doesn't mean you don't know ONE educated, progressive person who supports Bush. Are you suggesting that NO educated, progressive people support Bush? It is actually laughable and is the kind of overstatement that makes it hard to take anything stated in the editorial seriously. Tell me, does this all-inclusive group include your counterparts at the Daily Mail?
The president took office in January, 2000. It is commonly accepted that the recession stated in February of that year. If you don't agree with that statement, surely you remember that the recession was looming before Clinton left office. Now having said that, will someone explain how President Bush could cause a recession in one month? Try pointing your waggy little fingers at the previous administration.
Then there was this statement: "They (referring to all those educated, progressive people you know) can't imagine how anyone could vote for such a militaristic servant of the privileged class." Okay, let's get this straight. I am not of the privileged class, but the tax benefits that you feel make him the servant of the privileged certainly helped me. People do give back to society when they reap and many religious organizations reach out to those in need. Reaching out and giving back is not entirely a religious concept. I'm assuming you understand it given the Christmas fund for the needy you sponsor every year.
Your remarks concerning the war were particularly disturbing and condescending and I won't bother repeating what I consider nonsense. But I will try to explain why so many "Calvinist religious righteousness and my-country-right-or-wrong patriotism" thugs like me support the war.
You probably aren't aware of this, but this war didn't start with the president. (Sorry that sounds condescending.) It likely started back in 1979 when Iranian students attacked the American Embassy in Tehran. Remember President Carter's ill-fated mission in the aftermath that made America the laughing stock of the world? Then there was the attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later 241 US Marines were killed in Beirut, compliments of 2,500 pounds of terrorists' TNT. In 1983 and 1984, respectively, explosives were driven into the US Embassies in Kuwait and Beirut. In 1985, bombs exploded in a Madrid restaurant frequented by US soldiers, and in August of that year explosives killed 22 at a US Air Base at Rhein-Main, Germany. But we didn't actually witness those things, so I guess you think it's not so bad. Well, maybe except for the poor wheelchair-bound passenger, Mr. Klinghoffer, on the cruise ship The Achille-Lauro, who we watched terrorists execute! Oh, and we can't forget the bombings of TWA Flight 840, killing four and Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 259.
These few events I've outlined are only the tip of the iceberg both here and abroad and don't even include the attempt to bomb the World Trade Center, where six were killed and thousands injured -- or the attacks of September 11. This war DIDN'T just start. It was escalated by terrorists because they saw that all Americans and Europeans have done in the past is suck their collective thumbs and glorify people like Michael Moore, a coward hiding behind an opinion piece of lies and half-truths. I'd bet you'd never find him in a soldier's uniform for any reason. And, for the record, many Europeans are still sucking their thumbs or, in the case of the French, have placed them in another cavity.
So, no, weapons of mass destruction were not found. I guess that suggests there never were any. Or, more likely, perhaps it suggests they got rid of them because the president never let up on Saddam. (There he goes with that attitude again!) I can't understand what is wrong with liberating a people while at the same time fighting the war on terror in Iraq rather than at home. Do you honestly think September 11 is the end of their jihad? Do you think they've learned their lesson and will leave, licking their wounds, because we've initiated a few safeguards and put suspected terrorists in holding cells?
I am every bit as horrified as the average American when a person is killed, whether that person is a service person or an innocent Iraq citizen. But there are two sides to this story and that's why this country is divided. Unfortunately both sides do NOT receive equal treatment by the media, which is why I'm spending a Sunday evening writing this. Every service person I've spoken with, without exception, has nothing but praise for the war and the reconstruction effort. They talk about schools being built, friends being made, and a people being transformed. Even the two Iraqi female representatives who visited Charleston this past week had nothing but praise for the reconstruction.
So please don't moralize with me or your readers about the candidates or about the war. We all get deflated enough in this world. And don't try to categorize me as part of the extreme right-wing. I'm not that either. I respect your opinion to disagree but I don't appreciate your trying to make me and others who support the President look like idiots by doing so.
In response to your editorial titled "Puzzle," in which you questioned why half the voters support a president whose ability you question and challenge at every level, I ask, who the heck do you think you are? The editorial section of the paper has become offensive, with its condescending and arrogant tone, which is perplexing. Do you think that by talking down to Bush supporters you'll somehow shame them/me into voting for an elitist like Kerry, who has more interchangeable policy positions than a yoga instructor has poses?
Take for example this statement: "Educated, progressive people we know are unanimously disgusted by Bush." Surely this doesn't mean you don't know ONE educated, progressive person who supports Bush. Are you suggesting that NO educated, progressive people support Bush? It is actually laughable and is the kind of overstatement that makes it hard to take anything stated in the editorial seriously. Tell me, does this all-inclusive group include your counterparts at the Daily Mail?
The president took office in January, 2000. It is commonly accepted that the recession stated in February of that year. If you don't agree with that statement, surely you remember that the recession was looming before Clinton left office. Now having said that, will someone explain how President Bush could cause a recession in one month? Try pointing your waggy little fingers at the previous administration.
Then there was this statement: "They (referring to all those educated, progressive people you know) can't imagine how anyone could vote for such a militaristic servant of the privileged class." Okay, let's get this straight. I am not of the privileged class, but the tax benefits that you feel make him the servant of the privileged certainly helped me. People do give back to society when they reap and many religious organizations reach out to those in need. Reaching out and giving back is not entirely a religious concept. I'm assuming you understand it given the Christmas fund for the needy you sponsor every year.
Your remarks concerning the war were particularly disturbing and condescending and I won't bother repeating what I consider nonsense. But I will try to explain why so many "Calvinist religious righteousness and my-country-right-or-wrong patriotism" thugs like me support the war.
You probably aren't aware of this, but this war didn't start with the president. (Sorry that sounds condescending.) It likely started back in 1979 when Iranian students attacked the American Embassy in Tehran. Remember President Carter's ill-fated mission in the aftermath that made America the laughing stock of the world? Then there was the attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later 241 US Marines were killed in Beirut, compliments of 2,500 pounds of terrorists' TNT. In 1983 and 1984, respectively, explosives were driven into the US Embassies in Kuwait and Beirut. In 1985, bombs exploded in a Madrid restaurant frequented by US soldiers, and in August of that year explosives killed 22 at a US Air Base at Rhein-Main, Germany. But we didn't actually witness those things, so I guess you think it's not so bad. Well, maybe except for the poor wheelchair-bound passenger, Mr. Klinghoffer, on the cruise ship The Achille-Lauro, who we watched terrorists execute! Oh, and we can't forget the bombings of TWA Flight 840, killing four and Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 259.
These few events I've outlined are only the tip of the iceberg both here and abroad and don't even include the attempt to bomb the World Trade Center, where six were killed and thousands injured -- or the attacks of September 11. This war DIDN'T just start. It was escalated by terrorists because they saw that all Americans and Europeans have done in the past is suck their collective thumbs and glorify people like Michael Moore, a coward hiding behind an opinion piece of lies and half-truths. I'd bet you'd never find him in a soldier's uniform for any reason. And, for the record, many Europeans are still sucking their thumbs or, in the case of the French, have placed them in another cavity.
So, no, weapons of mass destruction were not found. I guess that suggests there never were any. Or, more likely, perhaps it suggests they got rid of them because the president never let up on Saddam. (There he goes with that attitude again!) I can't understand what is wrong with liberating a people while at the same time fighting the war on terror in Iraq rather than at home. Do you honestly think September 11 is the end of their jihad? Do you think they've learned their lesson and will leave, licking their wounds, because we've initiated a few safeguards and put suspected terrorists in holding cells?
I am every bit as horrified as the average American when a person is killed, whether that person is a service person or an innocent Iraq citizen. But there are two sides to this story and that's why this country is divided. Unfortunately both sides do NOT receive equal treatment by the media, which is why I'm spending a Sunday evening writing this. Every service person I've spoken with, without exception, has nothing but praise for the war and the reconstruction effort. They talk about schools being built, friends being made, and a people being transformed. Even the two Iraqi female representatives who visited Charleston this past week had nothing but praise for the reconstruction.
So please don't moralize with me or your readers about the candidates or about the war. We all get deflated enough in this world. And don't try to categorize me as part of the extreme right-wing. I'm not that either. I respect your opinion to disagree but I don't appreciate your trying to make me and others who support the President look like idiots by doing so.
Monday, November 22
Would Jesus Support the War in Iraq by Karyn Cantees Stagg
The following is a response to the question "Would Jesus Christ approve of the present war in Iraq posed by the editorial staff at The Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette. It's the best answer I've seen to that question. -- Sunnye
Would Jesus support the war in Iraq? This topic has been the subject of several editorials and both the Gazette editors and contributing writer Bill Mehle assert that Jesus would not endorse the war. Although I would never propose to know what Jesus would or would not do regarding this subject, I believe our Lord is anything but a pacifist. As Christians, we believe in the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. In the Bible's Old Testament God the Father destroyed more humanity than any human ever could. People's cruel and disobedient behavior so incensed Him that once He even destroyed all humanity with a flood.
God's son Jesus came to earth, borne of a woman, and flesh though he was, remained sinless. Jesus speakes of those who belonged to Him as not belonging to the world. He prays for His disciples in John 17:9: "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." Jesus clearly separates those who love Him from those who love the world. Jesus saya in Matthew 10:21, 22: "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake."
In the Book of Revelation, we witness the greatest and last war the world will ever know. It's clearly a war where our good God is pitted against the evil Satan. If we search the Bible, God is clearly shown as being capable of destruction -- not only by committing it, but also by allowing it.
Mr. Mehle quotes Pope John Paul II as saying war, "is always a defeat for humanity." I respectfully say that perhaps war, while being a defeat for humanity, may be a triumph for good. Statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke stated, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Whom do we stand with and more directly, what do we stand for, if we leave a dictator to destroy his own people? Mr. Mehle states that Catholic bishops remind Catholics that among other things, "a fundamental measure of our society is how we stand with and care for the poor and vulnerable." Mr. Mehle's quote refers to alms giving, but aren't we also standing with the poor and vulnerable in Iraq by relieving them of a brutal regime that destroyed the most vulnerable and defenseless of its society? We are giving people a chance. A chance they never dreamed of having.
Make no mistake that Iraq, not America, is now the venue for the war on terror and Americans are safer because our armed forces are stationed there. Thank God for every man and woman who is willing to fight so Americans don't daily live in fear. Thank God for a President who isn't afraid to "carry a big stick," as Theodore Roosevelt said we must do. There have been many miscalculations made throughout our brief history as a country, but the biggest miscalculation was avoided by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II, when he courageously led America into the other guy's war. Yes, Pearl Harbor was attacked! Well, so was the World Trade Center, where more people were killed than at Pearl Harbor.
Yes, Jesus is most certainly the originator of the Beatitudes, including the one quoted recently by Gazette editors: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God." But I propose that many of our armed forces personnel, many average Americans, many Iraqis and perhaps even Jesus consider our service men and women and the leaders who sent them off to Iraq, peacemakers. They stand courageous in and for a land that has rarely known peace.
Let us not forget that while Jesus Christ is the embodiment of what we are to become spiritually, he knows humanness. He also knows and understands evil. And, if Armageddon is the last great war, He knows what it takes to overcome evil.
Would Jesus support the war in Iraq? This topic has been the subject of several editorials and both the Gazette editors and contributing writer Bill Mehle assert that Jesus would not endorse the war. Although I would never propose to know what Jesus would or would not do regarding this subject, I believe our Lord is anything but a pacifist. As Christians, we believe in the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. In the Bible's Old Testament God the Father destroyed more humanity than any human ever could. People's cruel and disobedient behavior so incensed Him that once He even destroyed all humanity with a flood.
God's son Jesus came to earth, borne of a woman, and flesh though he was, remained sinless. Jesus speakes of those who belonged to Him as not belonging to the world. He prays for His disciples in John 17:9: "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." Jesus clearly separates those who love Him from those who love the world. Jesus saya in Matthew 10:21, 22: "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake."
In the Book of Revelation, we witness the greatest and last war the world will ever know. It's clearly a war where our good God is pitted against the evil Satan. If we search the Bible, God is clearly shown as being capable of destruction -- not only by committing it, but also by allowing it.
Mr. Mehle quotes Pope John Paul II as saying war, "is always a defeat for humanity." I respectfully say that perhaps war, while being a defeat for humanity, may be a triumph for good. Statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke stated, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Whom do we stand with and more directly, what do we stand for, if we leave a dictator to destroy his own people? Mr. Mehle states that Catholic bishops remind Catholics that among other things, "a fundamental measure of our society is how we stand with and care for the poor and vulnerable." Mr. Mehle's quote refers to alms giving, but aren't we also standing with the poor and vulnerable in Iraq by relieving them of a brutal regime that destroyed the most vulnerable and defenseless of its society? We are giving people a chance. A chance they never dreamed of having.
Make no mistake that Iraq, not America, is now the venue for the war on terror and Americans are safer because our armed forces are stationed there. Thank God for every man and woman who is willing to fight so Americans don't daily live in fear. Thank God for a President who isn't afraid to "carry a big stick," as Theodore Roosevelt said we must do. There have been many miscalculations made throughout our brief history as a country, but the biggest miscalculation was avoided by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II, when he courageously led America into the other guy's war. Yes, Pearl Harbor was attacked! Well, so was the World Trade Center, where more people were killed than at Pearl Harbor.
Yes, Jesus is most certainly the originator of the Beatitudes, including the one quoted recently by Gazette editors: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God." But I propose that many of our armed forces personnel, many average Americans, many Iraqis and perhaps even Jesus consider our service men and women and the leaders who sent them off to Iraq, peacemakers. They stand courageous in and for a land that has rarely known peace.
Let us not forget that while Jesus Christ is the embodiment of what we are to become spiritually, he knows humanness. He also knows and understands evil. And, if Armageddon is the last great war, He knows what it takes to overcome evil.
Friday, November 19
Public Hypocrisy? I don't think so.
Columnists can come up with some of the funniest stuff -- often without realizing what they're doing.
Look at this one by Froma Harrop in the Seattle Times. Here Ms. Harrop bemoans the fact that conservatives have objected so strenuously to the new TV show "'Desperate Housewives' that Lowe's and the Tyson (Chicken) Corporation have dropped sponsorships. About the content of the show she writes, ""Desperate Housewives" is a dark comedy about pampered women living on a cul-de-sac of baby mansions. In material terms, they have the whole enchilada. Emotionally, they are miserable. Theirs is a world of adultery, rude children, mothers who lie and husbands who leave. One character is the voice of a dead housewife who put a gun to her head, for reasons we'll learn someday." To her credit she admits that the show really isn't worth watching because she finds it boring.
Then she proceeds to tell us that the show isn't immoral because it doesn't have cursing or nudity.
But, hold on .... here comes the good part: She adds, "The American public, we are told, is fed up with this trash. Indecent television has become the main villain in the 'values issue.' But one thing needs noting: The very week that the people propelled President Bush to a second term — partly on his promise of cultural cleanup — 22 million Americans voted with their remotes for "Desperate Housewives." That must be worth a good 50 electoral votes." She calls that public hypocrisy.
Let's look at the stats. Kerry won 252 electoral votes (57,453,966 popular votes). 51% (29,301,523)of his total votes were from women. Bet those are the people who were watching "Desperate Housewives." I think you can probably rest assured that most of the 22 million who enjoyed "Desperate Housewives" were probably not conservatives. If you're going to make dumb assumptions, that one's as good as any.
"By the way, conservatives are totally wrong that a show about messed-up families is necessarily bad for the institution of marriage. Real marriages and real children create conflict and anger. Mothers who'll watch 'Desperate Housewives' can't help but feel good about their home lives, at least by comparison. And if they labor under the illusion that lack of money causes marital stress, this portrait of well-heeled misery will cure them," she writes. This woman is full of ill-conceived assumptions and gross generalizations. A show about messed-up families isn't necessarily good for the institution of marriage, either. And guess what -- psychologists are wrong when they say people are comforted by knowing the problems of others. That's not at all true for some of us. Also, the lack of money does cause marital stress; the problems attendant with having money are just different than those with not having money.
This silly column is just another conservative bashing that contributes to the division liberals fret over so much! It's also a "I came to bury Caesar not to praise him" kind of promoting a TV show that many have called really bad. As for me, I'm going to have to see it for myself. At least until the first commercial.
Look at this one by Froma Harrop in the Seattle Times. Here Ms. Harrop bemoans the fact that conservatives have objected so strenuously to the new TV show "'Desperate Housewives' that Lowe's and the Tyson (Chicken) Corporation have dropped sponsorships. About the content of the show she writes, ""Desperate Housewives" is a dark comedy about pampered women living on a cul-de-sac of baby mansions. In material terms, they have the whole enchilada. Emotionally, they are miserable. Theirs is a world of adultery, rude children, mothers who lie and husbands who leave. One character is the voice of a dead housewife who put a gun to her head, for reasons we'll learn someday." To her credit she admits that the show really isn't worth watching because she finds it boring.
Then she proceeds to tell us that the show isn't immoral because it doesn't have cursing or nudity.
But, hold on .... here comes the good part: She adds, "The American public, we are told, is fed up with this trash. Indecent television has become the main villain in the 'values issue.' But one thing needs noting: The very week that the people propelled President Bush to a second term — partly on his promise of cultural cleanup — 22 million Americans voted with their remotes for "Desperate Housewives." That must be worth a good 50 electoral votes." She calls that public hypocrisy.
Let's look at the stats. Kerry won 252 electoral votes (57,453,966 popular votes). 51% (29,301,523)of his total votes were from women. Bet those are the people who were watching "Desperate Housewives." I think you can probably rest assured that most of the 22 million who enjoyed "Desperate Housewives" were probably not conservatives. If you're going to make dumb assumptions, that one's as good as any.
"By the way, conservatives are totally wrong that a show about messed-up families is necessarily bad for the institution of marriage. Real marriages and real children create conflict and anger. Mothers who'll watch 'Desperate Housewives' can't help but feel good about their home lives, at least by comparison. And if they labor under the illusion that lack of money causes marital stress, this portrait of well-heeled misery will cure them," she writes. This woman is full of ill-conceived assumptions and gross generalizations. A show about messed-up families isn't necessarily good for the institution of marriage, either. And guess what -- psychologists are wrong when they say people are comforted by knowing the problems of others. That's not at all true for some of us. Also, the lack of money does cause marital stress; the problems attendant with having money are just different than those with not having money.
This silly column is just another conservative bashing that contributes to the division liberals fret over so much! It's also a "I came to bury Caesar not to praise him" kind of promoting a TV show that many have called really bad. As for me, I'm going to have to see it for myself. At least until the first commercial.
NBC Photographer in Fallujah
The photographer pictured below, Kevin Sites (with a t, not a k), shot a video film showing a Marine executing a (seemingly) wounded insurgent. You know, like Kerry claimed he did back in the Viet Name war -- only in this case the soldier didn't shoot the enemy in the back.
Kevin Sites, "the NBC cameraman who shot video of the controversial shooting of a Fallujah insurgent by a U.S. Marine, is an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website. . . Images Against War is one website where Sites' photography appears, giving two separate pages to his work. One of the pages, labeled 'Kevin Sites 2,' features photos of captured Iraqis with one caption saying detainees on a truck were enduring 'a long ride into uncertainty.' Most of the photos featured on the site engender sympathy toward U.S. enemy fighters and antipathy toward American military personnel."
(A side note of interest: Images Against War is a German website. The posters on the website have called Sites a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer.)
But back to the war. The Marines on the video tape had entered a room where several insurgents seemed dead. One moved. This particular Marine had seen a buddy die when a corpse exploded the day before and had, himself, been shot in the face. Furthermore these soldiers knew that wounded insurgents had been known to lob hand grenades at US soldiers when they came near. So the Lieutenant did what anyone with half an ounce of self-preservation (and sense) would do. When it moved, he shot it.
So now the media is howling for the soldier's head...and career....and retirement and disgrace and any other pound of flesh they can exact. That's totally wrong. In the first place, this is a war without rules. We mustn't hamper our soldiers by insisting they obey "rules of war" when the enemy doesn't. Rules of war are silly anyway. War is not a moral activity but it's a necessary one.
But look what Sites wrote about what the Marines are experiencing: "Despite the constant weapons fire and explosion that have accompanied our advance -- this one is different -- it's directed at the Marines. As a squad from India Company passes by a way with a spray painted rocket propelled grenade launcher -- a real RPG round explodes against it. One Marines' face is burned by the powder and hot gas -- another has caught shrapnel in the leg, a third has been shot in the finger by the small arms fire that followed. The Marines are outraged. They turn their M-16's on the building to the west where they believe the shooter is hiding."
That pretty well explains the mindset of the Marines, doesn't it?
Sites, a freelance reporter with a HUGE ego, was formerly with CNN and presumably left that organization after they asked him not to blog about the war any more. So you can judge for yourself, he blogs here.
This is the original report Sites filed.
This is a report that should never have been filed. And the investigation of the soldier is an investigation that should never happen -- except that there is a good side to it. It gets that soldier out of "harm's way" for a while.
Kevin Sites, "the NBC cameraman who shot video of the controversial shooting of a Fallujah insurgent by a U.S. Marine, is an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website. . . Images Against War is one website where Sites' photography appears, giving two separate pages to his work. One of the pages, labeled 'Kevin Sites 2,' features photos of captured Iraqis with one caption saying detainees on a truck were enduring 'a long ride into uncertainty.' Most of the photos featured on the site engender sympathy toward U.S. enemy fighters and antipathy toward American military personnel."
(A side note of interest: Images Against War is a German website. The posters on the website have called Sites a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer.)
But back to the war. The Marines on the video tape had entered a room where several insurgents seemed dead. One moved. This particular Marine had seen a buddy die when a corpse exploded the day before and had, himself, been shot in the face. Furthermore these soldiers knew that wounded insurgents had been known to lob hand grenades at US soldiers when they came near. So the Lieutenant did what anyone with half an ounce of self-preservation (and sense) would do. When it moved, he shot it.
So now the media is howling for the soldier's head...and career....and retirement and disgrace and any other pound of flesh they can exact. That's totally wrong. In the first place, this is a war without rules. We mustn't hamper our soldiers by insisting they obey "rules of war" when the enemy doesn't. Rules of war are silly anyway. War is not a moral activity but it's a necessary one.
But look what Sites wrote about what the Marines are experiencing: "Despite the constant weapons fire and explosion that have accompanied our advance -- this one is different -- it's directed at the Marines. As a squad from India Company passes by a way with a spray painted rocket propelled grenade launcher -- a real RPG round explodes against it. One Marines' face is burned by the powder and hot gas -- another has caught shrapnel in the leg, a third has been shot in the finger by the small arms fire that followed. The Marines are outraged. They turn their M-16's on the building to the west where they believe the shooter is hiding."
That pretty well explains the mindset of the Marines, doesn't it?
Sites, a freelance reporter with a HUGE ego, was formerly with CNN and presumably left that organization after they asked him not to blog about the war any more. So you can judge for yourself, he blogs here.
This is the original report Sites filed.
This is a report that should never have been filed. And the investigation of the soldier is an investigation that should never happen -- except that there is a good side to it. It gets that soldier out of "harm's way" for a while.
Thursday, November 18
Library of Lies and Propaganda
The BIG News (I guess nothing really important happened today). . .
. . . was opening of the William Clinton Presidential Library. "Like all presidential libraries, it's a permanent collection that presents political spin for the ages," writes Jeff Zeleny of the Chicago Tribune. I don't know that's true -- the Truman Library seems pretty balanced to me. It presents President Truman as a human being in a great office who did his imperfect best. Now that is a man I can honor.
It was a wet, rainy day in Little Rock (down on the "wrong side of the tracks"). I suppose even the clouds wept at the thought of the spin in the concrete -- and talk about spin! Clinton still can't face the fact that he and he alone was responsible for his conduct with Monica Lewinski and the fact that he lied to a Grand Jury. He has to blame the Republicans and Ken Starr (who, by the way, did a spectacular job in his investigation according to legal observors). Looks like what WJC needs more than anything is a psychiatrist!
Maybe what Congress should do is to pass a law saying that presidential libraries can't be planned (much less begun) until a certain number of years after the president dies. With the major ego gone, misinformation might not prevail. It is, after all, in the interest of future generations that the unvarnished truth be told.
"The impeachment exhibit, titled 'The Fight for Power,' depicts the entire scandal as Republican retaliation rooted out of jealously for Democratic success. There is no air of remorse for a despicable moral lapse or mention of responsibility for lying under oath to cover up an affair. The captions etched in glass, written by former White House speechwriters under Clinton's direction, declare: 'Politics of Persecution,' and 'A New Culture of Confrontation.'" So those are the names for lying to a Grand Jury and getting away with it (which he did, because "impeachment" meant nothing to him --conviction may have hurt).
So we have a library now honoring the President who did more to bring shame and disgust to the office than any other, including Richard Nixon. Nixon only protected his friends; Clinton proved himself to be a man without honor, truth or integrity.
Perhaps, though, there wouldn't have been a Clinton library if we'd waited until history judged his presidency. That is, I suppose, the best argument for going ahead with it.
Creating a library of lies, half-truths and propaganda because he wants to be remembered as a better man than he was puts him right up there with Lenin who said "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" and Goebbels, who acted on that premise.
Wednesday, November 17
Don't Change the Rules in the Middle of the Game
NOT a good idea, Republicans.
Tom DeLay may be great in his job; he may be one of the party's favorite sons -- but you can't have the rules both ways.
It's been only a few years since Republicans grabbed power in the house by changing that very rule. The original House fight went on for several years and ended in 1997, when Republicans and Democrats agreed to an truce to end a long series of ethics charges and countercharges throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The ethics war helped topple two speakers -- Democrat Jim Wright and Republican Newt Gingrich -- and helped the GOP take control of the House in 1994. The rule that resolved all that was the one requiring leadership to step down in case of a Federal indictment.
Also, changing the rule "violates the spirit of the Congressional Accountability Act a GOP-inspired law that forces Congress to follow federal laws that apply to the private sector," according to a report by ABC news.
Remember the old warning about not changing horses in midstream? Remember in 2002 when Democrats tried to change election rules while the Florida votes were being counted and the Supreme Court shot them down? If it's not good for the goose it shouldn't work for the gander.
"It really looks like the Republican house members have made a serious mistake this time," according to the Washington Post. I think so, too. The reason I've been a Republican (when I wasn't a Democrat!) is I like who they are. For the most part, they tell the truth even when it hurts, they do what's best for the country without considering their careers and I can trust them to do the ethical thing -- at least the Republicans I've voted for were that way.
But you can't go changing the rules in the middle of the game. If DeLay is innocent the court will say so; then he can go back to work as leader of the House. In the meantime, he should step down. If the Democrats are playing nasty games, charge them with ethics violations.
I like to think DeLay is innocent and simply a victim of Democratic games-playing. But he's been tarnished by other mud as well. According to another Post article, "The ethics committee on Wednesday faulted DeLay's actions in involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan dispute. It also admonished him for his dealings with officers of a Kansas energy company who gave his political committees $25,000 and claimed they received legislative help in return. Last week, the ethics panel publicly admonished DeLay for offering to endorse the political campaign of a Michigan lawmaker's son if the legislator would give a crucially needed vote on the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. And in 1999, the committee privately chastised him for threatening to retaliate against a Washington trade group for hiring a Democrat as its president."
Ouch.
But wait.
There's another side to the story:
It seems that Rep. DeLay has been increasingly successful in passing a more conservative agenda than previous Republicans. According to the Washington Times"In recent years, the U.S. House has pushed a bold reform agenda — especially on economic matters. Even those who have not been pleased with this turn of political events agree that a crucial factor in this ideological shift to the right in the House has been House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his whip system, which has been operating with increasing efficiency since 1995. Both sides of the national debate agree that Mr. DeLay, who has earned the nickname "the Hammer," has run the strongest whip operation in the House in decades.
You now know all you have to know about why Tom DeLay is under increasing fire for trumped-up ethics violations. Mr. DeLay is despised by the left, not because his actions have been illegal, but because they've been completely effective at neutering the left."
Well, now. That puts a new dawg in the fight!
As someone who has, just in the past few weeks, been accused of being a "white supremacist," "stupid," "uneducated," "racist," and a whole bunch of other epithets that really don't apply to me at all, coming from Democrats who have never met me or talked to me -- well. That experience colors the way I see Mr. DeLay's situation.
So. I will wait and let the courts decide DeLay's situation. In the meantime, though, I'll stick by my original contention: Republicans: Don't change the rules for one person. There are better ways to use power.
Tom DeLay may be great in his job; he may be one of the party's favorite sons -- but you can't have the rules both ways.
It's been only a few years since Republicans grabbed power in the house by changing that very rule. The original House fight went on for several years and ended in 1997, when Republicans and Democrats agreed to an truce to end a long series of ethics charges and countercharges throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The ethics war helped topple two speakers -- Democrat Jim Wright and Republican Newt Gingrich -- and helped the GOP take control of the House in 1994. The rule that resolved all that was the one requiring leadership to step down in case of a Federal indictment.
Also, changing the rule "violates the spirit of the Congressional Accountability Act a GOP-inspired law that forces Congress to follow federal laws that apply to the private sector," according to a report by ABC news.
Remember the old warning about not changing horses in midstream? Remember in 2002 when Democrats tried to change election rules while the Florida votes were being counted and the Supreme Court shot them down? If it's not good for the goose it shouldn't work for the gander.
"It really looks like the Republican house members have made a serious mistake this time," according to the Washington Post. I think so, too. The reason I've been a Republican (when I wasn't a Democrat!) is I like who they are. For the most part, they tell the truth even when it hurts, they do what's best for the country without considering their careers and I can trust them to do the ethical thing -- at least the Republicans I've voted for were that way.
But you can't go changing the rules in the middle of the game. If DeLay is innocent the court will say so; then he can go back to work as leader of the House. In the meantime, he should step down. If the Democrats are playing nasty games, charge them with ethics violations.
I like to think DeLay is innocent and simply a victim of Democratic games-playing. But he's been tarnished by other mud as well. According to another Post article, "The ethics committee on Wednesday faulted DeLay's actions in involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan dispute. It also admonished him for his dealings with officers of a Kansas energy company who gave his political committees $25,000 and claimed they received legislative help in return. Last week, the ethics panel publicly admonished DeLay for offering to endorse the political campaign of a Michigan lawmaker's son if the legislator would give a crucially needed vote on the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. And in 1999, the committee privately chastised him for threatening to retaliate against a Washington trade group for hiring a Democrat as its president."
Ouch.
But wait.
There's another side to the story:
It seems that Rep. DeLay has been increasingly successful in passing a more conservative agenda than previous Republicans. According to the Washington Times"In recent years, the U.S. House has pushed a bold reform agenda — especially on economic matters. Even those who have not been pleased with this turn of political events agree that a crucial factor in this ideological shift to the right in the House has been House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his whip system, which has been operating with increasing efficiency since 1995. Both sides of the national debate agree that Mr. DeLay, who has earned the nickname "the Hammer," has run the strongest whip operation in the House in decades.
You now know all you have to know about why Tom DeLay is under increasing fire for trumped-up ethics violations. Mr. DeLay is despised by the left, not because his actions have been illegal, but because they've been completely effective at neutering the left."
Well, now. That puts a new dawg in the fight!
As someone who has, just in the past few weeks, been accused of being a "white supremacist," "stupid," "uneducated," "racist," and a whole bunch of other epithets that really don't apply to me at all, coming from Democrats who have never met me or talked to me -- well. That experience colors the way I see Mr. DeLay's situation.
So. I will wait and let the courts decide DeLay's situation. In the meantime, though, I'll stick by my original contention: Republicans: Don't change the rules for one person. There are better ways to use power.
Tuesday, November 16
It's Alma's Turn
As an American citizen I deplore it but as a wife, mother and grandmother I can't help but cheer Secretary Powell's decision to quit the State Department. I remember four years ago that Mrs. Powell held her head up and soldiered on but it was well known that she really felt it was time the General returned to family life. A soldier's wife, however, smiles over an empty heart and does her best to give her soldier the support he needs.
I could swear I heard her cheer when that announcement was made yesterday. And I don't blame her. I've seen the sacrifices a career soldier's wife makes -- my daughter married an Army officer who, like General Powell, is a patriot and continues to serve his country after retirement. I don't know what West Point does to these guys, but whatever it is, the rest of us are the better for it.
So I'll just say "thank you, Mr. Secretary" and point out some of the things he's done. The past four years, as Secretary of State, Colin Powell has made team out of the State Department. He paid attention to the employees there, visited them in their offices, and cared about their work. The rank and file say he was a pleasure to work for. On the international scene he:
Brought NATO in and brokered Afghanistan’s transition to democracy.
Defused a disagreement between Spain and Morocco over Parsley Island in 2002.
Neutralized Libya and at the same time revealed a global threat of nuclear proliferation that implicated Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
Helped promote the roadmap for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
Engaged nuclear powers India and Pakistan in peace talks rather than confrontation.
Brought attention to the UN about genocide in the Darfar region in South Africa.
Brought relative stability to Liberia in his support of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Liberia.
Helped set up the Global Health Fund to establish a $15 billion dollar emergency fund to fight HIV/AIDS.
That's a grand record for four years. Thank you, Mr. Powell. If you ever wanted to run for President (and Alma would make a lovely First Lady), you'll have my support.
But now it's Alma's turn.
I could swear I heard her cheer when that announcement was made yesterday. And I don't blame her. I've seen the sacrifices a career soldier's wife makes -- my daughter married an Army officer who, like General Powell, is a patriot and continues to serve his country after retirement. I don't know what West Point does to these guys, but whatever it is, the rest of us are the better for it.
So I'll just say "thank you, Mr. Secretary" and point out some of the things he's done. The past four years, as Secretary of State, Colin Powell has made team out of the State Department. He paid attention to the employees there, visited them in their offices, and cared about their work. The rank and file say he was a pleasure to work for. On the international scene he:
Brought NATO in and brokered Afghanistan’s transition to democracy.
Defused a disagreement between Spain and Morocco over Parsley Island in 2002.
Neutralized Libya and at the same time revealed a global threat of nuclear proliferation that implicated Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
Helped promote the roadmap for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
Engaged nuclear powers India and Pakistan in peace talks rather than confrontation.
Brought attention to the UN about genocide in the Darfar region in South Africa.
Brought relative stability to Liberia in his support of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Liberia.
Helped set up the Global Health Fund to establish a $15 billion dollar emergency fund to fight HIV/AIDS.
That's a grand record for four years. Thank you, Mr. Powell. If you ever wanted to run for President (and Alma would make a lovely First Lady), you'll have my support.
But now it's Alma's turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
