My first "involvement" with presidential politics was in 1964 when, as a high school freshman, I sat transfixed, mesmerized by the Johnson-Goldwater debates. Since that time, I've logged a lot of miles, figuratively speaking, so not a lot that goes on up to and at political conventions surprises me.
Who would deny a convention its right to put the best possible face on its proceedings? After all, while it's very important to rev up the delegates and like-minded people, it is also crucial not to alienate men and women who have yet to make up their minds.
Yet studying my eleventh Democratic National Convention this week, it occurs to me that it's almost like watching a virtual convention. Or, better, it's like there are competing, parallel conventions in the same hall, with the network choices of what to cover acting as a firewall.
On the dais, you have--in prime time--speakers whose language has been largely drained of the vitriol that has fueled Democratic politics. In the off-peak hours those who watch cable, which is devoting many times more hours to the convention than the "Big Three" networks, are witnesses to harangues and tirades and invectives heated enough to curl your hair.
That's why if all you see are the couple of hours the networks are giving nightly to the Democratic National Convention, you experience the curious disconnect between insistence that this "is the most important election in memory" and the bland, kumbiyah rhetoric.
Only occasionally are the likes of Sen. Ted Kennedy allowed to tell you how much they really hate, loath, and despise President George Bush. That sort of 19th Century-esque personal assault, which is a staple of the party's campaign this time round, is largely confined to the afternoons and early evenings.
What's that to us? Simply this. The Democrats are a party whose embrace of abortion is so absolute it squeezes out virtually all pro-life voices. The only reason they would brook someone talking who usually votes pro-life in Congress is because (a) the party can piously say it has not shut out ALL pro-lifers, and (b) this congressman can introduce Ron Reagan, to extol the virtues of human cloning.
The latter is a twofer. It brought together a congressman who opposes abortion but not research that kills human embryos, and a man who trades on his father's name to advance a policy he would have utter rejected.
We used yesterday's column to talk about the remarks delivered at the convention by Ron Reagan. Let me borrow from bioethicist Wesley Smith, who always has something thoughtful to say.
Smith made a number of important points in a piece yesterday on National Review's webpage. "[U]nder the guise of promoting Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Reagan actually pushed for the explicit legalization of human cloning," according to Smith, which he described as bait and switch. "[T]hanks to Ron Reagan's speech, which never once mentioned leftover IVF embryos, we learn that what Big Biotech and the Kerry campaign are really after is for the federal government to fund human-cloning research."
Ron Reagan snidely dismissed those who disagreed with him-- it is an unreasonable "theology of the few" which "stands in the way of 'the many' receiving the miracle medical cures," Smith writes,"that Reagan's hyped speech all but promised would be here in 'ten years or so.'"
As Smith makes clear it is not religion that is the primary reason why so many people around the world oppose human cloning. "Indeed, scores of Democrats in the House of Representatives, some of them decidedly secular, have voted twice for the very legal ban against all human somatic-cell nuclear-transfer cloning that Reagan railed against President Bush for supporting."
And the list of countries banning cloning continues to grow. These include, according to Smith, France, Canada, Australia, Norway, and Germany.
There are many other important points Smith makes. I would encourage you to read the full essay at www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith20040728 0818.asp.
Irony of ironies, Ron Reagan's conclusion was absolutely correct: "We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter."
Only the wave of the future is not the commodification of life, but rather the embrace of unborn children, and true compassion not the mindless ideology of choice, but the loving embrace of unborn children.
Likewise, it is most certainly true that the next few months ARE our moment, and that we MUST not falter.
David Ellwood shows how anti-American feelings today have roots and parallels in the past.
THE YEAR IS 1930, the writer Georges Duhamel, popular Parisian commentator:
I was born in a country whose soul, inhabitants and products are diverse, motley, changing and ingenious. From milk, this simple and elementary food, we Frenchmen know how to make more than 100 kinds of cheese. All are good, healthy, strong, substantial and amusing. All have their history, character and role. In this feature alone, I recognise the genius of my country, in it I understand that she has produced so many great men in all professions ... I belong to a peasant people which has cultivated lovingly for centuries 50 different plums and which finds in each one a deliciously incomparable taste. Duhamel wrote this in a powerful diatribe warning Europeans, and Frenchmen in particular, that unless they took steps to protect their traditions, values and identities, the system of advanced industrialism which modernity had produced in America would soon overwhelm them. Seventy years later the same battle is being fought, this time by a farmers' leader, Jose Bove, who in August 1999 broke up the site of a new McDonald's restaurant in his home town of Millau, and almost instantly became a sort of national hero. Bove was briefly arrested, led a delegation of supporters to the Seattle conference of the World Trade Organisation in November 1999 (smuggling in a Roquefort cheese), and in July 2000 was put on trial in the midst of a `happening' which brought 40,000 young people to Millau and the attention of international media.
Meanwhile the Parisian bookshops were once more filling up with titles deploring American society and its overweening foreign policy: No Thanks, Uncle Sam, The World Is Not Merchandise, Who Is Killing France?, The American Strategy, and others. The American Ambassador commented: `The Anti-Americanism today encompasses not a specific policy like Iranian sanctions but a feeling that globalisation has an American face on it and is a danger to the European and French view of society ... There is the sense that America is such an extraordinary power that it can crush everything in its way.' The feeling certainly seemed to be shared by the government. Foreign minister Hubert Vedrine was quoted as saying that America's role in 20th-century European history did not give it the rights of a sixteenth member of the European Union. Only the French government explicitly presented the birth of the Euro as an antidote to the strength of the dollar.
`It's important to understand why a new stridency has crept into France's warnings about American power', commented the Wall Street Journal Europe in late February 1999. The problem, suggested interviewees, was the insecurity of the elites. In culture, diplomacy and political culture, they looked ever more beleaguered, overtaken and outpaced by the appeal of American dress-styles to their children, of fast-food to their youth, and of Hollywood to their cinema audiences. `The government, and the elites, realise that culture, writ large, is a battle that they're losing. They're very jealous of America's power to seduce,' Alain Franchon, an editorial writer for Le Monde, was quoted as saying. `When faced with that you have to fight, even if you risk looking ridiculous.'
Jack Lang, the man who brought a new prominence to these questions in his years as Minister of Culture under President Mitterand, recently insisted that if the nation's heritage was not to dwindle into insignificance, economics and culture should learn to live together in France, so that France would be better placed to `bet on the future'. Calling for a new Ministry of External Cultural Relations, Lang demanded more energy, more openness, more international operations by French television channels and a whole-hearted build-up of a European identity `of imagination, youth and spirit'. Either the Old World could remain frozen in the shadow of American culture, in which case diplomatic subjection would soon follow, said Lang. Or Europe, under France's powerful impulse, could show all those peoples wishing to seek an alternative to US domination, that `the West is declined in the plural. A message of hope.'
The leading French international relations Dominique Moisi, believes that to resolve the nation's fundamental identity problem, which is whether to be `a modern, normal country' or one which is different, even exceptional, the French must stop bewailing globalisation and America's role in it, give up cultural protectionism and refurbish instead their own message: `What France should seek to preserve -- once it has conceded defeat in the language battle -- is the context and originality of its message, not its medium.' Jean-Marie Guehenno, an expert on the State and national identity, is pessimistic about the chances of such a strategy being given a chance to work. Anti-Americanism is probably growing, he writes, `in spite of claims to the contrary and in spite of the success of American culture among French people.' It is, he says, a dangerous development which isolates France and encourages people `to withdraw in to a world of illusions in which la francophonie stands up to les anglo-saxons in the same way that Asterix confronted the Roman Empire.' And sure enough, within months of this warning, on February 3rd, 1999, the French film industry brought out to great acclaim its most expensive production ever: Asterix and Obelix against Caesar. It was, said Le Monde, a superproduction which represented the very image of national resistance against American cinematic imperialism.
Anti-Americanism is certainly an ambiguous form of response to America's presence as a power in Europe. Its more ideological manifestations often reflect the proselytising fashion in which America presents the lessons of its history to the world. When a unique national experience is characterised in the language of `exceptionalism', then it's not suprising that opponents reject the way of life as well as the message, the symbols as well as the actions. In the French case, writes the American specialist on France Richard Kuisel,
the basis of anti-Americanism is cultural and pivots on the notion of protecting and disseminating civilisation. Though differences over international relations, trade and economics will continue to stir criticism of the hegemonic Western power, the core of resistance derives from a sense of French difference, superiority and universal mission -- all bound in the term civilisation. The implied universality of civilisation breeds competition with the United States because America has its own sense of universal mission. But contemporary anti-Americanism is more than just a pseudo-ideological posture. Behind it lies the baggage of images and stereotypes about the new nation which European visitors accumulated throughout the nineteenth century. Then came America's development of an ideologically dynamic and disruptive model of modernisation in the 1920s. And the shared trans-Atlantic experience of two World Wars and the Cold War also left a legacy of attitudes. Without all these historical precedents and pretexts, the ascendancy of US power since the Second World War would never have attracted the resentments and antagonisms which classical anti-Americanism has expressed in a country like France. Today the true parallel of America's position vis a vis the Old World is not the Pax Britannica of the nineteenth century, but the 1920s. At that time Fordism, Hollywood, Jazz, dance-halls, new forms of advertising, leisure pursuits and role models swept through post-First World War Europe, and antagonised traditional dikes engaged in the difficult business of reconstituting their power and legitimacy. `Americanism' was a phrase already current in the mid-nineteenth century which recognised that nation's unique inheritance of ideals and aspirations. The use of the term `Anti-Americanism' started in the 1920s. The transatlantic grievances of the time -- war debts and reparations, naval competition, the force of the new mass culture -- now began to be expressed in a language which connected American politics and foreign policy with what were perceived to be the nation's defects as a society and a civilisation.
In France this new critical attitude produced books which were destined to acquire lasting significance as trend-setters in the critique of America's likely impact on the nation's future. The most famous was Duhamel's Scenes de la vie future (1930). The most authoritative was political commentator Andre Siegfried's Les Etats-unis d'aujourd'hui, a discussion of all the issues outstanding between France and the US at the time. The politician and diplomat Andre Tardieu provided Devant l'obstacle: L'Amerique et nous, While the work of the business journalist Lucien Romier, Qui sera le maitre, Europe ou Amerique?, was a thoroughgoing critique of mass society and America's responsibility for diffusing it. All were bestsellers and they set a pattern which would later include Rene Etiemble's Parlez-vous franglais? (1964) and Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber's Le defi americaine (1967). The first of these opened the vexed question of language and called for a campaign which would rescue the French cultural heritage from the American `air-conditioned nightmare', just as de Gaulle was doing in international relations and economics. Servan-Schreiber's even more influential production called for a Europeanisation of America's most successful technical and social features, just as he had invented L'Express, a French version of Time or Newsweek. From the 1960s too came the radical, Third World-ist critique of American imperialism best articulated by Le Monde's international affairs supplement Le Monde diplomatique, which continues this tradition today.
The 1990s shifted the argument back to the influence of Hollywood's film and television output, reviving a debate which had provoked strong impulses of cultural protectionism in the 1920s and 1940s. At the 1993 GATT talks on world trade the French audiovisual industry, strongly supported by the socialist president and the conservative government, led efforts to have its products removed entirely from the purview of the negotiations, on the grounds that free trade invariably favoured the most powerful producers. No single country `should be allowed to control the images of the whole world,' Mitterand declared in October 1993; `what is at stake is the cultural identity of our nations, the right of each people to its own culture'. If Jurassic Park could be attacked as a threat to French national identity, as it had been some months earlier by the Minister of Culture, then this was not simply about the balance of economic power between the French cinema industry and Hollywood. A position like this reflected a sense of being forced to give up `a concept of nationhood that presumed sovereignty over culture', as the American historian Victoria de Grazia has written, talking of Hollywood's impact in the 1920s.
Until recently the battle of cultural sovereignty has been over languages, images and expectations, over the minds of one's own younger generations. Now the battle seems to be shifting to the stomach. As a target for generalised abuse of American commercial intrusiveness the McDonald's chain has faced levels of aggression in France which never troubled its predecessors of the 1940s and 1950s, Reader's Digest and Coca-Cola. Although contested from Hampstead to Hamburg, from Florence to Cracow, opposition has not been directed at other fast-food vendors, no other chain has seen an employee killed by a terrorist attack, as happened in Brittany in April 2000. In France the first McDonald's opened in Strasbourg in 1979. Twenty years later 790 restaurants were functioning, after expanding at the rate of around 80 per year since the middle of the decade. The company's annual report for 1999 announced that Europe was McDonald's most successful global sector, and within Europe France was one of its leading countries. In the meantime hundreds of traditional bistros and bars have closed up and down the country, victims of changing tastes and a punitive tax regime which, said a chefs' protest in Paris in October 1999, directly favoured the fast food industry.
The McDonald's experience in France shows how relatively small symbols of American economic power, because of their visibility, ubiquity and dynamism, are still the ones expected to bear the most disproportionate burden of anti-Americanist resentment, as local citizens and consumers attempt to pit their influence against that of corporations once merely `multinational' but now turned global. In 1999 Bove's protest against the Big Mac was sparked by the inclusion of Roquefort cheese among a cluster of European goods punished by the US with high import tariffs, a protest against European refusal to take unlimited supplies of hormoneraised beef. The cheese's timeless manufacture required the kind of unsullied milk Bove's farm supplied; but now, under the conditions of globalisation, `the Americans could cancel your business at the push of a computer button', as the new national hero said to a television interviewer. Le Monde meanwhile criticised an America `whose commercial hegemony menaces agriculture and whose cultural hegemony insidiously ruins culinary customs, the sacred gleams of French identity'.
Wherever ancient, modern and post-modern meet in contemporary Europe, the chances are that some version of the twentieth's century's long, intense and complicated encounter between American and European mass culture is being re-enacted. With food moving abruptly up the list of contested areas -- elbowing aside such staples as movies and technology, business and language, television and intellectual fashion -- the encounter seems likely to take on a more bitter flavour. In a 1988 discussion the leading French specialist Marie-France Toinet emphasised the need to distinguish between the external manifestations of anti-American sentiment and their roots. The `important thing about the French fascination for and rejection of Americanism' was that:
The French are not so much holding a debate about the United States but about themselves, about their society, their goals and their methods. It is, so to say, a Franco-French debate, where American arguments -- often half-baked -- are just an excuse or a pretence. The French hold up the United States as a mirror to look, in fact, at themselves. But the pressures of social and technological change, of the imbalance of cultural power between America and France, are real enough, now as in the 1920s. Even if in no way comparable to the nation's historic enmities with the British and the Germans, the anti-American leaning in French political and intellectual thought persists. As the twenty-first century opens, France remains the nation which worries most intensely about American power in international life. It is a debate which tries to correlate the political, economic and mass cultural dimensions of that power with the big contemporary questions of sovereignty and globalisation, identity and modernity.[/
While a Canadian lesbian couple awaits their time in court to begin possible divorce proceedings, the gay marriage between Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier has been annulled.
Well, so how are things going with the French case so far you ask? Comme ci, comme ca (so so). Read on....
The issue has ignited a fierce debate in France. France's first gay marriage, which was conducted last month by a local mayor, has been annulled by a court.
The tribunal in Bordeaux declared the marriage of Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier "null and void".
The mayor, Noel Mamere of the Green Party, was suspended for a month after defying government warnings that he would be breaking the law when he wed the two men in the town of Begles.
For the complete article please click on the following link:
"Comrade John "Forbsky" Kerry recently received the much-coveted support and endorsement of the CPUSA. No, that's not a church denomination, but the Communist Party USA.
"The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November...", said a CPUSA spokesman.
We have already noted that Kerry and Co. are fond of quoting Langston Hughes, a Communist poet, who said, "Let America be America again."
Certainly they must be aware that Hughes also said, "Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord, God, Jehova, Beat it on away from here now. Make way for a new guy with no religion at all -- A real guy named Marx, communist, Lenin, Peasant, Stalin, Worker, ME -- I said, ME!" So, now that Kerry/Edwards have the full support of the Communists -- why is it that those Republican states are red?" - quote from The Federalist
My information comes to me in bits and pieces, an article here, someone's information sent email, piecing together news from various sites, connecting dots. Some of it is pieced together from the statements made by our government, regardless of how remote or harmless or "secure" the announcements sound.
This nation is very much prepared to invoke martial law. The questions are only what will trigger it and when it will occur. Since our military is aware that this could happen and US soldiers expressed revulsion at the idea of quelling civil disturbance by firing on their fellow Americans, those whom they swore to defend and protect, then the government has imported foreign mercenaries who have absolutely no qualms about doing that for which they were hired.
Why would our own government do this to Americans? Very simply because it is the only way to take control of people whose delusion of freedom will one day burst and they will be ready to revolt.
Americans will realize all that has been taken from them. Perhaps eighty percent will go into traumatic shock because they believe the ultra-conservative internet writers, if they know about us, are whack jobs and it will be horrifying to find out we were telling the truth about our government and its evil alliance with Global Governance.
At least twenty percent of people on American soil will care less because they are illegal aliens, some of whom will join with the mercenaries to end America's dominance in world affairs by its military might.
Frankly, most Americans are pretty wimpy now, but every human has a threshold over which none dare cross. Even the most milquetoast husband will try to defend his wife and children in a time of crisis and then afterward wonder how he ever got the courage. The same is true of folks who now won't speak up for or against anything for fear of saying the "wrong" thing, because it is well known by all Americans that we no longer have true freedom of speech and the use of the wrong term, or supporting the "wrong" cause might be cause for being fired from a job, ostracized by friends as a whacko, a "right-wing conspirator" or a secret member of the KKK
When the tanks and the soldiers are in the streets, all America will be wide awake and trembling in terror. Those soldiers may speak broken English or none at all. It seems now that all uniforms look alike, unless our military is in full formal dress, then we can tell them apart. Every soldier looks the same in cammies. What will be the spark that ignites the revolutionaries among us who are forced to be quiet in the land of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble? A massacre of civilian protesters? A march for freedom? What is coming will come and in due time Americans will wake up.
What will they do?
Some will hide indoors, afraid to go outside. Others might ask permission to go to the grocery store or pharmacy, to the doctor's office, or to take the children to school if it's in session. Who knows what will be suspended when the final stroke of totalitarianism takes over?
This would have caused a total revolution forty years ago. In fact, it was Democratic former president John F. Kennedy who stated that when the government makes peaceful revolution impossible, it makes violent revolution inevitable. He sounds like an arch conservative compared to today's Democrats.
There are a number of people in America, well-armed, who will fight to the death for this nation when the time comes that we can do so. Of course it is better to have a ballot revolution than one with live bullets.
It would be my hope that every dissenter, everyone who wants to see America free of political correctness, Marxist professors, NEA-infected teachers, homeland spies and political turncoats would say NO to both the Republican and Democratic candidates, should we actually have a November 2004 election.
What is evil about voting third party?
A massive third-party turnout of all the dissatisfied would shake up the little World of Oz in D.C. fairly quickly.
There are those who would like to secede from this "union" and form a new government. It seems that was attempted in 1861, not over slavery but over the South's rebellion at the North's demand for more taxes with which to destroy states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.
And you think martial law in America is impossible? That isn't thinking, it's an overripe imagination and it smells a bit like a compost heap.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Dorothy Anne Seese can be reached at carrot710@yahoo.com
see complete article at the links http://www.etherzone.com" title="http://www.etherzone.com" target="_blank"http://www.etherzone.com
One of the traditional means that state governors have had to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies is the National Guard.
Now, however, with 40% of the occupation force in Iraq being made up of reserve and National Guard troops, some governors are worried that they may not have the resources they need to respond to those kinds of emergencies, and they made their concerns known at the National Governors Association meeting, this past weekend in Seattle, in a meeting with Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David Chu and commander of U.S. Northern Command Gen. Ralph Eberhardt.
"This has had a huge impact," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke. 62% of Washington's National Guard is deployed, including the majority of the best-trained firefighters, just as the forest fire season is getting under way.
A spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne noted that, in the past, the state has been able to call on the National Guard, but "We may not be able to call on these soldiers for firefighting capabilities," this year, because they simply aren't there.
As of July 21, a total of 153,599 reservists and National Guardsmen are on active duty, of which, 126,856 are Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
[source: Seattle Times, July 21; DoD press briefing, July 21]
PENTAGON CONSIDERING EXTENDING NATIONAL GAURDSMEN BEYOND 24 MONTHS.
The Defense Department is reportedly considering extending the mobilization of National Guard soldiers beyond the federal limit of 24 months, as the first groups of soldiers activated after the 9/11 attacks near that limit.
The first soldiers effected would be about 450 from the Arkansas National Guard who are in Iraq as part of the 39th Infantry Brigade, but it could soon be extended to thousands of others.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied, during a press briefing this afternoon, that there were plans to extend anyone beyond the 24 months, but left the possibility open when he added, "the country's at war," and "the facts on the ground will determine what we do...."
French President Jacques Chirac has let it be known that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not welcome as a guest in Paris. Mazel tov!
Can you actually imagine Chirac putting out a genuine welcome mat for the Israeli leader who has shown that all of France's interventions in the area have brought nothing good: more of terror, more of Arafat, worst of all, more of Palestinian suffering, all to succor the illusion of French influence in the region.
But this latest donnybrook between the two leaders focused not on the dispute with the Palestinians but about anti-Semitism in France itself.
Chirac has for years been denying that the ugly phenomenon even exists. Finally, when day after day, evidence mounted that the country has not expelled the virus of Jew-hatred from the body-politic and that it is now becoming more malignant, even Chirac himself has had to sound the tocsin.
And Sharon sounded it, as well, when this week he called on French Jews to make aliyah or "go up" to Israel. (Would that some Israeli leader had a quarter century ago called on the Jews of Argentina to immigrate.)
This really got Chirac's goat. But not before he demonstrated in an off-hand remark that, for him, neither Jews nor Muslims, for that matter, are really genuinely French: "we are witnessing racial events involving our Jewish and Muslim compatriots. ...
Sometimes just simple Frenchmen are attacked." This is an ugly dichotomy. But it is not new. After the terrorist bombing of the rue Copernic synagogue on October 3, 1980, Raymond Barre, the French prime minister, alluded to this "odious act which intended to strike Jews [and] struck innocent Frenchmen."
Of course, Chirac and Barre are from the center-right and right where anti-Semitism has always nested. But such views are now a staple of the oh, so enlightened left, as well. French hatred of Jews now goes wall-to-wall. And French hatred of Israel, too.
A few days ago, France went into a frenzy to mobilize the countries of the European Union at the UN to vote "yes" on the General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to take down the security barrier it is building against Palestinian terror. Many fatuous reasons were mustered to support this demand. But the real reason that France and some others oppose the fence is that it works.
A new book by Christopher Andersen will hit The New York Times bestseller list this week. It is called American Evita, and it is about Hillary Rodham Clinton. She pushed herself into a prime time, opening night spot at the Democratic convention after the Kerry folk had relegated her to just one in an "all-the-girls" appearance of the party's women senators, with Barbara Mikulski doing the speaking.
How Rodham Clinton maneuvered herself out of this is hard to tell. But one clue is that the Democratic National Committee is still run by Clintonians. And, while we're mentioning arch names, there is Teresa Heinz Kerry, more than a bit on the haughty side herself. Heinz Kerry has certainly put John Edwards in his place in announcing that he is her husband's "second running-mate." This is fair warning of how she sees herself as first lady.
On the day that the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to begin divesting its holdings in corporations that do business with and in Israel, there was a pitched street battle in and around Bethlehem. It was not a battle between Jews and Arabs or between Hamas and Fatah. It was a battle between Christians and Muslims.
Bethlehem used to be a largely Christian city. It is, after all, where Jesus was born, so where the Church of the Nativity stands. Roman Catholics, Armenians, and Greek Orthodox have lived and flourished there since the first centuries of early Christianity. No longer.
As soon as the Palestinian Authority took over in 1994, the Christians of Bethlehem began to leave, many in an understandable panic. For all its secular pretenses, the PA is a militant Muslim jihadist show.
A Christian population that not so long ago stood at roughly 75 percent may now be as low as 30 percent. Many of them have come to the U.S. But American churches have averted their eyes from what is really tantamount to an expulsion of Christians not only from Bethlehem but from the Holy Land itself.
The Presbyterians have also turned the other cheek by siding with those who torment their own. And they have disavowed Christian Zionism as a heresy. Of course, there are only two and a half million Presbyterians in the U.S.--way down from what once made up this proud church. Moreover, there is growing alienation between the political leadership of the church and lay believers, as there is in the Episcopal communion, much of this revolving around the implicit support of the clerisy for Palestinian terror.
The tale spun by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Iraq did not ever try to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is now in the process of unraveling. And, of course, the phalanx of anti-war journalists is desperately trying to stop the bust-up. But it can't be done. The flying apart began with two stories in the Financial Times (London), one on June 28, the other on July 4. Relying on information ultimately sourced to three European intelligence services--none of them British and one of them that had monitored clandestine uranium smuggling to Iraq over three years--Mark Huband reported that the network also serviced or was to service Libya, Iran, China, and North Korea. A tell-tale element of the story is that the mines in Niger from which several thousand tons of uranium had been extracted and sold were owned by French companies. Apparently, after a time, they had abandoned the mines as economically unviable. But, as a counter-proliferation expert told Huband, this does not mean that extraction stopped. In any case, Lord Butler's altogether independent panel in the United Kingdom concluded that Tony Blair's claim about Hussein being in the market for uranium was "well-founded." These are the same claims made by George W. Moreover, the U.S. Senate report undercuts Wilson's very believability. I myself had wondered why the CIA had been so dumb--such dumbness is something to which we should have long ago become accustomed!--as to send a low-level diplomat to check on yellowcake sales from Niger to Iraq when it should have dispatched a real spook. Well, it turns out that a "real spook" had recommended him to her boss, that spook being Valerie Plame, who happens also to be Wilson's wife. He has long denied that she had anything to do with his going to Niger and that, alas, was a lie. It appears, in fact, that this is the sole reason he was sent. Still, in a lot of dining rooms where I am a guest here, there is outrage that someone in the vice president's office "outed" Ms. Plame, as though everybody in Georgetown hadn't already known she was under cover, so to speak. Under cover, but not really. One guest even asserted that someone in the vice president's office is surely guilty of treason, no less--an offense this person certainly wouldn't have attributed to the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss, Daniel Ellsberg or Philip Agee. But for the person who confirmed for Robert Novak what he already knew, nothing but high crimes would do.
I confess: I do not like Sandy Berger; and I have not liked him since the first time we met, long ago during the McGovern campaign, not because of his politics since I more or less shared them then, but for his hauteur. He clearly still has McGovernite politics, which means, in my mind, at least, that he believes there is no international dispute that can't be solved by the U.S. walking away from it. No matter. Still, here's his story about the filched classified materials dealing with the foiled Al Qaeda millennium terrorist bombing plot from the National Archives: He inadvertently took home documents and notes about documents that he was not permitted to take from the archives; secondly, he inadvertently didn't notice the papers in his possession when he got home and actually looked at them; and, thirdly, he inadvertently discarded some of these same files so that they are now missing. Gone, in fact. One of his lawyers attributes this behavior to "sloppiness," which may better explain his career as Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser and certainly describes his presentation of self in everyday life. But it is not an explanation of his conduct in the archives or, for that matter, at home. Personnel at the archives actually noticed him stuffing his pockets with papers as he left, which is how the FBI found out about this bizarre tale in the first place. Inadvertence, then, doesn't do it either. Maybe Sandy wanted souvenirs from his career in the White House that was punctuated by so many catastrophes for the United States. Nonetheless, he has had ambitions tied to John Kerry's, ambitions that clash with those of Richard Holbrooke and Joe Biden, who decisively do not have McGovernite politics. But Berger did run the Kerry foreign policy team at the writing of the Democratic Party platform a few weeks ago (when the only opposition, easily pacified, came from a handful of Dennis Kucinich loyalists) and has been deeply involved in crafting how the candidate presents himself on these issues. So my question is: Did Berger, who knew that he was under scrutiny since last fall, alert Kerry to the combustible fact that he was the subject of a criminal probe by the Justice Department and the FBI? My guess is not. Kerry is far too smart, too responsible to have kept him around had he known. But if Kerry didn't know, it tells you a lot about Berger, too much, really. A more important question, of course, is: What was contained in the papers that Berger snatched? The answer to that question might answer another. Maybe Clinton's top national security aide didn't want others to see what they documented. Postscript, July 22
The Kerry campaign has accused the White House of having leaked Sandy Berger's troubles to the press, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it did. As The New York Times pointed out today (July 22), however, this would not at all have been illegal or even unusual. It smells nonetheless. But most recent news answers another question that I asked yesterday: Did John Kerry know that Berger was under investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department. As I surmised, neither Kerry nor his staff was at all "witty," as it is called in the intelligence trade, and they were caught completely off guard. Kerry was probably rip-shit. Nonetheless, he issued a gentlemanly, even statesmanlike, comment saying, "Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign..." But Berger's behavior in clinging to his role as Kerry's foreign policy guru shows that he is anything but a friend. Hoping that the disgrace of pilfering from the National Archives what were actually documents with the very highest security coding would somehow pass unnoticed in public, Berger was even willing to put his candidate at risk. This is a distinction of sorts. But it is not at all honorable. Martin Peretz
France is native soil to many mysterious theories of international relations these days, but on Monday, President Jacques Chirac took the folie to a new level.
To prove France rejects anti-Semitism, Chirac announced that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would be unwelcome in the land of liberté, égalité and fraternité.
The contretemps began on Sunday, when Sharon, speaking to visiting American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, commented on the spreading rash of anti-Semitic incidents in France and encouraged French Jews to return to Israel "immediately."
Despite Sharon's praise for France's efforts to calm its roiling tensions, Chirac and his foreign minister, Michel Barnier, took the opportunity to castigate the Jewish leader on the world stage, calling the remarks "unacceptable" and disinviting Sharon from a state visit until he had an "explanation."
We wonder several things here, but first is exactly which part of the remarks they didn't understand.
The calling home of Jews to Israel has been around practically longer than Israel itself, and has been a frequent mantra for Sharon long before this week.
The object is as much practical and political as spiritual: As Sharon has noted, if demographic trends continue as they are, Jews are on track to become the minority in Israel a few years down the line.
On the merits, Israel's calls for massive exodus probably aren't a viable answer to its problems or to recurrent anti-Semitism.
A French cartoon this week reasonably portrayed two Jews asking, "Go back to Israel? Isn't that what the anti-Semites want us to do?"
And while Sharon's observation that France's growing Muslim population was the source of increased incidents may be true, it is perhaps not a thought process to naturally recommend the Middle East.
In light of Israel's current battles, using the racial tension in France to draft some new recruits and reinforcements may be opportunistic and misguided. But neither did the remarks, made thousands of miles away, remotely warrant the public scolding that ensued. In a world teeming with outrages, sadness and war, it was a telling moment for the people who invented blasé to suddenly lose their cool.
But then, the latest incident has as much to do with Paris's unrelenting disdain for the United States as with its tension with the Jewish state.
In an editorial on the Sharon speech, the leftist French newspaper Le Monde noted that "it's not exactly an accident that Ariel Sharon's remarks ... were made in front of American Jewish organizations." The piece went on to describe such groups as "militant" and to suggest they are the ones who, since Sept. 11, 2001, have "poisoned the climate" of relations between Israel and France.
Is it really a mystery to the French that by recent polls, some 57 percent of Israelis "feel antipathy" toward their country?
France, which is home to the third-largest Jewish population in the world, has been lending political aid and comfort to the Palestinians for several decades and quite ostentatiously so in the past handful of years.
On previous visits to Israel, its representatives spent nearly equal time with Palestinian strongman Yasser Arafat in his bunker as with Israeli leaders, even as the terrorism continued. As a member of the United Nations Security Council, France has regularly supported U.N. resolutions condemning Israel. And the state has been supportive of the recent International Court of Justice's strongly worded, if feckless, opinion that Israel's protective fence on the West Bank was creating undue hardships for the Palestinians.
The disproportionate response to Sharon's remarks was the worst kind of political self-service: By casting itself as the injured party, France deflected a broader discussion of how its policies in the Middle East relate to the anti-Semitism within its borders.
The country saw 510 anti-Jewish incidents in the first half of 2004, compared with 593 for the entire previous year. Nearly half of all such incidences world wide.
Earlier this year, Chirac's efforts to calm religious strife bought the country an atrocious law prohibiting public school children from wearing any religious symbols in class, whether headscarves, crosses or the Star of David.
Following this week's incident, many wire stories hurried to include the anger of French Jewish groups at Sharon's remarks. The president of the French Jewish Student Union said in an interview that he finds it "particularly embarrassing that the Israeli prime minister would use a subject as serious as anti-Semitism to settle his accounts with French diplomacy." Really?
For all the bluster, Chirac still bears some responsibility for the problem Sharon was addressing: Many of the Muslims who have come to France in the past few years undoubtedly consider the nation an ally of sorts in their war against Israel and America. The Arab world is surely grateful and aware of France's role in the international sphere, and in regards to the war in Iraq, its positions are often parroted by Middle Eastern newspapers and cited in support of continuing the fight.
France was once one of Israel's staunchest allies in the years following independence, a position that eroded as Charles de Gaulle began edging the state away from Israel in favor of improved Arab relations — and contracts.
Some have suggested that Sharon's remarks were intended to expose French bias for the Palestinians, thereby taking them out of the role as an honest broker in the Middle East.
But that dynamic was clear to the political classes long ago. The real enlightenment has been the chance to see the French on the world stage, "J'accuse" echoing from the past.
Collin Levey writes Thursdays for editorial pages of The Times. E-mail her at clevey@seattletimes.com
Sharon was right in calling on French Jews to make aliyah, even if it angered Chirac Avraham Tirosh
France's hysterical reaction to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's call for French Jews to immigrate to Israel sounds like it came from someone with a guilty conscience. It is usually a guilt complex or repressed hatred that produces such disproportionate responses. It seems that if France were not so steeped in antisemitism (with nearly half the world's antisemitic incidents occurring within its borders), Sharon's words would have simply floated by.
This wasn't the first time Sharon called on the world's Jews to make aliyah, and this is to his credit. He is also not the first prime minister to do so. So what's all the fuss? "Sharon's words are unacceptable", the French Foreign Ministry spokesman said, with the National Council Chairman adding the label "irresponsible". Another source said that "Sharon's remarks were exaggerated and he trespassed into France's internal affairs". A tempest in a teapot (or wine glass).
Leaders of the French Jewish community also took exception to Sharon's remarks, calling on him to "let the French community cope with its problems". In short, don't anger the Goyim [non-Jews]. It may be hard to explain to these Goyim, and it should be unnecessary to explain to the Jews of France, that Sharon's words were totally acceptable from the Israeli point of view, and that one of the main functions of Israeli prime ministers is to encourage aliyah. Bringing Diaspora Jews back to their homeland is one of this nation's goals, and Sharon was intervening not in the affairs of France, but in those of his own country.
A few more words, which should be obvious to the Jews of France. The State of Israel was established in the wake of the Holocaust, partly in order to insure that such horrors never again occur. It sees itself as responsible for the fate of all Jews in the world and as their defender in times of trouble. When Jews, as Jews, are in crisis or danger, Israel does not hesitate to intervene and rescue them, either openly or behind-the-scenes. This was the case in, among other places, the former Soviet Union, South Africa, Arab countries, and Cuba.
This will also be the case if you, heaven forbid, are in grave danger and unable to help yourselves. Today, it seems like a distant possibility, but you should not underestimate it. Jews in the past paid dearly for miscalculating such danger. Think twice, at lease, before telling Israel to keep its distance. Antisemitism is not your personal problem; it belongs to Israel and the entire Jewish People. So, immigrate to Israel. Sharon was right, even if he angered Chirac. There's no need to wait to the last minute, when the sword is resting at your throats. It may come down if you wait too long.
I know it isn't easy these days for Israel to make such statements. The situation is complicated and leads to outspoken criticism: Israel poses as the defender of Diapora Jews while it can't even defend its own citizens; only in Israel are Jews killed because they are Jews; Israel is the main source of antisemitism in this century; Israel, through its policies and actions, endangers us, the Jews of France, and it is Israel that wants to rescue us? It shouldn't be putting us in danger in the first place.
Not all of these arguments can be disregarded. But most of them are empty words spoken by people looking for excuses not to make aliyah. Israel is still a secure place for Jews, and it is the only place they can truly call home. The more Jews it absorbs, the stronger and safer it will be. And one day, when the Palestinian conflict is resolved, it will be the most secure place in the world, while antisemitism, in its various dangerous forms, will never come to an end.
Since its inception, Israel has absorbed waves of immigrants (with the exception of religious Jews) who were not attracted by some wondrous vision, but were repelled by negative forces in the Diaspora. The increasing evidence of antisemitism in France has not been forceful enough to push most French Jews into immigrating to Israel, and we must pray that these incidents are abated. Aliya figures from France since 2000 are pitifully low. According to Ministry of Absorption data, fewer than 8,000 of the 600,000 Jews of France immigrated to Israel in the last 4 ½ years.
President Chirac has no cause for worry, and the antisemites have no reason to celebrate. Sharon's plea will not open the flood gates to French aliyah. Likewise, the Ministry of Absorption needn't become anxious, nor should it be making any special plans.
Some of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's advisers and Israeli diplomats in Paris were at pains yesterday to try and temper Sharon's call on French Jews to come to Israel.
They explained that it was only part of Sharon's regular call to the Jews of the Diaspora to make aliya and emphasized that he had praised the French governments' efforts in battling anti-Semitism.
They should have saved their breath.
Sharon was unequivocal. After being asked a question about attacks on French Jews at a meeting with the leadership of the United Jewish Communities, the prime minister said, "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I would tell them one thing: move to Israel, as early as possible." I
nstead of making excuses, they should be backing up the prime minister's words.
In a normal diplomatic situation between two countries, one prime minister's suggestion to 600,000 citizens of another country to emigrate would indeed be an offensive gesture, rightly seen as interference in another country's internal affairs.
But for the last four years, the situation between Israel and France has been everything but normal. And this is to say nothing about the French government's repeated efforts to intervene in Israeli politics.
In October 2000, President Jacques Chirac summoned an emergency summit in Paris with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat in an effort to stem the outbreak of violence that started the current war.
Through American mediation, an agreement had been reached for an end to the fighting, but at the last moment Arafat refused to sign it. The French encouraged him to hold out for a better deal, including an international committee that would include France.
This exchange typifies the Franco-Israeli relationship. The Chirac government has assumed the role of the Palestinians' unwavering patron. Even recently, when longtime supporters like Terje Roed-Larsen have come to the conclusion that Arafat is no longer a viable partner for anything, France remains the only major country to continue honoring Arafat with high-level visits.
Three weeks ago, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier ended what had been a virtual diplomatic isolation by meeting with Arafat in Ramallah. He didn't miss the opportunity to urge Israel to stop building the security fence and allow Arafat to travel freely.
We understand that France does not see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an "internal" Israeli matter. But the defense of Israeli citizens from Palestinian terror is indeed our internal affair. If they wish to deliver pronouncements about it, fine, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We also believe that the French government would do better to direct their efforts inwards. In 2002, Chirac insisted there was no anti-Semitism in France. Now he and his ministers are finally beginning to admit that they have a serious problem. Instead of preaching to Israel, the French should get down to dealing with their own homegrown intifada in which French Jews are the primary targets and French Muslims the primary aggressors.
Silence in the face of the mounting attack on Jewish communities around the world, most recently in Perth, Australia, and Wellington, New Zealand, where a Jewish synagogue and cemetery, respectively, were desecrated last week, is not an option for an Israeli prime minister.
Israel's declaration of statehood ends with an appeal "to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream — the redemption of Israel." But from the state's first years, it was evident that Israel's relationship with the Diaspora is two-way and its main responsibility is to provide a safe haven for the Jews of the world. First for the survivors of the Holocaust, and over the years for the refugees from the Arab world, for Soviet Jewry and for the lost tribe in Ethiopia.
Sharon's words might be unacceptable in the world of polite diplomacy but he was only carrying out his most basic duty as the leader of the Jewish state. We only wish Chirac would carry out his own basic duties with as much forthrightness.
Ariel Sharon issued an appeal for all Jews in France to leave and move to Israel.
In doing so, he's not only right; he's also catching on a trend that's been going on for more than a year (see also here, here, and here... Enough already?)
While the French foreign ministry issues its Pointless Protest patented 254164 dash 6 (the one that calls Israel for an explanation of the "unacceptable comments"), the money quote comes from the president of the so called International League For Making a Living of Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, Patrick Gaubert.
There goes the Sandman, live from the Land of the Great Slumber:
« These comments do not bring calm, peace and serenity that we all need (...) I think Mr Sharon would have done better tonight to have kept quiet. »
In other words, do let us sleep while our Jews are being clobbered.
Putting aside what seems to be a French tradition to tell the rest of the world to shut up when the rest of the world puts France's face in France's feces, what's remaining is an outstanding example of an aggravated state of reality denial.
135 acts and 375 threats of anti-semitism in the first six months this year, as opposed to 125 acts and 463 threats for last year as a whole. Confronting hatred, terrorism and unavowed warfare, such as what the French Jewish community is facing today Mr. Sandman, will require anything but calm, peace and serenity.
What you need indeed is awareness, resolve and ultimately self-defense.
The Left, and all these so called International Leagues of Subsidized Gushy Feelings are very good at having pointless dinners and fruitless protests where people will chant with self-flattering tears of professed altruism "Never again".
How touching. How noble. How futile.
Synagogues are burning now, cemeteries are being profaned now, and Jews are being attacked now.
Never again? Now is the time to prove you really mean it.
Over the last year, when asked for advices by my Jewish friends, my answer has been fairly simple: you could get weapons, or you could get the hell out of here. However, you're not supposed to defend yourself, since the French State enforces its monopoly on the legal use of force.
So you'd better get the hell out of here, before it's too late my friends.
Because despite its promises, you can't count on the French state to use its monopoly for your defense. --- Version francaise
Ariel Sharon a lancé un appel aux Juifs de France leur conseillant de quitter le pays et de partir pour Israël.
Ce faisant, il n'a pas seulement raison; il rattrape également une tendance qui suit son cours depuis plus d'un an (voyez aussi ici, ici, et ici... assez maintenant ?)
Alors que le ministre français des affaires étrangères oppose sa Protestation de Circonstance patentée 254164 tiret 6 (Celle qui appelle Israël à s'expliquer pour ces "inacceptables commentaires"), la remarque qui tue nous viens du président de la soit disant Ligue Internationale Pour Gagner Sa Croûte Sur Contre le Racisme et l'Anti-Sémitisme, Patrick Gaubert.
Ecoutons donc le Marchand de Sable, en direct du Pays du Grand Sommeil :
« Ces commentaires ne nous apportent pas le calme, la paix et la sérénité dont nous avons tous besoin (...) je pense que M. Sharon aurait mieux fait de rester tranquille ce soir. »
En d'autres termes, prière de nous laisser pioncer pendant que nos Juifs se font tabasser.
Si nous laissons de côté ce qui semble être une grande tradition française de dire au reste du monde de la fermer quand le reste du monde mets la face de la France dans les fèces de la France, ce qui nous reste est un incroyable exemple d'état aggravé de déni de la réalité.
135 actes et 375 menaces antisémites sur les six premiers mois de cette année, à opposer à 125 actes et 463 menaces pour toute l'année dernière. Pour confronter haine, terrorisme et guerre larvée tels que ce que la communauté juive française affronte aujourd'hui M. marchand de Sable, il faudra n'importe quoi sauf calme, paix et sérénité.
Ce dont vous avez besoin en effet, c'est de prise de conscience, résolution et au bout du compte autodéfense.
La gauche et toutes ces soi-disant Ligues Internationales Des Bons Sentiments Subventionnés sont très efficaces pour mener de futiles dîners et de vaines manifestations où les participants chantent avec d'auto congratulatoires larmes de prétendu altruisme, "Plus jamais ça".
Comme c'est touchant. Comme c'est noble. Comme c'est inutile.
les synagogues brûlent maintenant, les cimetières sont profanés maintenant, et les Juifs sont attaqués maintenant.
Plus jamais ça ? Maintenant est le moment de prouver que ce ne sont pas des paroles en l'air.
Au long de l'année passée, lorsque mes amis Juifs m'ont demandé conseil, mon avis a été plutôt simple : vous pouvez vous procurer des armes, ou vous pouvez foutre le camp d'ici. Cela étant, vous n'êtes pas censé vous défendre, puisque l'Etat français impose son monopole sur l'usage légal de la force.
En conséquence, vous avez plutôt intérêt à foutre le camp d'ici avant qu'il ne soit trop tard mes amis.
Car contrairement à ses promesses, vous ne pouvez pas compter sur l'Etat français pour qu'il fasse usage de son monopole pour votre défense.
The Gauls seem determined to bring about their own economic and social destruction, and they're moving heaven, earth, and the rest of Europe to assure it. There are ways they could avoid what's coming. If we can see the solutions to their problems, why shouldn't we tell the French?
Okay, okay, there's a thousand reasons why we should buy popcorn and sit back and watch them sink. But here's another idea, one that will give us vastly greater pleasure, and is guaranteed to toss an anvil to the drowning cheese-eaters. There are few certainties in this world, but one is that your average Frenchman would rather kill himself than be caught following American advice. I say let's give them the very best help we can, confident in the knowledge they'd damn themselves to a wine-free hell before they'll do what we say. Here -- with malice aforethought -- are the Top Ten Loose Canon All-American Ideas to Save France.
1. Get off your butts and get back to work. A 35-hour work week mandated by law? Laws that say if someone in your company works 36 hours, another has to work 34? No wonder the Poles, the Czechs, and the rest of New Europe are already eating your lunch in the world market. And don't even dream of catching us. Most people I know are working many more hours than that and even thinking about how to do their jobs better in part of their off time. It adds up to that elusive quality called "productivity." You can look it up.
2. Your "workforce" -- such as it is -- is largely made up of government bureaucrats and subsidized farm workers. There are all too few real workers who are producing something of value. There's no excuse for not cutting government other than cowardice in leadership. (We suffer that, too. That we admit it and you don't hurts even more, no?) As Heritage Foundation expert Dr. John Hulsman once told me, the agricultural subsidy is "really a sop from Germany to pay French farmers to sit around, play boule, and do nothing." Phase it out before the Germans and the rest of the EU cut you off suddenly.
3. Help your Muslim immigrants assimilate. France's population is now about 8 or 9 percent Muslim, and you guys are keeping them down, repressing them by refusing entry into French society to anyone who isn't immersed in French values and societal norms. Aid assimilation, or you'll soon wake up and France will no longer be French. For the rest of the world -- surprisingly -- that won't entirely be good news.
4. Why isn't there a French equivalent of Bob Morgenthau? You have to make a big dent in the corruption that is rampant in government and industry. The fact that you know corruption is a commonplace and don't even try to clean it out compels the conclusion that you think you can't succeed without cheating, which is truly pitiful. Trust us: we do better -- and we feel better about it -- when we put corrupt people in jail.
5. You have to do a better job of choosing leaders. In your last big election, you had to choose -- as your own newspapers described -- between Le Pen, a right-wing nut job, and Chirac, a crook. You chose the crook. Your leaders mostly come from the same place: the National School of Public Administration. There's no free market in ideas there; it's only producing Chirac clones. Close the place, and choose your leaders from those more capable of common sense and action.
6. Free your press. Your media are so uniform they could be mistaken for the old Soviet press. They're anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Chirac, without any significant opposition. This uniformity is unknown in free nations. Why are there no dissenting voices? Don't French people understand that it's dissent that enables voters to make informed choices?
7. Modernize your defense establishment on the basis of capability, not how svelte things look on TV. France is one of the few EU nations that spends significantly on its own defense. But you spend -- largely -- on the wrong things. Why spend 14 years and untold billions building a single aircraft carrier? For show, that's why. You're not a world power, but you can be a major regional power if you were smart about defense spending. Your forces aren't equipped or trained to fight modern network-centric warfare as ours are. Either stop spending for ego's sake and get into the game, or start making white flags (again).
8. Stop paying protection money to terrorists. Your banks are the largest lenders to nations such as Syria and Iran. You sell arms to these nations, and even push special EU trade deals with them and their ilk. You are significantly assisting the nations with which we (and you, if you'd be honest about it) are at war.
9. Identify and prosecute the government officials who gave American intelligence information to Milosevic and then to Saddam. Either shoot them or jail them forever. Prove to the world that there are limits to anti-Americanism, even in France.
10. Finally, quit whining about American reactions to French animosity. Many of us are boycotting your goods, and more and more will as people discover just how severe your dislike for us really is. If you don't like us, fine. But don't tell us we aren't entitled to react to your hate.
There is some wisdom in these suggestions. Will the French reject our advice out of sheer hubris? Will Dominique de Villepin start wearing straw cowboy hats?
(And it doesn't end here, dear reader. From now on, at least until we grow tired of it, I will publish your other great ideas to help the French from time to time. Please send them in.)
Controversial "Egan's Law" Expected to Gain Widespread Support
Trenton, N.J. — Under a new law designed to protect minors, local police departments will now be required to inform residents any time a known Roman Catholic church moves into their neighborhood.
New Jersey State Senate debating Egan's Law The law also mandates that Catholic churches register with authorities, wear electronic monitoring devices, and be prohibited from moving to within a half-mile radius of a school.
A follow-up to Megan's Law, enacted by New Jersey in 1994, the so-called "Egan's Law" is named for Cardinal Edward Egan of New York and Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who are both accused of covering up sexual abuse by priests under their authority. Like Megan's Law, Egan's Law is expected to spread quickly to other states, but for parents in towns across New Jersey, it's on the books none too soon.
"Last year, we discovered that a Catholic Church had been in our neighborhood for 30 years! And nobody told us!" said Ruth Harper of Redbrook, N.J. "My sons used to walk by that church every day on their way to school. Even now I shudder to think of what might have happened."
"I always told my kids to steer clear of that place," added neighbor Scott Carlyle. "But that's because there were a lot of strange people going in and out at odd hours, even at midnight on Saturdays. I was worried it was some kind of druggie hangout.
"To think the whole time it was a Roman Catholic Church. Now I know why they had all those stained glass windows —. so nobody could look in."
Critics, however, charge that Egan's Law is unconstitutional, specifically because it relies on religious profiling and is intended to safeguard only one segment of the population: young males. But State Sen. Carmela Truto, a Catholic who co-sponsored the bill, used church doctrine itself to prove only one segment needs protection.
"In the Catholic Church, after 2,000 years, Mary is still a Virgin," she said. "So clearly, they're not interested in girls."
That statement, however, angered Vatican spokesman Edgar Palowski, who said it propagated a common misconception about the church. "This doesn't get reported enough," he said, "but it's a fact that our priests abuse just as many girls as boys."
Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards appeared alone at several rallies over the weekend, and no one -- not the party faithful and not the press -- seemed to notice.
The enthusiasm for Edwards' campaign for vice president was wildly evident at each event, and even Theresa Heinz Kerry didn't notice that no presidential candidate was present. She urged the party faithful to campaign hard for Edwards.
"This country's problems won't be solved until John Edwards is elected vice president," she said.
Audiences roared with approval, many holding up "Edwards for Vice President" banners.
Party leaders, meanwhile, were huddling to determine if they should bother to pick anyone to be Edwards' presidential running mate.
Reports that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts might be the presumptive candidate for president proved to be unfounded. No one can remember hearing him speak at any campaign events.
A survey of probable voters conducted by Congers University showed that the Edwards for vice president campaign is running neck and neck with the George Bush for president campaign.
"It's just too close to call," political science professor Philip Selig said, "between the Bush-Cheney and the No One-Edwards tickets."
Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said he's not worried about having No One as a party standard-bearer. "I predict that a No One-Edwards ticket can easily beat an Empty Suit-Cheney campaign."
John Edwards went duck hunting in rural Stoneville, NC.
He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As John climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.
John responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."
The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you're not coming over here."
John became indignant & said, "I am one of the best trial lawyers in the Westerm hemisphere. If you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own."
The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in Stoneville. We settle small disagreements like this with the Mertens Three Kick Rule."
John asked, "What is the Mertens Three Kick Rule?"
The Farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so on back and forth until someone gives up."
John quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.
The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the lawyer. His first kick planted the toe of his steel-capped work boot into John's groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick to the midriff sent John's last meal gushing from his mouth. John was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie.
John summoned every bit of his will and somehow managed to get to his feet.
Wiping his face with the arm of his silk suit jacket, he said, "Okay, you old coot. Now it's my turn."
The old farmer smiled and said, "Naw, I give up. You can have the duck."
Chirac States That Sharon is not Welcome in France
Read On Though
Veterans and former deportees display flags at a ceremony to remember victims of racism and antisemitism committed by the French state during World War II, in Paris, Sunday, July 18, 2004. The commemoration was held on the site of the Velodrome d'Hiver, where thousands of Jews were rounded up before deportation.
With France facing a new upsurge in anti-Semitic violence, hundreds of people commemorated Sunday a World War II roundup of thousands of Jews sent to Nazi death camps 62 years ago.
Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and Veterans Minister Hamlaoui Mekachera joined veterans, war deportees and others at the Square of Jewish Martyrs in Paris for the ceremony, one of many around France.
Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe laid a wreath at a monument on the square, which sits on the site of the Velodrome d'Hiver bicycle stadium that was transformed into a transit camp on July 16 and 17, 1942.
On those days, 13,152 Jews were rounded up in the Paris region and 8,160 - mostly children - were held at the stadium before being sent to Auschwitz. In all, about 75,000 Jews were deported from France to Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Only 2,500 survived.
Anti-Semitic acts against Jewish schools, synagogues or cemeteries have risen in France in the last years, coinciding with new tension in the Middle East. Many attacks have been blamed on young Muslims.
"The struggle against vile acts that we hear about in the news ... requires permanent vigilance by citizens along with the responsibility of remembering the past," Mekachera said.
Earlier this month, the Interior Ministry reported 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 - nearly as many as in all of last year, 593. Racist attacks also rose: There were 95 attacks and 161 threats through June, compared with a total 232 reported in 2003.
France's 6-million strong Muslim community has also faced recent attacks. In a case of suspected arson in March, fire damaged a mosque and destroyed a Muslim prayer hall in the southeast.
Earlier on Sunday, Sharon told a meeting of an American Jewish association in Jerusalem that he has to "advocate to our brothers in France: Move to Israel as early as possible."
"That's what I say to Jews all around the world but there (France) I think it's a must. They have to move immediately," he said while praising the French government for taking action against the "spread of the wildest anti-Semitism".
France, home to Europe's biggest Jewish and Muslim communities,estimated at 600,000 and 5 million respectively, saw the number of racist incidents soaring this year.
The country was gripped by a bout of soul-searching about anti-Semitism last week when a 23-year-old woman initially told police that a gang of six youths had accosted her on a Paris suburban train, slashing her clothes and drawing swastikas on her stomach after mistaking her for a Jew.
But she later admitted to police that she had made up the entire incident and begged forgiveness in a televised apology.
The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France also criticized Sharon's remarks as "adding oil to the fire" and "not corresponding to the facts."
"The Jewish community (in France) is worrying for the future oftheir children, but it knows that the French political authoritiesare doing all to fight against the anti-Semitism. To add oil to the fire in this way (in Sharon's way) is not acceptable," said the council in a statement.
The council also disagreed with Sharon's argument that 10 percent of the French population are Muslim means that the countryis anti-Semitist.
This remark confuses "a strong Muslim population and the fact that most of anti-Semitist came from the Muslim," said the statement, "To link the two is unacceptable."
"France is not an anti-Semitist nation and the French government is trying to do all, but the situation is difficult," it added.
July 12, 2004: Al Qaeda operations in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda's suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters.
Al Qaeda has found the atmosphere even more hostile elsewhere in Iraq, and many of the terrorists have returned home. This is especially true of those who came from Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf nations, particularly Yemen) and Syria. Few, if any, al Qaeda came from Iran, which is Shia Moslem. Al Qaeda is dominated by Sunni Moslems who are often violently anti-Shia. While the hundreds of returning al Qaeda veterans are still determined to achieve al Qaeda's goals of world domination, they are also more realistic. Fanaticism was not sufficient to chase the foreigners from Iraq, and the Arab media's sensational, and largely false, reporting of the impact of al Qaeda's attacks contributed to the disillusionment.
Saudi Arabia and Syria are seeing an increase in al Qaeda activity because of the return of these survivors of the Iraq operations. However, many of those Saudis and Syrians who went to Iraq, didn't come back. Casualties were heavy, and the guys who had more on the ball, and were luckier, made it back to carry out al Qaeda's plans in their home countries. Here, al Qaeda wants to establish Islamic republics, and drive out infidels (non-Moslems.) This is much harder to do in Syria, which has an experienced secret police and security organization which has crushed Islamic radicals in the past. Saudi Arabia has also put down Islamic radicals in the past, but has a much less oppressive police force than Syria. Saudi Arabia has always ruled more by cooperation than coercion, and al Qaeda is taking advantage of this trust to carry out many attacks. Very few al Qaeda attacks have taken place in Syria, although some are expected because of the returning terrorists, and their experience operating in the harsh environment of Iraq.
All the Persian Gulf nations are seeing an increase in al Qaeda activity, especially in Yemen. Here, in the homeland of the bin Laden family, al Qaeda has always been active. But the Yemen government had made deals with many of the pro-al Qaeda tribes to keep the violence down. Unfortunately, that "arrangement" allowed al Qaeda to establish sanctuaries for recuperation and training.
While the surviving al Qaeda members are pretty clueless about the futility of their operations, many Arabs, in particular, and Moslems in general, are. Even Moslem journalists are starting to point out that al Qaeda consistently losses, and tends to hurt Moslems more than infidels. Moslem media is still eager to push al Qaeda as heroes, but the illusion is wearing thin and time is working against the "holy warriors".
John Kerry promised teachers today that a vote for Kerry is a vote for educational money. He said that his first presidential priority will be to give teachers the respect and the money they deserve.
However, this contradicts other speeches which John Kerry gave in the past, including telling the Steel Workers Of America that his first presidential priority will be to increase the wages of steel workers. In another speech three weeks ago, John Kerry promised ARPA that his first presidential priority will be to give the elderly better access to social security and 'depends'. In a speech 5 weeks ago, John Kerry also promised government city employees that his first priority will be to make sure that all city employees receive more pay and less work.
"This guy just promises everything to everyone." Stated a political analyst who wished to remain anonymous, "I mean where is he going to get all this money to pay for education? I'll tell you where! Most likely, he will tax all the 'rich' folks. And that is a big problem!"
A problem indeed. In order to pay for any and all services John Kerry is promising, the money has to come from somewhere. Many people believe that this needed money will come from new taxes he will introduce to the "rich".
"I will deliver on my promises." Stated John Kerry, "All these services will be paid through new taxes. But I'm only going to tax the rich. Not the poor. Anyone making more then $12,000 per year can afford new taxes."
John Kerry is set to make another speech next week where he will promise the Association of Fast Food Businesses discounts on Heinz Ketchup packages.
Social workers will be calling for Saddam Hussein to be put on probation and given community service if found guilty at his trial.
The first social inquiry reports have been lodged with court officials and these paint a depressing picture of the dictator’s childhood – and one the Iraqi social services believe must be considered as mitigating circumstances.
Kimberley Achmed, of Baghdad’s social work department, has already lodged a protest with the Interim Government’s chief prosecutor, claiming a trial is inappropriate due to ‘past and present traumatic experiences’.
Ms Achmed, who heads the city’s children and families’ team, has compiled a dossier supporting her case but the key points are already in the public domain having already appeared on the internet in an essay posted in 1986 by a student at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
These include:
• The young Saddam was promised a puppy on his name day but, by mistake, received an American-made M-16 from the US Embassy
• Had his goldfish stolen at a fairground in Tikrit by a Kurd
• Was dropped from his primary school’s football team in favour of an Iranian whose father had bribed the coach
• Lost his high school sweetheart to the son of a Kuwaiti oil magnate
• Gave up a promising military career at the behest of the West to seize power and become an ally in the Middle East, then later abandoned.
Ms Achmed also details how Saddam had his excesses nurtured and pandered to by Britain and the US - while receiving copious amounts of weapons of mass destruction as one of the two Western-favoured sides in the Iraq-Iran war.
“I know social services are out of step but I believe the evidence proves that Saddam’s atrocities were acts of displacement,” she said.
“This was a troubled child who grew into a troubled man. There is no excuse for what he has done but we need to understand why it happened.”
In normal circumstances, even before a trial, a motion would be put forward recommending family therapy. However, in Saddam’s case this is not feasible, particularly due to his sons’ deaths in a shoot-out with coalition forces.
It is understood Ms Achmed believes community service, in the form of working with children or pensioners, could aid Saddam’s rehabilitation. Re-training in a trade, such as carpet fitting or crater landscaping, is also recommended.
Happy to be going home following his countries decision to withdraw from Iraq, Philippine soldier Alfonso de Asis began packing his bags for his journey home as the Philippine contingent to the Iraqi war.
Manila's decision to withdraw its solitary Iraq troop, Alfonso, draws tremendous support at home.
Residents of Alfonso's hometown in the Philippines are already preparing for his homecoming even though there is no sign yet that he has finished packing up his suitcase. "I have many souvenirs," says Alfonso.
Alfonso's friends cannot help but view the concession as a good thing.
"We need him home for our weekend football team, he's our best halfback," said a neighbor.
The country's partners in the coalition, on the other hand, particularly the US, have called the decision disappointing.
"It will encourage terrorists to move their base to Manila because they know that the government is weak," said a Bush administration spokesman. "We don't care about their problems gaining support at home for fighting Iraq and we don't care what happens to their people. We need them in Iraq to cover our political asses at home, watching people abandon us right before the election will ensure a swift retaliation for Manila from Bush, you can bet on that."
"I think the decision of the government to withdraw the troops is a question of domestic policy rather than foreign policy," said another political analyst. "When you have 95% against a decision you made as their leader, the midnight mobs are not far behind."
"We have to try to get a feel of what will really happen and a person's life is surely more important than George Bush's standing in his re-election polls. They don't need our troop presence there, all he did was guard the Coke machines anyway."
The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Stone was killed in March 2003 by a grenade that officials said was thrown into his tent by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial for murder.
It's been a big shock, and we are not very happy about it, to say the least," Kandi Gallagher, Stone's aunt and family spokeswoman, tells Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson.
We are furious that Greg was in that casket and cannot defend himself, and my sister, Greg's mother, is just beside herself," Gallagher said. "She is furious. She called him a 'maggot that eats off the dead.'"
The movie, described by critics as political propaganda during an election year, shows video footage of the funeral and Stone's fiancee, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and touching it to his coffin.
The family does not know how Moore obtained the video, and Gallagher said they did not give permission and are considering legal recourse.
She described her nephew as a "totally conservative Republican" and said he would have found the film to be "putrid."
"I'm sure he would have some choice words for Michael Moore," she said. "Michael Moore would have a hard time asking our family for a glass of water if he were thirsty."
From the out set, Let me say that I found the Presidents remarks concerning the French and their current President to be extremely amusing, and pretty close to the truth as far as I am concerned. Good humor needs to have a grain of truth to be really funny.
A mistaken assumption that a microphone was off has landed President Bush in hot water with French President Jacques Chirac. The incident occurred while the President was recording a special message to be included in an upcoming episode of NBC’s reality program, “The Next Action Star.”
Mr. Bush spoke passionately and at length about his love of reality television – a fact later confirmed by several aides. These aides indicated that following an especially intense episode of one of what the President refers to as “my programs”, they are forced to join Mr. Bush in critiquing every aspect of the show. “It gets old fast,” conceded one aide.
During a break, Mr. Bush took the opportunity to stretch his legs and walked around the Oval Office. Pausing to look at a large globe, the President was heard to comment, “Hey, isn’t tomorrow some kind of frog holiday? We need to send Jacques some kind of gift basket. Have Rove send over some good cheese – like Velveeta or something.”
The President then affected a French accent. “Oui, oui, I am zee President of France and I no wear zee underpants.” Mr. Bush next began propositioning various women in the room, again mimicking Jacques Chirac, “Ah cherie, we could make zee beautiful music together – as soon as I take off zee frilly ladies underpants I am wearing.”
The President’s antics – which continued along this vein – had his staff and the NBC crew in stitches.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush did not stop by simply assailing Mr. Chirac’s masculinity but went on to refer to the French as “just a bunch of stupid stooges for the damn krauts,” and “the worst smelling bipeds on the planet.”
He went on to suggest that if one were to look up homosexual in the dictionary, a picture of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin would appear beside the definition. “Unless I am mistaken, I’m pretty sure Villepin is French for ‘gay bath house’.”
When Vice President Cheney entered to Oval Office to discover the source of the loud laughter, the President immediately accosted him. “Hey Dick, what is the frog holiday they are celebrating tomorrow?” When told it was Bastille Day, the President began an ersatz ballet. “Look at me,” he shouted, to the amusement of all, “I am doing some bastille!”
After dancing about the office for ten minutes, the President began losing steam, but this did not prevent him from one final dig at the French. Draping an arm over the Vice President’s shoulder, Mr. Bush was heard to say, “Thank God the frog army wasn’t in Iraq, those dumb bastards couldn’t hit a lake if the fell out of a boat – you know what I mean?” The Vice President laughed and nodded in agreement.
Unfortunately for the President, one of the sound engineers happened to be French.
Within thirty minutes of returning to NBC’s DC studio, the unnamed engineer had forwarded a digital copy of the Oval Office session to the French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte who in turn had it delivered to President Chirac. According to aides, although he received the content after 11:00 PM Paris time, President Chirac wasted no time in contacting President Bush.
Aides in both capitols confirmed that Mr. Chirac had “strong words” for Mr. Bush and that while on the phone Mr. Bush was appropriately contrite. Upon hanging up however, he turned to his aides and again affecting a French accent said, “Please pass zee Grey Poupon.”
US Spurns Annan's $1 Bln Plea for Global AIDS Fund
And the main reason is that the US wants the dollars to go to help those suffering, and working to alleviate the suffering, not to the horrificly corrupt UN beauracracy which eats up over 1/2 of the funds.
The United States rejected on Wednesday U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's plea to inject $1 billion a year into a global AIDS fund.
"It's not going to happen," U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Randall Tobias told a small group of reporters at the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok.
"The President has requested $200 million for next year and I think that is more than adequate to meet the requirements of the Global Fund in terms of getting money out for putting programs in place," he said.
Annan called on Tuesday for the United States to contribute at least $1 billion a year, echoing a plea from Richard Feachem, the executive director of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which needs more than $3 billion for 2005.
[b]Tobias said The US taxpayers were leading the global fight against AIDS and spending nearly twice as much to fight the pandemic as the rest of the world combined. [/b] But controversy about its payments to the public-private Global Fund, launched in 2002 as a brainchild of Annan, has overshadowed discussions at the AIDS summit this week.
Critics have condemned the United States for pursuing a go-it-alone strategy in setting up its own $15 billion five-year AIDS action plan, rather than folding its efforts into the international body.
Tobias said the Global Fund was an important part of Washington's strategy but that bilateral programs allowed it to move more quickly and aggressively in the war on AIDS, which has killed 20 million people.
The Geneva-based fund's first priority should be to increase its infrastructure and capabilities on the ground to put existing money to work, he said.
"There are those in the Global Fund who would like to continue to approve more grants and increase the number of grants in the pipeline," Tobias added.
"Our position is the Global Fund needs to focus on getting the money to work and that really the energy needs to be going there, and probably not be looking at another round of grant proposals until some in mid-2005."
AIDS activists want the Global Fund to announce funding for a fifth round of treatment and prevention programs before the end of this year.
In our day the Catholic world, with as much justice as reason, attributes impiety as a quality of free-thought, whether in a person, a journal or an institution. "Free-thinker" is an odious epithet which few are willing to accept, but which many justly bear in spite of their protestations. They chafe under the appellation of the word, but find no inconvenience in being all that it implies. Persons, societies, books, governments which reject, in matters of faith and morals, the only and exclusive criterion--that of the Catholic Church--are Liberals. They acknowledge themselves to be Liberals. They feel honored to be so recognized and never dream of scandalizing anybody except us terrible "irreconcilables." Now change the expression; instead of Liberals, call them free-thinkers. They resent the epithet as a calumny and grow indignant at the insult, as they term it. But why this excruciating tenderness, this delicate sensitiveness over the variations of a simple term? Have you not, dear friends, banished from your conscience, your books, your journals and your society all recognition of the supreme authority of the Church? Have you not raised up as the sole and fundamental criterion of your conduct and your thought your own untrammeled reason?
Very properly then do you say that you are Liberal, and no one will dispute the title with you. But you should remember that the very principle which makes you Liberal constitutes you free-thinkers. Every Liberal, no matter of what degree or shade, is ipso facto a freethinker, and every freethinker, as odious as the title may seem according to social conventionalities, is only a logical Liberal. He is simply a Liberal following his premises to their conclusions. This doctrine is as precise and as exact as a mathematical proposition. It is based on the laws of the strictest logic. It is a simple syllogism, whose premise is Liberalism and whose conclusion is free-thought.
Let us illustrate. You are a Catholic more or less open to false allurements, and as a punishment for your sins, you belong to a Liberal society, say, of a literary character. Consider a moment and ask yourself the following question: Would I continue to belong to this atheneum if tomorrow it should proclaim itself publicly and boldly a society of free-thought? What response would your conscience and your shame dictate? Would you not at once withdraw from its membership? As a Catholic you could take no part in its proceedings. Again, you subscribe to a journal and read it without scruple, although it bears a Liberal title and speaks and reasons accordingly. Would you continue your subscription if all of a sudden it should place upon its title page the following heading: journal of Free-Thought. Well, this moderate or violent Liberal journal has been for years nothing more nor less than a free-thinker, and you have been imbibing its poison under the delusion of a word.
Ah, of how many prejudices would we rid ourselves if we only reflected a little on the meaning of words! Every society, whether scientific, literary or philanthropic, constituted on Liberal lines, is free-thinking. Every government Liberally organized is free-thinking. To reject with distrust the name and not the substance is blindness. Any institution, no matter what be its character, established in complete independence of the magisterium of the Faith, is free-thinking. Catholics cannot, consistently with their faith, belong to them. Membership there means rebellion against the Church.
In all such institutions Liberalism reigns and, in consequence, free-thought. No Catholic can remain a Catholic and affiliate with them. We are Catholics all-in-all--or not at all. We cannot dwell in an atmosphere where God is not. There is no true spiritual life where Jesus Christ is not, and He has given His promise to be with His Church forever. He who abides not in Him lives in the outer darkness.
How much do perverse Catholics serve the devil by obstinately clinging to such associations and participating in their works! In the folly of their ignorance, which they assert against the wisdom of the Church, they harden their consciences to the practical guidance of the Holy See and blindly enlist in the service of an enemy whose cunning deludes them into the slavery of Hell--under the disguise of freedom! They forget that the Truth alone makes them free. To know and serve God is the only freedom, and Liberalism completely severs the bond which links man to God. With a just and rational horror does a good Catholic regard Liberalism. Ultramontanism will never cause you to loose your soul; Liberalism is a broad road to the infernal abyss.
"Is it something to rely on, in life and death decisions?"
To those who do not want to face up to hard and brutal choices in a nuclear age, the magic formula is to turn to something called "the international community" -- or, more concretely, the United Nations or "our European allies." As with so many rhetorical solutions to hard problems, the specific realities behind the rhetoric get very little attention.
What is the actual track record of the UN or Europe? Is it something to rely on, in life and death decisions?
The UN stood idly by in Rwanda while mass slaughters went on. The UN passed resolution after resolution on Iraq for years, without taking any action to enforce them. Indeed, the UN was part of the massive corruption in the oil-for-food program, which enabled Saddam Hussein to divert money intended to feed the Iraqi people into buying weapons and palaces for himself.
When the UN seated Libya on its human rights committee, that was a sign of its moral bankruptcy. So was its conference on racism, which featured anti-Semitic propaganda by Arab countries.
What of our European allies, who are automatically assumed to be so much wiser and more sophisticated than American "cowboy" presidents, whether Reagan or Bush?
Europe's track record throughout the 20th century was one unbelievable disaster after another. European countries blundered their way into two world wars -- from which every country involved emerged worse off than before, with a continent devastated and its people hungry amid the rubble. Both times American food fed them.
The two biggest ideological disasters of the 20th century -- Communism and Fascism -- were both created in Europe. Both of these blind fanaticisms led to innocent civilians being killed by the millions, during peacetime as well as in wars.
For more than half a century, Western Europe has not had to defend itself because it has been protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Without that, there was nothing to stop the Soviet army from marching right across the continent to the Atlantic Ocean.
American protection enabled Western Europe to neglect its own military defenses, and in some cases use their armed forces as another government featherbedding program. NATO's forces include unionized soldiers who absorb a much higher share of Europe's military spending than do American soldiers in the U.S. That leaves less money for NATO to buy up-to-date equipment.
NATO's troops get generous vacations and light enough schedules that many of them have part-time civilian jobs. The average age of soldiers in Belgium is 40, compared to 28 for American soldiers.
No country could afford to have to fight a war with over-age soldiers and obsolete equipment, unless its military defense was left to someone else. That someone else is the United States.
Like so many people who have been sheltered from the harsh realities of life and not forced to stand on their own two feet, Western Europeans have been able to indulge themselves in illusions. The most unrealistic of these illusions has been that we can just talk our way out of international threats with "negotiations," treaties and UN resolutions.
That approach was tried for two decades after the First World War. That is what led to the Second World War.
France was the worst. In the 1920s, its foreign minister Aristide Briand negotiated much-ballyhooed agreements renouncing war -- agreements that won him the Nobel Prize but did nothing to deter war. In fact, such things lulled peaceful countries into a dangerous complacency that emboldened aggressor nations.
France's record of cowardice and betrayal of its allies during the 1930s, was climaxed by its own surrender to Hitler after just six weeks of fighting in 1940.
At the 11th hour, France appealed to the United States, which was not in the war at that point, for military equipment -- that is, for the kind of "unilateral" American intervention at which the French would sneer so often in later years.
Are these the people to whom we should defer on life-and-death questions?
Are our actions to be limited to what is acceptable to the lowest common denominator at the UN or in Europe? Are the lofty rhetoric and condescending airs of foreigners to impress us more than their dismal track records?
I say hell no. I say dissolve NATO completely. And in addition move the UN to Paris.
Let's examine a political corruption story beginning to gain traction that will reach warp speed in hearings and headlines next spring.
At least eight official investigations have begun into the largest financial rip-off in history: preliminary estimates from the G.A.O. point to $10 billion skimmed or kicked back or otherwise stolen in the U.N. dealings with Saddam Hussein.
Seeking to manage the news of the scandal, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to head an internal investigation. That seemed to slam the door on U.N. cooperation with truly independent inquiries, but Volcker last week announced that "appropriate memorandums of understanding with a number of official investigatory bodies are in place or in negotiation."
To overcome criticism like mine of his committee's lack of subpoena power or ability to take testimony under oath, Volcker has hooked up with Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, who has been prosecuting two men in an unrelated distressed debt case at BNP Paribas; that's the French bank the U.N. used for its oil-for-food letters of credit. That grand old prosecutor has a staff skilled at following money and has sitting grand juries available to encourage truth-telling.
Morgenthau's crew, in turn, has a collaborative relationship (pardon the expression) with the nonpartisan staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (P.S.I.). The U.N. has stonewalled three committees of the U.S. Congress, refusing to reveal its 55 internal audits, claiming that our State Department's members on the U.N. "661 committee" had approved all kickback-ridden contracts.
But State has been slow-walking Congressional requests for documents that reveal its own poor oversight and that embarrass the U.N., which it now wants to placate. State could impede the hunt overseas through mutual legal-assistance treaties, and can continue to diddle the House committees of Henry Hyde and Chris Shays, but our diplomats cannot evade chairman's letters from the Senate P.S.I.
Who else is on the trail of the skimmed billions, much of it owed to those Kurdish Iraqis shortchanged by U.N. dispensers of largess? Playing catch-up to Morgenthau, a Justice Department U.S. attorney in New York has subpoenaed records of several American oil companies; our Treasury Department charged a couple of minor players with illegal transactions with Iraq.
Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, where much of the grandest larceny ignored by the U.N. originated, the investigation by the old Governing Council was stopped by Paul Bremer because its leaks alerted the world and upset the U.N. The search for damning documents was re-launched under non-Chalabi auspices, but the chairman of Iraq's Supreme Audit Board, Ihsan Karim, was killed on his way to work two weeks ago. Criminal enterprises have heavy money at stake in this.
Volcker, still in a start-up stage after four months, assures The Wall Street Journal he hired a great senior staff. But one is Richard Murphy, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a veteran Arab apologist on TV. Will he prevail on Jordan's king to get the Philadelphia Investment Corporation in Amman to open its files about financing favored "beneficiaries"? Or dare to demand the United Arab Emirates order its Al Wasel and Babel trading company to explain the lucrative electrical projects that had nothing to do with food?
Another is Prof. Mark Pieth of the University of Basel, of high repute in countering money laundering. Key to the transmission of oil-for-food funds is Cotecna Inspections, a Swiss corporation that got the U.N. contract to monitor deliveries and whose "notice of arrival" was pure gold to corrupt sellers. Mr. Annan's son was its consultant just before the fat contract was issued; even after a U.N. audit showed suspicious inspection inadequacies, Cotecna's contract was expanded. Professor Pieth's work will be judged on whether he can crack Swiss government secrecy to reveal the goings-on at Cotecna.
These investigations were triggered by the press. But why should competitive journalists wait months for official leaks? Bankers, traders and honest U.N. underlings are eager to whistleblow; shoe-leather reporting is required to hot-foot the watchmen now that they are finally awake.
There are two approaches to terrorists. One is to fight them with every weapon you can -- the military, intelligence services, interdiction of money flows, diplomacy.
That is what George W. Bush is doing against the Islamist terrorists who struck Sept. 11.
The other way is appeasement. Give the terrorists some of what they want, and hope that they will stop being terrorists any more.
That was the approach Bill Clinton took in the 1990s to terrorists in Colombia, Israel and Northern Ireland.
We are often told these days that Bush's fight against terrorism is not going well. So perhaps it's worth looking at how well the other approach to terrorism worked.
Colombia: Clinton supported former Colombian President Andres Pastrana's policy of officially ceding control of a large swathe of territory to the FARC, the 17,000-member guerrilla group that claims to fight for Marxism and is guilty of kidnapping, murder and drug trafficking on a wide scale. But recognition of the FARC did not reduce its criminal activities.
Before the end of his term in 2002, Pastrana reversed his policy. To succeed him, voters chose Alvaro Uribe, who pledged to hunt the terrorists down.
"So far the results are impressive," writes scholar Mark Falcoff of the American Enterprise Institute. "Killings and kidnappings are down, some highways have reopened and a few high-ranking guerrilla leaders have been captured." Uribe's job approval is sky high. The bottom line: Appeasement failed.
Israel. In 1993, Israel accepted the Oslo Accords and entered into negotiations to give up land to Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the most generous offer ever: more than 97 percent of the occupied territories. Despite Bill Clinton's negotiating skills and flattery (he was invited to the White House more often than any other foreign leader), Arafat turned down the offer and began the Intifada, which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis by suicide bombs. Barak was swept from office.
George W. Bush has backed Ariel Sharon's refusal to deal with Arafat and his fence separating Israelis and Palestinians. Most Israelis support the fence, and suicide bombings are way down. The bottom line: Appeasement failed.
Northern Ireland: Here, the indispensable guide is Dean Godson, chief editorial writer of the Daily Telegraph of London, and his recently published "Himself Alone: David Trimble and the Ordeal of Unionism." Trimble is the leader of the moderate unionist party (unionists want to keep Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom), who negotiated the 1998 Easter Sunday agreement with republican John Hume and with Bill Clinton and the British and Irish prime ministers. Trimble and Hume were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The basic bargain was simple: The unionists would let the republicans have places in the Northern Ireland government, and the republican paramilitaries would give up their arms. The unionists kept their side of the bargain, but the paramilitaries have not, and have been setting further concessions. Tony Blair has suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly and Trimble's party lost seats to the anti-agreement unionists led by Ian Paisley. The bottom line: Appeasement is failing.
All of which is relevant to this year's presidential election.
John Kerry has said that the war against terrorism is primarily a matter for law enforcement and intelligence. He recently ran an ad based on a book he wrote in 1997. But that book never mentioned Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden -- it was primarily about the danger of international organized crime.
And terrorists do turn to crime: The FARC finances its activities by drug trafficking, and one reason the paramilitaries won't give up their arms is that they make money by smuggling and drug trafficking, too.
It's impossible to know exactly what Kerry would do as president or what Bush would do in a second term. But Kerry seems far more inclined toward appeasement, as Clinton was.
Richard Holbrooke, who would like to be Kerry's secretary of state, notes that Clinton was cheered in Ireland for his "peace process," while Bush was greeted with angry demonstrations there. But the British cheered Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich with "peace in our time" in 1938. A year later, they thought very differently.
In the short run, appeasement seems the more conciliatory, thoughtful, nuanced way to deal with terrorists. But in the long run, it tends not to work.
Democratic presidential aspirant John Kerry has fallen behind incumbent President George W. Bush, according to a Time poll released on Friday that found more people were now backing Bush compared with a June survey.
The poll was released as both Bush and Kerry picked up their respective campaigning ahead of the Nov 2 presidential election.
"If the election were held today, 49 percent of likely voters would vote for Bush and 45 percent said they would vote for Kerry," the poll found.
In a Time poll conducted in early June, Bush garnered 48 per cent of the likely vote compared to 49 per cent for Kerry.
Pres. Bush's acceleration past Kerry comes after his campaign announced on Tuesday that senator John Edwards of North Carolina would be joining the ticket as Kerry's vice presidential pick.
It found Edwards joining the ticket has done less for Kerry than Vice President Dick Cheney's standing has done for Bush.
Of those canvassed, 24 per cent said Edwards' standing as a running mate made them more likely to vote for Bush.
And asked who would make a better president, 47 per cent chose Cheney compared with 38 percent who favoured Edwards.
Marie-Laure Sauer, 28, sees herself primarily as a researcher and a Ph.D. student. But Sauer's very presence at South Dakota State University makes the French native and Young Scientist award winner an ambassador working to bridge the cultural divide between the United States and Europe over plant biotechnology.
"A lot of people in France don't understand what GMOs are or what biotechnology is and, sometimes, they don't want to understand," Sauer said.
Sauer's research involves using biotechnology to produce soybean oil that is healthier for consumers and holds up better when stored or heated for the food industry, which uses it in many processed products.
As one of three winners of the Council for Biotechnology Information's (CBI's) Young Scientist award chosen from a nationwide pool of 25 nominees, Sauer will receive a $5,000 scholarship and the opportunity to discuss her work with biotech leaders at a national forum. CBI presents the Young Scientist award to select master's or Ph.D. students conducting agricultural and food biotech research that will provide quality improvements such as better taste, nutrition, healthfulness or cooking performance.
"The fact that other people recognize your work is very rewarding and makes you want to continue," Sauer said.
Soybean oil makes up more than 80 percent of all edible oil consumed in the United States.1 Regular soybean oil contains high levels of the polyunsaturated fatty acids linoleic acid and linolenic acid, which oxidize quickly and are too unstable for long-term storage or cooking at high temperatures.
To alleviate these problems, soybean oil may be partially hydrogenated to make it more stable. However, this process results in the production of trans fat, which has been linked to increased risk of coronary heart disease.
Another fatty acid present in soybean oil is oleic acid, which is associated with decreased heart disease risk, is naturally stable and stores well.
"One objective in my work is to provide easy, cost-effective ways to select for the genes to help the breeder combine low-linolenic and high-oleic traits in soybean varieties to make healthier, more stable oils for the food industry," Sauer said.
Other researchers are working toward this same goal, but are using biotechnology to manipulate the levels of fatty acids produced in the bean.
Sauer's approach is to identify and select genes associated with low levels of the "bad" linolenic acid and high levels of the "good" oleic acid. These genes are then used in breeding programs to introduce the desired characteristics into soybean plants.
Sauer said initial results have been promising, and she is excited about the potential applications of her research.
"It's good to know that what you're doing is going to be useful to science, your university, the edible oil industry and the farmers who are going to grow those crops," she said.
Born in France to parents who are both doctors, Sauer knew early on that she wanted to pursue a career in plant genetics. She holds a master's degree from the École Nationale Supérieure Agronomique in Toulouse, France, where she specialized in biotechnology and plant improvement and graduated in the top 10 percent of her class.
She says her parents have been supportive of her goals, but she also has encountered negativity from friends and acquaintances who, like many Europeans, are concerned about biotechnology.
"In Europe, a lot of people are against GMOs. They are scared of the idea of genome manipulation," she said. "I wanted a new outlook on biotechnology research, so I decided to come to the United States to do my Ph.D."
After earning her Ph.D., Sauer hopes to return to France to continue her biotech research, but is open to staying in the United States if it will provide her more opportunity to pursue the work she loves.
"I'm very pleased with what I'm doing, and I'm very proud of what I'm doing," Sauer said. "I'm going to try to have as many discussions with people as I can and try to explain to them what biotechnology is."
What the heck is wrong with people? I don't just mean this dink in the story that follows, I mean the judges mainly. We already know what is wrong with the perp.
PARIS, July 8 (UPI) -- A jailed man in France who has confessed to raping and killing nine women with his wife's help says he "needed" the activity twice a year, The Independent said.
The remarks by Michel Fourniret, 62, prompted police in both France and Belgium to reopen 30 unsolved killings as gruesome details emerged from Fourniret and his wife, Monique Olivier, 55.
In Fourniret's written statement to Belgian investigators leaked to the French press, he said: "I needed to hunt virgins twice a year. When I knew that I was going hunting and that I would bring something back, I dug the holes in advance, three meters deep."
But investigators say since he has admitted killings between 1987 and 1990 and more after 2000, two killings a year would bring his list of victims to more than 30.
Fourniret has a string of convictions for sexual assault and rape in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Despite his record, he was freed early from jail after another rape conviction in 1987.
It turns out NATO is a one-way alliance, effective only when our partners need a hand. When the United States has a problem, however, it is a rope binding one hand behind our back. And for these amoral obstructionists we disrupt the lives of good and decent Americans who already served their time.
"For 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe," the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized. "Somehow, Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes."
THE POINT IS, in a time of peace, European selfishness and obstruction only costs us money. But now there is a war on. It is painfully clear who our real allies are in this fight, and they don't all sit around the NATO table. America has a job to do, and our supposed friends are constantly making that task more difficult. Is there any better example of why George Washington warned against "entangling alliances"?
In fact, it might be worthwhile for Europeans who have dabbled with socialism for half a century on the backs of the American taxpayer to find out what it's like to pay for their own defense for a while.
"NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation's leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman's right to choose, is elated about Sen. John Kerry's selection today of John Edwards as his Vice Presidential running mate.
Since 1999, Sen. Edwards has cast 20 votes on the right to choose and family planning issues; of that number -- all were pro-choice votes.... Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, 'The choice for pro-choice voters is abundantly clear -- only Kerry-Edwards can be counted on to protect and defend a woman's right to choose.'"
From a July 6th NARAL press release
Naturally, it came as no surprise Tuesday that a man joined at the hip to the Abortion Establishment would choose for his vice president someone whose enthusiasm for child annihilation is equally exuberant.
Support for partial-birth abortion and tax subsidies for abortion on demand for federal employees, opposition to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence of Act, and a number of highly qualified judicial nominees—Senators John Kerry and John Edwards are two peas in a pod.
But the NARALs and the Planned Parenthoods weren't the only ones gushing over this "dream ticket." The media fell over its collective feet, trotting out every compliment it could conjure up to make the case that pro-abortion Sen. John Edwards was the perfect complement to pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry.
What should we make of this instant media consensus?
As we talked about yesterday, the cardinal principle of media bias is to treat essentially identical behavior in a diametrically opposed fashion. Contrast treatment of Kerry's choice of Edwards with Mr. Bush's 2000 selection of Richard Cheney.
By tabbing Edwards, Kerry's considerable storehouse of weaknesses is miraculously turned into a bumper crop of strengths. To take the most obvious example, Kerry is congratulated for choosing a rival who outshone him in every debate, a warm-and-fuzzy candidate who may well have prevailed in Iowa had the caucuses taken place a few days later than they did.
The charitable explanation is that this illustrates that Kerry's not "afraid"-- he's "secure enough"--to include on the ticket someone who is, as a political performer, everything that Kerry is not. This is all described very delicately, offered as reason to pat the junior senator from Massachusetts on the back.
However, what if we allowed for the same positive spin, but looked at the same decision, not through rose-colored glasses, but more frankly?
If Kerry is a stiff as a board, Edwards, we're told, is filled with boyish enthusiasm. If Kerry's stump speech is so tedious it makes you want to hit yourself over the head to make the pain stop, Edwards' remarks, we're assured, will tickle the listener's ears. If Kerry comes off as a caricature of the pampered Northeast patrician, Edwards, the media tell us, pulled himself up by his own boot straps. Etc. ,etc.
What could not be more obvious is that choosing Edwards is an classic case of making a virtue out of necessity. It is not for nothing that Kerry spent months repeatedly trying to persuade Republican Sen. John McCain to be his vice presidential running mate.
Is the significance of Kerry's desperate recruitment of a lifelong Republican suddenly meaningless just because John Edwards, a one-term senator, has a nice smile? Hardly.
To finish the point, were we to scan the coverage in 2000 when George Bush chose Richard Cheney, we'd find that the media consensus was that his selection was supposedly a sign not of strength but of weaknesses on the ex-Texas governor's part. Far from being held up as a "dream ticket," Bush's selection of the most qualified vice presidential candidate in memory was dismissed as a desperate attempt to add ballast.
The next month belongs to the Democrats. They have just completed their ticket and their convention takes place the last week in July.
As is always the case, Kerry-Edwards will get a bump in the polls. That is natural, even inevitable.
Just continue doing what you need to do. Pro-life President Bush's turn is coming up next month when the Republicans meet in New York.
At the end of that convention, you will find that Bush-Cheney is a most formidable team.
Whooooshh Huuuuuummmmmmmmmmm Samsung, the leading electronics manufacturer has announced today that it has successfully developed a fully working Lightsabre.
Hinto Akasa Sagaumuki, head of research and development at the Korean electoronics and home entertainment company made the announcemnt at a fully attended press conference yesterday in Seoul. He added that although the device had been in development since 1988, it was only now that it was decided that it was ready for production.
This was because of major advances in the developmet of on board sound effect modules.
"Our major problem was that our marketing people did not like the fact that the unit was essentially silent. so we have worked closely with our colleagues in the audio department, they spent a number of years sampling sound effects from the Star wars movies, so that people will really get the full experience"
A similar problem was experienced in the earlly seventies when Microwave ovens were launched that made farting noises. Sales did not take off until they were adapted to make the reassuring humming noise we are now used to.
The device was demonstrated and drew gasps of wonder from an excited crowd as Hinto ignited the green "blade" with a distinctive whoosh. Then as he swished the device around, reporters were pleased to hear the familiar deep reverberating hum everyone was hoping for.
The lightsabre, made famous by the Star Wars films was up until now a fictional item but Sagaumuki was proud to announce that the first production models should be in stores in time for Christmas.
In a nice touch Sagaumuki produced a large loaf of bread and sliced it with samurai like accuracy, instantly providing toast for the assembled crowd. He added a word of caution when he highlighted that the sabres should not be sold as toys.
"these are serious pieces of technology that in the wrong hands could cause severe damage" said Sagaumuki and highlighted that 3 of his researchers had got carried away at a celebration party three weeks ago and two of them were hospitalised after re enacting the Darth Maul / Kenobi/ Gon Gin sequence from Phantom Menace.
" It also has serious commercial potential, we have already demonstrated one possible use as a toasted snack maker, we also see applications in the gardening area such as Hedge trimmers and Bonfire setting"
The device runs on 53 AAA batteries crammed into the handle and creates a "blade" of pure plasma type energy for up to but not exceeding 13 seconds. Alternatively it can have an ac mains adapter fitted at additional cost , but the national grid may have difficulty supplying megawatt requests across normal home wiring. Suggestion are to operate within three miles of a nuclear power station.
The korean manaufacture denied reports that they were designing a Death Star.
George Lucas creator and director of the Star wars films was not available for comment although his spokesmen Simon Luke Han Leia Chewy Palaptine the third at Skywalker Ranch said "I really think this report was funnier when it was 320 words".
In response to John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate, NRLC Political Director Carol Tobias said, "With John Edwards, Kerry has selected a running mate whose position is as extreme as his own, even opposing the ban on partial-birth abortions."
In 1999 Edwards voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and in 2003 he attacked President Bush for signing the bill, which would ban partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save a mother's life.
"Laci and Conner's Law" would recognize unborn children as murder victims when they are killed by criminals in violent federal crimes. This bill, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, was enacted this year despite Edwards' votes against it.
Edwards also voted in favor of tax subsidies for abortion on demand for federal employees.
"During his nearly six years in the U.S. Senate, John Edwards -- like John Kerry -- has consistently voted according to the dictates of hard-line pro-abortion advocacy groups, and contrary to the policies favored by most Americans," said Douglas Johnson, NRLC legislative director.
Whenever Edwards has been present to vote, he has supported the ongoing filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees. He voted six times in favor of the filibuster that blocked the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic ever to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Edwards also has voted in favor of the filibusters of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who were nominated to federal courts of appeals.
NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization, with 50 state affiliates and approximately 3,000 local affiliates nationwide. NRLC works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide
Today I will focus on John Kerry's selection of Sen. John Edwards as his vice president and on Kerry's bizarre statement over the weekend that he believes "life begins at conception."
First things first. There are few constituencies within the Democratic Party stronger than the pro-abortion feminist lobby and trial lawyers.
Kerry has already pledged his undying fealty to the cause of unlimited abortion today, tomorrow, and forever. Edwards's voting record on abortion is cut from the same cloth. NARAL's Kate Michelman must be smiling ear to ear, for this is the Abortion Establishment's dream ticket.
Edwards is also an extremely skilled trial lawyer, as experienced in swaying juries as he is inexperienced in public office. An interesting aside is that while Kerry has been in the Senate since 1985 and Edwards is retiring after only one term, neither has left virtually any legislative imprint.
Talking about media bias with our readers is like hauling coals to Newcastle. You know it, you've experienced it, and you know it is as constant as the law of gravity.
In many ways the best index of slanted reporting is when the media gives a pass to one candidate for behavior which, had his opponent indulged in the exact same behavior, the media would cut him to ribbons. You will probably never (in this lifetime, at least) see a better example of this than how the "mainstream media" treated remarks Kerry made to a reporter for the Telegraph Herald in Dubuque, Iowa, in an article published Sunday.
This is what Kerry said: "I oppose abortion, personally," he told the newspaper. "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist ...who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
For good measure, Kerry also said, "I'm against partial-birth abortion," but said he couldn't vote for the version that the Senate and the House overwhelmingly enacted last year and which was signed into law by President Bush.
What if Mr. Bush had indulged in a similar shameless ploy? The Media Establishment would instantly go to Red Alert. Hypocrisy/flip flops, after all, are the ultimate media sin (especially when it comes to Republicans).
The New York Times and the Washington Post would launch every weapon in their considerable arsenals, chastising him for demonstrating that (contrary to what the Times has said it believed all along) he really believes nothing and will say anything to get re-elected. In a word, shame on you. No American, we would be lectured, should vote for someone so shamelessly opportunistic.
What does the Times do with Kerry's blatant opportunism and stunningly transparent insincerity? Congratulate him for squaring the circle.
Kerry, we are led to believe, had finessed slavishly taking the NARAL line 100% of the time and being completely at odds with his own church over abortion. "Mr. Kerry said he was abiding by both his conscience and the line between church and state in America." Nice work, if you can get it.
Kerry's "tour of the Heartland" covered three Midwestern states last week. According to the Telegraph Herald, “Kerry spent about an hour Sunday afternoon at the Field of Dreams site in Dyersville, where the 1989 movie was filmed, playing baseball with about 20 local children and signing autographs for visitors and residents."
If you remember, referring to the spirits of baseball players, the film's signature line was, "If you build it (the baseball field), they will come."
Kerry believes if he builds a campaign on utterances he thinks will enhance his electoral chances--regardless if what he says is at odds with everything he has done throughout his entire political career, regardless if he takes it all back ten minutes later, regardless if it gives every appearance of being a mindboggingly cynical lie--an inattentive public will come to the ballot box next November and vote for him.
It's up to people like you and me to prove he is dead wrong.
French President Jacques Chirac's recent decision to veto the use of special NATO forces to safeguard elections in Afghanistan this fall is the latest example of his desperate attempts to assert France's relevance on the world stage. Despite impassioned pleas from Afghan President Hamid Karzai for additional troops to provide security against continuing violence by Islamist fundamentalists that threatens critical national elections,
Mr. Chirac blocked the U.S.-backed plan, claiming such forces "shouldn't be used in any old manner." Mr. Chirac's actions and anti-American rhetoric only serve to underscore the depths to which this once great nation has sunk.
It is simply incomprehensible that Mr. Chirac could treat the democratic liberation of Afghanistan with such cavalier indifference. After decades of Soviet occupation, warlordism and the brutality of the Taliban, Afghans for the first time ever will select their head of state through competitive elections. The ease with which Mr. Chirac can take for granted the freedoms and liberties that democratic elections provide is appalling.
Those freedoms have allowed 1.7 million Afghanistan citizens to register to vote, including more than 500,000 women. The people of Afghanistan can now enjoy the liberty of attending one of the 152 new or more than 400 refurbished schools, or obtaining health-care services from one of 378 new and refurbishedhealthclinics. Afghanistan's new schools have reached more than 16,000 students and trained more than 2,100 teachers. Afghan women are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of their country's newfound democracy, as they continue to enjoy remarkable gains in human and civil rights. Most notably, Afghanistan's first-ever national constitution guarantees equal rights to all citizens, men and women. It is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Chirac views these momentous accomplishments as "any old manner."
Equally appalling is France's selfishness and rank hypocrisy. France's latest refusal to send troops into Afghanistan stands in stark contradiction to its efforts to drag NATO, historically a defensive alliance, into Yugoslavia — the organization's first-ever offensive action against a non-member. After France's efforts to gain U.N. Security Council approval to remove Slobodan Milosevic by force failed, it pressed the United States to approve NATO military action. When the dictator Milosevic threatened Europe's back door, France was content to commit America's sons and daughters to battle. Mr. Chirac no doubt slept soundly as U.S. bombs fell on Kosovo, and France's self-interest was protected.
Interestingly, when Euros are at stake, Mr. Chirac and the French government are all too willing to extend a helping hand. France's profitable financial support of Saddam Hussein is well documented, and prior to the liberation of the Iraqi people, it continued to prop up the Oil for Food program that will go down as one of the most corrupt international aid programs in history. Most recently, just hours after the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government, the French Finance Ministry announced it would immediately restore full economic ties with Iraq. Sadly, profit and self-interest have replaced France's guiding moral compass.
The time has come to end France's continued economic gain paid for with the blood of U.S. and coalition soldiers. America cannot continue its efforts to improve relations with France, if France is only willing to reciprocate when it is convenient for her to do so. It is telling that the countries of New Europe — countries that have the nightmare of oppression seared into their memory — are willing to make heroic commitments to protect freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. France values its democratic allies when her freedoms are in jeopardy. In contrast, France has a striking disregard when the freedoms of others less fortunate are at risk. Mr. Chirac's misguided refusal to allow NATO troops to provide vital security for Afghan elections or train Iraqi security forces may forever undermine the peaceful objectives that will be the foundation of stability in these long-suffering countries for generations.
On June 6, the world remembered the ultimate sacrifice of more than 30,000 Allied troops — and 9,000 American soldiers — made 60 years ago during the Normandy campaign to liberate and restore democracy to France. During his speech, Mr. Chirac recognized that sacrifice and the "unparalleled debt" France owes America, calling us his country's "eternal ally." On June 29, Mr. Chirac went out of his way to oppose U.S. efforts to bring democracytoIraqand Afghanistan. For Mr. Chirac, eternity lasted 23 days.
Jean-Marie Le Pen's strong showing in the first round of French elections dealt a blow to the French political scene. In the second round of the French presidential elections on May 5, incumbent President Jacques Chirac, representing the center-right RPR party, defeated far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen by a margin of 82.21 percent to 17.79 percent.
It was the most overwhelming electoral victory in the history of France. But it is too early to say the political crisis has passed. One in six French citizens voted for Le Pen’s anti-immigration, anti-European Union program—the most stunning result of any far-right candidate in a major Western European country since the end of World War II.
The national mood the day after the first round of the presidential election was summed up by Serge July, editor of Libération (April 22): [b]“France is a disoriented, panic-stricken country that is scared of its own shadow and finds it hard to turn toward the future.” [/b]
Despite Chirac’s victory, Le Figaro (May 6) was not celebrating: “Though the president of the republic yesterday got the vote of four out of five voters, rarely has national cohesion seemed so weak, rarely has the future of the country seemed so uncertain.” Le Monde (May 6) called it a “trompe-l’oeil triumph,” noting the massive impact of left-wing voters. In order to stop Le Pen, they “held their noses, donned their rubber gloves, and voted for Chirac,” said French socialist Minister Martine Aubry. [b]“Better the crook than the fascist” became a popular slogan. (Chirac has been implicated in political corruption inquiries.) This is hardly a ringing endorsement. [/b]The two weeks leading up to the second-round election witnessed massive anti-Le Pen protests all across France. The frenzy culminated in a May Day march of a million and a half people that “will go down in the pages of history,” commented La Marseillaise (May 6).
France has not mobilized in the last few weeks simply to save face. The expectations for change are enormous. “In order to eradicate the tumor of Lepenisme, tomorrow’s government must go to the heart of our problems, rather than avoiding them,” editorialized Jacques Julliard in Le Nouvel Observateur (May 9), while La Croix (May 8) asserted that it was up to Chirac to “make a repetition of April 21 [the first round of the presidential elections] impossible.”
There are also many calls for a reform of the institutions of the Fifth Republic or even the creation of a Sixth Republic. The constitution allows the two most important offices to be held by leaders from opposing parties—as has been the case in the past five years with conservative President Chirac and socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. During that time, Chirac was practically reduced to the status of a figurehead.
The next few months, however, will show how far Chirac can rise to the task he faces and if he is up to the challenge: “Chirac has a rendezvous with history,” claimed Catherine Pégard in Le Point (May 7), evoking the role of Charles de Gaulle in defending France from an earlier right-wing challenge.
Whoever wins the American presidential election this November (and polls, economic prospects and the unknown dangers of terrorism and Iraq make it too close to even think of calling), will have to deal with the fact that there has already been a fundamental changing of the guard in Europe.
The usual players of Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, France's President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder remain in place, but the political dynamics of the European Union have shifted. Romano Prodi, the former Italian premier who has been president of the European Commission for the past five years is being replaced by Portugal's center-right and pro-American premier Jose Manuel Barroso.
Prodi was a center-left critic of the Iraq war, always ready to give discreet backing to the French sniping at President George W. Bush. His departure, and the dramatic failure of the French and Germans to replace him with the even more outspokenly anti-American Belgian premier Guy Verhofstadt, is good news for all friends of the Atlantic alliance.
Verhofstadt was vetoed by Tony Blair, with the steady support of the Poles, Italians, Danes and others. This was a decisive rebuff to the Franco-German axis that has for so long dominated EU affairs. Verhofstadt's call for the EU to be "emancipated" from American influence sank his candidacy.
There was absolutely no support for Chirac's fallback offering, the only French candidate, the new Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, who informed a recent high-level Transatlantic seminar: "What our American friends must understand is that we are going to build Europe not only as a market but as a power."
That raising of the old Gaullist flag of a Europe as "a counterweight" to the United States, which has been a feature of French diplomacy since the days of President Charles De Gaulle from 1958-1969, wins few salutes in the new Europe.
The EU's eight new member states from Central and Eastern Europe, who still feel the heavy legacy and the enduring shadow of 40 years under Soviet dominance, have no intention of playing the French game. They understand clearly that their national security in the future will be far more secure with NATO and a continuing American military presence in Europe than with some French-devised security system that will be long on rhetoric and woefully short on performance.
In his first interviews since becoming the agreed candidate to run the EU Commission, Portugal's Barroso has been crystal clear in his rejection of this French "counterweight" theory, even when Paris dresses it up as simply an inevitable process of an emerging multi-polar world in which American dominance will be eroded by the coming new great powers of China and India.
"It is stupid to see Europe as a counterweight," Barroso insists. "In some European countries, there is the idea we'll be independent if we are a counterweight. This is silly. It is a counterpart, not a counterweight."
"What is strategically intelligent in building an identity against the United States?" Barroso asks. Or responsible."
The French concept of a Europe playing an independent role on the world stage, which has been the dynamic behind the bitter Transatlantic wrangling over Iraq, is not going to disappear. It is embedded deeply within the DNA of French diplomacy. And within the DNA of the convinced European federalists who still dominate so much of the EU bureaucracy. Moreover, clumsy American diplomacy in the abrasive style of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or Vice-president Dick Cheney, and contemptuous American media commentary about anti-Semitism and pacifism and economic feebleness in Europe can help the French make their case.
Suspicion of America is like a recessive gene in Europe, always ready in the right circumstances or provocation to reappear. But most EU member states, and particularly the new ones from Eastern Europe, now understand that anti-Americanism that can hope to rally the whole of Europe; it can only, as Tony Blair keeps saying, divide the Europeans.
So the next American president, whether it be Bush or his Democratic challenger John Kerry, can probably look forward to a rather more productive relationship with the Europeans -- so long as Washington does not expect too much in the way of Blair-style readiness to put at risk troops and political capital in tangential causes.
But that is not the only good news from Europe for the next American president. Possibly just as important, for the next 3 years, the EU Council, the crucial decision-making body, will be in the hands of the Dutch, the Luxemburgers, the British, the Austrians, the Germans and the Finns. (This stems from the eminently fair but politically bizarre way that the EU rotates its chairmanship of the Council among different countries every six months. The new EU Constitution, if it ever gets ratified by all 25 member states, will change this with a new post of Council president with a 30-month mandate. But for the moment, the EU is stuck with the old system of rotation.)
These are all countries that pay far more into the EU coffers than they receive in return, and thus want to keep the EU budget as low as possible. This means in turn that they will exert a great deal of steady pressure to restrain and reform the EU's costly and indefensible Common Agricultural Program. This is the one area where the Franco-German axis is at its weakest. The French want to keep the CAP, which helps their powerful farming lobby, while the Germans would save a lot of money if it could be reformed.
Americans should bear in mind one last point when they consider the rather different EU that looks likely to emerge in the next few years. Germany's Gerhard Schroeder faces re-election in the fall of 2006, and France's Jacques Chirac faces re-election in the spring of 2007. There is a very strong prospect that the next U.S. president will see France and Germany under new management, free of the divisive baggage of recent years. It may be over-optimistic to suggest this, but the great Transatlantic crisis of the past two years may have already be over, with much fairer prospects ahead.
Everything I remember about Iraq is quiet and grainy, like old home movies. After we came here, we never went back there.
During Dessert Storm, the country that I am currently from dropped bombs on the country that I used to be from, and my grandmother fell. She broke her hip and now the shoe on her one foot has a heel that is three inches higher than the other. Mostly she's sad because she has grandchildren that she's never seen.
They used to call your father this word that sounds almost like Bush but, to people in Iraq, it is a word that means empty.
Last week I had a talk about the State of Things with a man. This man likes the guns his family owns and tells me how "so not afraid" he is to use them. During our talk, he said to me, "I understand what you are saying, but try and put yourself in the shoes of a real American."
That night I dreamt about pamphlets, yellow and square, printed with the beautiful and wonderfully good principles of this country being dropped from airplanes and into the outstretched hands of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people with their heads thrown back, looking into the sun.
This is my life, Mr. President. I am standing over this stream that runs beneath me. One foot is on slippery stone and the other is on Kentucky bluegrass with blades sharp, green and plastic, like turf. I've got a good view and I can tell you what is on either side but it's starting to flood.
Sincerely, A. Rasheed
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
I have a hard time validating my feelings.
When I am mad at somebody, I think, "Isn't this partly my fault? How did I help bring about this situation, directly or indirectly?" Anger is a choice, and before I make that choice I need to make sure it's justified and that I'm really not angry with myself.
As you could imagine, all this self-reflection leads to self-doubt and more often than not I don't express my feelings, which leaves me feeling even more conflicted.
Sincerely, Peter Vaeth
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
If you're backing out of a really busy parking lot, be sure to check your rear-view mirror, or you might end up pinning a fat man against a fence.
Every year at Christmas I worry that our chimney is going to choke to death on Santa.
My mother always said she wanted me to grow up with big healthy fingers. I never run from a button.
Sincerely, Gretchen Valder
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
I am the submissions editor at the Texas International Law Journal. I help choose which articles we publish. Recently, authors have been saying to me things like, "Texas International Law Journal? I thought Texans didn't believe in international law!"
They think it's funny, but it's really bad for business.
Sincerely, Brannon Andrews
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
My entire life, the only real threat to world peace has come from the middle east. It has always been the most volitile spot on earth. Thank God someone finally has the courage to do something about this. The era of murdering dictators and the oppression they casue has to end before all of mankind will be able to experience the blessing of democracy and freedom.
Yes, war is ugly and it will cause suffering. But I firmly believe the suffering it causes now will pale beside the suffering, terrorism and mayhem that will ensue should organizations like A.Q. and Iraq's regime be allowed to continue their practices of murder and intimidation.
It is our responsibility as the world's last superpower to beat down and eliminate those that think violence is the only way to force their views and beliefs on the rest of the world. As unchristian as it may sound—peace thru superior firepower and stead fast resolve, seem the best option to waiting around for the next wave of attacks on US soil.
Despite the rash of negative letters you probably receive thru this posting, the American people are behind you—as your polls demonstrate.
God Bless the GOP.
Sincerely, John Taylor Yale University
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
I hear that you read the Bible every day, Mr. President. About 6 months ago I started doing the same thing. I just finished tonight.
One question: what version are you reading? Mine ends with the words "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." There is one part that says "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" and another that notes "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
All of this is out of something called the King James Version. Is this the right one? I figured since you are a lot more religious than me, and since you have been at this a lot longer, you could point me in the right direction. Maybe there's a version 2.0 out there somewhere? I'm guessing Microsoft probably has one, right?
After observing most of your policy decisions and political moves I know I am not reading the right book and I want to get with the program, so to speak, as soon as possible. Please help me out.
Sincerely, Chris Cutter
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
Although Stephen Crane is, when anthologized, incessantly thrown in together with James, Wharton and their ilk, I have qualms with him being classified as a "realist", in that sense of the word, and am much more comfortable with the label (because we must of course label everything) "impressionist." A classmate and confidant of mine who has hitherto concurred on most literary issues disagrees, claiming that Crane's work is derivative of Henry James' early work, most realistic in style.
Please inform this typically insightful citizen of his blunder. Your eloquence is always appreciated.
You can hit respond, and address your letter to Paul.
Sincerely, Casey Ward
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
Hi, I wrote before to thank you for your current foreign policy towards North Korea, since I'm currently teaching English in South Korea. Anyway, as soon as I walked in the class today, the kids blasted me with, "Did you know American celebrities are saying bad things to Korea?" to which I responded, "Huh?" Well, it took a lot of explanation, but apparently that incident with two American soldiers, and two middle school Korean girls, and one tank got back home, and people are talking about it. Rest assured, my first question to them was where their sources were from, to which they responded newspapers and the internet. What ensued was a long lesson teaching that journalism does not implicitly entail "truth", which I'm pleased to say the children understood rather quickly, considering the oldest of them is twelve.
Inspired by their outspoken mood, I thought to direct their concerns to the one person whose job it is to answer those complicated questions, like why two soldiers who ran over girls here during peacetime are not being tried by local authorities. Anyway, a few of the children have written letters to you. I haven't edited them, so if you would like to help some wonderful children improve their grammar, please feel free to send back their corrected letters, or at least some encouraging feedback. Here they are:
1. This letter is from Mike. He is a smart boy, 12 years old, but he still can't figure out how to use the present progressive (ex. "I am going", instead of "I go"). Dear Bush— Hi Bush. Why innocence the accident of armored car kill two middle school girl I think correspondence is well, but why American people (lawyer) says "A correspondence is not well, and decision this accident is innocence. I don't understand this happend. This judgment is disadvantage for korean, because american judge, american public prosecuter, and american lawyer, all disadvantage for korean. again think about this accident, please. —Mike
2. This letter is from Lillian, who is usually busy drawing some very good Japanime-style pictures of girls and fairies. She is 10 years old (It's actually funny the way Koreans talk about their age. From birth they consider that to be age 1, and they don't really count birthdays, but years, so I'm 24 in Korea, even though I won't turn 23 until December 29th).
Hello! Bush the president. Bush the president do you know girls being killed by U.S.A. soldiers! This is very bad. If this is suddenly happen, this is a crime. But this is not a crime. Korean is very very sad. And a U.S.A. action have bad words to korea This is very very bad. It think deep. It well just American. President please think one more time. So bye president. —Lillian
3. This next letter comes from Julie, easily one of my smarter students. Julie seems genuinely affected by many things in the world, yet she's always very charitable. The other day she was describing a girl who picks on her, punching her all the time, but she insisted on calling the girl her friend. She called the girl her "bad friend," which I thought was sweet.
Hello, I'm Korean. America and Korea have very many big event. I'll write a big event. That is 2 girls being killed by U.S.A. soldiers. We don't understand this event of decision. Korean people are can't understand. That is no justice. We want justice. That event demand justice decision. Your a president in America. But Korean people not agree your decision. I'm very angry. So I want a justice decision, thank you, Bush, From Julie
4. This letter is from Kevin, who we also call K-Dawg. He's a pretty funny kid, and sometimes I think he's good at English, but other times I have my doubts. I still can't tell if he writes sentences for his vocabulary words by copying from the dictionary or internet, or if he's actually writing the sentences himself. If you write to him, call him K-Dawg. He'll find it very funny.
Dear Bush,
Hi! I'm Korea person. I'm thirteen years old. America did many accident. First Salt Lake Olympic's Ono accident Ono push down Kim Dong Sung. And Ono run to finish line. So he had Gold medal. But Kim Dong Sung must had Gold medal. Salt Lake IOC said Kim Dong Sung is out. Oh! It's very surprise to me. Last, two girls being killed by US Army. US Army kill two girls two times!!! You must apologize to All Korean people. If you apologize to us, we'll forgive you. Kevin
In closing, the kids are afraid your secretary will delete their letters and you will not read them. I didn't know how to answer this concern, so I told them that maybe it is more important for them to write the letter than for you to read it.
Sincerely, Eric Silver
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
Just a line from a supporter, letting you know that I think you are doing a fine job.
Sincerely, Thomas W. Wynn
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
I suppose that by writing you this letter, I am doing something positive for the American economy. After all, you have a staff of people who have to read these sorts of letters and tally them up. And so, by creating more work for those people, I'm creating more jobs. Like how having to make all the boats for World War II pulled America out of the Great Depression, supposedly. And how some of the people you work with think a war with Iraq would boost our sagging economy. And how, when they wanted to build a new stadium for the football team here, everyone voted for it. "To create more jobs!" they all said.
So, are we just trying to make more work? Is that the plan? Because if it is, maybe instead we should have passed a measure to build a new stadium, then immediately tear it down, then build it again. Wouldn't that have created even more jobs? And instead of bombing Iraq, maybe we could bomb Tallahassee, or Louisville, or Saratoga Springs. Believe me, there are evil-doers in all those cities. (I went to high school with some of them.) And that way, we can not only create the bomb-building jobs, but all the fire-dousing, shrapnel-cleanup, house-rebuilding jobs, too.
Sincerely, David Khoury
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
English is my favorite subject, but I've had mediocre teachers in the subject all my life, until this year. His name is Mr. Schwartz and he teaches my AP English class. When he plays the part of Lear on days we read King Lear in class, he gets so into it—he rolls his eyes, and shakes with rage, and really puts on a show for us.
Mr. Schwartz played "Alice's Restaurant" for us the day before Thanksgiving vacation and we talked about its political significance. I appreciate him for doing this because I've been going to the Thanksgiving Parade every year since I was four, and my dad always played the song on the drive there. I never really thought about the song having any sort of meaning behind it. I just liked the "Kill! Kill! Kill!" part. I still do.
Also, when I was two I ate a spider. My mom saw me sitting in the corner with a leg twitching out the corner of my mouth, but before she could take it away I swallowed it. It's really embarrassing when she tells this story to people outside my family—which she does often.
Sincerely, Kristen
- - - -
Dear Mr. President,
I wanted to soar to new heights, so I went to the library and checked out a book called, How to Master Your Life, but when I got home I discovered it was in Braille. This wasn't as big a deal as you might think though, because my body is written in Braille too. You can read my muscles. My muscles spell out a big fat slice-of-life nineteenth century novel called, Quest for Grace. Actually, it's just a rough draft.
In the first chapter we see a boy sitting on a dock fishing. The boy rips an earthworm in half and sticks one half on his hook and throws it in the water. He throws the other half over his shoulder and it lands in some bushes. The novel follows the adventures of this half, the one in the bushes, as it gradually regenerates itself and sets out on its new life of freedom, eating dirt.
In chapter three, Danny, the earthworm, narrowly escapes a fatal head on collision with a snail. In chapter four, we see Danny coming to terms with the fact that nobody can tell the difference between his ass and his face. In chapter five a caterpillar tricks Danny into thinking he too will one day become a butterfly. And at the end of this chapter we see Danny happily wrapping himself in his freshly made cocoon, which is really just his own poop. In chapter seven nothing much happens, it's just a bunch of long-winded pastoral descriptions. In chapter nine Danny sits helplessly by as a horse's hoof stamps out his newfound love, Rhonda. Hopefully you're starting get the picture.
In short, the book is poorly written. The sentences are clumsy and out of control. The descriptive passages are monotonous. The language is outdated. The author's use of plot device is cliched, and the main character is a buffoon. Nobody in their right mind would bother with Quest for Grace, which is why the only people who ever pull it down from the shelf are super drunk at closing time.
My first "involvement" with presidential politics was in 1964 when, as a high school freshman, I sat transfixed, mesmerized by the Johnson-Goldwater debates. Since that time, I've logged a lot of miles, figuratively speaking, so not a lot that goes on up to and at political conventions surprises me.