Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Plutarchy: Obama compels GM CEO to resign
Bush did the same thing to AIG's CEO. What a bad precedent for freedom.
**********************************
GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest
By MIKE ALLEN & JOSH GERSTEIN | 3/29/09 5:23 PM EDT Updated: 3/29/09 7:08 PM EDT Text Size:
The White House confirms Wagoner is leaving at the government's behest.
Photo: AP
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.
On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.
The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.
General Motors issued a vague statement Sunday night that did not officially confirm Wagoner's departure.
"We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement," the company said.
The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.
Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. It is not yet clear who would replace him, or what role the administration would play in that process. GM has received $13.4 billion in government aid, and has been seeking $16.6 billion more.
Industry sources had said the White House planned very tough medicine in Monday's announcement, which turned out to be an understatement. And it went to the very top. The measures to be imposed by the government will have a dramatic effect on workers, unions, suppliers, bondholders, shareholders, retirees and the communities where plants are located, the sources said.
GM and Chrysler have to prove their viability as a condition of a federal bailout released under former President George W. Bush, and both have asked the current administration for more money. Ford has not sought federal funds because it had secured a line of credit just before money dried up.
Obama said Friday in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” broadcast Sunday, that the carmakers were going to have to do more.
“There's been some serious efforts to deal with a combination of long-standing problems in the auto industry,” the president told host Bob Schieffer. “What we're trying to let them know is that we want to have a successful auto industry, U.S. auto industry. We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge at the other end much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is.
See Also
Obama to bankers: 'Help me help you'
Obama: More troops not enough
VIDEO: Geithner: End booms, busts
“And that's gonna mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved — management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers. Everybody's gonna have to come to the table and say it's important for us to take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road."
Schieffer followed up: “But they're not there yet.”
Obama added: “They're not there yet.”
The Obama administration calls its task force “a cabinet-level group that includes the secretaries of Transportation, Commerce, Labor and Energy. It will also include the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA administrator, and the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The Task Force will be led by Treasury Secretary [Tim] Geithner and [National Economic Council] Director Larry Summers.”
The panel’s chief adviser is Steven Rattner, a well-known investment banker and former New York Times reporter.
Obama's move against Wagoner hearkens back to September 2008 when President Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, insisted that AIG CEO Robert Willumstad step down as part of an $85 billion bailout of the insurance giant. Paulson installed in his place Edward Liddy, a former Allstate executive. The AIG bailout has since grown to about $170 billion and Liddy has faced calls for his resignation in the wake of reports about hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of bonuses the firm agreed to pay to employees.
**********************************
GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest
By MIKE ALLEN & JOSH GERSTEIN | 3/29/09 5:23 PM EDT Updated: 3/29/09 7:08 PM EDT Text Size:
The White House confirms Wagoner is leaving at the government's behest.
Photo: AP
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.
On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.
The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.
General Motors issued a vague statement Sunday night that did not officially confirm Wagoner's departure.
"We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement," the company said.
The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.
Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. It is not yet clear who would replace him, or what role the administration would play in that process. GM has received $13.4 billion in government aid, and has been seeking $16.6 billion more.
Industry sources had said the White House planned very tough medicine in Monday's announcement, which turned out to be an understatement. And it went to the very top. The measures to be imposed by the government will have a dramatic effect on workers, unions, suppliers, bondholders, shareholders, retirees and the communities where plants are located, the sources said.
GM and Chrysler have to prove their viability as a condition of a federal bailout released under former President George W. Bush, and both have asked the current administration for more money. Ford has not sought federal funds because it had secured a line of credit just before money dried up.
Obama said Friday in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” broadcast Sunday, that the carmakers were going to have to do more.
“There's been some serious efforts to deal with a combination of long-standing problems in the auto industry,” the president told host Bob Schieffer. “What we're trying to let them know is that we want to have a successful auto industry, U.S. auto industry. We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge at the other end much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is.
See Also
Obama to bankers: 'Help me help you'
Obama: More troops not enough
VIDEO: Geithner: End booms, busts
“And that's gonna mean a set of sacrifices from all parties involved — management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers. Everybody's gonna have to come to the table and say it's important for us to take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road."
Schieffer followed up: “But they're not there yet.”
Obama added: “They're not there yet.”
The Obama administration calls its task force “a cabinet-level group that includes the secretaries of Transportation, Commerce, Labor and Energy. It will also include the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA administrator, and the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The Task Force will be led by Treasury Secretary [Tim] Geithner and [National Economic Council] Director Larry Summers.”
The panel’s chief adviser is Steven Rattner, a well-known investment banker and former New York Times reporter.
Obama's move against Wagoner hearkens back to September 2008 when President Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, insisted that AIG CEO Robert Willumstad step down as part of an $85 billion bailout of the insurance giant. Paulson installed in his place Edward Liddy, a former Allstate executive. The AIG bailout has since grown to about $170 billion and Liddy has faced calls for his resignation in the wake of reports about hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of bonuses the firm agreed to pay to employees.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Belkis Gonzalez abortionist - not prosecuted
Baby born alive in Florida in 2006, but since it was too young to survive outside the womb, she wasn't prosecuted for murder after she killed the child born alive.
****************
****************
Overmothering: CT school bans touching
Only in litigious Connecticut.
**********************************
Connecticut School Bans Physical Contact
East Shore M.S. Outlaws "High-Fives," "Hugging" And Horseplay Of Any Kind; Violators May Face ExpulsionMILFORD, Conn. (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
CBS
1 of 1
Close
numSlides of totalImages Related Slideshows Celebs Who Lean To The Right 2009 Celebrity Deaths Openly Gay Celebrities Jessica Simpson: Then & Now Celebrities Separated At Birth? Celebrities On Twitter Best Picture Blunders Hottest Celebrity Moms Tricia Helfer: Then And Now Hottest Female Athletes Related StoriesLong Island Teacher Accused Of Flashing Students (3/27/2009)
NYC Principal In Hot Water Over 'Buddhist Chants' (3/27/2009)
Teacher Suspended For Student Screwdriver Assault (3/26/2009)
Police Charge Conn. Teacher After Garbage Incident (3/19/2009)
A Connecticut middle school principal has laid down the law: You put your hands on someone -- anyone -- in any way, you're going to pay.
A violent incident that put one student in the hospital has officials at the Milford school implementing a "no touching" policy, according to a letter written by the school's principal.
East Shore Middle School parents said the change came after a student was sent to the hospital after being struck in the groin.
Principal Catherine Williams sent out a letter earlier in the week telling parents recent behavior has seriously impacted the safety and learning at the school.
"Observed behaviors of concern recently exhibited include kicking others in the groin area, grabbing and touching of others in personal areas, hugging and horseplay. Physical contact is prohibited to keep all students safe in the learning environment," Williams wrote.
Students and parents are outraged. They said the new policy means no high-fives and hugs, as well as horseplay of any kind. The consequences could be dire, Williams warned in the letter.
"Potential consequences and disciplinary action may include parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school," Williams wrote.
Many think the school's no tolerance policy goes way too far. Others said it's utterly ridiculous.
"Now it's almost as if it's a sanitized school. Where you have to keep your distance from everybody? And that's not what school is about," one father said.
"What if they are out on the playground at recess, or in gym class?" parent Kathy Casey wondered. "You know, gym class is physical."
**********************************
Connecticut School Bans Physical Contact
East Shore M.S. Outlaws "High-Fives," "Hugging" And Horseplay Of Any Kind; Violators May Face ExpulsionMILFORD, Conn. (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
CBS
1 of 1
Close
numSlides of totalImages Related Slideshows Celebs Who Lean To The Right 2009 Celebrity Deaths Openly Gay Celebrities Jessica Simpson: Then & Now Celebrities Separated At Birth? Celebrities On Twitter Best Picture Blunders Hottest Celebrity Moms Tricia Helfer: Then And Now Hottest Female Athletes Related StoriesLong Island Teacher Accused Of Flashing Students (3/27/2009)
NYC Principal In Hot Water Over 'Buddhist Chants' (3/27/2009)
Teacher Suspended For Student Screwdriver Assault (3/26/2009)
Police Charge Conn. Teacher After Garbage Incident (3/19/2009)
A Connecticut middle school principal has laid down the law: You put your hands on someone -- anyone -- in any way, you're going to pay.
A violent incident that put one student in the hospital has officials at the Milford school implementing a "no touching" policy, according to a letter written by the school's principal.
East Shore Middle School parents said the change came after a student was sent to the hospital after being struck in the groin.
Principal Catherine Williams sent out a letter earlier in the week telling parents recent behavior has seriously impacted the safety and learning at the school.
"Observed behaviors of concern recently exhibited include kicking others in the groin area, grabbing and touching of others in personal areas, hugging and horseplay. Physical contact is prohibited to keep all students safe in the learning environment," Williams wrote.
Students and parents are outraged. They said the new policy means no high-fives and hugs, as well as horseplay of any kind. The consequences could be dire, Williams warned in the letter.
"Potential consequences and disciplinary action may include parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school," Williams wrote.
Many think the school's no tolerance policy goes way too far. Others said it's utterly ridiculous.
"Now it's almost as if it's a sanitized school. Where you have to keep your distance from everybody? And that's not what school is about," one father said.
"What if they are out on the playground at recess, or in gym class?" parent Kathy Casey wondered. "You know, gym class is physical."
Two bishops oppose Obama commencement at Notre Dame
'Notre Dame' means Our Lady in French. Did Mary and Obama agree on abortion?
*********************
SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) - Jimmy Carter came to Notre Dame in 1977. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush in 2001.
The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year's selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.
Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.
The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's largest Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.
"People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it's an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not," said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia.
Justin Mack, a senior film major from Dallas, agreed.
"I didn't vote for him and there are a lot of things I don't agree with him or support. But I feel like for this event people need to put that aside," said Mack, a senior film major from Dallas. "My hope is that doesn't distract too much from what the weekend is about, which is the graduation."
But the distractions have been mounting, including sharply worded letters from two bishops. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese on Wednesday called Obama's selection a "public act of disobedience" and "a grave mistake." On Tuesday, Bishop John D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, said he would not attend the ceremony because of Obama's policies.
Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue have sent letters to the student newspaper, and a coalition of conservative student groups has announced its opposition.
University spokesman Dennis Brown says Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation. Anyone associated with the university can recommend a commencement speaker, he said, and the president consults with university officers to see who would be most appropriate.
Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies but that it's important to engage in conversation.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama believes everyone has the right to express their opinion, saying the president met last week with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and others to discuss topics Obama and the Catholic church are interested in.
"He looks forward to continuing that dialogue in the leadup to the commencement, and looks forward to delivering the address in May," Gibbs said.
Bob Reish, the student body president and a graduating senior, said there is a "general excitement" about Obama's visit, although he is aware there are people on both sides of the issue.
As of 2 p.m. Thursday, The Observer, the student newspaper, had received 612 letters about Obama's appearance—313 from alumni and 299 from current students.
Seventy percent of the alumni letters opposed having Obama giving the speech, while 73 percent of student letters supported his appearance. Among the 95 seniors who wrote letters, 97 percent supported the president's invitation.
Sophomore Kelsey Fletcher, a Japanese major from nearby Elkhart, said she doesn't think the university should have invited Obama to speak.
"He shouldn't be giving the commencement address because of his policies, but once you invite him you can't disinvite him," she said. "That would be rude."
Others noted that Obama is only speaking at three universities this year.
"We can't just forgive his viewpoints, we can't just let it go without expressing our thoughts on it," said Thomas Heitker, a freshman biology major from Columbus, Ohio. "But he's only speaking at three universities this year and to be one out of so many is something we should be proud about."
Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn't see how Obama's appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.
"To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be," he said.
*********************
SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) - Jimmy Carter came to Notre Dame in 1977. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush in 2001.
The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year's selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.
Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.
The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's largest Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.
"People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it's an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not," said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia.
Justin Mack, a senior film major from Dallas, agreed.
"I didn't vote for him and there are a lot of things I don't agree with him or support. But I feel like for this event people need to put that aside," said Mack, a senior film major from Dallas. "My hope is that doesn't distract too much from what the weekend is about, which is the graduation."
But the distractions have been mounting, including sharply worded letters from two bishops. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese on Wednesday called Obama's selection a "public act of disobedience" and "a grave mistake." On Tuesday, Bishop John D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, said he would not attend the ceremony because of Obama's policies.
Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue have sent letters to the student newspaper, and a coalition of conservative student groups has announced its opposition.
University spokesman Dennis Brown says Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation. Anyone associated with the university can recommend a commencement speaker, he said, and the president consults with university officers to see who would be most appropriate.
Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies but that it's important to engage in conversation.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama believes everyone has the right to express their opinion, saying the president met last week with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and others to discuss topics Obama and the Catholic church are interested in.
"He looks forward to continuing that dialogue in the leadup to the commencement, and looks forward to delivering the address in May," Gibbs said.
Bob Reish, the student body president and a graduating senior, said there is a "general excitement" about Obama's visit, although he is aware there are people on both sides of the issue.
As of 2 p.m. Thursday, The Observer, the student newspaper, had received 612 letters about Obama's appearance—313 from alumni and 299 from current students.
Seventy percent of the alumni letters opposed having Obama giving the speech, while 73 percent of student letters supported his appearance. Among the 95 seniors who wrote letters, 97 percent supported the president's invitation.
Sophomore Kelsey Fletcher, a Japanese major from nearby Elkhart, said she doesn't think the university should have invited Obama to speak.
"He shouldn't be giving the commencement address because of his policies, but once you invite him you can't disinvite him," she said. "That would be rude."
Others noted that Obama is only speaking at three universities this year.
"We can't just forgive his viewpoints, we can't just let it go without expressing our thoughts on it," said Thomas Heitker, a freshman biology major from Columbus, Ohio. "But he's only speaking at three universities this year and to be one out of so many is something we should be proud about."
Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn't see how Obama's appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.
"To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be," he said.
Abortionist Tiller acquitted by jury
They said he didn't abuse a conflict of interest on getting a second opinion from an employee required on Kansas law to kill a viable child.
**********************************************************
Mar 27, 5:07 PM (ET)
By ROXANA HEGEMAN
Google sponsored links
Prepare to be Shocked - Millions have already taken this amazing test. What's your RealAge?
RealAge.com
Advanced Chiro & Wellness - Get Out Of Pain Today! Low Back Pain, Headaches, Sciatica
www.acwclinic.com
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - One of the nation's few late-term abortion providers was acquitted Friday of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict was announced the state's medical board announced it was investigating similar allegations against him.
Prosecutors had alleged that Dr. George Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.
Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple declined to speak to reporters afterward.
Tiller, 67, has claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated. An attorney general who opposed abortion rights began the investigation into Tiller's clinic more than four years ago, but both his successor, who filed the criminal charges, and the current attorney general support abortion rights.
Soon after the verdict was announced, the state's Board of Healing Arts made public a complaint against Tiller on allegations similar to those at issue in the criminal case. The complaint was filed in December but not released until Friday.
The board, which regulates doctors, could revoke, suspend or limit Tiller's medical license, or fine him.
Tiller has been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.
Kansas law allows abortions after a fetus can survive outside the womb only if two independent doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that has been interpreted to include mental health.
Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus provided second opinions on late-term abortions before Tiller performed them.
According to trial testimony, Tiller's patients paid Neuhaus $250 to $300 in cash for providing the consultation and the only way patients could see her was to make an appointment with Tiller's office.
Tiller testified that he used Neuhaus based on advice from his lawyers and from Larry Buening, who was then executive director of the Board of Healing Arts.
Prosecutors tried to show that Tiller ultimately relied on his lawyers' advice - an important distinction because the judge told attorneys before their opening statements that relying on the advice of an attorney cannot be used as a legal defense to criminal charges. They also questioned Tiller about the conversation with Buening, noting that Tiller had testified that Buening said he couldn't quote him.
Tiller also testified that in about five cases each year, Neuhaus would disagree with him about the necessity of a late-term abortion. When she declined to concur, the abortion was not done, he said.
Tiller estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000.
Tiller said he is one of three doctors in the U.S. who currently perform late-term abortions. The others are in Boulder, Colo., and Los Angeles, he said.
---
Associated Press Writer John Hanna in Topeka contributed to this report.
---
Case is State v. Tiller, No. 07CR2112 in Sedgwick County.
On the Net:
Attorney general's office: http://www.ksag.org/home
Tiller's clinic: http://www.drtiller.com
**********************************************************
Mar 27, 5:07 PM (ET)
By ROXANA HEGEMAN
Google sponsored links
Prepare to be Shocked - Millions have already taken this amazing test. What's your RealAge?
RealAge.com
Advanced Chiro & Wellness - Get Out Of Pain Today! Low Back Pain, Headaches, Sciatica
www.acwclinic.com
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - One of the nation's few late-term abortion providers was acquitted Friday of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict was announced the state's medical board announced it was investigating similar allegations against him.
Prosecutors had alleged that Dr. George Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.
Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple declined to speak to reporters afterward.
Tiller, 67, has claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated. An attorney general who opposed abortion rights began the investigation into Tiller's clinic more than four years ago, but both his successor, who filed the criminal charges, and the current attorney general support abortion rights.
Soon after the verdict was announced, the state's Board of Healing Arts made public a complaint against Tiller on allegations similar to those at issue in the criminal case. The complaint was filed in December but not released until Friday.
The board, which regulates doctors, could revoke, suspend or limit Tiller's medical license, or fine him.
Tiller has been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.
Kansas law allows abortions after a fetus can survive outside the womb only if two independent doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that has been interpreted to include mental health.
Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus provided second opinions on late-term abortions before Tiller performed them.
According to trial testimony, Tiller's patients paid Neuhaus $250 to $300 in cash for providing the consultation and the only way patients could see her was to make an appointment with Tiller's office.
Tiller testified that he used Neuhaus based on advice from his lawyers and from Larry Buening, who was then executive director of the Board of Healing Arts.
Prosecutors tried to show that Tiller ultimately relied on his lawyers' advice - an important distinction because the judge told attorneys before their opening statements that relying on the advice of an attorney cannot be used as a legal defense to criminal charges. They also questioned Tiller about the conversation with Buening, noting that Tiller had testified that Buening said he couldn't quote him.
Tiller also testified that in about five cases each year, Neuhaus would disagree with him about the necessity of a late-term abortion. When she declined to concur, the abortion was not done, he said.
Tiller estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000.
Tiller said he is one of three doctors in the U.S. who currently perform late-term abortions. The others are in Boulder, Colo., and Los Angeles, he said.
---
Associated Press Writer John Hanna in Topeka contributed to this report.
---
Case is State v. Tiller, No. 07CR2112 in Sedgwick County.
On the Net:
Attorney general's office: http://www.ksag.org/home
Tiller's clinic: http://www.drtiller.com
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Harvard prof: Pope right on condoms and AIDS
People just don't want to state the obvious: the problem with AIDS in Africa is not lack of condoms, but having sex early and often and with many people.
****************
Guess who says pope was right about condoms, AIDS
Harvard scientist: Those mocking pontiff's stand are wrong
Pope Benedict XVI visiting Cameroon
A senior Harvard research scientist confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI, who endured heavy criticism for declaring that condom distribution programs worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa, was actually correct.
Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, told National Review Online last week that despite AIDS activists and media outlets pounding the pope for downplaying the effectiveness of condoms, the science actually supports the Catholic leader's claim.
"The pope is correct," Green told NRO, "or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments."
"There is," Green added, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology."
Aboard a plane traveling to Yaounde, Cameroon, last week, a French reporter told Benedict that the Catholic approach to combating AIDS – encouraging monogamy within marriage and abstinence before – was often considered unrealistic and ineffective.
According to transcripts released by the Vatican, Benedict responded, "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it."
Benedict immediately came under fire in the international press for proclaiming just what Green says the studies support: Encouraging fidelity in sexual relations decreases the spread of AIDS, and condom distribution programs increase it.
(Story continues below)
Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communications and research for the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, blasted the pope for not advocating wide access to condoms as a means of combating AIDS.
"His opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," Hodes told the Associated Press.
Learn how Americans have been sold the idea that what earlier generations condemned now is good, in the best-selling "The Marketing of Evil"
"We call on the Pope to revisit the teachings on condoms with a view to lifting the ban at the earliest possible moment," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "In his review, we want him to include experts who are unequivocal that condoms do in fact help prevent the spread of HIV."
Syndicated columnist Roland Martin writes on CNN.com that the pope's position demonstrated "ignorance of reality."
"For the church," Martin writes, "to continue to ignore the definitive research that condoms play a huge role in decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is mind-boggling."
Even the Vatican, according to a report in the London Times, backtracked slightly on the pope's remarks, adding a word to Benedict's remarks, stating he said distribution of condoms merely "risked" increasing the spread of AIDS.
According to Green, however, the pope's critics have bought into a common myth about condoms and AIDS.
"We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates," said Green, "which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working."
Instead, Green noted, the pope's encouragement of Africans toward monogamous sexual relationships has proven to be a much more effective strategy:
"The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates," Green said.
In Uganda, according to a report in Science magazine, teaching about AIDS and promoting monogamy has led to a dramatic turnaround in the country's AIDS epidemic.
"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk," states the report's summary. "Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70 percent decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60 percent reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about [AIDS] through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80 percent effectiveness."
Green further told NRO, "More and more AIDS experts are coming to accept the above. The two countries with the worst HIV epidemics, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns to discourage multiple and concurrent partners, and to encourage fidelity."
****************
Guess who says pope was right about condoms, AIDS
Harvard scientist: Those mocking pontiff's stand are wrong
Pope Benedict XVI visiting Cameroon
A senior Harvard research scientist confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI, who endured heavy criticism for declaring that condom distribution programs worsen the AIDS epidemic in Africa, was actually correct.
Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, told National Review Online last week that despite AIDS activists and media outlets pounding the pope for downplaying the effectiveness of condoms, the science actually supports the Catholic leader's claim.
"The pope is correct," Green told NRO, "or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments."
"There is," Green added, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology."
Aboard a plane traveling to Yaounde, Cameroon, last week, a French reporter told Benedict that the Catholic approach to combating AIDS – encouraging monogamy within marriage and abstinence before – was often considered unrealistic and ineffective.
According to transcripts released by the Vatican, Benedict responded, "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it."
Benedict immediately came under fire in the international press for proclaiming just what Green says the studies support: Encouraging fidelity in sexual relations decreases the spread of AIDS, and condom distribution programs increase it.
(Story continues below)
Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communications and research for the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, blasted the pope for not advocating wide access to condoms as a means of combating AIDS.
"His opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," Hodes told the Associated Press.
Learn how Americans have been sold the idea that what earlier generations condemned now is good, in the best-selling "The Marketing of Evil"
"We call on the Pope to revisit the teachings on condoms with a view to lifting the ban at the earliest possible moment," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "In his review, we want him to include experts who are unequivocal that condoms do in fact help prevent the spread of HIV."
Syndicated columnist Roland Martin writes on CNN.com that the pope's position demonstrated "ignorance of reality."
"For the church," Martin writes, "to continue to ignore the definitive research that condoms play a huge role in decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is mind-boggling."
Even the Vatican, according to a report in the London Times, backtracked slightly on the pope's remarks, adding a word to Benedict's remarks, stating he said distribution of condoms merely "risked" increasing the spread of AIDS.
According to Green, however, the pope's critics have bought into a common myth about condoms and AIDS.
"We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates," said Green, "which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working."
Instead, Green noted, the pope's encouragement of Africans toward monogamous sexual relationships has proven to be a much more effective strategy:
"The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates," Green said.
In Uganda, according to a report in Science magazine, teaching about AIDS and promoting monogamy has led to a dramatic turnaround in the country's AIDS epidemic.
"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk," states the report's summary. "Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70 percent decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60 percent reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about [AIDS] through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80 percent effectiveness."
Green further told NRO, "More and more AIDS experts are coming to accept the above. The two countries with the worst HIV epidemics, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns to discourage multiple and concurrent partners, and to encourage fidelity."
Russia, China, UN: dump the dollar
Interesting development. Has Obama signalled he wants to do this? This would inhibit our ability to run his deficits. How is this in our interest?
Notre Dame still no spine; Obama speaking May 17th
Come on, Father Jenkins. Obama has taken three swipes at the Catholic faith, and you still invite him.
*******************************
As reported here on First Read Friday, President Obama will be speaking at the University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony on May 17th. While the president will also be speaking at the Naval Academy and Arizona State, those appearances haven’t caused as much uproar as his trip to South Bend, Ind.
In today’s edition of the student newspaper, The Observer, letters to the editor, which are usually reserved for debates over the color of The Shirt or whether it’s proper to chant “Sucks” at sporting events -- was expanded to cover a lively debate over whether Obama should be speaking.
“Obama choice unacceptable,” read one headline, and “Obama a disgrace” shouted another.
The point of contention? The president’s record on issues related to abortion, the majority of which clash with the strict anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church. An online petition has sprung up urging people to voice their complaints to Father John Jenkins, president of the university.
Jenkins said in an interview with the student paper Monday that while there are clear differences between the president and the Catholic church on some issues (abortion and embryonic stem cell research), it was a great honor to have the president accept the university’s offer and that he had no plans to rescind the offer.
A majority of the student body is enthusiastic about President Obama coming to speak -- he won the campus’ mock election 52.6% to 41.1% over Sen. John McCain -- but an active alumni base that skews more conservative than the increasingly liberal campus has been vocal about the selection of the commencement speaker.
“Notre Dame students generally come from conservative backgrounds,” said Mike Laskey, a recent Notre Dame graduate who wrote on the subject of ideological shifts among the student body in his position as executive director of Scholastic, Notre Dame’s campus magazine. “A good college education anywhere introduces new ways of looking at the world and shakes up students' perspectives. Because students come in conservative but not strongly formed, it makes sense that many experience an ideological shift to the left.”
The president’s decision to speak at Notre Dame also highlights the growing importance of northern Indiana in national politics. In the 2004 election, former President George W. Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry by two points in St. Joseph’s County (where Notre Dame is located).
In 2008, Obama defeated McCain by 17 points, helping the Hoosier State go blue for the first time since 1968.
*******************************
As reported here on First Read Friday, President Obama will be speaking at the University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony on May 17th. While the president will also be speaking at the Naval Academy and Arizona State, those appearances haven’t caused as much uproar as his trip to South Bend, Ind.
In today’s edition of the student newspaper, The Observer, letters to the editor, which are usually reserved for debates over the color of The Shirt or whether it’s proper to chant “Sucks” at sporting events -- was expanded to cover a lively debate over whether Obama should be speaking.
“Obama choice unacceptable,” read one headline, and “Obama a disgrace” shouted another.
The point of contention? The president’s record on issues related to abortion, the majority of which clash with the strict anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church. An online petition has sprung up urging people to voice their complaints to Father John Jenkins, president of the university.
Jenkins said in an interview with the student paper Monday that while there are clear differences between the president and the Catholic church on some issues (abortion and embryonic stem cell research), it was a great honor to have the president accept the university’s offer and that he had no plans to rescind the offer.
A majority of the student body is enthusiastic about President Obama coming to speak -- he won the campus’ mock election 52.6% to 41.1% over Sen. John McCain -- but an active alumni base that skews more conservative than the increasingly liberal campus has been vocal about the selection of the commencement speaker.
“Notre Dame students generally come from conservative backgrounds,” said Mike Laskey, a recent Notre Dame graduate who wrote on the subject of ideological shifts among the student body in his position as executive director of Scholastic, Notre Dame’s campus magazine. “A good college education anywhere introduces new ways of looking at the world and shakes up students' perspectives. Because students come in conservative but not strongly formed, it makes sense that many experience an ideological shift to the left.”
The president’s decision to speak at Notre Dame also highlights the growing importance of northern Indiana in national politics. In the 2004 election, former President George W. Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry by two points in St. Joseph’s County (where Notre Dame is located).
In 2008, Obama defeated McCain by 17 points, helping the Hoosier State go blue for the first time since 1968.
Bravo Obama on rejecting the 90% tax
Need to give credit where it's due. The House plan to tax AIG executives would have set a very bad precedent and abuse of political power - no matter how poor judgment AIG showed by setting up those bonuses, or how poor judgment the government had originally by not preventing them during the bailout.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Second baby boom?
Report out today that says 4.3 million babies were born in 2007, more than in 1957, the peak of the baby boom. Just think if we would have added to that the 1.6 million babies aborted in 2007.
Startling illigetimacy rate:
"A record 39.7 percent of babies in 2007 were born to unmarried women, including 71.6 percent of black babies and 51.3 percent of Hispanic babies, the report found."
Startling illigetimacy rate:
"A record 39.7 percent of babies in 2007 were born to unmarried women, including 71.6 percent of black babies and 51.3 percent of Hispanic babies, the report found."
Obama AIG's top candidate for contributions
Woops there goes the credibility.
***************************
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
March 17, 3:01 PM · 218 comments
ShareThis Feed
AP Photo/Ron EdmondsSenator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
***************************
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
March 17, 3:01 PM · 218 comments
ShareThis Feed
AP Photo/Ron EdmondsSenator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bailing out millionaire executives
This is unconscionable.
**************************
Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital
By Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 17, 2009; A01
President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.
Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday's rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.
The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $170 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer yesterday afternoon. He explained that government lawyers are "looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients."
Obama himself sought to channel the public's sense of disbelief yesterday. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" he said, declaring the bonuses an "outrage" that violate "fundamental values."
White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president's sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.
But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically impossible position.
"I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bonus issue added to his belief that there will be almost no Republican support for any expansion of a bank-bailout program that passed Congress last fall with broad bipartisan support.
"What is the government's exit strategy from this sweeping involvement in private business?" he asked in a statement, adding that "taxpayers are not receiving an adequate accounting from either the Treasury or the management of the companies that received taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen such a plan."
The rhetoric grew so heated yesterday that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested in a radio interview that AIG executives ought to "follow the Japanese model . . . resign, or go commit suicide." An aide later explained he does not actually want executives to kill themselves.
More than 80 House Democrats signed a letter demanding that the money used to pay the bonuses be recouped from AIG. New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will subpoena the Manhattan-based company, seeking data documenting who received the bonuses and the justification for them.
"You could argue that if taxpayers hadn't bailed out AIG, the contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they were signed on," Cuomo said.
**************************
Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital
By Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 17, 2009; A01
President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.
Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday's rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.
The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $170 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer yesterday afternoon. He explained that government lawyers are "looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients."
Obama himself sought to channel the public's sense of disbelief yesterday. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" he said, declaring the bonuses an "outrage" that violate "fundamental values."
White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president's sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.
But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically impossible position.
"I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bonus issue added to his belief that there will be almost no Republican support for any expansion of a bank-bailout program that passed Congress last fall with broad bipartisan support.
"What is the government's exit strategy from this sweeping involvement in private business?" he asked in a statement, adding that "taxpayers are not receiving an adequate accounting from either the Treasury or the management of the companies that received taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen such a plan."
The rhetoric grew so heated yesterday that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested in a radio interview that AIG executives ought to "follow the Japanese model . . . resign, or go commit suicide." An aide later explained he does not actually want executives to kill themselves.
More than 80 House Democrats signed a letter demanding that the money used to pay the bonuses be recouped from AIG. New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will subpoena the Manhattan-based company, seeking data documenting who received the bonuses and the justification for them.
"You could argue that if taxpayers hadn't bailed out AIG, the contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they were signed on," Cuomo said.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Obama progressive? No, progressively worse
I'm in favor of helping people who need help, but not in spending recklessly. That helps no one. According to the latest polls, Obama's popularity has plunged, largely because of this massive reckless stimulus plan.
***************
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.
Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.
***************
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.
Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.
China to slow buying US treasuries
Ouch. A very bad result of the huge deficits Obama has created.
*****************************************************************
China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings
Mar 13 05:01 AM US/Eastern
By JOE McDONALD
AP Business Writer Comments (10) Share on Facebook
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao gestures during a news conference after the...
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao waves to journalists as he arrives at a news...
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, right, chats with National People's Congress...
Volcker: ‘Big Economic Problems Behind The Financial System’
White House Spokesman: No Safer Investment in World Than the United States
BEIJING (AP) - China's premier expressed concern Friday about its holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value, and said Beijing is ready to expand its stimulus if economic conditions worsen.
Premier Wen Jiabao noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States and called on Washington to see that its response to the global slowdown does not damage the value of Chinese holdings.
"We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference following the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."
Analysts estimate that nearly half of China's $2 trillion in currency reserves are in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.
Wen's comments foreshadowed possible appeals to President Barack Obama, who will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at a London summit of leaders of the G-20 group of major economies on April 2 to discuss the global financial crisis.
Washington is counting on China to continue buying Treasuries to fund its massive stimulus package. Last month, visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure Beijing that government debt would remain a reliable investment.
China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, said Wednesday during a visit to Washington that Beijing wants to "strengthen macroeconomic policy dialogue" with the Obama administration.
"They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher," said JP Morgan economist Frank Gong. "Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries."
*****************************************************************
China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings
Mar 13 05:01 AM US/Eastern
By JOE McDONALD
AP Business Writer Comments (10) Share on Facebook
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao gestures during a news conference after the...
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao waves to journalists as he arrives at a news...
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, right, chats with National People's Congress...
Volcker: ‘Big Economic Problems Behind The Financial System’
White House Spokesman: No Safer Investment in World Than the United States
BEIJING (AP) - China's premier expressed concern Friday about its holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value, and said Beijing is ready to expand its stimulus if economic conditions worsen.
Premier Wen Jiabao noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States and called on Washington to see that its response to the global slowdown does not damage the value of Chinese holdings.
"We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference following the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."
Analysts estimate that nearly half of China's $2 trillion in currency reserves are in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.
Wen's comments foreshadowed possible appeals to President Barack Obama, who will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at a London summit of leaders of the G-20 group of major economies on April 2 to discuss the global financial crisis.
Washington is counting on China to continue buying Treasuries to fund its massive stimulus package. Last month, visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure Beijing that government debt would remain a reliable investment.
China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, said Wednesday during a visit to Washington that Beijing wants to "strengthen macroeconomic policy dialogue" with the Obama administration.
"They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher," said JP Morgan economist Frank Gong. "Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
"48 Liberal Lies About America"
Came across this on Amazon today...
48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School) (Hardcover)
by Larry Schweikart (Author)
48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School) (Hardcover)
by Larry Schweikart (Author)
UN's Ban calls US "dead beat"
Is this called good manners in Korea?
********************************
White House objects to UN calling US 'deadbeat'
Mar 12 02:18 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House objected Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's description of the United States as a "deadbeat" donor to the world body.
Ban used the phrase Wednesday during a private meeting with lawmakers at the Capitol, one day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban's "word choice was unfortunate," given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.
The United States pays 22 percent of the organization's nearly $5 billion operating budget but is perennially late paying its dues.
Asked whether Ban should retract his comment, Gibbs said some recognition by Ban of the U.S. role would be appropriate.
"I think given the contribution that the American taxpayer makes, I do think it would be appropriate to acknowledge that role," Gibbs told reporters at his daily briefing.
Ban, apparently concerned about his choice of words, issued a statement late Wednesday saying the U.S. "generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions." Ban also said he enjoys "an excellent working relationship with the United States and appreciates the many ways that it supports the United Nations."
********************************
White House objects to UN calling US 'deadbeat'
Mar 12 02:18 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House objected Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's description of the United States as a "deadbeat" donor to the world body.
Ban used the phrase Wednesday during a private meeting with lawmakers at the Capitol, one day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban's "word choice was unfortunate," given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.
The United States pays 22 percent of the organization's nearly $5 billion operating budget but is perennially late paying its dues.
Asked whether Ban should retract his comment, Gibbs said some recognition by Ban of the U.S. role would be appropriate.
"I think given the contribution that the American taxpayer makes, I do think it would be appropriate to acknowledge that role," Gibbs told reporters at his daily briefing.
Ban, apparently concerned about his choice of words, issued a statement late Wednesday saying the U.S. "generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions." Ban also said he enjoys "an excellent working relationship with the United States and appreciates the many ways that it supports the United Nations."
Disney CEO curses out conservative at shareholder meeting
Newsmax: The Walt Disney Company has edited out of the webcast version of its March 10 annual shareholder meeting an incident in which Disney CEO Robert Iger dropped the "f-bomb" on conservative activist and Disney investor Tom Borelli.
Breitbart.tv editors note: This condensed clip isolates the moment of the apparent edit at the :21 second mark. It's during the gap at that point that Tom Borelli says this happened: "After I finished my presentation I again walked by Iger and offered my hand once again. He just stared at me and said "F--- Y--." I immediately walked back to the podium where I told the audience what Iger said to me."
Breitbart.tv editors note: This condensed clip isolates the moment of the apparent edit at the :21 second mark. It's during the gap at that point that Tom Borelli says this happened: "After I finished my presentation I again walked by Iger and offered my hand once again. He just stared at me and said "F--- Y--." I immediately walked back to the podium where I told the audience what Iger said to me."
Boys will be...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrBaV5MvX_4&eurl=http://www.wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=5134543&feature=player_embedded
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Snopes.com liberal?
Good chances, based on its location.
***************************************
Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard's curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.
In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories, is not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect – but rather, the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb.
And though Snopes arguably deserves the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible – which it definitely is not, say critics. Yet today, major news organizations such as the Associated Press and MSNBC cite Snopes as a definitive source for determining accuracy in suspicious stories. Six to 8 million viewers visit the site monthly. National Review Online calls Snopes "indispensable."
***************************************
Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard's curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.
In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories, is not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect – but rather, the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb.
And though Snopes arguably deserves the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible – which it definitely is not, say critics. Yet today, major news organizations such as the Associated Press and MSNBC cite Snopes as a definitive source for determining accuracy in suspicious stories. Six to 8 million viewers visit the site monthly. National Review Online calls Snopes "indispensable."
Hollywood payback time against Mormons?
HBO has offices in LA and New York. Any connection here with the Mormons opposing gay marriage in California?
********************
"Big Love" network apologizes to Mormons
Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:14pm EDT
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - HBO, the network behind television polygamy drama "Big Love," apologized on Tuesday for any offense to Mormons in a depiction of a sacred ritual but made clear it would air the controversial episode as planned.
The HBO network's program about a non-Mormon polygamous family has stirred up a hornet's nest of complaints over an episode to be broadcast on Sunday showing its version of an endowment ceremony within a Mormon temple.
It is thought to be the first time the ritual, in which participants move to a higher level of understanding of their religion, will be shown on TV.
News of the episode prompted calls and e-mails for cancellation or an HBO boycott by angry members of the Mormon Church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
The Church itself has not officially called for a boycott.
"Big Love," which first aired in 2006, stars Bill Paxton as a member of a fictional breakaway Mormon sect who has three wives and eight children.
HBO said on Tuesday the writers had gone to great lengths "to be respectful and accurate" in the ceremony's portrayal.
"Obviously, it was not our intention to do anything disrespectful to the church, but to those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology," the network said in a statement. In a separate statement, the creators of the series said they "took great pains to depict the ceremony with the dignity and reverence it is due."
'JUST OFFENSIVE'
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, based in Utah, has some 13.5 million members around the world. It officially banned polygamy in 1890, sixty years after it was founded, but the practice continues in some breakaway sects.
The furor reflected the dilemma faced by Mormons as the growing Church takes its place in mainstream society.
"This is a very sacred event in the lives of LDS church members. To have it splashed all over television for entertainment purposes (and ultimately for monetary gain) is just offensive," wrote a poster called "nanberg" on HBO's official "Big Love" message board on Tuesday.
The Church refrained from calling for a boycott of HBO, or sister companies owned by corporate parent Time Warner Inc, such as Internet service provider AOL. But the Church did recognize that individual members might do so.
"Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding," LDS said in a statement on Monday.
"Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose. The Church ... as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series," it added.
The LDS statement said that, despite assurances three years ago from HBO and the creators of "Big Love" that the show was not about Mormons, Mormon themes and increasingly unsympathetic characters were being woven into the show.
The Church was thrust into the spotlight last year for supporting a ban on gay marriage in California and during the removal of more than 400 children from a Texas polygamist ranch in response to an abuse complaint.
The LDS statement urged followers to behave with dignity, saying there was no evidence that extreme misrepresentations "have any long-term negative effect on the Church."
(Editing by Eric Walsh)
********************
"Big Love" network apologizes to Mormons
Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:14pm EDT
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - HBO, the network behind television polygamy drama "Big Love," apologized on Tuesday for any offense to Mormons in a depiction of a sacred ritual but made clear it would air the controversial episode as planned.
The HBO network's program about a non-Mormon polygamous family has stirred up a hornet's nest of complaints over an episode to be broadcast on Sunday showing its version of an endowment ceremony within a Mormon temple.
It is thought to be the first time the ritual, in which participants move to a higher level of understanding of their religion, will be shown on TV.
News of the episode prompted calls and e-mails for cancellation or an HBO boycott by angry members of the Mormon Church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
The Church itself has not officially called for a boycott.
"Big Love," which first aired in 2006, stars Bill Paxton as a member of a fictional breakaway Mormon sect who has three wives and eight children.
HBO said on Tuesday the writers had gone to great lengths "to be respectful and accurate" in the ceremony's portrayal.
"Obviously, it was not our intention to do anything disrespectful to the church, but to those who may be offended, we offer our sincere apology," the network said in a statement. In a separate statement, the creators of the series said they "took great pains to depict the ceremony with the dignity and reverence it is due."
'JUST OFFENSIVE'
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, based in Utah, has some 13.5 million members around the world. It officially banned polygamy in 1890, sixty years after it was founded, but the practice continues in some breakaway sects.
The furor reflected the dilemma faced by Mormons as the growing Church takes its place in mainstream society.
"This is a very sacred event in the lives of LDS church members. To have it splashed all over television for entertainment purposes (and ultimately for monetary gain) is just offensive," wrote a poster called "nanberg" on HBO's official "Big Love" message board on Tuesday.
The Church refrained from calling for a boycott of HBO, or sister companies owned by corporate parent Time Warner Inc, such as Internet service provider AOL. But the Church did recognize that individual members might do so.
"Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding," LDS said in a statement on Monday.
"Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose. The Church ... as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series," it added.
The LDS statement said that, despite assurances three years ago from HBO and the creators of "Big Love" that the show was not about Mormons, Mormon themes and increasingly unsympathetic characters were being woven into the show.
The Church was thrust into the spotlight last year for supporting a ban on gay marriage in California and during the removal of more than 400 children from a Texas polygamist ranch in response to an abuse complaint.
The LDS statement urged followers to behave with dignity, saying there was no evidence that extreme misrepresentations "have any long-term negative effect on the Church."
(Editing by Eric Walsh)
Monday, March 9, 2009
3 liberals, 3 different votes
Was having a beer with an investment banker at a big firm and an attorney at a small firm. The banker, a pro-life Catholic in the modern mold, voted for Obama. "First time I didn't vote Republican. But he has the leadership skills we need." The attorney, youngest in a big batch of Catholic kids, has fallen away from the Church. He challenged the banker: "I'm not Catholic anymore but I agree with the Church - there have to be membership requirements. Why vote pro-choice and be a Catholic?" It didn't sound like he voted for McCain though. I think he went libertarian. That left me.
Saudis sentence old woman to lashing for mingling
Some of my fellow liberals try to understand and tolerate the abuses of women in Muslim countries. This is over the top though.
***************
Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes
Mar 9 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press Writer Comments (0) Share on Facebook
CAIRO (AP) - A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.
The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.
He said his client, who is not serving her sentence yet, was not speaking with the media, and he declined to provide more details about the case.
The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.
Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.
The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.
"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed," the court verdict read.
Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.
Complaints from Saudis have been growing that the religious police and courts are overstepping their broad mandate and interfering in people's lives, and critics lambasted the handling of Sawadi's case.
"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."
Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.
Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case "so everybody knows to what degree we have reached."
The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment.
***************
Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes
Mar 9 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press Writer Comments (0) Share on Facebook
CAIRO (AP) - A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.
The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.
He said his client, who is not serving her sentence yet, was not speaking with the media, and he declined to provide more details about the case.
The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.
Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.
The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.
"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed," the court verdict read.
Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.
Complaints from Saudis have been growing that the religious police and courts are overstepping their broad mandate and interfering in people's lives, and critics lambasted the handling of Sawadi's case.
"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."
Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.
Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case "so everybody knows to what degree we have reached."
The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment.
Vermont most nonreligious state
Ben and Jerry would be happy. Here's the study...
***********
More Americans say they have no religion
By RACHEL ZOLL – 18 hours ago
A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.
Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.
Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.
The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.
Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.
Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.
The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.
Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.
The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.
On the Net:
Survey results: http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/
***********
More Americans say they have no religion
By RACHEL ZOLL – 18 hours ago
A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.
Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.
Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.
The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.
Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.
Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.
The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.
Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.
The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.
On the Net:
Survey results: http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/
Armenian (Christian) genocide in Turkey
And they expect to join the EU, without admitting this past? Come on European liberals, hold them accountable.
*************************************
A devastating document is met with silence in Turkey
By Sabrina Tavernise Published: March 9, 2009
ISTANBUL: For Turkey, the number should have been a bombshell.
According to a long-hidden document that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, 972,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916.
In Turkey, any discussion of what happened to the Ottoman Armenians can bring a storm of public outrage. But since its publication in a book in January, the number - and its Ottoman source - has gone virtually unmentioned. Newspapers hardly wrote about it. Television shows have not discussed it.
"Nothing," said Murat Bardakci, the Turkish author and columnist who compiled the book.
The silence can mean only one thing, he said: "My numbers are too high for ordinary people. Maybe people aren't ready to talk about it yet."
Today in Europe
A devastating document is met with silence in TurkeyGerman vote a turning point on Russia and its energyRebuilding comes slowly in South Ossetian capitalFor generations, most Turks knew nothing of the details of the Armenian genocide from 1915 to 1918, when more than a million Armenians were killed as the Ottoman Turk government purged the population.
Turkey locked the ugliest parts of its past out of sight, Soviet-style, keeping any mention of the events out of schoolbooks and official narratives in an aggressive campaign of forgetting.
But in the past 10 years, as civil society has flourished here, some parts of Turkish society are now openly questioning the state's version of events. In December, a group of intellectuals circulated a petition that apologized for the denial of the massacres. Some 29,000 people have signed it.
With his book, "The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha," Bardakci (pronounced bard-AK-chuh) has become, rather unwillingly, part of this ferment. The book is a collection of documents and records that once belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect of the Armenian deportations.
The documents, given to Bardakci by Talat's widow, Hayriye, before she died in 1983, include lists of population figures. Before 1915, 1,256,000 Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire, according to the documents. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later, Bardakci said.
To the untrained ear, it is simply a sad statistic. But anyone familiar with the issue knows the numbers are in fierce dispute.
Turkey has never acknowledged a specific number of deportees or deaths. On Sunday, the Turkish foreign minister, Ali Babacan, warned that President Barack Obama might set back relations if he recognized the massacre of Armenians as genocide ahead of his visit to Turkey next month.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was bloody, the Turkish argument goes, and those who died were victims of that chaos.
Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only the result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide, and says that Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.
"It was not a Nazi policy or a Holocaust," he said. "These were very dark times. It was a very difficult decision. But deportation was the outcome of some very bloody events. It was necessary for the government to deport the Armenian population."
This argument is rejected by most scholars, who believe that the small number of Armenian rebels were not a serious threat to the Ottoman Empire, and that the policy was more the product of the perception that the Armenians, non-Muslims and therefore considered untrustworthy, were a problem population.
Hilmar Kaiser, a historian and expert on the Armenian genocide, said the records published in the book were conclusive proof from the Ottoman authority itself that it had pursued a calculated policy to eliminate the Armenians. "You have suddenly on one page confirmation of the numbers," he said. "It was like someone hit you over the head with a club."
Kaiser said the before-and-after figures amounted to "a death record."
"There is no other way of viewing this document," he said. "You can't just hide a million people."
Other scholars said that the number is a useful addition to the historical record but that it does not introduce a new version of events.
"This corroborates what we already knew," said Donald Bloxham, the author of "The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians."
Bardakci is a history buff who learned to read and write Ottoman script from his grandmother, allowing him to navigate Turkey's written past, something that most Turks are unable to do. He plays the tanbur, a traditional string instrument. His grandfather was a member of the same political party as Talat, and his family knew many of the important political figures in Turkey's founding.
*************************************
A devastating document is met with silence in Turkey
By Sabrina Tavernise Published: March 9, 2009
ISTANBUL: For Turkey, the number should have been a bombshell.
According to a long-hidden document that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, 972,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916.
In Turkey, any discussion of what happened to the Ottoman Armenians can bring a storm of public outrage. But since its publication in a book in January, the number - and its Ottoman source - has gone virtually unmentioned. Newspapers hardly wrote about it. Television shows have not discussed it.
"Nothing," said Murat Bardakci, the Turkish author and columnist who compiled the book.
The silence can mean only one thing, he said: "My numbers are too high for ordinary people. Maybe people aren't ready to talk about it yet."
Today in Europe
A devastating document is met with silence in TurkeyGerman vote a turning point on Russia and its energyRebuilding comes slowly in South Ossetian capitalFor generations, most Turks knew nothing of the details of the Armenian genocide from 1915 to 1918, when more than a million Armenians were killed as the Ottoman Turk government purged the population.
Turkey locked the ugliest parts of its past out of sight, Soviet-style, keeping any mention of the events out of schoolbooks and official narratives in an aggressive campaign of forgetting.
But in the past 10 years, as civil society has flourished here, some parts of Turkish society are now openly questioning the state's version of events. In December, a group of intellectuals circulated a petition that apologized for the denial of the massacres. Some 29,000 people have signed it.
With his book, "The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha," Bardakci (pronounced bard-AK-chuh) has become, rather unwillingly, part of this ferment. The book is a collection of documents and records that once belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect of the Armenian deportations.
The documents, given to Bardakci by Talat's widow, Hayriye, before she died in 1983, include lists of population figures. Before 1915, 1,256,000 Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire, according to the documents. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later, Bardakci said.
To the untrained ear, it is simply a sad statistic. But anyone familiar with the issue knows the numbers are in fierce dispute.
Turkey has never acknowledged a specific number of deportees or deaths. On Sunday, the Turkish foreign minister, Ali Babacan, warned that President Barack Obama might set back relations if he recognized the massacre of Armenians as genocide ahead of his visit to Turkey next month.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was bloody, the Turkish argument goes, and those who died were victims of that chaos.
Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only the result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide, and says that Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.
"It was not a Nazi policy or a Holocaust," he said. "These were very dark times. It was a very difficult decision. But deportation was the outcome of some very bloody events. It was necessary for the government to deport the Armenian population."
This argument is rejected by most scholars, who believe that the small number of Armenian rebels were not a serious threat to the Ottoman Empire, and that the policy was more the product of the perception that the Armenians, non-Muslims and therefore considered untrustworthy, were a problem population.
Hilmar Kaiser, a historian and expert on the Armenian genocide, said the records published in the book were conclusive proof from the Ottoman authority itself that it had pursued a calculated policy to eliminate the Armenians. "You have suddenly on one page confirmation of the numbers," he said. "It was like someone hit you over the head with a club."
Kaiser said the before-and-after figures amounted to "a death record."
"There is no other way of viewing this document," he said. "You can't just hide a million people."
Other scholars said that the number is a useful addition to the historical record but that it does not introduce a new version of events.
"This corroborates what we already knew," said Donald Bloxham, the author of "The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians."
Bardakci is a history buff who learned to read and write Ottoman script from his grandmother, allowing him to navigate Turkey's written past, something that most Turks are unable to do. He plays the tanbur, a traditional string instrument. His grandfather was a member of the same political party as Talat, and his family knew many of the important political figures in Turkey's founding.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The UN's Gender Advisor
From the Inner City Press...
***************
In Demoting Anna Tibaijuka, UN's Ban Did Not Consult His Gender Advisor, It Seems, UNIFEM Has No Comment
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- At the UN celebrated Women's Day and itself, questions continued to grow about its demotion of Tanzanian Anna Tibaijuka from the top post at the UN Office in Nairobi. Ban Ki-moon's Special Advisor on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Woman, Rachel Mayanja, was asked by Inner City Press if Ban consulted her before demoting one of his most senior female officials.
"I am not very familiar with this issue," Ms. Mayanja said. "I need to look into it and get properly informed before answering to you." Video here, from Minute 5:45. It seems clear that Ban did not consult his Special Adviser on Women's Advancement before demoting a top female UN official.
Nor has Ban complied with the UN General Assembly's call that he appoint an independent Special Adviser on Africa. It is known that Ambassadors, for example from Mozambique, have written in protest to Ban. His spokesman, however, said he remains "comfortable" with his decision.
UN"s Rachel Mayanja, comment on Tibaijuka demotion not yet shown
Ban is calling on Sudan's al-Bashir to reconsider his decision to expel NGOs from Darfur. Ban has been asked to reconsider his demotion of Tibaijuka in favor of the German Achim Steiner. But on Thursday on the UN's intranet, the appointment of Steiner was formally announced.
No one at Headquarters seems to want to answer on this. Representatives of UNIFEM, the UN's women's agency and of ECA, Economic Commission for Africa, both declined comment when asked by Inner City Press. But the questions continue to grow. Watch this site.
***************
In Demoting Anna Tibaijuka, UN's Ban Did Not Consult His Gender Advisor, It Seems, UNIFEM Has No Comment
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- At the UN celebrated Women's Day and itself, questions continued to grow about its demotion of Tanzanian Anna Tibaijuka from the top post at the UN Office in Nairobi. Ban Ki-moon's Special Advisor on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Woman, Rachel Mayanja, was asked by Inner City Press if Ban consulted her before demoting one of his most senior female officials.
"I am not very familiar with this issue," Ms. Mayanja said. "I need to look into it and get properly informed before answering to you." Video here, from Minute 5:45. It seems clear that Ban did not consult his Special Adviser on Women's Advancement before demoting a top female UN official.
Nor has Ban complied with the UN General Assembly's call that he appoint an independent Special Adviser on Africa. It is known that Ambassadors, for example from Mozambique, have written in protest to Ban. His spokesman, however, said he remains "comfortable" with his decision.
UN"s Rachel Mayanja, comment on Tibaijuka demotion not yet shown
Ban is calling on Sudan's al-Bashir to reconsider his decision to expel NGOs from Darfur. Ban has been asked to reconsider his demotion of Tibaijuka in favor of the German Achim Steiner. But on Thursday on the UN's intranet, the appointment of Steiner was formally announced.
No one at Headquarters seems to want to answer on this. Representatives of UNIFEM, the UN's women's agency and of ECA, Economic Commission for Africa, both declined comment when asked by Inner City Press. But the questions continue to grow. Watch this site.
Wikipedia "administrator" volunteers truly liberal?
It's one thing to support a fellow liberal. Quite another to use fascist tactics while doing so. I've heard of other instances of the Wikipedia henchmen trying to control their reality.
******************
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
From Wikipedia's Barack Obama page
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:
"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."
As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.
According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.
Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.
Over the last month, we have monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.
Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.
"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."
According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.
Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio
The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.
For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.
That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."
Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.
We monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.
******************
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
From Wikipedia's Barack Obama page
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:
"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."
As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.
According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.
Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.
Over the last month, we have monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.
Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.
"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."
According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.
Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio
The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.
For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.
That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."
Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.
We monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
UN to ban anti-Muslim speech
From CNN...
Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations are once again pushing a religious "anti-defamation" plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.
According to a report by CNN's Lou Dobbs posted on YouTube, the proposal that has been repeatedly brought in recent years by the Organization of Islamic Conference states is expected to resurface as early as this spring.
This time, however, the resolution wouldn't allow nations to opt out.
"The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion," Dobbs said in the report. "The U.N. now wants to make that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course, our own. That would make it a crime in the United States ... to criticize religion, in particular, Islam."
The most recent U.N. General Assembly vote – which was 86 in favor, 53 opposed and 42 abstentions – was a dramatic shift from the vote from one year ago, which was 108-51-25.
Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations are once again pushing a religious "anti-defamation" plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.
According to a report by CNN's Lou Dobbs posted on YouTube, the proposal that has been repeatedly brought in recent years by the Organization of Islamic Conference states is expected to resurface as early as this spring.
This time, however, the resolution wouldn't allow nations to opt out.
"The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion," Dobbs said in the report. "The U.N. now wants to make that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course, our own. That would make it a crime in the United States ... to criticize religion, in particular, Islam."
The most recent U.N. General Assembly vote – which was 86 in favor, 53 opposed and 42 abstentions – was a dramatic shift from the vote from one year ago, which was 108-51-25.
Protestants getting ashes in Chicago
I was boarding a plane out of the West Coast on Ash Wednesday, still with ashes on my forehead, when a southern baptist struck up conversation with me. He was utterly impressed with this practice he'd never seen before.
A friend from Chicago later told me that people were lined up around the block all day at St Peter's in the Loop to get their ashes. In fact, this happened all over town. By the demeanor of lots of them -- not genuflecting upon arriving, lots of them black, you could guess a number weren't Catholic.
Are ashes cool in Chicago?
A friend from Chicago later told me that people were lined up around the block all day at St Peter's in the Loop to get their ashes. In fact, this happened all over town. By the demeanor of lots of them -- not genuflecting upon arriving, lots of them black, you could guess a number weren't Catholic.
Are ashes cool in Chicago?
Winnipeg beheader of sleeping Greyhound passenger not guilty
Hmmm... we progressives like to rehabilitate criminals and be mindful of environmental causes and mental illnesses, but this one boggles the mind...
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) - A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness.
The decision means Chinese immigrant Vince Li will be treated in a mental institution instead of going to prison. The family of victim Tim McLean dismissed the trial as a "rubber stamp" that allows Li to get away with murder.
"A crime was still committed here, a murder still occurred," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife, slicing up my child."
The judge said Li should not be held criminally accountable for stabbing McLean dozens of times last July and dismembering his body while horrified passengers fled.
Justice John Scurfield said Li's attack was "grotesque" and "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder."
"He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self-defense," Scurfield said.
Both the prosecution and the defense argued Li can't be held responsible because Li was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil.
He will be institutionalized without a criminal record and will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community.
DeDelley said a yearly hearing is ridiculous, and that Li should be locked up for the rest of his life.
Li's trial barely lasted two days and only heard from two witnesses, both psychiatrists, who testified he is mentally ill.
That Li killed the 22-year-old carnival worker was never in question at the trial. Li has admitted he killed McLean but pleaded not guilty.
Witnesses said Li attacked McLean unprovoked as their bus traveled at night along a desolate stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway.
An agreed statement of facts between the prosecution and defense detailed how passengers stood outside the bus as Li stabbed McLean dozens of times and beheaded and mutilated his body. Finding himself locked inside the bus, Li finally escaped through a window and was arrested.
Li then apologized and pleaded with police to kill him.
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) - A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness.
The decision means Chinese immigrant Vince Li will be treated in a mental institution instead of going to prison. The family of victim Tim McLean dismissed the trial as a "rubber stamp" that allows Li to get away with murder.
"A crime was still committed here, a murder still occurred," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife, slicing up my child."
The judge said Li should not be held criminally accountable for stabbing McLean dozens of times last July and dismembering his body while horrified passengers fled.
Justice John Scurfield said Li's attack was "grotesque" and "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder."
"He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self-defense," Scurfield said.
Both the prosecution and the defense argued Li can't be held responsible because Li was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil.
He will be institutionalized without a criminal record and will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community.
DeDelley said a yearly hearing is ridiculous, and that Li should be locked up for the rest of his life.
Li's trial barely lasted two days and only heard from two witnesses, both psychiatrists, who testified he is mentally ill.
That Li killed the 22-year-old carnival worker was never in question at the trial. Li has admitted he killed McLean but pleaded not guilty.
Witnesses said Li attacked McLean unprovoked as their bus traveled at night along a desolate stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway.
An agreed statement of facts between the prosecution and defense detailed how passengers stood outside the bus as Li stabbed McLean dozens of times and beheaded and mutilated his body. Finding himself locked inside the bus, Li finally escaped through a window and was arrested.
Li then apologized and pleaded with police to kill him.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Quo Warranto
Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
According to Constitution.org: "The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of Quo Warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
According to Constitution.org: "The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of Quo Warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
