Pennsylvanian in exile

After 36 years of steady membership decline, the United Methodist Communications Commission proposed to the denomination’s 2000 General Conference an ambitious national media outreach campaign. Without major debate, delegates overwhelmingly approved $20 million for the “Igniting Ministry” campaign over the next four years.

But United Methodism has lost over 300,000 members since the campaign begin, at a rate of decline even faster than prior to the ads.

Some evangelicals have complained about the theological implications of the ad campaign’s slogan: “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” Some liberals have complained that the ads are false because the church will not bless same-sex unions or affirm homosexual clergy.

But in 2004, the delegates overwhelmingly approved another $27.4 million for the ads. One delegate optimistically declared: “Igniting Ministry could be the catalyst by which we could reverse the decline that we continue to experience.” But that hope has been disappointed.

According to the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), between 1996-2000, United Methodist membership in the U.S. declined by 1.8 percent. Between 2000-2004, U.S. membership decline quickened to 2.6 percent. Between 1996-2000, U.S. worship attendance increased by 1.2 percent, but over the next four years, U.S. attendance shrank by 2.5 percent.

The Igniting Ministry website contains poignant anecdotes of individuals who visited United Methodist congregations because of the ads. The website also includes survey data showing that the campaign has successfully “increased public awareness of the denomination,” and estimated that tens of millions who have seen the ads have enhanced perceptions of United Methodists.

An April 2004 survey for Igniting Ministry cited impressive statistics of increased first-time and overall worship attendance between 2000 and 2004 at 164 “representative churches from throughout the United States” and significant numbers of spiritual “seekers” surveyed in five “test markets” (Baltimore, Maryland; Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland, Oregon; Raleigh, North Carolina; San Antonio, Texas) expressed a willingness to visit a United Methodist congregation. According to United Methodist Communications, this study played a key role in the decision of the 2004 General Conference to devote more money to the campaign.

But the “representative congregations” clearly were not representative of U.S. congregations as a whole, given the continued national membership decline. As for the test media markets, the United Methodist annual conferences surrounding three of these cities (Baltimore-Washington, South Indiana, and Oregon-Idaho) experienced overall attendance declines ranging from 1.3 percent to 5.2 percent and membership declines from 4.3 percent to 7.7 percent in the same time period as the study.

If the Oregon-Idaho Conference continues its current rate of decline, in another two generations its churches will on average include fewer than 30 people in worship. The Southwest Texas (which includes San Antonio) and North Carolina (which includes Raleigh-Durham) Conferences experienced growth in both attendance and membership during this time. But they had already been doing this in 2000 prior to the start of Igniting Ministry. From 2000 to 2004, the Southwest Texas Conference grew in both measures at a much slower rate than from 1999 to 2000, while the reverse was true of the North Carolina Conference.

According to GCFA, of the 10 US congregations that from 2001 to 2004 experienced the greatest growth in worship attendance, only one (Cascade United Methodist Church in Atlanta, whose attendance increased by 700) received an Igniting Ministry matching grant (another major part of the campaign). None of the ten are in districts that received Igniting Ministry grants. Eight are located in annual conferences that have received Igniting Ministry grants, but over half of all U.S. conferences received grants.

The top two attendance-growth churches, Mt. Pisgah outside of Atlanta (whose attendance increased by 1,626, or 48%) and Granger Community Church in North Indiana (whose attendance increased by 1,401, or 66%), appear to downplay their United Methodist affiliation and likely would not benefit from a United Methodist ad campaign.

In a recent column, United Methodist theologian Richard Heitzenrater recalls a non-Methodist woman telling him that thanks to the ads, she had been “learning quite a bit about” the denomination, namely, “that you don't have to believe anything in order to belong to that church. You know, most churches have doctrine and stuff for you to believe.”

Bishop Michael Coyner of Indiana criticized one Igniting Ministry ad called “I believe” as not “very helpful since it is so ‘soft’ that it really does not portray our United Methodist position on theology or faith.” That ad boasted that United Methodists “may not all believe exactly the same thing” beyond belief “in God and each other.”

United Methodism has lost 3 million members since 1964. Whatever the causes of that decline, Igniting Ministry ads do not appear to be the remedy.

# posted by Duane : 9:53 PM  0 comments

A former army officer from El Salvador who was convicted of taking part in the 1989 massacre of six Jesuit priests and two other people during that country's civil war was arrested in the United States and faces deportation, authorities said Wednesday.

The killings sparked international outrage and tarnished the image of U.S. anti-Communism efforts in the region after it was found that some of the soldiers involved had received training at the former School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga.

Federal agents acting on a tip arrested Gonzalo Guevara Cerritos, 43, on Oct. 18 at a motel near the University of California, Los Angeles. He illegally entered the country in January 2005, according to a statement from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

He was being held at a detention facility in Lancaster pending a deportation hearing next month, said Lori Haley, a spokeswoman for the agency.

She did not know where Guevara Cerritos had been or what he was doing in the United States.

"We will not allow the United States to be a place of refuge for aliens seeking to escape a violent criminal past," Robert Schoch, special agent in charge of the ICE office of investigations in Los Angeles, said in a statement. "Removing human rights violators and other persecutors from the United States is one of ICE's top enforcement priorities."

Hector Hugo Herrera, El Salvador's consul general in Los Angeles, said the deportation wouldn't mean much to Salvadorans because Cerritos had served his prison sentence and had been given amnesty in 1993.

"This is just like any other case of an El Salvadoran being deported," said Herrera.

The 12-year civil war in El Salvador, which cost the lives of some 75,000 people, ended in 1992.

Guevara Cerritos was a sub-lieutenant with the Salvadoran army's counterinsurgency Atlacatl Battalion during that country's bloody war against the FMLN, a leftist guerrilla group.

He and eight other officers and soldiers were convicted of involvement in the 1989 killing of six priests, their cook and her teenage daughter at a university in the capital city of El Salvador. Jesuits had called for a peaceful, negotiated end to the war and some in the army considered them to be subversives, along with union and human rights activists.

Jose Ortega, director of the San Francisco-based SHARE Foundation, a faith-based group that does social work in El Salvador, said the case is a reminder to the country that those who ordered the killings were still largely unknown.

"The people behind the crime were never convicted," said Ortega. "The lower level military was just taking orders. If you didn't follow orders at that time you could be killed."

In 1991, Guevara was convicted in El Salvador of instigation and conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

He spent nearly two years under house arrest before he was pardoned by the government under a 1993 general amnesty, ICE said.

# posted by Duane : 9:36 PM  1 comments

A joke in Washington these days is that the only thing that can save the Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats. House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi seems to get this joke, because with few exceptions she's kept her Members tight-lipped and unspecific: As New York Senator Chuck Schumer has put it, why take the focus off the GOP?

This is in notable contrast to 1994, when the Gingrich Republicans ended a 40-year Democratic House majority by laying out a 10-item agenda known as the Contract with America. What Democrats are campaigning on this year is a Non-Contract with America--mostly generalities about "helping the middle class" and "ending the corruption in Washington."

As a campaign strategy, this may well pay off. But if they do win, Democrats will have to fill their campaign vacuum with something, and the best clue to what that would be is what they've already proposed. We've taken some time to inspect these policy priorities and thought we'd share a few of the highlights, if that's the right word. (Warning: Keep sharp objects away from drug-company and Wal-Mart shareholders.)

Tax increases. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and any chance that they'll be made permanent will vanish with a Democratic Congress. The question is whether Democrats will try to raise taxes even sooner. Most Democrats voted against the Bush tax cuts, but this week Ms. Pelosi said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." that "Democrats like tax cuts. We support middle-class tax cuts."

The same isn't true, however, for the "investor" tax cuts of 2003 that coincided with the acceleration of the current expansion. Ms. Pelosi says reversing these tax cuts "at the high end" would be "an earlier resort." This would raise the top income and dividend tax rate back to 39.6% from 35%, and the capital-gains rate back to 20% from 15%, substantially raising the cost of new investment in the United States. Economist John Rutledge estimates that raising the dividend rate alone would reduce the value of the S&P 500 stocks by between 5% and 8.5%, roughly a $500 to $700 billion decline in the wealth of the 52% of American households that own stock.

"Paygo budgeting." President Bush would no doubt promise to veto any direct tax increase, but having the power of the purse would give Democrats plenty of leverage. What if they framed the political choice as a tax increase on "the rich" versus funding the war on terror?

Democrats have also pledged to restore so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules, which sound like a restraint on budget deficits but in practice restrain only tax cuts. They don't apply to the growth of current entitlement programs or to domestic discretionary spending, only to tax cuts or new entitlements. This formula would probably take us back to the 1980s, when Democrats insisted on higher domestic spending while fighting Ronald Reagan's increases in defense spending.

Health-care regulation. Big Pharma and private insurers, watch out. Michigan's John Dingell, who would run the Energy and Commerce Committee, has co-sponsored the "Patients Before Profits Act" that would gut funding for the new Medicare Advantage plans that are proving so popular with seniors. Instead, he and the other Democrats who run health-care panels want to direct all seniors into a single government-run Medicare drug plan. Another proposal from top Democrats, the Medicare for All Act, would make all Americans, of any age, eligible for Medicare and pay for it with a new 1.7% payroll tax on workers and 7% on employers.

Ms. Pelosi has also pledged to pass, in her first 100 hours as Speaker, legislation to require the government to "negotiate lower drug prices." That's a euphemism for imposing price controls on new medicines, which can take as much as $800 million in research and development to bring to market. The actor Michael J. Fox is getting headlines for his ads in favor of Democrats who support stem-cell research, but price controls would do far more to delay the introduction of new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or cancer.

The union label. AFL-CIO headquarters would be rocking with hope once again. A job-killing hike in the minimum wage, to $7.25 from $5.15, would whisk through Congress, and we'd expect that Mr. Bush would sign it.

But another top priority for Democrats is the Employee Free Choice Act, which has at least 215 co-sponsors in the House and 44 in the Senate. This would allow labor to turn workplaces into union shops without an election or secret ballot. Unions would merely have to gather signatures from a majority of workers at a work site, which means labor organizers could strong-arm employees who opposed such a petition. This would almost surely pass the House.

Democrats have also moved well to the left on trade since the Bill Clinton-Nafta era. Mr. Bush's trade-promotion authority, allowing up-or-down votes on trade deals without amendment, expires next July, and there's little chance House Democrats would extend it. The entire Democratic leadership opposed free trade with tiny Oman and with Central America, so deals now in the works with Vietnam and other countries would also be long shots. Sorry, Robert Rubin.

Energy. The Pelosi Democrats favor a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies and a virtual moratorium on drilling for more domestic oil in Alaska and on the outer continental shelf (where the U.S. may have more energy than Saudi Arabia). These policies would make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. There would also be an effort to pass new, and higher, fuel-mileage mandates, which would make things tougher on what's left of Detroit. And lobbying would begin for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and to subsidize, even more than Republicans already have, ethanol and other "alternative" fuels.

We could go on, in particular in the regulatory arena, where agencies would be under greater pressure to restrict mergers, among other things. But you get the idea. A Democratic triumph would produce a major shift in the national policy debate, and we can understand why Ms. Pelosi isn't plastering most of this agenda on billboards around the country. Not everything would become law, to be sure, especially if Mr. Bush were finally willing to use his veto pen. However, elections have consequences, and we thought our readers might like to know about them before November 7.

# posted by Duane : 5:10 PM  0 comments

It is difficult to get through a day in an American school without hearing maxims such as these: "To succeed, you must believe in yourself," and "To teach, you must relate the subject to the lives of students."

But the Brookings Institution is reporting today that countries such as the United States that embrace self-esteem, joy and real-world relevance in learning mathematics are lagging behind others that don't promote all that self-regard.

Consider Korea and Japan.

According to the Washington think tank's annual Brown Center report on education, 6 percent of Korean eighth-graders surveyed expressed confidence in their math skills, compared with 39 percent of U.S. eighth-graders. But a respected international math assessment showed Koreans scoring far ahead of their peers in the United States, raising questions about the importance of self-esteem.

In Japan, the report found, 14 percent of math teachers surveyed said they aim to connect lessons to students' lives, compared with 66 percent of U.S. math teachers. Yet the U.S. scores in eighth-grade math trail those of the Japanese, raising similar questions about the importance of practical relevance.

Tom Loveless, the report's author, said that the findings do not mean that student happiness causes low achievement. But he wrote that his analysis of the international math assessment, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, shows that U.S. schools should not be too quick to assume that happiness is what matters in the classroom.

"It is interesting that people grasp this notion in other areas of self-improvement -- eating healthy foods, getting exercise, saving for retirement -- but when it comes to education, for some reason, the limitations of happiness are forgotten," Loveless wrote.

Several countries in Asia and some in Europe tend to beat the United States in math scores, even though their students show less satisfaction with performance and less love of math, and even though the lessons they receive are less "relevant," the report found.

The Brookings report notes that in most countries, including Korea and the United States, students who like math and think they are good at it have higher math scores than those who don't. Perspective matters, Loveless wrote: Japanese students who would be considered good at the subject if they were in the United States think that they are not so good when compared with their peers in Japan.

The international test results from 2003 and related surveys from 46 countries show that the world's most confident eighth-grade math students are found in the Middle East, Africa and the United States. Of the 10 countries with the highest levels of student confidence, only Israel and the United States scored higher than average on the international test, and their scores were far below those of the much less confident students in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

The surveys asked teachers in each country whether they relate math lessons to daily life at least half of the time. In Chile, 87 percent of teachers answered affirmatively, the highest mark on the relevance scale. Japan was at the bottom of the list.

"The more relevant the math, the lower-scoring the nation," Loveless wrote.

Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the D.C.-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, said the report shows that schools need not be fun to be effective. "Schools should work on academics, not feelings," Finn said. "True self-esteem, self-confidence and happiness are born of true achievement."

# posted by Duane : 7:17 AM  0 comments

TIGER Woods got ambushed by an evangelical guest of Nike on Oct. 9 during an exclusive golf outing for top business and entertainment executives. According to our spy, 30 people - including Clear Channel Radio CEO Mark Mays, Louis Vuitton North America chief Daniel LaLonde and Details magazine editor Daniel Peres - gathered at the Trump golf course in Los Angeles for the 2006 "Tee It Up With Tiger Woods" event, which included a private golf session and lunch with the living legend. "During the lunch, there was a Q&A session with Woods, and most people were asking about their swings or golf questions," our source said. "Until some guy - a guest of Nike - stood up and said, 'Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior? And if not, prayfully, would you?' " The source added, "You could have heard a pin drop. People were mortified. But Tiger was as unflappable as he is on the golf course and responded, 'My father was a Christian - of course Christianity was part of my life - but my mother is Asian and Buddhism was also part of my childhood, so I practice both faiths respectfully.' "

1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

# posted by Duane : 9:11 PM  0 comments

In the 1980 campaign, amidst the flurry of charges that Reagan was too old to be president, he had been given another lesser known moniker by his friend Jack Kemp: The O&W. The Oldest and Wisest.

As the Reagan presidency played out the nickname not only proved accurate, it helped those of us who were in the White House realize that this was a President with a deep reservoir of experience not just in politics but in life itself. Yes, he was the oldest President and certainly the oldest amongst his young staff. He was also, as Kemp had realized, one very wise man.

The 1986 election was, in Reagan's eyes, nothing more than a solitary lost election. Would it cause his presidency problems for the last two years of his term? Sure. But had the conservative movement that he had led into the White House "crested"? One can almost see that famous twinkle in his eyes at the mere thought of Anthony Lewis's assessment.

In his lifetime Ronald Reagan had participated in a lot of lost elections, including the 1964 Goldwater landslide loss to LBJ and, perhaps most notably, his own defeat for the Republican presidential nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976. It was, in fact, his loss to Ford that summoned from Reagan an eloquent description of his thoughts on the subject. Quoting a Dryden ballad he had memorized as a child, he told his emotional supporters: "Lay me down and bleed a while. Though I am wounded, I am not slain. I shall rise and fight again."

And, of course, that's just what he did. By 1986 the idea of an election loss was something he now understood in his bones to be only a brief detour on the long road to a conservative victory in America. Reagan understood that it was not the end of the world if you lost, but it was decidedly not OK not to fight. So in spite of all the jeering from the press, he fought. A serious look at the results of that 1986 fight caused Lou Cannon to later note that, "Reagan may actually have had a greater impact in the 1986 elections.." Why? Because deep in the internals of the post-election polls it became clear that after Reagan had gone back on the campaign trail post-Reykjavik, again and again restating his conservative principles, his candidates went up--not down. The Nevada candidate who was down in the polls by 13 points lost his Senate race by six. The California Senate candidate lost by a razor-thin two points, closer than any of his poll numbers. "Nationally," Cannon reminds of the 1986 election, "Republican candidates for the Senate fared better in percentage terms (49%) in 1986 than when the same seats were up in 1980 (47%)."

The Oldest and Wisest knew that the Reagan era was in fact only a chapter--albeit a fairly dramatic chapter--in what was an endless story about, as he also said, "millions and millions of Americans who want what (conservatives) want...that want it (America) to be that city on a shining hill." Not from Ronald Reagan would there ever be an apology for his beliefs, nor any second guessing of what he always knew was nothing more than a momentary setback. He had relentlessly campaigned on his principles, and regretted not a moment of it. As I watched that day in the Oval Office, when we were done, he simply smiled, sat back down behind his desk and moved on to changing America--and not so coincidentally, the world.

Let's leave 1986 and take a look at the following randomly selected events from recent headlines:

• Leftist students shut down a presentation by representatives of the Minutemen border patrol group at Columbia University.

• New CBS anchor Katie Couric's ratings plummet after barely a month on the air.

• North Korea tests a nuclear weapon after promising the Clinton administration that they would never do so. Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledges that the North Koreans cheated on their promise.

Each of these issues touches on core principles of the conservative revolution which Reagan led and why he had so much long-term confidence in the response of the American people to those conservative principles.

The Columbia students, of course, illustrated quite visually a philosophy of liberal intolerance for dissent and free speech that repeatedly drives thoughtful Americans into the arms of the conservative movement.

CBS and Ms. Couric's failure illustrates a point that was easily predictable before Katie even sat down in the anchor chair. Putting Rush Limbaugh on CBS air in a "free speech" segment certainly pumped Couric's ratings for a moment. But conservatives--Reagan were he here and surely Limbaugh himself--realized exactly what the problem was that lie ahead. CBS tried to demonstrate that they were free of liberal bias by giving ol' Rush a few seconds of airtime. What they had no intention of doing was eliminating the liberal bias of the show's writers, producers and reporters, much less of Ms. Couric herself.

Result? The new boss is the same as the old boss. The philosophical presentation of the new CBS News hasn't changed a whit from the days when Dan or Walter or Bill Moyers looked somberly into the lens to insist they were telling the news "the way it was." Still, there had to be a terrifying "ping" when CBS execs realized that Rush Limbaugh brought higher ratings to CBS News than Dan Rather ever could. Could--would--that ever happen? Would they have the guts to make "America's anchorman" the CBS anchorman? The people in charge of CBS News would sooner crunch down on a cyanide tablet before naming Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative the anchor and managing editor of their show. Even if it meant winning the ratings for the next century. Fair and balanced is not now or ever in the cards at CBS, and Ms. Couric's ratings have tumbled accordingly. Besides, why would Rush Limbaugh want a demotion?

Last but not least is North Korea. It's all been said, including by me in this space. Appeasement has become the staple of the modern day Democratic Party. It has been so since 1968. It didn't work then, it didn't work in 1994. It didn't work for Chamberlain, it didn't work for Carter or Clinton and it won't work now. A majority of Americans understand that. Again as Reagan knew, they also understand that conservatives understand.

No matter where you look, from think tanks to talk radio shows, from television to publishing, from religion to law to the Internet, the conservative future is not just simply here, it is the future itself. (The conservative present usually rides pretty high on the New York Times bestseller list, too!)

No deviant Congressman, no bad polls or a lost election will stop this. Ronald Reagan understood that. Eventually so did I, never again depressed and embarrassed over the 1986 election. Conservatives can take a lesson from The Oldest and Wisest. Smile, stick to first principles--and go back to work. Another victory is always--always--just around the corner.

# posted by Duane : 11:10 PM  0 comments

In the Ohio governor's race, Ken Blackwell is trailing his Democratic competitor, Ted Strickland, by double digits. Save a last-minute miracle, Mr. Blackwell will lose the governor's mansion, and so end 16 years of GOP dominance.

In the Florida governor's race, Charlie Crist is leading his Democratic competitor, Jim Davis, by double digits. Save a last-minute misstep, Mr. Crist is set to give the state GOP a third term in the governor's mansion, overseeing a strong Republican legislative majority.

Their respective failure and success is not ideological: Messrs. Blackwell and Crist are both running on the same agenda of tax cuts, fiscal responsibility and broad government reform. This, instead, is a story of the state parties behind them. In Florida, Republicans have spent the past eight years keeping their promises to voters; in Ohio the GOP forgot what "promise" meant somewhere in the '90s. The tale of these two GOPs offers broader lessons for congressional Republicans, who are facing a rout this fall.

That this election is a referendum on the entire Republican philosophy is the standard line so far this year. Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Chuck Schumer argue that voters who vote blue are sending a message that they are tired of Republicans' "extreme" views on national security, taxes or social policy.

Quite the opposite, really. If voters are unhappy with Republicans, it's because the party hasn't lived up to its own principles. In the Capitol, in Ohio, and in plenty of places between and beyond, the party that promised to reform government has become the party of government.

Take Ohio. Republicans have practiced one-party rule in the state since 1994--more than enough time to lose one's principles. Former Gov. George Voinovich set the standard in 1992 by breaking his word and signing tax hikes. His successor, Bob Taft, with the help of the GOP legislature, in 2003 broke pledges not to raise taxes without voter permission. Some $3 billion in tax increases later, Ohio jumped to fourth place in the rankings for state and local tax burdens. (It was 23rd in 1994, when the GOP took over.) Over their first 10 years in power, Republicans increased Ohio's general operating budget by 71%--the highest increase in the nation.

The Taft and Spend strategy socked it to the Ohio economy. Its gross state product grew a measly 1% between 2004 and 2005, while Ohio lost 150,000 jobs between 2000 and 2005. Unemployment levels have hovered above the national average. If corruption is the product of big, unconstrained government, it was no surprise to watch the GOP engulfed by scandals that swept up everyone from Mr. Taft to Congressman Bob Ney. By November of last year, Mr. Taft's approval rating was 6.5%; if anyone had been keeping track, the legislature may have scored even lower.

Mr. Blackwell didn't sign onto any of this. While the rest of his party was riding down the big-government river, the secretary of state was pushing a voter initiative to create a constitutional limit on spending. He's been running this year on tax cuts, charter schools and privatizing the Ohio Turnpike. He hasn't been touched by the scandals.

"There hasn't been a bigger critic of the Taft administration than Ken Blackwell," says Ken Blackwell . . . again and again. Voters can't find it in themselves to make the distinction. The Ohio Democratic Party understands that better than anyone, and routinely refers to its opponent as "Ken Taftwell." Mr. Strickland is so good at keeping the focus on the failed GOP, nobody has noticed he's a fan of the very tax-and-spend policies that landed Republicans in trouble in the first place.

But now look to Florida. Jeb Bush came to office in 1999 touting a sweeping reform agenda of the sort that gives Ms. Pelosi the "extremist" fits. More to the point, the governor, with the support of a Republican legislature, has instituted most of it.

Florida Republicans have passed tax cuts every year of the eight Mr. Bush has held office--a whopping $19 billion, including the elimination of the infamous "intangibles" tax, levied on investments. While Florida's budget has grown at a rapid clip, Mr. Bush vetoed more than $2.1 billion in wasteful spending, earning him the nickname "Veto Corleone" among frustrated state lobbyists. He's trimmed 11,000 state jobs.

Tort reform? Did it. Overhauling the child welfare system? Done. Florida has led the way in greater education accountability and school voucher programs; test scores, especially among minorities, are on the rise. The state won federal permission for the most dramatic Medicaid reforms in the country, the first to inject private competition into the system.

Florida today has the highest rate of job creation in the country, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%. Its bond rating hit triple A. Revenue is pumping into the state coffers, giving Florida $6.4 billion in reserves. Gov. Bush's approval rating stands at 55%. Even the House Democratic leader, Dan Gelber, admitted his chief nemesis was a "rock star."

Mr. Crist, the state attorney general, promises more of the same, and voters have no reason to doubt him. He's already demonstrated reform bona fides as the state education commissioner who helped push through the governor's school reforms. He's promised further tax cuts, and is zeroing in on voter anger over double-digit property tax hikes. Mr. Crist has been blowing past Mr. Davis in fundraising and in opinion polls.

If congressional Republicans are facing a rout come November, it's in no small part because they've been headed down the Ohio highway. A few Supreme Court appointments and tax cuts aside, Republicans have largely abandoned the reform agenda that swept them to power in 1994. Their zeal has instead been directed at retaining power, which explains the earmarking epidemic and the Abramoff corruption that followed. Reform of Medicare and Social Security, the death tax, immigration, health care--all fell off the map.

Democrats would certainly call this agenda extreme, but it was never the existence of the platform that angered voters. It was Republicans' failure to act on it.

# posted by Duane : 9:49 PM  0 comments

OK, let me try to boil this union “recruitment” thing down to it’s most basic level: An entrepreneur risks blood, sweat and tears, and often his life’s savings, to create a business - in the process creating jobs for others. Let’s say the company employs 100 people, all of whom willingly accept their jobs at the agreed-to compensation offered by the business owner. Then along comes the union Borg (“You will be assimilated!”).

A union agitator infiltrates, or “salts,” the workforce and immediately starts stirring up trouble. He or she convinces the employees that they’re overworked and underpaid. “And if you’ll just let our union be your negotiator,” the sweet-talking paramour promises, “we’ll get you what you have coming to you…and then some.”

The employees are promised the moon, the stars and the heavens above. They’re showered with flowers, jewelry, furs, chocolates and promises from the union that “We’ll always be with you, ‘til death do us part.” (Of course, when the sun rises in the morning the only thing the workers are likely to get is cab fare, but that’s another story for another time.)

Thanks to the efforts of the union agitator an election is scheduled. The 100 workers get to cast a secret ballot on whether or not they want the union to be their bargaining agent in salary/benefit/work-rules negotiations. If a majority of workers in this secret-ballot election vote in favor of letting the union do their talking for them, the union is in.

And a new Borg collective is formed.

The problem for unions though, as witnessed by their declining numbers in the private sector, is that fewer and fewer blue-blooded American workers, when given a choice in a secret-ballot election, are electing to join the union collective. Recognizing this, the unions are trying to get rid of secret-ballot elections and instead force companies to recognize their “right” to represent workers through an insidious process commonly known today as “card check.”

Here’s how a card check works…

The union agitator goes to each of the employees and asks (browbeats) them to sign a card stating that he or she wants the union. Once the agitator gets signed cards from a majority of the employees, the union wants to force the employer to recognize the union WITHOUT the inconvenience of holding a secret-ballot election.

It’s a lot easier for union agitators to threaten and coerce workers into signing a card in front of them than it is to control how that worker votes in the privacy of a voting booth, right? After all, a worker might very well sign a card saying they want the union out of fear - or just to get the union agitator out of his face and off his back. But if allowed to cast a secret ballot without fear of retribution by union goons, that worker is more likely to cast an honest ballot and vote against union representation.

So secret ballots, cast without fear or intimidation, are something the unionistas just can’t cotton any longer. So they’re pushing legislation on Capitol Hill which would FORCE employers to recognize a union based on card checks rather than secret ballots. And amazingly, there are actually some Republicans in Congress supporting this proposal.

Such un-American legislation should never see the light of day. But if it does, it ought to include the following “Gander Clause” - as in, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: If a card check, rather than a secret ballot, can be used in order to certify a union - then a card check, rather than a secret ballot, should be able to be used to DE-certify a union.

That’s right. If management is able to obtain signatures from a majority of its workers saying they no longer want the union in their hair and in their wallets, then that should be good enough without going through the hassle of a secret-ballot decertification election. Shouldn’t it be just as easy to get out of a lousy relationship as it is to get into one?

But something tells me fairness and a level playing field aren’t what the union movement is all about today. Unions have found they can’t survive without a stacked deck. And that’s why mandatory “card checks” are the political cause du jour for Big Labor and the union bosses. Let’s hope Congress cuts the deck.

# posted by Duane : 9:45 PM  17 comments

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett last week issued the latest European demand to close down the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The existence of the prison is "unacceptable" and fuels Islamic radicalism around the world, she said, echoing a recent chorus of complaints from Europe about U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Behind the scenes, however, the British government has repeatedly blocked efforts to let some prisoners leave Guantanamo and return home.

According to documents made public this month in London, officials there recently rejected a U.S. offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance. Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release.

Other European governments, which have been equally vocal in assailing Guantanamo as a human rights liability, have also balked at accepting prisoner transfers. A Turkish citizen who was born and raised in Germany was finally permitted to return from Guantanamo in August, four years after the German government turned down a U.S. proposal to release him.

In addition, virtually every country in Europe refused to grant asylum to several Guantanamo prisoners from China who were not being sent home because of fears they could face political harassment there. The Balkan nation of Albania agreed to take in five of the Chinese in May, but only after more than 100 other nations rebuffed U.S. pleas to accept them on humanitarian grounds, State Department officials said.

"In practical terms, it's not enough to say, 'Guantanamo should be closed,' without suggesting the next sentence: What do you do with the people who are there?" John B. Bellinger III, the State Department's chief legal adviser, said during a visit to Berlin last week to meet with German counterterrorism officials.

There are about 435 prisoners from about 40 countries at Guantanamo, according to the Pentagon. Military tribunals have concluded that about one-quarter of the prisoners are not a security risk, or are otherwise eligible for release or transfer.

Ultimately, Bellinger said, U.S. officials expect 60 to 80 prisoners to face trial by military commission. The rest will be released, though many of them might face charges or other restrictions in their home countries.

But those whom the Pentagon wants to free often have nowhere to go. In many cases, their native countries don't want them or have challenged their nationalities. Also slowing the process is a U.S. policy stipulating that prisoners cannot be transferred to nations with a record of human rights violations unless there are written assurances that they won't be mistreated.

The Pentagon has already freed all but a few European citizens from Guantanamo. But U.S. officials have struggled to persuade Britain, Germany and other allies in Europe to accept prisoners who once had legal residency there, or who are effectively stateless.

"We think countries whose nationals are in Guantanamo ought to take responsibility for them," Bellinger said. "We have also, in certain cases, encouraged European governments to see if they would be eager to take detainees of other nationalities."

So far, there have been few takers.

# posted by Duane : 7:49 PM  0 comments

Four moments in the recent annals of free speech in America. Actually annals is too fancy a word. This all happened in the past 10 days:

At Columbia University, members of the Minutemen, the group that patrols the U.S. border with Mexico and reports illegal crossings, were asked to address a forum on immigration policy. As Jim Gilchrist, the founder, spoke, angry students stormed the stage, shouting and knocking over chairs and tables. "Having wreaked havoc," said the New York Sun, they unfurled a banner in Arabic and English that said, "No one is ever illegal." The auditorium was cleared, the Minutemen silenced. Afterward a student protester told the Columbia Spectator, "I don't feel we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. . . . The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."

On Oct. 2, on Katie Couric's "CBS Evening News," in the segment called "Free Speech," the father of a boy killed at Columbine shared his views on the deeper causes of the recent shootings in Amish country. Brian Rohrbough said violence entered our schools when we threw God out of them. "This country is in a moral freefall. For over two generations the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum. . . . We teach there are no moral absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children." This was not exactly the usual mush.

Mr. Rohrbough was quickly informed he was not part of the legitimate debate, either. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post: "The decision . . . to air his views prompted a storm of criticism, some of it within the ranks of CBS News." A blog critic: Grief makes people say "stupid" things, but "what made them put this man on television?" Good question. How did they neglect to silence him?

Soon after, at Madison Square Garden, Barbra Streisand, began her latest farewell tour with what friends who were there tell me was a moving, beautiful concert. She was in great form and brought the audience together in appreciation of her great ballads, which are part of the aural tapestry of our lives. And then . . . the moment. Suddenly she decided to bang away on politics. Fine, she's a Democrat, Bush is bad. But midway through the bangaway a man in the audience called out. Most could not hear him, but everyone seems to agree he at least said, "What is this, a fund-raiser?"

At this, Ms. Streisand became enraged, stormed the stage and pummeled herself. Wait, that was Columbia. Actually she became enraged and cursed the man. A friend who was there, a liberal Democrat, said what was most interesting was Ms. Streisand made a physical movement with her arms and hands--"those talon hands"--as if to say, See what I have to put up with when I attempt to educate the masses? She soon apologized, to her credit. Though apparently in the manner of a teacher who'd just kind of lost it with an unruly and ignorant student.

On "The View" a few days earlier it was Rosie O'Donnell. She was banging away on gun control. Guns are bad and should be banned. Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who plays the role of the young, attractive mom, tentatively responded. "I want to be fair," she said. Obviously there should be "restrictions," but women have a right to defend themselves, and there's "the right to bear arms" in the Constitution. Rosie accused Elizabeth of yelling. The panel, surprised, agreed that Elizabeth was not yelling. Rosie then went blank-faced with what someone must have told her along the way is legitimately felt rage. Elizabeth was not bowing to Rosie's views. Elizabeth needed to be educated. The education commenced, Rosie gesturing broadly and Elizabeth constricting herself as if she knew physical assault were a possibility. When Rosie gets going on the Second Amendment I always think, Oh I hope she's not armed! Actually I wonder what Freud would have made of an enraged woman obsessed with gun control. Ach, classic projection. Eef she had a gun she would kill. Therefore no one must haf guns.

There's a pattern here, isn't there?

It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.

We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular?

Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.

And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.

And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.

Which is, at least in terms of timing, strange. The left in America--Democrats, liberals, Bush haters, skeptics of many sorts--seems to be poised for a significant electoral victory. Do they understand that if it comes it will be not because of Columbia, Streisand, O'Donnell, et al., but in spite of them?

What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.

# posted by Duane : 6:01 PM  1 comments

A committed Christian said today she planned to take legal action against her employers British Airways after the airline ruled that displaying her crucifix breached uniform rules

Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA's dress code.

Her treatment by BA - which styles itself as the "world's favourite airline" - brought condemnation both from Christian groups and members of other faiths last night.

BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with "uniform regulations" despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie.

Miss Eweida, who has an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is suing her employer for religious discrimination after being suspended from work without pay for two weeks.

She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone "diversity training" - including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace.

The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management.

It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.

Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.

But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, which is smaller than a ten pence piece, was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith.

She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA's Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs.

Miss Eweida said last night: "I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel.

"Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens."

Her case comes at a time of intense debate over the rights of individuals to express their belief - following Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their veils.

Earlier this month it emerged BBC governors had agonised over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain around her neck while on air in case it might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation.

Miss Eweida, a Coptic Christian whose father is Egyptian and mother English, was ordered to remove her cross or hide it beneath a company cravat by a duty manager at Heathrow's Terminal 4 last month.

She then sought permission from management to wear the chain - but was turned down.

When Miss Eweida, who is unmarried, refused to remove the necklace she was offered the choice of suspension with pay or unpaid leave, pending a disciplinary hearing.

Following a meeting with her managers on 22 September 2006, Customer Service Manager Caroline Girling told Miss Eweida in a letter: "You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request.

"You were asked to cover up or remove your cross and chain which you refused to do.

"British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform."

In a letter to Miss Eweida's MP, Vince Cable, last week, BA chief executive Willie Walsh insisted his employee had not yet been disciplined but said she was off work for failing to comply with "uniform regulations".

He added: "We have previously made changes to our uniform policy to accommodate requests, after a detailed evaluation process including Health and Safety assessment to incorporate the wearing of Sikh bangles."

But Miss Eweida said: "BA refuses to recognise the wearing of a cross as a manifestation of the Christian faith, but rather defines it as a piece of decorative jewellery.

"I would like to say how disappointed I am in this decision and the lack of respect shown by BA towards the Christian faith.

"I have been badly treated. I am a loyal and hardworking employee and for seeking similar rights to other employees, I have been treated harshly by British Airways management.

"British Airway can be great again, but it needs to treat Chrstians fairly. I am not ashamed of my faith."

Miss Eweida is suing BA under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Her case is being supported by her union, the TGWU, and she has hired Paul Diamond, a barrister specialising in religious affairs and an adviser for the Keep Sunday Special campaign, to represent her at her employment tribunal.

And a petition of support has been signed by more than 200 fellow workers.

BA is already at the centre of a criminal investigation into alleged price-fixing - which has led to the resignations of two executives.

The airline has come under fire in the past for its adherence to political correctness.

A decade ago it attempted to ditch its traditional Union Flag tailfin in favour of an ethnic design - which provoked the anger of Baroness Thatcher.

Mr Cable, MP for Twickenham and Liberal Democrat deputy leader said: "It is absolutely mind boggling that Britain's flag-carrying airline could treat its employees in such a disgraceful and petty manner.

"Nadia is a devout Christian who was displaying her faith, but in a modest and totally unprovocative manner.

"It is absolutely right that other religious minorities be allowed exemption from the dress code, but why can't a Christian be treated in the same way?"

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, international director of the Christian charity the Barnabas Fund, said: "Discrimination against Christians is commonplace in Muslim-majority contexts, such as Egypt where Nadia's family roots are. "Now we see the same thing increasingly happening within the UK.

"Her Sikh and Muslim colleagues at BA can show their faith publicly in what they wear, but Nadia and other Christians cannot. All we are asking for is a level playing field for all faiths."

Andrea Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship said: "The forces of political correctness are such that an individual needs to be very determined to protect their rights."

# posted by Duane : 5:48 PM  1 comments

At its latest meeting, the governing board of the National Council of Churches of Christ USA (NCC) condemned Wal-Mart for business practices it says run counter to labor, women’s rights, international justice and environmental protection. In addition to criticizing Wal-Mart’s wages and healthcare coverage, the NCC resolution accused the retailer of “pressuring its suppliers for costs so low they can only be achieved in an environment where human rights are violated at will.”

The Wal-Mart language was included in one of several different resolutions reviewed when the NCC board gathered September 24-26 in New York City for its quarterly meeting. In addition to the Wal-Mart resolution, the NCC’s Justice and Advocacy Commission provided resolutions on global warming and the war in Iraq.

The NCC’s global warming statement calls for the U.S. to support “mandatory measures that reduce the absolute amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and in particular emissions of carbon dioxide, to levels recommended by nationally and internationally recognized and respected scientific bodies.” In addition to limits on greenhouse gases, the resolution also calls for government and industry to invest in energy conservation and “more efficient and sustainable energy technologies that are accessible, sustainable, and democratic.”

The NCC resolution on the war in Iraq calls for the U.S. to “immediately begin to develop a plan for the phased withdrawal of American and coalition forces from Iraq, which should include a timetable for an expeditious final troop withdrawal.” The resolution insists that the justifications for the war “have been revealed as false or ill-considered.” During discussion on the resolution, some board members argued for stronger language calling for an immediate beginning to a withdrawal itself, rather than calling for a plan to withdraw. One board member complained that the Iraq resolution “doesn’t address those in North America and Europe that are coveting the riches of the region.” His suggested language, however, was not included.

Separately, the board also received and commented on a strongly worded draft resolution calling for a worldwide ban on human reproductive cloning. The resolution did not distinguish or make any reference to research or “therapeutic” cloning, which uses the same underlying technology for medical research purposes other than reproduction. However it did refer to comprehensive bans in Germany and other countries.

The resolutions will be referred for action to the NCC General Assembly, which meets November 7-9 in Orlando.

Church World Service (CWS), the NCC’s affiliated relief arm, updated the NCC board on its campaigns to lift U.S. travel and export restrictions to Cuba and to work with the Cuban Council of Churches (CCC). Currently, the U.S. is proposing to bar organizations from offering any support to Cuban government directed groups outside of in-kind donations of food or medicine. The U.S. policy views the CCC as directed by Fidel Castro’s regime as not free to act independently. According to CWS Executive Director Rev. John L. McCullough, the CWS disagrees with this view and is looking at a constitutional challenge to the U.S. travel restrictions, claiming that the CCC is a legitimate ecumenical entity. “Not to say there are not questions about proximity to the state,” McCullough admitted about the CCC and its relations with the Castro regime.

Besides discussing political and social issues, the NCC board also examined its budget. The NCC continues to receive most of its denominational funding from a handful of member communions, with the vast majority of its 35 member denominations contributing significantly less, according to a funding report distributed at the meeting. According to NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar, the NCC has done well finding foundation and individual large donors to fill in gap, but this also has posed a challenge.

“[Foundations and large donors] always ask if member communions are giving 100 percent,” Edgar said. “Cognate giving [by denominations] is not where we would like it to be.” Edgar asked board members to go back to their communions and “ask questions.” Information on the NCC’s funding from foundations was not publicly available at the board meeting.

“The burden of ecumenical commitment funds should be spread more broadly,” said Edgar, noting that contributions from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church continued to significantly outpace almost all of the other member communions. The current trend of financial commitments from member communions poses a problem as the NCC attempts to restrict individual member communions from giving over a 25 percent share. As of Fiscal Year 2005-2006, the largest contributors to NCC Ecumenical Commitment Funds were the United Methodist Church ($532,368), the Presbyterian Church (USA) ($302,499), the Episcopal Church ($132,026), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ($70,300), the United Church of Christ ($40,000) and the Reformed Church in America ($35,000).

The NCC’s Interfaith Relations Commission presented a draft statement responding to Christian Zionism. The response quoted an August statement from Jerusalem’s highest ranking religious leaders saying “[Christian Zionism] places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today. We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.”

The Interfaith Religious Commission (IRC) said that the Christian Zionist worldview disrupts the potential for peace in the Middle East and harms interfaith dialogue because it views the world “in starkly dichotomous terms.” The IRC asked that resources explaining various theologies of end-times be made available and that a rotation forum on the subject be offered at the NCC General Assembly to raise awareness of the importance of end-times theology. Dr. O.C. Edwards of the Episcopal Church warned his fellow board members: “High members of the U.S. government have bought into Christian Zionism, which is scary.” Other board members agreed.

In response to a draft copy of the NCC’s strategic plan for the future, the Rev. Rothang Chhangte of the American Baptist Church asked where evangelism appeared in it. The question was met with initial silence from the other board members. Eventually, NCC President the Rev. Michael Livingston suggested that existing NCC committees addressing missions and witness relations addressed evangelism, even though the NCC does not have a specific commission on evangelism. Chhangte conveyed her Baptist colleagues’ concern that the “NCC doesn’t care about evangelism.”

“How are we working to grow and renew?” asked Chhangte. “If our [NCC] membership keeps declining, we can’t support the NCC ministry.” Almost all of the NCC’s leading denominations have been losing members for 40 years.

# posted by Duane : 3:45 PM  0 comments

As a graduate of Columbia College ('87) and the son of a Columbia graduate, I have some perspective on the school and the history of student behavior there. Sadly, nothing has changed in the over 45 years which include my father's time at Columbia, my time there, and the recent "Minuteman protests."

Around 1960, Ayn Rand was invited to speak at Columbia. My father went to hear her. She was shouted down and, unable to address the crowd, left the podium after properly scolding the students for their bad manners. The protesters spent much of their time railing against the evils of capitalism and liberty.

In about 1985, there were protests and scuffles as students barricaded Hamilton Hall to demand the University divest itself of investments in companies which did business in South Africa. The protesters spent much of their time railing against the evils of capitalism and liberty, with somewhat more physical violence than had been seen 25 years earlier.

And now, 20 years after those protests, I see Columbia students act aggressively, irresponsibly, and disgustingly, trying to silence another invited speaker.

A letter to the editor of the Columbia Spectator on October 9th as well as the staff editorial on the same date are informative: The "message from the protesters", apparently written by a senior majoring in economics, goes out of its way to misstate the goals of the Minutemen (of whom I am not a huge fan, for the record). The writer also makes the typical leftist radical mistake of calling everything she disagrees with "fascist," a rather silly error for anyone but especially a senior economics major.

The writer tries to create a moral equivalence between the protesters' directly inciting violence against an invited speaker and what she considers to be offensive speech or policy goals of the Minutemen or some of its members. She misses the basic point of America: Political speech, even if you don't like it, is precisely what the First Amendment was written to protect. Violence against a speaker is unacceptable.

Everything you really need to know about the protesters is contained in this sentence: "Shame on the College Republicans for inviting this fascist thug and provoking such outrage on our campus." In other words, the act of inviting a controversial speaker is worse than violence against that speaker . . . oh, and the speaker must be a "fascist thug" because he doesn't agree with the writer's left-wing sensibilities which are typical of Columbia students.

Her protests that "this is not an issue of free speech" makes it all that much clearer that that is exactly what the issue is. The protesters do not have an "equal right" to shout down a speaker, much less to assault him or his entourage. The right answer . . . the only answer acceptable in our country . . . is to let him speak and then set up your own event to tell everyone why he was wrong.

The Spectator's editorial was no better: Claims that the University somehow is not getting "fair representation" falls into the same trap of moral equivalence between unpopular speech and violence. From my family's experience at Columbia, this type of appalling behavior by Columbia students is not "an unfortunate exception" but rather an all too common occurrence.

It is a remarkable thing about liberals (or, at Columbia, outright leftists) in free societies: They are far more intolerant than conservatives. The protesters hate people who oppose illegal immigration. They accept the use of intimidation and violence to keep such people from speaking, then blame the victim for having been controversial. Conservatives generally don't hate people for their views even if those views are as wrong-headed as those of many (or, in my experience, most) Columbia students.

The beauty of America is that we have an open political market. People of all views are free to speak, to be a touchstone for debate, and then to win or lose in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box.

Unlike the claims of the Spectator's editorial, mainstream news outlets have "depicted the Columbia atmosphere accurately." Wishing that the atmosphere were otherwise does not make it so.

Throughout all the years that my family and friends have attended Columbia, it has repeatedly represented itself as a truly illiberal institution, in a way that only the most "liberal" institutions can. The students live in a world which would make Orwell shudder: speech can justify violence, economic conservatives are called "fascists," and any talk the students disagree with is labeled "hate speech."

In this way and others, Columbia represents everything that is wrong with the far left in America today, and I am proud to say that while I do give money to a college, it is not to Columbia.

# posted by Duane : 9:34 PM  0 comments

As word of Representative Mark Foley’s sexually explicit e-mail messages to former pages spread last week, Republican strategists worried — and Democrats hoped — that the sordid nature of the scandal would discourage conservative Christians from going to the polls.

But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen.

“This is Foley’s lifestyle,” said Ron Gwaltney, a home builder, as he waited with his family outside a Christian rock concert last Thursday in Norfolk. “He tried to keep it quiet from his family and his voters. He is responsible for what he did. He is paying a price for what he did. I am not sure how much farther it needs to go.”

The Democratic Party is “the party that is tolerant of, maybe more so than Republicans, that lifestyle,” Mr. Gwaltney said, referring to homosexuality.

Most of the evangelical Christians interviewed said that so far they saw Mr. Foley’s behavior as a matter of personal morality, not institutional dysfunction.

All said the question of broader responsibility had quickly devolved into a storm of partisan charges and countercharges. And all insisted the episode would have little impact on their intentions to vote.

It is too soon to tell if the scandal will affect the turnout of evangelical Christians, who make up about a quarter of the electorate and more than a third of Republican voters. Some of President Bush’s political advisers have said that pre-election reports in 2000 that Mr. Bush was once arrested for drunken driving depressed turnout among conservative Christians, nearly costing him the White House.

Pollsters and conservative leaders have said for months that grass-roots evangelicals were demoralized by what they felt was the Republicans’ failure to live up to their talk about social issues — to say nothing of the economy, the Iraq war and other issues that weigh more broadly across the electorate. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed a steep drop in conservative Christian support for Republicans, albeit without a corresponding gain for the Democrats.

Some in the crowd waiting outside the concert, by the evangelical group MercyMe, said the revelations about Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, had redoubled their previous concerns about the Republican Party.

“The Republicans need to tighten up their ship,” said Wade Crane, a sign maker from Virginia Beach who said he usually voted Republican but had soured on the party in the last several months. “They need to stop covering themselves, using their power to protect themselves.”

Charles W. Dunn, dean of the school of government at Regent University, founded here by the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, said that so many conservative Christians were already in a funk about the party that “the Foley issue just opens up the potential floodgate for losses.” The tawdry accusations, Mr. Dunn said, “give life” to the charges of Republican corruption that had been merely “latent” in the minds of many voters.

But as far as culpability in the Foley case, Mr. Dunn said, House Republicans may benefit from the evangelical conception of sin. Where liberals tend to think of collective responsibility, conservative Christians focus on personal morality. “The conservative Christian audience or base has this acute moral lens through which they look at this, and it is very personal,” Mr. Dunn said. “This is Foley’s personal sin.”

To a person, those interviewed said that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois should resign if he knew of the most serious claims against Mr. Foley and failed to stop him. They said the degree of Mr. Hastert’s responsibility remained to be seen. Many said the issue had not changed their view of Congress because, in their opinion, it could not sink any lower.

But all also noted that the swift Democratic efforts to broaden the scandal to Mr. Hastert and other Republicans had added more than a whiff of partisanship to the stink of the scandal.

As the details were emerging last Tuesday, for example, Phil Kellam, the Democrat challenging Ms. Drake, called on her to demand Mr. Hastert’s immediate resignation. In a statement, Mr. Kellam said the House Republican leaders’ “lack of attention” was “perhaps more shocking” than what Mr. Foley had done.

Drew Lankford, a spokesman for Mr. Kellam, said the attacks on Ms. Drake had “painted her into a corner” because she was unwilling to denounce Mr. Hastert. Ms. Drake has said she will wait for a thorough investigation into what Mr. Hastert knew. (The matter has come up less in the Senate race between Mr. Allen and Jim Webb, the Democrat.)

Brian Courtney, a Republican-leaning sales manager attending the concert, said the Foley affair had led to “the kind of mudslinging one would expect to see at an election time like this.” He added that he was paying closer attention to the “values and character” of the candidates, and that he would probably vote Republican again.

Republicans have put up a vigorous defense, mainly through conservative allies and on talk radio. An e-mail message to talk-radio hosts from the Republican Party last week asked, “How would Democrats react if one of their own had a sexual relationship with an intern, was found out, then lied to a grand jury in an attempt to cover it up?”

Rush Limbaugh devoted much of his airtime to the Democrats’ defense of President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Sean Hannity focused on former Representative Gerry Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat who in 1983 admitted having sex with a teenage male page, won re-election and served several more terms with the support of his colleagues.

Still, many conservative churchgoers said that what stood out for them was not the politics but the individual sin. “It is not going to affect my vote because I don’t live in Florida,” said Scott O’Connell, a mechanical engineer who described himself as a fundamentalist. “But there is a bigger moral issue which I would say is the prism I view this through: I do not believe in homosexuality.”

David Thomas, a father taking his family to the concert, said that he, too, was leaning toward voting Republican and that the scandal only reinforced his conservative Christian convictions. “That is the problem we have in society,” Mr. Thomas said. “Nobody polices anybody. Everybody has a ‘right’ to do whatever.”

In an interview on Friday, Pastor Anne Gimenez of the 15,000-member Rock Church here said the scandal “doesn’t change the issues we are voting on,” like abortion, public expression of religion and same-sex marriage.

The church has been actively registering parishioners and reminding them to vote. “Every Sunday already,” Ms. Gimenez said.

# posted by Duane : 10:37 PM  0 comments

Amid the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal, one consequence appears to be an increasing exposure of the influential role homosexuals have within the Republican party. As the New York Times reported Sunday, homosexuals in the Republican Party -- sometimes known by insider slang terms including the "velvet mafia" or the "pink elephants" -- are a well-established force in the GOP.

According to the Times, many of these homosexual Republicans "have held crucial staff positions for decades," and this has been even more the case in recent years. "They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers," the article notes.

And although "gay" GOP members have had to be, in most cases, more discreet about their lifestyle than their counterparts in the Democratic Party, the Mark Foley scandal -- and the recent confirmation of the Florida congressman's homosexuality -- has put a new spotlight on just what influence these homosexuals have within the Republican Party.

As the Times observes, conservative blogs and websites have stated that homosexual staff members played principle roles in investigating the Foley case, suggesting that the party has been betrayed by homosexual men trying to hide misconduct by one of their own.

The newspaper also says a group of homosexual activists has started a document known as "the list," a roster of homosexual congressional staff members and their Republican bosses. The list, the Times suggests, is an apparent attempt to force homosexual Republicans working in and around the Capitol to be more open about their lifestyle choice.

Meanwhile, one pro-family activist is calling for more openness about another aspect of the scandal. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth believes the media have taken great pains to avoid using the words "homosexual" or "gay" in coverage of the Foley scandal. "There's clearly an effort here to make this somehow a pedophile issue or something that's separate from the homosexual issue," he asserts, "and, of course, this is right up the homosexual alley."

There is a well-documented history of homosexual men pursuing underage boys, LaBarbera says; but homosexual activists are getting help in burying this fact. "What we're seeing here," he contends, "is another effort by the media, working with the gay lobby, to separate out Foley's predations on a teenage boy from the homosexual issue."

The media is not being intellectually honest about the Foley situation or the pattern that it illustrates, the pro-family activist insists. "There's a long history of homosexuals being predators on teenage boys," he says.

"The fact is, if you go all the way back to the days of ancient Greece, there were homosexual relationships between adult men and teenage boys; so it's really ridiculous to say this has nothing to do with homosexuality," LaBarbera notes. He says the media's reporting of the Foley scandal has been marked by a great deal of political correctness, while the media have actually helped homosexual activists bury the truth.

# posted by Duane : 10:34 PM  0 comments

A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was "unclean".

Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion.

Islamic tradition warns Muslims against contact with dogs because they are seen as impure.

The case emerged as Jack Straw was embroiled in a controversy over Muslim women wearing veils and the row continued after a Muslim police officer was excused guard duty at the Israeli embassy. Today Mrs Vernon, 39, from Hammersmith, said: "This experience was very upsetting.

"I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like I was a second-class citizen, like I didn't count at all."

Mrs Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, added: "The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn't really very important, and I should have more respect for other people's culture. They have shown very little respect for my rights as a disabled person and have never once offered me an apology."

Niven's and Co cab company, is contracted by the BBC and the minicab was sent to take her home from a studio after she was invited to appear on News 24.

The driver's refusal resulted in a court case because the law requires all licensed cab drivers to carry guide dogs. Magistrates at Marylebone fined Mr Majekodumni £200 and ordered him to pay £1,200 for failing to comply with regulations set out under the Disability Discrimination Act. After the case Mr Majekodunmi remained defiant and insisted that he would continue refusing passengers accompanied by guide dogs.

Bill Alker, who works with Mrs Vernon at the RNIB supporting other victims of discrimination, said: "Jane and I have worked together for about 16 months advising and supporting people who have suffered the same crime.

"It is absolutely wrong and must stop. Many drivers, cab company operators and the authorities that provide licences are together flouting a good law that was introduced to help blind and partially sighted people get about more independently."

Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court.

"Victims must have the support of the area licensing authority who have the power to bring a prosecution or discipline the driver," he said. "So many drivers flout the law and get away with it."

Earlier this month Mrs Vernon supported-another blind woman who was refused a taxi ride take the case to court. Bernie Reddington, 37, had asked driver Basir Miah for a lift home after a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street but he had refused, calling her dog "dirty".

Horseferry Magistrates Court found him guilty of breaching the terms of his licence and fined him £150 plus £250 compensation.

Mrs Vernon said: "We need to encourage other licensing authorities around the country to start taking these incidents more seriously.

"Many blind people rely on taxis to get around. Not being able to get access to this kind of service is completely wrong and can affect their independence and confidence. In many cases this causes real problems in their work, educational and social life."

Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, said: "The clash between religious rights and the human rights of other people will become increasingly an issue as the Government tries to include all forms of discrimination under the same umbrella.

"Fortunately, in this instance, disability seems to trump religion."

# posted by Duane : 8:47 PM  0 comments

'This is not just a bad bill," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. ''This is truly a dangerous bill." And it's not just a dangerous bill. It's also "unconstitutional" and "unconscionable" and represents the loss of the nation's "moral compass."

Wow! That's quite a lot for a humble bill on military trials for terrorist (OK, "alleged terrorist") detainees. But Vermont's lefty colossus wasn't done yet in his excoriation of the Bush administration. "Even they cannot dismiss the practices at Guantanamo as the actions of a few bad people," he continued. "Before they just did it quietly, and against the law, on their own say-so, but now they are obtaining license to engage in additional harsh techniques that the rest of the world will see as abusive, as cruel, as degrading and even as torture."

Hmm. I should say a word about "the practices at Guantanamo." As it happens, I've just got back from Gitmo. (That glitch on my green card was finally straightened out.) I've visited several prisons in several countries over the years and never seen anything like this one. Granted, most of what I know about enemy detainee camps comes from what Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who runs Guantanamo, calls "bad movies and worse TV shows," and from a distance very little seems to have changed: the basic look -- barbed wire and watch towers -- would be recognizable to any World War II POWs. But, close up, pretty much everything else has been flushed down the toilet of history. Indeed, even the toilet has been flushed down the toilet of history: In the interests of cultural sensitivity, Gitmo cells were fitted with "Asian-style toilets," because "that's what the detainees prefer." Given that much of the matter that should be going down there ends up being flung over the guards, it seems that this sensitivity over choice of bathroom fixtures is not always appreciated.

When visitors like yours truly swing by, the camp likes to serve them the same meal the prisoners get. This being Ramadan, Adm. Harris was particularly proud of the fresh-baked traditional pastries his team had made for the holy month. And he was right: The baklava was delicious. "Baklava" is said by some linguists to come from the Arabic for "nuts" -- and, indeed, in that sense this entire war can sometimes seem like one giant baklava. There was a film out earlier this year called ''The Road To Guantanamo,'' and the poster showed the usual emaciated prisoner hung by shackles against a dungeon wall. No doubt the actor in question did the full Robert De Niro and lost 40 pounds to get himself looking that cadaverous.

If they've got anything like that going on at the real Gitmo, they must be doing it behind the confectioner's sugar at the back of the pastry chef's cupboard. If you're hoping to hear about the old wooden chair under a bare lightbulb swinging on its cord, here's the reality: The detaineeare interrogated on either a La-Z-Boy recliner or a luxuriously upholstered sofa -- blue plush with gold piping.

As for being emaciated, it's the only death camp in history where the soi-disant torture victims put on weight. In contrast to the undernourished thesp in the movie version, the average gain at Gitmo is 18 pounds. The Afghan detainees were the chunkiest Afghans I've ever seen. If they ever make it home, their old comrades -- the lean wiry warriors of the Hindu Kush -- will wonder why a party of Florida retirees has suddenly shown up. These Pushtuns are pushing a ton.

And, if you do start losing weight suddenly, don't worry. As one of the camp's medical staff explained, they offer free colon-cancer testing for jihadis over 50. If President Hillary decides to have another crack at socialized medicine in 2009, there are worse slogans than "Every American should have the right to the same health-care plan as a Sudanese terrorist who put his arm out stabbing a prison guard."

Perhaps this is what Senator Leahy means by "abusive," "cruel," "degrading" "torture." If you're used to the Afghan health system, no doubt it's profoundly humiliating to be offered free colonoscopies every time you bend down to use the prayer mat. Nevertheless, it surely requires a perverse genius to have made the first terrorist detention camp to offer homemade Ramadan pastries a byword for horror and brutality. If I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new Qurans in each unoccupied cell. To reassure incoming inmates that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Qurans are hung from the walls in pristine surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the interests of the United States government to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry.

When I put this point to Adm. Harris, he replied, "That's an interesting question," and said the decision had been made long before he arrived. He explained that they had a good working system whereby whenever it became necessary to handle a Quran -- because a weapon or illicit communication had been concealed in it -- a Muslim translator would be called to the cell to perform the task. But I wasn't thinking of it in operational so much as psychological terms: What does that degree of abasement before their prejudices tell them about us? Mulling it over since I got back, I'd go further: It seems to me that one sign this war is over is when Muslims are grown-up enough not to go to full-blown baklava nuts over other folks touching their Qurans.

Of course, for the likes of Sen. Leahy, not only is the war far from over, it hasn't even begun. Almost every argument in this area isn't "about" the war so much as whether there even is a war. As the Washington Post reported, "The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom."

Well, they're only "extraordinary" if you regard these men as traditional "defendants." If you regard them as traditional wartime detainees -- rather than OJs in turbans -- the only "extraordinary" aspect of this is the kid gloves with which not just their Qurans but the jihadists themselves are handled. This is the only war in American history in which enemy detainees have been freed before the end of hostilities. Of those released, at least 22 are known to have returned to the battlefield in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. The ones who remain are dangerous men, no matter how "sensitive" you are. They unscrewed the foot pads from those Asian-style toilets and used them as bludgeons to attack the guards. After listening to Pat Leahy's contribution to the debate, I wonder if the Gitmo medical facility's lavish team of mental health experts might not be more usefully deployed to the U.S. Senate.

# posted by Duane : 11:00 PM  0 comments

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by evangelical Christian students and their parents who said a Contra Costa County school district engaged in unconstitutional religious indoctrination when it taught students about Islam by having them recite language from prayers.

The court, without comment, left intact a ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last November in favor of the Byron Union School District in eastern Contra Costa.

The suit challenged the content of a seventh-grade history course at Excelsior Middle School in Byron in the fall of 2001. The teacher, using an instructional guide, told students they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, had them memorize and recite a passage from the Quran and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during the month of Ramadan. The final exam asked students for a critique of elements of Muslim culture.

The students and parents who sued argued that the class activities had crossed the line from education into an official endorsement of a religious practice. A federal judge and the appeals court disagreed, saying the class had an instructional purpose and the students had engaged in no actual religious exercises.

Linda Lye, a lawyer for the school district, said the same instructional material remains available for classes, though it is not required.

"I'm delighted that the Byron Union School District can put this case finally behind it and get on with educating children and exposing them to the world's great cultures and religions in an appropriate way,'' Lye said.

Edward White of the Thomas More Law Center, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said the Supreme Court's rejection surprised him. The case "presents significant issues of national importance with regard to public school education and religious indoctrination of children,'' he said.

The case is Eklund vs. Byron Union School District, 05-1539.

# posted by Duane : 10:24 PM  0 comments

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn't just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.

U.S. harbors are filled with workers convicted of serious crimes. Just last year the Justice Department filed a RICO suit charging that the 65,000-member East Coast-based International Longshoremen's Association is a "vehicle for organized crime."

But the House-Senate conference drastically watered down a Senate-passed requirement that aligned the standards for hiring dock workers with those used at airports and nuclear plants. The statute still bans workers who have been convicted of treason, espionage and terror-related offenses--a mere handful at most. But a seven-year time-out period on hiring those who've committed crimes such as murder, bribery, identity fraud and the illegal use of firearms was dropped in the dead of night at the behest of unions fearful that too many of their members could lose their jobs.

"The security stakes are too high to trust serious felons who could be manipulated or bribed by people trying to smuggle a nuclear device or chemical weapon into our ports," says Sen. Jim DeMint, sponsor of the dropped provision. Security analysts echo his fears. They say terrorists working with truck drivers could plant a bomb aboard a cruise ship or pack a 40-foot cargo container with explosives. Stephen Flynn, a former U.S. Customs official now with the Council on Foreign Relations, told ABC News that "if a bomb went off in a seaport, we would likely see a closing of the seaports, bringing the global trade system to a halt and potentially putting our economy into recession."

Officials at several ports echo these concerns. "There is a gaping hole in port security," Byron Miller of the Charleston, S.C., port, the nation's sixth largest, told me. "Right now, by law we cannot do background checks on 8,000 people who work at this port." He noted that a state bill to provide for background checks was killed last year after unions applied a full-court press against it.

The problem is massive. The Department of Homeland Security recently investigated the ports of New York and New Jersey and found that of 9,000 truckers checked, nearly half had criminal records. They included murderers, drug dealers, arsonists and members of the deadly MS-13 gang. It concluded that these security gaps represent "vulnerabilities that could be capitalized by terrorist organizations." A dock worker who has been convicted of smuggling drugs is a potential danger. "Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?" asks Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent who now teaches criminal justice at New York University.

All this explains why the Department of Homeland Security supported Mr. DeMint's bill even while it prepares its own administrative rules that would track much of the DeMint amendment's ban on hiring serious felons for dock employment. "It's important the restriction on felon hiring be codified into law," one department official told me. "If it's in a statute, we can't then be pressured to weaken our regs during the upcoming rule-making period, activist judges will be less able to throw them out and a future president can't alter them as part of a political deal."

That such a political deal is possible can be seen by the clout of the unions who were able to gut the felon ban in the House-Senate conference committee. Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, assured colleagues he would fight for the ban in conference but in reality fought to have it weakened. His staff even called Port of Charleston officials and told them their port would be shut down if the DeMint amendment became law. Mr. Miller can't confirm the call was made, but other port officials remember it. Mr. Inouye's office declined to respond to my questions about his role other than to send me an e-mail claiming the senator "supported the [DeMint] provision."

Other legislators were also involved in smothering the DeMint provision. The staffs of three members of Congress told me that Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a close friend of Mr. Inouye, also fought the measure, although his staff declined to publicly discuss the senator's position on the bill. New York's Rep. Peter King, the pro-union Republican who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, told the House that the list of proposed criminal offenses "includes vague and overly broad crimes" and supported the move "to narrow and limit the list." Mississippi's Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on Homeland Security, told colleagues that "we should not play judge and jury" and opposed even the final statutory ban on felons convicted of treason and terror-related crimes. Steve Stallone, the communications director for the West Coast-based International Longshore and Warehouse Union, told the Daily Labor Report that barring felons from jobs at secure dock facilities would be "double jeopardy" and could push them back into crime to make a living.

But too many elements of the unions that now control the docks are already involved in crime. The DeMint amendment would also have had the added benefit of going a long way to cleaning up the Mafia control of many of our nation's harbors. Too little has changed since 1954, when "On the Waterfront" depicted union corruption and violence. While less brutal today, tight union control of the ports remains a fact of life. Just ask the factory owners who had to endure parts shortages just months after 9/11 in 2002 as ports from Seattle to San Diego were forced to shut after a union slowdown paralyzed operations.

The Justice Department's massive 400-page civil complaint against the International Longshoremen's Association outlines the decades-long stranglehold the mob has exercised over docks from New York to Miami. The Associated Press review of the complaint concluded that "America already has a fifth column, of sorts, at work on its dock: gangsters who have made the piers friendly territory for drug smugglers and cargo thieves."

The complaint details how since the late 1950s, two organized-crime families have controlled much of the business of the nation's ports. The Justice Department complaint asserts that "the Gambino family exercises its influence at commercial shipping terminals in Brooklyn and Staten Island, and the Genovese family primarily controlling those in Manhattan, New Jersey and the Port of Miami." The mob exacts its vengeance on those it suspects of ratting on them. Last October, reputed Genovese mobster Lawrence Ricci vanished while on trial on charges he directed International Longshoremen's Association contracts to a mobbed-up drug company. There is speculation he was cooperating with authorities on the side. Whatever the motive of his killers, his body was discovered in the trunk of a car outside a New Jersey diner two months later.

Mob influence over the ports is so taken for granted that it even became a topic of discussion in one "Sopranos" episode, in which fictional boss Tony Soprano bemoaned the inadequacies of Newark, N.J., port security that he knew represented a potential threat to his own children.

Federal prosecutors want to oust the union's longtime president, 83-year-old John Bowers, and three other members of the union's executive committee and then have a court put the union into trusteeship, similar to the one the Teamsters has operated under for over 15 years. Union dissidents who have long unsuccessfully championed the right of union members to directly elect the executive committee have been supportive of the Justice suit.

Ever since congressional pressure killed the deal that would have turned over management--but not operation--of some U.S. port terminals to a Dubai company with a clean law-enforcement record, everyone has known that port security is a hot-button issue with the public. Pollster David Winston reported to members of Congress this summer that of all the proposed measures they would consider this fall the public most supported "strengthening port security with background checks for port employees." Yet some of the same congressmen who whooped up public hysteria over the Dubai Ports deal decided to cave in when it came to cleaning up the waterfront of criminal elements.

The last time member of Congress kowtowed to union pressure on a national-security issue was in 2002, when then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle led an effort to block creation of the Department of Homeland Security unless federal union work rules applied to its employees. The ensuing political backlash became an issue in that year's fall elections and helped defeat several members. Will someone dare to object to the bizarre favoritism Congress has just shown felons at our nation's ports, or will the issue be swept under the legislative rug?

# posted by Duane : 10:22 PM  0 comments

Florida Republican Mark Foley's sexually explicit emails to a Congressional page certainly warranted his resignation from the House, and they may well merit prosecution. But this being five weeks from an election, the GOP House leadership is also being assailed for not having come down more strongly on a gay Congressman for showing a more than friendly interest in underage boys. That's a different issue altogether.

At least this seems to be the essence of the Democratic and media charge against Speaker Dennis Hastert, who admits his office was told months ago about a friendly, non-explicit 2005 email exchange between Mr. Foley and another page. In that exchange, Mr. Foley had asked the teenager "how old are you now" and requested "an email pic."

In our admittedly traditional view, this was odd and suspect behavior, especially because Mr. Foley was well known as a homosexual even if he declined to publicly acknowledge it. And Mr. Hastert was informed that fellow Illinois Republican John Shimkus--who oversees the page program as part of a six-member board--spoke privately with Mr. Foley, who explained that the email was innocent.

What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Mr. Foley's explicit emails--which were sent to a former page who had returned home--clearly crossed the line into "vile and repulsive," as Mr. Hastert put it yesterday. And the Floridian has now resigned in disgrace and is being criminally investigated. This is harsher treatment than was meted out in the past to some Members of Congress who crossed another line and actually had sexual relations with underage pages. Democrat Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was censured in 1983 for seducing a male teenage page, but remained in the House for another 13 years and retired, according to the Boston Globe, with a rich pension.

Mr. Foley lied to many people over the years, most notably to himself. It's one of those human mysteries that someone so prominent, and so active as a spokesman against sexual predators, would send emails that he knew would destroy his career if they became public. That kind of psychoanalysis is above our pay grade.

Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.

# posted by Duane : 10:16 PM  0 comments

The first Western Enlightenment of the Greek fifth-century B.C. sought to explain natural phenomena through reason rather than superstition alone. Ethics were to be discussed in the realm of logic as well as religion. Much of what Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and the Sophists thought may today seem self-evident, if not at times nonsensical. But that century was the beginning of the uniquely Western attempt to bring to the human experience empiricism, self-criticism, irony, and tolerance in thinking.

The second European Enlightenment of the late 18th century followed from the earlier spirit of the Renaissance. For all the excesses and arrogance in its thinking that pure reason might itself dethrone religion — as if science could explain all the mysteries of the human condition — the Enlightenment nevertheless established the Western blueprint for a humane and ordered society.

But now all that hard-won effort of some 2,500 years is at risk. The new enemies of Reason are not the enraged democrats who executed Socrates, the Christian zealots who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity, or the Nazis who burned books. No, they are a pampered and scared Western public that caves to barbarism — dwarves who sit on the shoulders of dead giants, and believe that their present exalted position is somehow related to their own cowardly sense of accommodation.

What would a Socrates, Galileo, Descartes, or Locke believe of the present decay in Europe — that all their bold and courageous thinking, won at such a great cost, would have devolved into such cheap surrender to fanaticism?

Just think: Put on an opera in today’s Germany, and have it shut down, not by Nazis, Communists, or kings, but by the simple fear of Islamic fanatics.

Write a novel deemed critical of the Prophet Mohammed, as did Salman Rushdie, and face years of ostracism and death threats — in the heart of Europe no less.

Compose a film, as did Theo Van Gogh, and find your throat cut in “liberal” Holland.

Or better yet, sketch a cartoon in postmodern Denmark, and then go into hiding.

Quote an ancient treatise, as did the pope, and learn your entire Church may come under assault, and the magnificent stones of the Vatican offer no refuge.

There are three lessons to be drawn from these examples. In almost every case, the criticism of the artist or intellectual was based either on his supposed lack of sensitivity or of artistic excellence. Van Gogh was, of course, obnoxious and his films puerile. The pope was woefully ignorant of public relations. The cartoons in Denmark were amateurish and unnecessary. Rushdie was an overrated novelist, whose chickens of trashing the West he sought refuge in finally came home to roost. The latest Hans Neuenfels adaptation of Mozart’s Idomeneo was silly.

But isn’t that precisely the point? It is easy to defend artists when they produce works of genius that do not offend popular sensibilities — Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws — but not so when an artist offends with neither taste nor talent. Yes, Pope Benedict is old and scholastic; he lacks both the smile and tact of the late Pope John Paul II, who surely would not have turned for elucidation to the rigidity of Byzantine scholarship. But isn’t that why we must come to the present Pope’s defense — if for no reason other than because he has the courage to speak his convictions when others might not?

Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship: fear of radical Islam and its gruesome appendages of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-chanting mobs.

In contrast, almost daily in Europe, “brave” artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. Why?

For a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that they can do this without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a Dr Zawahri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.

Second, almost every genre of artistic and intellectual expression has come under assault: music, satire, the novel, films, academic exegesis. Somehow Europeans have ever-so-insidiously given up the promise of the Enlightenment that welcomed free thought of all kinds, the more provocative the better.

So the present generation of Europeans really is heretical, made up of traitors of a sort, since they themselves, not just their consensual governments or some invader across the Mediterranean, have nearly destroyed their won freedoms of expression — out of worries over oil, or appearing as illiberal apostates of the new secular religion of multiculturalism, or another London or Madrid bombing.

Europe boldly produces films about assassinating an American president, and routinely disparages the Church that gave the world the Sermon of the Mount, but it simply won’t stand up for an artist, a well-meaning Pope, or a ranting filmmaker when the mob closes in. The Europe that believes in everything turns out to believe in nothing.

Third, examine why all these incidents took place in Europe. Since 2000 it has been the habit of blue-state politicians to rebuke the yokels of America, in part by showing us a supposedly more humane Western future unfolding in Europe. It was the European Union that was at the forefront of mass transit; the EU that advanced Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. And it was the heralded EU that sought “soft” power rather than the Neanderthal resort to arms.

And what have we learned in the last five years from its boutique socialism, utopian pacifism, moral equivalence, and cultural relativism? That it was logical that Europe most readily would abandon the artist and give up the renegade in fear of religious extremists.

Those in an auto parts store in Fresno, or at a NASCAR race in southern Ohio, might appear to Europeans as primordials with their guns, “fundamentalist” religion, and flag-waving chauvinism. But it is they, and increasingly their kind alone, who prove the bulwarks of the West. Ultimately what keeps even the pope safe and the continent confident in its vain dialogues with Iranian lunatics is the United States military and the very un-Europeans who fight in it.

We may be only 30 years behind Europe, but we are not quite there yet. And so Europe has done us a great favor in showing us not the way of the future, but the old cowardice of our pre-Enlightenment past.

# posted by Duane : 9:36 PM  0 comments

Pro-life groups are lamenting the demise of a piece of legislation they say is supported by 80 percent of Americans -- a bill that would have required a minor girl's parents to be informed before she had an abortion, and that would have punished individuals who transported a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to circumvent parental notification laws in the girl's home state.

Senate Majority Bill Frist did all he could to bring Senate Bill 403 to a vote before that chamber adjourned this session -- but a cloture vote on the Child Custody Protection Act fell three votes short on Friday, falling victim again to Democratic-led efforts to prevent the bill from being sent along to the White House. (See earlier article) Frist had hoped the procedural move would force a vote on a bill that the Senate had passed earlier on a 65-34 vote -- and the House had passed 264-153 -- but his filing of cloture required at least 60 votes. On Friday, he could only muster 57; fifty-one Republicans and six Democrats (see roll call vote).

The bill will now go without a vote in this Congress, much to the dismay of pro-lifers who had praised both the House and Senator Frist for their efforts to get the bill ushered through Congress. "It is remarkable," says Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life, "that only six out of 45 Senate Democrats voted to require a parent to be notified before an abortion is performed on a young daughter in some other state." Some pro-life supporters are suggesting that several of those voted earlier in favor of the bill were strong-armed into the opposing column.

"We commend [Frist] for fighting to the end to free this legislation from the grip of a Senate minority -- a minority that has preserved the ability of profiteering abortionists to keep parents in the dark," Johnson adds.

Concerned Women for America echoes Johnson's comments, calling the bill's death "an enormous loss" for children's safety and parental rights. Lanier Swann, CWA's director of government relations, blames "partisan antics" for the cloture result on Friday.

"The Senate chose to disregard the American public's wish to see this bill implemented," Swann states in a press release. "Apparently they are more dedicated to divisive partisanship than to the American public for whom this issue is overwhelmingly popular."

Swann evidently also sees the vote as a victory for child predators. "There are many ill-intentioned adults who would like to cover up their actions by silencing an impregnated minor," she remarks. "The Child Custody Protection Act would have prevented this heinous crime from happening by requiring parental consent in states that already have laws in the books."

The U.S. House had passed the Senate version earlier last week, calling their measure the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) and adding a provision that would require abortion providers to notify parents of a minor seeking an abortion at least 24 hours before it takes place.

# posted by Duane : 9:29 PM  0 comments

MURTHA: No, I'm talking about a business commitment.

HOWARD: A business commitment.

AMOROSO: A business commitment.

MURTHA [12:06:07]: A business commitment that makes it imperative for me to help him. Just, let me tell you something. I'm sure if -- and there's a lot of things I've done up here, with environmental regulations, with all kinds of waivers of laws and regulations. If it weren't for being in the district, people would say... "Well that son of a bitch, I'm gonna tell you something....This guy is, uh, you know, on the take." Well once they say that, what happens? Then they start going around looking for the goddamn money. So I want to avoid that by having some tie to the district. That's all. That's the secret to the whole thing.

WEINBERG: You give us your banks where you want the money deposited.

MURTHA: How much money are we talking about?

AMOROSO: Well, you tell me, how many do you want?

MURTHA: Well let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention, because there's a couple of banks have really done me some favors in the past, that I'd like to put some money in. And one guy in particular, a savings bank, solid -- all three of them of course solid banks. Maybe I only want to go to one, I don't know, I have to think about this a little bit, and I'll get back to you with what I think would make an impression. You know I'm not gonna go out of hand, but I want to let these guys know that uh that I did it and that they'll be appreciative of it and it will be helpful to me.

AMOROSO: I understand, one hand washing the other. And you're trying to help them out. You just let me know. We're going to be here all week. And you think about it. Let me know --

MURTHA: Let me go back to the other thing. Let me go to the investment in the district. What are you talking about there as far as money goes? What kind of money do you have available to you to invest in the district?

AMOROSO: Well, I hate to just talk numbers, because the numbers -- I can talk astronomical numbers and -- see, you don't know me, so I give you a number, you might say, well, this guy's bullshitting me.

MURTHA: Tony, that's why I want to do business, before. You know I wanna do business. I want to see what the hell we're talking about. We're talking about -- he's [Criden] checked ya out, he says you're absolutely [unintelligible], he's given me some figures that... You know, we deal with billions of dollars -- and so when you're talking about millions...it really...but what I'm interested in is employment and investment that gives him a legitimate in. And, maybe, uh, maybe I'm selling this whole thing short, maybe it's going to be much more complicated than I think. I think there's no problem with all of this. I think with a tie to the district, that there's no problem at all getting this thing taken care of.

WEINBERG [12:08:41]: Let me ask you one other thing, congressman...and I don't mean to insult you...

MURTHA: Yea...

WEINBERG: What guarantee do we got then, that you'll get him in?

MURTHA: Only my word, that's all. And, uh, you know I...I...I... hope that I made myself clear, that, you know, when I say I'm gonna do something, I'm gonna do it. That's all there is to it.

[12:09:02-12:12:45: Discussion of coal mines in Murtha's district.]

MURTHA [12:12:45]: How about me doin' this. Alright, first of all, let me check and see if your problem can be solved and see what I can suggest on how it can be solved and I'll get back to Howard about it. And I'll do that right away. You know I'll give you alternatives 'bout what I think can be done. Second of all...

AMOROSO: You can call, in fact you know what, you can call us right here, we'll be here all week, you'll get a number, you can call us direct...

MURTHA: The second thing is, uh...uh....the bank, uh....or the banks. Probably be two maybe at the most. The third is, I'll give you maybe a list of businesses that I think would be the appropriate businesses that would be very helpful to me if you could see your way clear any one of those... you know, that you might -- this then would make a tie, which we'd have to make a little bit of a fuss about, maybe the guy doesn't wanna do this, but you have to remember this, you have to look down the road -- public relations. Here's, maybe it's you two guys, I don't know, whoever it is somebody's going to have to take credit in addition to Jack Murtha, and it's got to be legitimate credit for saving this particular business whatever the hell that business happens to be.

AMOROSO: I don't think that's a problem. We can put someone in that position. We could maybe put Howard there, or somebody -- that's the technical end of it that can be worked out.

MURTHA [12:14:13]: The thing is, what I'm trying to do is establish the very thing that you talked about. That tie to the district, that's all I need, from then on -- I'm gonna be there 20 years in that goddamn Congress. I don't want to screw it up by some little goddamn thing along the way that, if I wanted to make a lot of money I would have been outside making a lot of money. And you, I know what I can do and what I can't do...I won't bullshit you, that's for sure....you got two good people, and I just want to know -- well, I know the facts.

AMOROSO: Well you know the facts now, and as the facts stand, I think you can get some kinda commitment or get some kinda evaluation.

MURTHA: I'll tell you exactly whether this can be done, and how long it would take. And that's what you want to know. What I can do, I can even tell you what I can do.

CRIDEN [12:15:15]: [Steps out of the room, apparently with Weinberg.]

AMOROSO: Let me ask you now we're here together. I was under the impression, okay, and I told Howard we were willing to pay. And, okay, [opens the drawer and shows money] I went out and got the fifty thousand. From what you're telling me, you're telling me that's not what, you know, that that's not what you...

MURTHA: I'm not interested.

AMOROSO: Okay.

MURTHA: At this point.

AMOROSO: Okay.

MURTHA: You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know.

# posted by Duane : 9:09 PM  0 comments

For more than a week, Mary Anne Bender helped her 10-year-old daughter learn her Christmas pageant lines and daydream about what costume she'd sew for the after-school play at Windmill Point Elementary.

But on the second day of practice, fifth-grader Kayla Vance was told she can't play Mrs. Claus in A Penguin Christmas because the principal has axed any mention of the word "Christmas" in holiday festivals.

Criticized last year by a parent who demanded strict separation of church and state issues, Principal Bernadette Floyd has decided instead to take a more generic approach to holidays, school district spokeswoman Janice Karst says.

"It was an unfortunate set of circumstances," said Karst, noting the school's music teacher was unaware of Floyd's policy. "Any reference to a religious holiday has the potential to offend anyone who is not part of that particular persuasion."

Although Karst said Floyd told her there will be "many opportunities" for Kayla to perform during holidays this school year, Bender said the principal told her there's not enough time to reschedule a different holiday play or sing-along this winter.

"The only alternatives she told me about are in the spring," Bender said. "I feel like I have the principal that canceled Christmas."

Floyd did not return a phone call seeking comment, but Karst said principals across the district have moved away from religious-specific celebrations centered around Christmas and Easter and instead staged "winter wonderlands" and "spring flings."

Windmill Point parent Heather Cowart, mom to third-grader Logan, said she was upset last year when Logan's teacher demanded he not bring Santa cupcakes, candy canes or other Christmas-themed treats to a "holiday party." Even donations of canned goods to the needy had to be wrapped in newspaper, not traditional wrapping paper, Cowart said.

Meanwhile, Parkway Elementary School had a Christmas tree in the front lobby last year, and other schools have enjoyed visits from the jolly old elf himself, the parents said.

"I don't understand why these secular things are being taken away from our young children," Cowart said. "Last year Logan got in trouble for saying 'Christmas' in class. Is that a bad word now?"

Kayla, who had to audition for the role of Mrs. Claus, said she remembers vividly the day last week when her music teacher told her A Penguin Christmas had been canceled.

"My music teacher said she was really sad, and then I felt bad for her and that made me even more sad," said Kayla, who has played the roles of a pig and a loaf of bread in previous school productions. "I memorized all my parts. It took me three days."

Although the short play dealt only with Santa and Rudolph and elves and penguins, Karst said most people associate those secular symbols with Christmas.

"Everywhere in Florida, and probably the whole country, there is a heightened awareness to not be offensive to anyone," Karst said. "While it's historically been habit, we're all more aware of it now. We can still celebrate Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July."

That's the point, Bender says: Why is it OK to offend her and Cowart but not the parents who complained about the Christmas play?

"My child learns about Kwanzaa and dreidels," Bender said, referring to religious traditions celebrated by non-Christians. "Why can't they sing about Santa and Rudolph?"

# posted by Duane : 10:56 PM  0 comments

BILL Clinton's scath ing, defensive attack against Chris Wall ace and Fox News on Sunday left me once again struck by the former president's pure hypocrisy and arrogance.

Clinton wagged his familiar finger in the face of the American public - which he clearly takes for fools - as he defended the indefensible: his administration's abysmal record on terrorism.

What made his self-righteousness especially burn for me is that fact that Clinton pardoned terrorists from the group that killed my father - and did it simply to help his wife's (successful) bid for a Senate seat. Now he wants me to believe he took the threat seriously?

Clinton claimed to have implemented a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" that was in place when President Bush and his team entered the White House on Jan. 20, 2001. As others have pointed out since Sunday, this "strategy" had some obvious holes - such as not linking the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to the greater terror war against America, and not raising the stakes against terrorism after the Khobar Towers bombing, the U.S. embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.

But those were (mostly) sins of omission. The pardons were a sin of commission.

In 1999, the Clinton adminstration cravenly offered pardons to 16 hard-core, remorseless terrorists of the Puerto Rican terror group Armed Forces for National Liberation - the FALN. (Two of them rejected the deal.)

During the 1970s and '80s, the FALN waged a war against the people of the United States that included 130 plus bombings. Their most heinous attack was the January 1975 lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern here in New York City. It killed four people, including my father, Frank Connor, 33.

Clinton invoked executive privilege to avoid explaining his reasons for releasing terrorists on the American public. But it remains clear that his motive was to garner Hispanic support for then-prospective Senate candidate Hillary Clinton's run in New York.

Until then, President Clinton had denied clemency in 3,039 out of 3,042 cases.

It's also worth noting that the Clinton administration consulted with representatives of the terrorists - but ignored the families of their victims.

I did get a chance to testify before a Senate subcommittee conducting hearings on Clinton's clemency. Here's my conclusion:

"Terrorism is one of the major problems facing the world as we enter the new century. While terrorism continues on from many foreign and domestic sources, the nation thought that the threat from FALN terrorists had been at least eradicated almost 20 years ago. Thanks to the president's callous disregard, the threat is now back and the world is a less safe place as a result.

"I keep hearing the president repeating that we have to protect our children. Is unleashing unrepenting, hardened killers on society the way to do so? It shouldn't 'Take A Village' to see that trampling on the rights of victims - and ignoring proven prevention techniques in our criminal-justice system for considering and denying clemency applications - is not the way to fight terrorism."

I was trying to make the point that the release of the FALN killers would send a frightening invitation to other would-be terrorists. Little did I know that more anguish was yet to come.

Almost two years to the day after my Senate testimony, my father's god son, our cousin Steve Schlag, was killed on 9/11. My brother and I watched in helpless horror from our downtown offices, ironically only blocks from Fraunces Tavern.

On behalf of my family (and many others), I'd like to thank you, Mr. Clinton, for such a comprehensive terror strategy and your commitment to the fight against terror.

You may not want to wag your finger defending your record anymore - it now seems clear that the more you wag, the more we see through you.

# posted by Duane : 9:05 PM  0 comments

In all that has been written and uttered in recent days about the fifth anniversary of 9-11, here is one question that has not been asked: What do boats, bicycles, guns and terrorists have in common? Answer: They all kill about the same number of Americans each year.

Dividing the nearly 3,000 people killed on 9-11 over the last five years gives you an average annual figure of 600. About that number die each year in accidents on boats, while riding bicycles and from the accidental discharge of firearms. (Tens of thousands more die from guns each year, but those are suicides and homicides.) Or put another way, more nonsmokers die as a result of breathing someone else's tobacco smoke every year than died on 9-11.

The horror of watching the exact moments when thousands of people died was a national trauma, but that shock has been exploited relentlessly since then.

The point of the statistics is not to denigrate the pain and suffering that were inflicted on America on that fateful day. But the size of the threat President Bush and other administration officials have likened the challenge that terrorism poses for the United States today as equal to the ones faced during World War II and the Cold War. While we mourn the loss of every one of the nearly 3,000 who died it is worth remembering that the number of dead resulting from World War II exceeded 60 million. And if there had been a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, there would have been hundreds of millions of casualties in the first few hours.

Comparing the threat of terrorism to that of Communism or the original Axis of evil is not simply historical ignorance or hubris. It is sheer political opportunism. Do those in power really think the nation's very survival is at risk because of a handful of fanatics? Or do they know that their political survival depends on convincing 51 percent of the people of that?

The nation's survival is not at risk, but the values that made it great are. We don't torture, because we use enhanced interrogation techniques. We don't outsource torture, because we ask those governments to which we deliver prisoners for questioning to assure us they don't before they wink and get on with it. We don't abuse prisoners because all those that have are low-ranking officials operating without written orders. We believe justice delayed is justice denied except for those who now have been held for years.

We believe in fair trials except the accused cannot see the evidence against them if it is based on intelligence reports. (And we all know our intelligence reports are infallible.) After years without trials, the administration will now argue that anyone in Congress that opposes the rapid ratification of the procedures just proposed for military tribunals is soft on terrorism.

In other words, we believe in the rule of law. And the law is whatever the ruler says it is.

When reports first surfaced that a clandestine system of prisons existed, the administration declined to comment on "intelligence matters" and condemned the journalists that published the stories.

Now that it is the right political moment, the president has announced their existence. Clearly freedom of the press means the press is free to report what the government says and not what it does.

The warnings that 9-11 might happen were not as clear as a weather map indicating a hurricane was headed toward a city below sea level. In both cases, however, our government failed to anticipate the catastrophe and has been hopelessly inept in its wake. And in both cases, the president has visited the scene and tried to portray his concern for the victims as a reason for re-electing those who failed us.

He has made a speech almost every day recently not because he has anything new to say about terrorism, but because he knows the media will air his every utterance. In this way he can filibuster until we all forget who is responsible and what they have done in our name. Washington searches the world for threats, not to eliminate the serious ones, but to scare themselves and us in order to justify anything that is done.

We should never forget what happened on 9-11 nor stop mourning our loss. But we should also not succumb to politically-motivated paranoia and should instead reflect on what 9-11 has been used as a pretext to create: A nation of sheep led by a collection of liars, fools and cowards.

# posted by Duane : 9:01 PM  1 comments

A summary:

Number of Arabs killed in the framework of Israeli-Arab conflicts since the creation of Israel (including in the 1948 war for Israel's independence, all the wars fought between Israel and its neighbors, and the occupation of Palestinians): 60,000.

Number of Algerian Muslims killed by the French in the 1950's Algerian war for Independence: Between 500,000 to 1 million.

Number of Muslims killed by other Muslims in the 1990's Algerian civil war: 100,000.

Number of people, including some Muslims, killed by Muslims in Sudan between 1955 and today: 2.6 million- 3 million.

Number of Muslims killed by the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980's: at least 1 million

Number of Muslims killed by other Muslims in the Afghan civil war of the 1980's-90's: 1 million

Number of Muslims killed by the Americans in efforts to overthrow the Taliban: less than 10,000.

Number of Muslims killed by other Muslims since 1977 in Somalia's civil war: Between 400,000- 550,000.

Number of Muslims in Bangladesh killed by other Muslims from Pakistan since 1977: 1.4 million-2 million

Number of Muslims killed by other Muslims in Indonesia since 1965: at least 400,000.

Number of Muslims in East Timor killed between 1975-1999 by Muslims from Indonesia: 100,000 - 200,000

Number of Muslims killed in Iraq by other Muslims (mostly those in the regime of Saddam Hussein): 1.54 million- 2 million

Number of Iranian Muslims killed in their war with Iraq: 450,000 - 970,000

Number of Lebanese killed by Israelis between 1975-1990: up to 18,000 (this number is included in the first statistic given several lines up, about Arab deaths at Israel's hands)

Number of Lebanese killed by other Lebanese or by Syrians between 1975-1990: at least 112,000.

Number of Yemenites, Egyptians, and Saudis killed in the Yemen civil war of 1962, and in the Yemen riots of 1984-1986: 100,000 - 150,000

Number of Chechen Muslims killed by the Russians since 1992: 80,000- 300,000

Number of Arabs and Muslims killed in Jordan (includes at least a few thousand Palestinians), Chad, Yugoslavia, Tajikistan, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Zanzibar in the course of smaller conflicts in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's: at least 150,000.

Summary of the summary:

The next time Arabs and/or Muslims complain about the persecution they suffer at the hands of the Americans and Israelis, remember this . . .
Since 1948, the number of Muslims killed by the Americans and Israelis combined is still less than the number killed by the French. And the number of Muslims killed by the French, Israelis, and Americans combined is still less than the number killed by the Soviets/Russians. And the number of Muslims killed by the Soviets, Russians, French, Israelis, and Americans, combined, is still about 1/3 of the number of Muslims who have been killed by Muslim states.

I don't mean to minimize anyone's suffering, and as an Israeli I'm interested in continuing to pressure Israel to keep Arab casualties at a minimum while still protecting Israelis. But if the goal is to save lives, then to focus one's pressure on the deeds or misdeeds of Israel is to apply an incredible, ridiculous double standard, one clearly motivated by anti-Semitism and nothing more. If the goal is to spare Muslim lives, then the Muslims could start with themselves, and come back to us when they value each other. (Oh, and when they themselves don't think anymore that 1,000 of them is worth 2 of us.)

# posted by Duane : 8:04 PM  0 comments

A fugitive gunman accused of killing a Florida sheriff’s deputy was shot 68 times by SWAT team officers who found him hiding in the woods, according to autopsy results.

Police fired 110 shots at Angilo Freeland, 27, the target of a massive manhunt in central Florida following the shooting death of Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Williams Thursday.

“That’s all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

Judd said Williams was “executed” after Freeland was pulled over in a routine traffic stop on Thursday. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

Williams, 39, was shot eight times—one bullet fired at close range behind the deputy’s right ear and another in his right temple, according to autopsy results released on Saturday by the sheriff’s office.

Sheriff’s officials said SWAT team members found Freeland on Friday hiding under a fallen oak tree in a wooded area near where the deputies were shot, and began firing when they saw a gun in his hand.

# posted by Duane : 2:03 PM  0 comments

The bodies were still warm when Lieutenant Ron Rutten found them: nine corpses in civilian clothes lying crumpled by a stream, each shot in the back at close range. It was July 12, 1995, and the UN-declared “safe area” of Srebrenica had fallen the previous day. The lush pastures of eastern Bosnia were about to become Europe’s bloodiest killing fields since 1945.

Refugees poured into the UN compound. But the Dutch peacekeepers (Dutchbat) were overwhelmed and the Serbs confiscated their weapons. “From the moment I found those bodies, it was obvious to me that the Bosnian Serbs planned to kill all the men,” Rutten said. He watched horrified as Dutch troops guided the men and boys onto the Serb buses.

Srebrenica is rarely mentioned nowadays in Annan’s offices on the 38th floor of the UN secretariat building in New York. He steps down in December after a decade as secretary-general. His retirement will be marked by plaudits. But behind the honorifics and the accolades lies a darker story: of incompetence, mismanagement and worse. Annan was the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) between March 1993 and December 1996. The Srebrenica massacre of up to 8,000 men and boys and the slaughter of 800,000 people in Rwanda happened on his watch. In Bosnia and Rwanda, UN officials directed peacekeepers to stand back from the killing, their concern apparently to guard the UN’s status as a neutral observer. This was a shock to those who believed the UN was there to help them.

Annan’s term has also been marked by scandal: from the sexual abuse of women and children in the Congo by UN peacekeepers to the greatest financial scam in history, the UN-administered oil-for-food programme. Arguably, a trial of the UN would be more apt than a leaving party.

The charge sheet would include guarding its own interests over those it supposedly protects; endemic opacity and lack of accountability; obstructing investigations, promoting the inept and marginalising the dedicated. Such accusations can be made against many organisations. But the UN is different. It has a moral mission.

It was founded by the allies in 1945 to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights”. Its key documents – the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the genocide convention – are the most advanced formulation of human rights in history. And they have been flouted by UN member states for decades.

A more specific charge would be that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, the UN is guilty of war crimes. Broadly speaking, it has three principles: that a commander ordered atrocities to be carried out, that he failed to stop them, despite being able to, or failed to punish those responsible. The case rests on the second, that in Rwanda in 1994, in Srebrenica in 1995 and in Darfur since 2003, the UN knew war crimes were occurring or about to occur, but failed to stop them, despite having the means to do so.

Charge one: Rwanda

That in 1994, Annan and the DPKO refused the UN commander General Romeo Dallaire (below) permission to raid Hutu arms caches, despite his warning mass slaughter was planned, that they failed to inform the security council, and failed to clarify the extent of the genocide

Unamir, the UN mission to Rwanda, was deployed in October 1993 to implement the Arusha peace accords, with the aim of ending the civil war between the Hutus and Tutsis. The Hutu government continued to plan a mass slaughter of Tutsis. By January 1994, ethnic tension was at boiling point. The 2,500 Unamir troops were under-equipped. Dallaire lacked everything from intelligence-gathering capability to batteries for troops’ torches.

By January 1994, Dallaire had received detailed information about the planned mass murder from a source inside the Hutu militia known as “Jean-Pierre”. The general asked the DPKO for authorisation to raid the arms caches and offer sanctuary to Jean-Pierre and his family. On January 11, 1994, he cabled New York: “Since Unamir mandate, he [Jean-Pierre] has been ordered to register all Tutsis in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1,000 Tutsis.” He said he planned to raid the arms caches within the next 36 hours. He concluded: “Peux ce-que veux. Allons-y” – “Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Let’s go.”

There was no will and no way. Annan’s office replied, in a cable signed by his deputy, Iqbal Riza: “We must handle this information with caution.” Dallaire warned of mass slaughter, but Annan counselled prudence. “No reconnaissance or other action, including response to request for protection, should be taken by Unamir until clear guidance is received from headquarters.” Dallaire was furious. The next day his boss, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, replied to Annan, backing Dallaire, emphasising that Jean-Pierre only had a maximum of 48 hours before he was due to distribute the arms for the massacres. Annan’s reply, again signed by Riza, was negative. He ordered Dallaire not to proceed with the planned raid. It was, he said, beyond Unamir’s mandate under resolution 872. This was untrue. UN mandates were interpreted by DPKO officials as they saw fit. Resolution 872 mandated Unamir to “secure the city of Kigali” within “a weapons-secure area established by the parties in and around the city”. This was sufficient mandate. Dallaire was not even allowed to help Jean-Pierre. “The overriding consideration is the need to avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated repercussions,”
Annan’s cable concluded.

Had Annan permitted Dallaire to carry out his raids, the genocide might never have taken place. Not only did Annan and Riza twice refuse this, they then sat on his fax. They neither alerted other UN departments nor brought Dallaire’s warnings to the attention of the security council. The council then downsized Unamir from 2,500 troops to around 250. Dallaire stayed on. He helped save thousands of lives but, tormented by memories of those who died, he later became depressed and attempted suicide. He retired in 2000 and is now a senator in the Canadian parliament, active on human-rights issues.

# posted by Duane : 12:48 PM  0 comments

On his “Middle Church” blog, the Rev. Bob Edgar, former Pennsylvania Democratic member of the United States Congress and current General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, reveals that the United States government has prevented him from fulfilling the Lord’s commandment to visit prisoners.

The National Council of Churches chief had asked to visit “the children of God” (i.e. al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners) at the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, but the request was denied.

Meanwhile, there are many prisoners around the world who might better merit Edgar’s attention, if he truly is interested in human rights, rather than just contrived protests against U.S. policies in the war on terror. These are imprisoned Christians, incarcerated by Islamic and communist regimes because of their faith.

Edgar, an ordained United Methodist pastor, might be expected to sympathize with imprisoned fellow Christians. But he seems to prefer the cause of the imprisoned radical Islamists at Guantanamo.

“We did not wish to make a statement,” Edgar insists with a straight face about Guantanamo. “We simply wanted to visit these prisoners as our Lord commands in Matthew 25: 40: 'When did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Edgar seems to imply that these radical Islamic terrorists, captured on the battlefield, are Jesus’ brothers. Perhaps he should turn to Matthew 12:50, where Jesus says, “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Compare that with what a detainee told his questioner at Guantanamo Bay: “I’ll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and sisters.”

“I have no doubt that there are truly horrible people held behind bars at Guantanamo Bay,” Edgar assures us. Maybe he was thinking of the staged suicide attempt this past May. When U.S. guards entered a cell believing that detainees were attempting to kill themselves, they discovered that these “children of God” had “slickened the floor of their block with feces, urine and soapy water in an attempt to trip the guards.” They attacked the guards with broken light fixtures, fan blades, and other improvised weapons, according to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris in a Reuters news report.

Of course, Christians should pray for these wretched prisoners at Guantanamo, that God will remove the hatred in their hearts. Unfortunately, many of their advocates, including church officials like Rev. Edgar, prefer to exploit the Guantanamo prisoners for their own political statements, rather than pray for their transformation.

Rev. Edgar finds “a ray of hope” in the U.S. government’s dismantling of secret CIA prisons for Islamist terrorists who wage jihad against Western civilization. How about a ray of hope for some truly ignored and overlooked prisoners, many of whom share Edgar’s Christian faith?

I have an idea for Reverend Edgar. I know some other prisoners he can visit. And unlike the Guantanamo prisoners, these prisoners are actually innocent.

With tens of thousands of Christians in prison for their faith around the world, it is difficult to choose. But here is my short list of prisoners you should be visiting, Reverend Edgar, if you really want to fulfill the Lord’s command:

Rmah Pruih, a Montagnard Christian from the Central Highlands of Vietnam—arrested and imprisoned on August 28, 2006, along with 23 others. The Montagnards were U.S. allies during the Vietnam war and are now victims of brutal persecution, imprisonment, and torture by the Vietnamese government because they are “house church” Christians. Over 350 Montagnards are imprisoned, and several have recently died from torture while under interrogation or imprisonment.

Ling Ming, a Chinese Christian incarcerated in Langzhong City, Sichuan Province, along with three others. These four Chinese Christians were arrested on June 27, 2006 when they went to the Social Order Office in their town to inquire about two other Chinese Christians who had been arrested earlier that day. They were sentenced to two years of “reeducation through labor,” joining the hundreds of other Christians imprisoned in China.

Fabianus Tibo, an Indonesian Christian, who along with his two fellow Christians Dominggus Dasilva and Marinus Riwu, was sentenced to death in 2000 on trumped-up charges of murder during Muslim-on-Christian violence in Poso, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. According to numerous witnesses, including a member of the Police Intelligence Division, Tibo and the others were actually helping to evacuate children from a church-run school set on fire by the Islamists and protecting Christians and Muslims from further violence. Originally their execution was supposed to take place in August 2005. It has been postponed several times, including on August 12, 2006, when the postponement came one hour before it was due to take place, so you’ll need to hurry on this one.

Helene Berhane, an Eritrean Gospel singer. Berhane was arrested in May 2004, and has been kept incarcerated in a shipping container (this is a literal shipping container, Reverend Edgar, not the figurative “small cages” in which you accuse the U.S. government of keeping terrorists as if they were pet hamsters) at a military detention center in the desert near the Sudan border. 1,800 Christians of various denominations have been arrested and likewise imprisoned in these containers, as well as in various other detention facilities.

An anonymous Korean Christian was arrested and is imprisoned at the Kyo-Hwa-So #1 Death Camp, not far from Pyongyang, where U.S. church delegations prefer to visit Potemkin Villages and watch official dog and pony shows. Because of the extreme repression of the North Korean regime, we do not know the names of Christian prisoners, nor how many thousands and thousands of imprisoned North Koreans are being held for their faith. But we do know that Christians are singled out for special brutality in these camps where everyone dies eventually, so, again, you’ll need to make this a priority.

Jorge Luis García Perez Antunez, a Cuban Christian dissident imprisoned in one of Cuba’s over 300 political prisons, Kilo 7, Camaguey Province. He has been in prison since March 1990 on an 18 year sentence for “spreading enemy propaganda.” Antunez was recently beaten while handcuffed in punishment for going on a hunger strike to demand spiritual and medical assistance. He is frequently kept in solitary confinement in a “tiny, sealed cell with no light or bedding, typically overflowing with excrement and infested with rats and insects," according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

Hesham Azmy Iskender, a young Egyptian Coptic Christian, arrested in April 2006 in riots that followed knife attacks on Christians in Alexandria. He and six other Christians have been detained without charge and held in both police stations and prison since that time. Unlike Gitmo detainees, Iskender actually was an innocent bystander, attempting to return home after work while riot police were surrounding the funeral procession for the elderly Christian who was killed in the knife attack.

Rebekka Zakaria, an Indonesian Christian Sunday School teacher, who, along with two other women, Eti Pangesti and Ratna Bangun, was sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly attempting to convert Muslim children. Muslim children had asked to join the programs and outings the three women were providing for Christian children, and although their parents gave permission, the Muslim Clerics Council accused them of trying to convert the children. Of course if they had forbidden the Muslim children, they would have been accused of Islamophobia.

Pastor Gong Shengliang, leader of the 50,000 member South China Church. Pastor Gong was sentenced to death in December 2001 for using an “evil cult to undermine the enforcement of law,” but because of an international outcry, his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Members of Gong’s church were forced to testify against him, including women church leaders who were tortured until they “confessed” that he had raped them. Pastor Gong, like hundreds of other imprisoned Chinese Christians such as Pastor Zhang Rongliang, is weak, and in poor health, due to continual torture.

Will Rev. Edgar ever express concern about Christian prisoners of conscience in China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, North Korea and elsewhere? Or will he focus exclusively on the al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo?

There are thousands of other prisoners of conscience he could visit, as well. Hundreds of Baha’is are in prison in Iran. (Sadly, it’s too late to see Zabihollah Mahrami. He died of unknown causes after ten years’ imprisonment on charges of apostasy.) There are thousands of practitioners of Falun Gong in China’s labor camps. For instance, Rev. Edgar could go to the Pingquan Detention Center in Hebei Province and see 67 year-old Falun Gong practitioner Yu Hanying. The Chinese Government also free admits that there are over 200 Buddhist nuns and monks in prison in Tibet. Or here’s a really radical idea to demonstrate justice and prophetic witness: Why doesn’t Rev. Edgar ask to visit Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the Israeli Defense Force soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006? Or he could attempt to see Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Palestinian militants.

We hope Rev. Edgar will expand his horizons, and his heart.

# posted by Duane : 12:42 PM  0 comments

When pundits confronting the modern sport of extreme politics want to step back from it all, a favored tactic is to ask: What would a man from Mars think? The spectacle currently on display for the man from Mars is a full-throttle election-year fight over the meaning of national security. The Democrats want voters to view the November election through the fogged and bloody prism of the war in Iraq; Republicans want voters at 30,000 feet with a war on terror spread to the horizon.

We don't need the proverbial man from Mars to assess the fight between Democrats and Republicans over national security. Over the past year, I've exchanged messages with several American soldiers in Iraq, now a planet in our political system, and I asked one recently for his opinion of the political landscape back home. He sounded like he might prefer Mars.

"We are very cut off from big political debates here," he said. "We have access to email and the Internet, but as a ground combat arms guy, my pace precludes the close following of national political news that I enjoyed prior to deploying, so I can't say that these debates weigh heavily on us." Thank God for that.

It is difficult to imagine that the U.S. soldiers in Iraq would regard the political debate back home as measuring up to the seriousness of what they do every day. How would you like to roll out of your bunk in al Anbar province, Mosul or Baghdad on a Sunday morning and read across the top of the local U.S. paper that everything you've done in Iraq for three years has merely made the terrorism threat worse? You just might lose heart a notch, a dangerous thing when fighting a war.

But at this late stage of the campaign, Iraq-as-failure has become the central narrative in the Democrats' strategy. A memo sent out to Democrats last week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a strategy group led by former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg, discusses Mr. Bush's "failure in Iraq, which energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans." It urges Democrats: "On Iraq, stress Bush/GOP 'mismanagement' and need for a 'new direction.' "

There is general agreement in Democratic circles that the party made a mistake by not confronting the national-security issue more forcefully in 2002 and 2004. Paul Begala cited the two elections on the "Today" show Monday and said al Qaeda is "coming back to get us because of the failed policies of George Bush."

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner says it has polled each element of this strategy, and that the poll numbers suggest public support for these Democratic positions. A poll-certified national-security strategy just might work with the out-of-sorts 2006 electorate. But there was a reason for 2002 and 2004. Those Democrats who did get elected channeled their energies into denouncing the Bush antiterror programs and backing the Lamont Insurrection. So there's a problem with the current hand-the-war-to-us strategy: Their hearts and minds really aren't in it. They don't want the war.

No one doubts that George Bush's war on terror is based in belief and principle. Yes indeed, many Democrats say this is precisely the problem. But voters are going to have to make a net judgment between these two variations on a theme. What's before them?

On the GOP side, they've seen George Bush give three major policy speeches this month, pushing the Bush Doctrine with commitment and consistency. Today Congress may send for his signature the bill he sought on terrorist detainees.

The Democrats are back in the national-security game alright, but the playbook is opinion polling first, with belief a second option. One result is their national-security offensive has taken on a surreal unseriousness.

A fortnight ago, the big political story suddenly became ABC's made-for-television movie, "The Path to 9/11." Out of the woods to dominate the news cycle came the ghosts from the Clinton past--Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright--condemning the film as a slander on their long years before the antiterror mast. Up to this point, Democratic candidates had seemed to be surfing smoothly toward control of the House on waves of bad media news out of Iraq. Suddenly they've got to deal with a movie suggesting we're in Iraq because their president failed to pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden.

This sideshow culminated last Sunday morning in a bizarre exchange between Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace of Fox--Mr. Clinton wagging a familiar finger at Mr. Wallace and accusing the anchorman of smirking at him. Personally, I think Mr. Wallace generally looks bemused, which is a distant, more innocent cousin of the smirk. Bill O'Reilly, now there's a big-league smirk.

Some pundits surmised that the Clinton eruption was planned to rally the liberal base, depressed at the sight of bad Bush's approval rating crawling back above 40%, and rising. This was Bill Clinton so my guess is it was both--planned and over the top. The fact is, the Democrats found themselves back in Afghanistan with Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, rather than where they wanted the news to be, amid Baghdad's bombs. A messy week.

Then came the leaked NIE story in the New York Times this past Sunday. What a bombshell. This would put them back on message: Iraq as failure. But by now it's evident that the whole workweek invested in the National Intelligence Estimate story was a colossal waste of the time devoted to it. What began Sunday as the Times's towering bonfire--16 intel agencies and 12 anonymous sources writing off Iraq--by Wednesday had burned down to embers.

After the White House released the NIE summary late Tuesday afternoon, reporters reading it for the first time on the Web undoubtedly kept hitting the Page Down button on their PCs. This is it!? Three crummy pages that anyone could have boiled down from a Foreign Affairs "Wither Iraq?" symposium.

The Democrats' problem is this: They are trying to beat policy with politics and weaken belief with polls. This may work for Social Security. I don't think it works with war. Don't be surprised if come November, Democrats are still on message--Iraq as failure--and still in the minority.

# posted by Duane : 12:25 PM  0 comments