I'm really pissed!
Nelson Mandela recently criticized America's policy toward Iraq in a speech "Former South African President Nelson Mandela made some very strong criticisms of U.S. policy toward Iraq in a speech delivered to the International Women's Forum meeting in Sandton, South Africa. The speech, on the theme of Courageous Leadership for Global Transformation, was recorded by SABC. What follows are excerpts from that speech."
Here are quotes from that speech reported on the All Africa website:
"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America [APPLAUSE]. They don't care for human beings. Fifty-seven years ago, when Japan was retreating on all fronts, they decided to drop the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; killed a lot of innocent people, who are still suffering the effects of those bombs.
Those bombs were not aimed against the Japanese, they were aimed against the Soviet Union to say, 'look, this is the power that we have. If you dare oppose what we do, this is what is going to happen to you'. Because they are so arrogant, they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that.
Who are they, now, to pretend that they are the policemen of the world? [APPLAUSE] To want to decide for the people in Iraq what they should do with their government and with their leadership?
If this is done by the United Nations, if the United Nations says that 'Saddam Hussein is not carrying out the resolutions of the United Nations, therefore we the United Nations are going to take action,' I will support that without reservation. [APPLAUSE]
What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no Foresight, who cannot think properly, [LAUGHTER] is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. I am happy that the people of the world - especially those of the United States of America - are standing up and opposing their own president.
I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life in trying to bring about carnage and to police the world, without any authority of the international body. It is something we have to condemn without reservation."
Nelson Mandela has shown himself with these remarks to be no friend of the US. Where is the US media's reporting of this 'hero" of South Africa's views? Where is the condemnation of these comments? His country is awash with AIDS, yet he condemns the president who, in his State of the Union address, recommends billions in AIDS help for Africa's epidemic.
I have lost all respect for Mr. Mandela. He is unworthy to be South Africa's leader.
January 31, 2003
January 23, 2003
How Can This Be?
In a noble effort to assure diversity and nondiscrimination within academia, the application of the rules has reached far beyond their noble intent and now border on the absurd. Any group, but particularly a religious group, has an inalienable right to require its leadership to hold beliefs that form the basis for the group's very existence. Here's hoping the courts reject arguments to the contrary and reach the logical conclusion without delay.
From Time Magazine January 13, 2003:
Does a Christian student organization have the right to insist that its leaders be Christians? Several universities say no, and a growing legal battle has resulted. The InterVarsity Multiethnic Christian Fellowship at Rutgers filed suit last week after the university eliminated the group's $1200. in funding. Rutgers claimed that the group was violating the university's antidiscrimination rules, which stipulate that an organization may not discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs when choosing its leaders. The group says the decision violates its freedom of religion and association.
Christian groups at the University of North Carolina and Harvard are fighting similar efforts to strip them of funding unless they embrace nondiscrimination clauses. The schools claim that they are simply adhering to antidiscrimination policies. The students say it makes no sense to forbid a Christian fellowship to require its leaders to agree with certain tenets of Christianity. "We're not trying to exclude," says Laura Vellenga. New Jersey area director for InterVarsity, which has fellowships on 560 campuses across the U.S. "But we want to reserve leadership positions to what the fellowship is about." -by Perry Bacon
From Time Magazine January 13, 2003:
Does a Christian student organization have the right to insist that its leaders be Christians? Several universities say no, and a growing legal battle has resulted. The InterVarsity Multiethnic Christian Fellowship at Rutgers filed suit last week after the university eliminated the group's $1200. in funding. Rutgers claimed that the group was violating the university's antidiscrimination rules, which stipulate that an organization may not discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs when choosing its leaders. The group says the decision violates its freedom of religion and association.
Christian groups at the University of North Carolina and Harvard are fighting similar efforts to strip them of funding unless they embrace nondiscrimination clauses. The schools claim that they are simply adhering to antidiscrimination policies. The students say it makes no sense to forbid a Christian fellowship to require its leaders to agree with certain tenets of Christianity. "We're not trying to exclude," says Laura Vellenga. New Jersey area director for InterVarsity, which has fellowships on 560 campuses across the U.S. "But we want to reserve leadership positions to what the fellowship is about." -by Perry Bacon
January 17, 2003
Fuzzy Thinking
Olin Robison, a VPR commentator and President of the Salzburg seminar (not sure what they do) and former president of Middlebury College, in his commentary today portrays President Bush as lacking the sophisticated thinking required to deal with a complex, ambiguous world. He says:
"The president's repeated references to "evil doers" who are frequently a part of the "Axis of Evil" seems to play well in the polls at least so far. A couple of weeks ago the president visited the troops awaiting deployment at Fort Hood. In addressing these men and women, the president was clear: "Either you are with those who love freedom or you are with those who hate innocent life." No wonder this scares people. It is a stance that equates moral clarity with moral simplicity. It fails to understand that, frequently, moral clarity is in recognizing nuance, subtlety, ambiguity and complexity."
Mr Robison has it wrong. A leader should display his values and speak directly, clearly and espouse no-nonsense policy based on his beliefs and, particularly, his clear distinction of right from wrong. The world of "nuance, subtlety, ambiguity and complexity" is best left to diplomats, not the leader of America. Mr. Bush leaves no confused impression of where he stands.American's want certainty and clarity from their leader, particularly in these perilous times. The sophistication Mr. Robison espouses is the delight of academics and those with little responsibility for world-changing decisions.
Mr Bush is right to be morally clear. Morality is certainly not a policy, but it should underlie every policy whose implementation protects America's principles and freeedom. When the time is right, I believe President Bush will provide the facts that underlie our policy that may require war with Iraq. Stategically, it makes no sense to divulge intelligence prematurely. The public will know Mr. Hussein's secrets in due time.
"The president's repeated references to "evil doers" who are frequently a part of the "Axis of Evil" seems to play well in the polls at least so far. A couple of weeks ago the president visited the troops awaiting deployment at Fort Hood. In addressing these men and women, the president was clear: "Either you are with those who love freedom or you are with those who hate innocent life." No wonder this scares people. It is a stance that equates moral clarity with moral simplicity. It fails to understand that, frequently, moral clarity is in recognizing nuance, subtlety, ambiguity and complexity."
Mr Robison has it wrong. A leader should display his values and speak directly, clearly and espouse no-nonsense policy based on his beliefs and, particularly, his clear distinction of right from wrong. The world of "nuance, subtlety, ambiguity and complexity" is best left to diplomats, not the leader of America. Mr. Bush leaves no confused impression of where he stands.American's want certainty and clarity from their leader, particularly in these perilous times. The sophistication Mr. Robison espouses is the delight of academics and those with little responsibility for world-changing decisions.
Mr Bush is right to be morally clear. Morality is certainly not a policy, but it should underlie every policy whose implementation protects America's principles and freeedom. When the time is right, I believe President Bush will provide the facts that underlie our policy that may require war with Iraq. Stategically, it makes no sense to divulge intelligence prematurely. The public will know Mr. Hussein's secrets in due time.
January 14, 2003
Daniel Fogel, President of UVM, appeared on Vermont Public Radio' s Switchboard program tonight. While he is a thoughtful individual and said all the proper remarks, he was much too tentative. He is an academic leader, I believe, but he should be more forceful with his ideas and views. Although he has been in Vermont less than a year, he should 'take command' more aggressively and build confidence in his considerable abilities.
January 13, 2003
Vermont Jobs and Tax base
Vermont's fundamental dilemma and tax base is that jobs paying 'good' wages to people in the middle of the wconomic pecking order are evaporating so there's less upward mobility without specialty training. This job loss is an uncomfortable reality of globalization and tends to stratify the low end wage earners from the higher wage earners. The long term remedy to be pursued is multi-faceted reaching into education, tax policy, busines and public investment, and many other factors that feed into the perceived 'business climate.' There is no quick fix and Vermont will compete with the other states for the same supply of present and future jobs. We need to find ways to differentiate ourselves.
Effective permit reform is a good place to start. Thanks Gov. Douglas.
Effective permit reform is a good place to start. Thanks Gov. Douglas.
January 8, 2003
Evil in the World
Can there be any doubt that evil is rampant in the world? From the Houston man who beat his mother to death and ate part of her heart to the terrorist bombings in Israel and around the world, to the hatred that exists between races and ethnic groups, there can be no doubt that evil is a true and pervasive force within humanity. Some would say this is caused by people not 'knowing enough' thus needing education. Others would say hatred is like a disease spawned in the environment. Fix the envoironment, the culture and the social order and people will be better, if not 'good.'
The truth is that evil lurks in the heart of man. Some religions call this Original Sin. Others see it as something to be cleansed in righteous living through many incarnations. Still others see evil as a force to be embraced or appeased by sacrifice.
Because evil lives and breeds within the human character, as part of the inherent nature of Man, it cannot be expunged by the will of Man or tools he might devise. It can be controlled and managed in some degree by the police powers and sanctions of society but the ultimate purging of Evil can only be accomplished by personal belief in the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the son of God and the Son of Man. This can happen only in one person at a time. While the evil is not removed, the sinful, evil nature is forgiven.
Education, psychotherapy, policemen, incarceration and punishment cannot remove evil nor forgive it. Man's best efforts can only ameliorate it.
True freedom from the devastating effects of evil only comes from forgiveness created by the shed blood of the God-Man.
The truth is that evil lurks in the heart of man. Some religions call this Original Sin. Others see it as something to be cleansed in righteous living through many incarnations. Still others see evil as a force to be embraced or appeased by sacrifice.
Because evil lives and breeds within the human character, as part of the inherent nature of Man, it cannot be expunged by the will of Man or tools he might devise. It can be controlled and managed in some degree by the police powers and sanctions of society but the ultimate purging of Evil can only be accomplished by personal belief in the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the son of God and the Son of Man. This can happen only in one person at a time. While the evil is not removed, the sinful, evil nature is forgiven.
Education, psychotherapy, policemen, incarceration and punishment cannot remove evil nor forgive it. Man's best efforts can only ameliorate it.
True freedom from the devastating effects of evil only comes from forgiveness created by the shed blood of the God-Man.
December 28, 2002
Moral Clarity about Terrorism
Nicholas Kristof examines some current thinking around terrorism and how new tools and methods of warfare have outraged their targets and enemies. The central message from many academics is that this is not a 'black and white' issue with universal clarity. When is one person's description or a terrorist another's definition of a freedom fighter? When is a cause so important that any method of attack or tool of war is acceptable in the eyes of the perpetrator and sympathizers?. Though not mentioned, when is a guerilla a terrorist? When does unconventional warfare rise to the level of terrorism?
Labeling a person or group as terrorist rallies the victims of such acts and their culture, society and leadership to oppose terrorists. Hatred is kindled and widespread fear in the populace, a key objective of terrorists, is created.
President Bush uses the term 'moral clarity' to describe his and America's view of the terrorism we have experienced at the hands of the Arab perpetrators. Kristof summarizes the arguments of others who say that 'moral clarity ' is inappropriate rhetoric.
Is it fair to present the war on terrorism as a parable of good (us) versus evil (them)? Grenville Byford reflected the skeptics' view in a Foreign Affairs essay, arguing that moral clarity is more apparent than real and that "the sooner the rhetoric is retired the better." Highly nuanced intellectuals tend to poke three kinds of holes in moral clarity:
1. Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. President Reagan declared the African National Congress a terrorist group not long before its leader, Nelson Mandela, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile he described Jonas Savimbi, who everybody else thought of as a terrorist, as Angola's Abraham Lincoln. Oops. And speaking of our national heroes, what about our radical forebears in the American Revolution who burned the homes of British loyalists? Were they terrorists?
2. Wiping out terrorists is sometimes unhelpful. Even if we could agree on what constitutes terrorism, it's often not obvious what we should do about it. Pakistan has done more than Iraq to support terrorism (in Kashmir), but instead of invading Pakistan, Mr. Bush has quite sensibly sent aid — for bolstering President Pervez Musharraf is the best hope for ending the violence. Circumstances vary, so sometimes we kill those engaged in terrorism, and sometimes we invite them for state visits.
3. In crude military terms, terrorism often works. New methods of killing people initially provoke outrage but eventually are often accepted. Henry V used longbows at Agincourt, outraging the French. British redcoats marching in neat columns were appalled by sneaky Yankees hiding behind trees. After Guernica, aerial bombing was condemned as barbaric, and in World War II the West condemned Germany's V-1 and V-2 missiles as terror weapons.
Using the definition of terrorism "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons," I believe America is morally clear in our description and response to Al Queda and allied groups. Targeted bombings, airliners flown into buildings, ships blown up, and other such acts are immoral in a civilized world, just as the destruction of property by groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and Earth First! is a terrorst act. In a civilized world, there some activity and behavior is not merely illegal, it is off-limits.
The debate of right vs. wrong, morality vs immorality, legal vs, illegal will continue. Nevertheless, America must not muddle along in a debate that creates paralysis. President Bush is right to consistently define and describe terrorism with moral clarity and to take all actions necessary to thwart terrorists who would kill and destroy our people and our security. He is also correct to denounce and oppose the Palestinian suicide bombers and organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists. Mr. Bush is careful, however, not to label Iraq and Saddam Hussein as terrorist, instead opting for different descriptors for the threat they pose, not to America or Americans directly, but to "the stability of the region" and to their "neighbors." If he had convincing evidence of direct links to Al Queda, I'm sure he would label Iraq differently. Perhaps such evidence does exist and it's a matter of when to release it.
Labeling a person or group as terrorist rallies the victims of such acts and their culture, society and leadership to oppose terrorists. Hatred is kindled and widespread fear in the populace, a key objective of terrorists, is created.
President Bush uses the term 'moral clarity' to describe his and America's view of the terrorism we have experienced at the hands of the Arab perpetrators. Kristof summarizes the arguments of others who say that 'moral clarity ' is inappropriate rhetoric.
Is it fair to present the war on terrorism as a parable of good (us) versus evil (them)? Grenville Byford reflected the skeptics' view in a Foreign Affairs essay, arguing that moral clarity is more apparent than real and that "the sooner the rhetoric is retired the better." Highly nuanced intellectuals tend to poke three kinds of holes in moral clarity:
1. Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. President Reagan declared the African National Congress a terrorist group not long before its leader, Nelson Mandela, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile he described Jonas Savimbi, who everybody else thought of as a terrorist, as Angola's Abraham Lincoln. Oops. And speaking of our national heroes, what about our radical forebears in the American Revolution who burned the homes of British loyalists? Were they terrorists?
2. Wiping out terrorists is sometimes unhelpful. Even if we could agree on what constitutes terrorism, it's often not obvious what we should do about it. Pakistan has done more than Iraq to support terrorism (in Kashmir), but instead of invading Pakistan, Mr. Bush has quite sensibly sent aid — for bolstering President Pervez Musharraf is the best hope for ending the violence. Circumstances vary, so sometimes we kill those engaged in terrorism, and sometimes we invite them for state visits.
3. In crude military terms, terrorism often works. New methods of killing people initially provoke outrage but eventually are often accepted. Henry V used longbows at Agincourt, outraging the French. British redcoats marching in neat columns were appalled by sneaky Yankees hiding behind trees. After Guernica, aerial bombing was condemned as barbaric, and in World War II the West condemned Germany's V-1 and V-2 missiles as terror weapons.
Using the definition of terrorism "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons," I believe America is morally clear in our description and response to Al Queda and allied groups. Targeted bombings, airliners flown into buildings, ships blown up, and other such acts are immoral in a civilized world, just as the destruction of property by groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and Earth First! is a terrorst act. In a civilized world, there some activity and behavior is not merely illegal, it is off-limits.
The debate of right vs. wrong, morality vs immorality, legal vs, illegal will continue. Nevertheless, America must not muddle along in a debate that creates paralysis. President Bush is right to consistently define and describe terrorism with moral clarity and to take all actions necessary to thwart terrorists who would kill and destroy our people and our security. He is also correct to denounce and oppose the Palestinian suicide bombers and organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists. Mr. Bush is careful, however, not to label Iraq and Saddam Hussein as terrorist, instead opting for different descriptors for the threat they pose, not to America or Americans directly, but to "the stability of the region" and to their "neighbors." If he had convincing evidence of direct links to Al Queda, I'm sure he would label Iraq differently. Perhaps such evidence does exist and it's a matter of when to release it.
December 26, 2002
Smoker to Accept $28 Million
This quoted article from the Burlington Free Press, December 26, 2002 displays the utter foolishness that pervades our judicial system. Attorneys who game the system in the name of justice are worse than leaches. Juries who award outrageous sums are no better. Sure, smoking causes death and disease, but that fact has been displayed on cigarette packages for decades. Here's the piece of foolishness:
Los Angeles (where else but California?) A woman with lung cancer will accept a reduced punitive damage judgment against cigarette maker Phillip Morris but will appeal a judge's decision to slash a jury's $28 billion award, her attorney said Tuesday. Superior Court Judge Warren L. Ettinger failed to properly state his reason for settling on the $28 million figure, said Michael Piuze, attorney for 64-year old Betty Bullock If Bullock did not accept the lower figure she would face a retrial of the punitive damages phase before Ettinger, Piuze said. There is no conflict in accepting the judgment and appealing the reduction, he said.
I am appalled at the absurdity of either award and the fact that the case goes on... !
Los Angeles (where else but California?) A woman with lung cancer will accept a reduced punitive damage judgment against cigarette maker Phillip Morris but will appeal a judge's decision to slash a jury's $28 billion award, her attorney said Tuesday. Superior Court Judge Warren L. Ettinger failed to properly state his reason for settling on the $28 million figure, said Michael Piuze, attorney for 64-year old Betty Bullock If Bullock did not accept the lower figure she would face a retrial of the punitive damages phase before Ettinger, Piuze said. There is no conflict in accepting the judgment and appealing the reduction, he said.
I am appalled at the absurdity of either award and the fact that the case goes on... !
December 25, 2002
Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will
While the Times editorializes the hope that is Christmas in the secular context and only partially quotes the familiar biblical promise in its context:
The purest expression of that seasonal hope has always been universal peace. The familiar phrase is "Peace on Earth" — so familiar, in fact, at this time of year that it seems like mere metaphor as you sing it while harking to herald angels. And perhaps that metaphorical quality, that sense of near-impossibility, is what we were meant to hear in the gospel when, in the words of the King James Version, the angels proclaimed, "Peace on earth, good will toward men."
The truth as stated in Lk 2:14 of the KJV is: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The Times neglects "Glory to God" in favor of a secular spin perhaps to satisfy those for whom Christmas is a Holiday rather than a Holy Day. The New International Version of the bible translates Lk 2:14 this way: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
First, the Glory belongs to God and, second, peace is bestowed by God on men, perhaps only to those of good will. This peace that Christians live in (or not) is an internal peace born of salvation from the babe, the Christ , the only son of God who came to dwell among us. But his peace comes because He came to die for the sin of the world, personal and corporate, that we may have resurrection life.
The peace of the world, in the secular sense, is a hope, as the Times suggests, but true peace as bestowed by God is found only through the Savior whose birth we Christians celebrate at a season of the year that is linked with the solstice rituals of ancient paganism. In unbelief there is no peace. Acceptance of the Truth brings peace to one person at a time.
The purest expression of that seasonal hope has always been universal peace. The familiar phrase is "Peace on Earth" — so familiar, in fact, at this time of year that it seems like mere metaphor as you sing it while harking to herald angels. And perhaps that metaphorical quality, that sense of near-impossibility, is what we were meant to hear in the gospel when, in the words of the King James Version, the angels proclaimed, "Peace on earth, good will toward men."
The truth as stated in Lk 2:14 of the KJV is: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The Times neglects "Glory to God" in favor of a secular spin perhaps to satisfy those for whom Christmas is a Holiday rather than a Holy Day. The New International Version of the bible translates Lk 2:14 this way: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
First, the Glory belongs to God and, second, peace is bestowed by God on men, perhaps only to those of good will. This peace that Christians live in (or not) is an internal peace born of salvation from the babe, the Christ , the only son of God who came to dwell among us. But his peace comes because He came to die for the sin of the world, personal and corporate, that we may have resurrection life.
The peace of the world, in the secular sense, is a hope, as the Times suggests, but true peace as bestowed by God is found only through the Savior whose birth we Christians celebrate at a season of the year that is linked with the solstice rituals of ancient paganism. In unbelief there is no peace. Acceptance of the Truth brings peace to one person at a time.
December 23, 2002
Racism and Rabble Rousing
The black 'promotion' organizations have decided to feast on the Republican Party after Trent Lott's demise as Senate Majority Leader. This blatant political attack by all the major black rights organizations and leaders will not serve them well because Americans are smarter than to believe the rhetoric of people like Jackson, Sharpton and Mfume. These self-aggrandizing 'leaders' are so blatantly racist themselves they are blinded to the fact that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are racist. These black rabble rousers lack perspective and really desire to build their own power base and careers using any incident to promote themselves.
People should recall particularly the backgrounds of Sharpton (Tawana Brawley debacle) and Jackson (out-of-wedlock children, taking up th e cause of blatant violent rioters in Illinois, shaking down large corporations). These men are not to be trusted and do not speak for racial harmony. They shoul dbe confronted on their motives and actions.
People should recall particularly the backgrounds of Sharpton (Tawana Brawley debacle) and Jackson (out-of-wedlock children, taking up th e cause of blatant violent rioters in Illinois, shaking down large corporations). These men are not to be trusted and do not speak for racial harmony. They shoul dbe confronted on their motives and actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)