text:
Positive Atheism Forum
If Not God, Around What
Can We Rally To Unite?
Dee Crowe
October 19, 2001
Dee has a situation which calls for your opinion:
I recently had a conversation with a Christian who was curious about my way of thinking. He asked, "If we don't rally around God in times of crises, such as the one we are facing with the present terrorism, what can unite us?"
I gave him my answer, which was that we can unite to protect ourselves from this crime. That didn't seem to be adequate to my friend. I would be interested in your response, and perhaps that of other like-minded persons.
Dee Crowe,
My first counter-response would have been to challenge her with the following mental exercise:
What if there were no such thing as God, and we all knew this fact? Then what would we do?
Most theists will admit that they're taking this thing "on faith" which, for many, means that they don't know for sure, and if they did know for sure it wouldn't be faith any more. There are a few who would disagree, usually coming up with some oddball definition for the word faith, but this is how most people do this. But, for the purposes of a mental exercise, I think almost anybody could answer the question, "What would we do if no God existed?"
Thus, if we can even conceive of a world without God, then we can think of how we would approach the situation as atheists.
This little mental exercise should reveal something that will probably surprise the theist and might even surprise you. If we ask this question of enough people we will find that not everybody would respond the same way. We would find out what happens to be true: there is no unity in America, if by "unity" you mean uniformity of thought and purpose. We all would react very differently; rather, there would be several major types of reaction and each of us would aim toward one of those types, with one category being "Miscellaneous" to cover the outright oddballs such as myself, who tend to defy categorizing.
So, if we're all a little different in thought and purpose, then what do we need? is it unity? Well, if by "unity" you mean that we're all in this thing together, each facing basically the same problems and each with basically the same sets of responsibilities, then we already have unity and don't really need to rally around or behind anything.
But if by "unity" you mean uniformity of thought and purpose, you're wasting everybody's time and only fooling yourself: "Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?" (Thomas Jefferson). Is not this question of a so-called need to "rally around" something in order to "unite us" about uniformity rather than the common plight into which we have all been thrown?
That whole question, "If we don't rally around God in times of crises, what can unite us?" is, to me, a false question -- a trick question. This question presupposes that we even need to be united (in the only real sense that we even can be united). It presupposes that what we've been through is not enough to unite us toward at least coping with the problem if not solving it.
What in the world could possibly require that we "rally around" in order to accomplish it? Whatever it is, it probably cannot be distinguished from a film that would require a sophisticated marketing strategy in order to pay for itself at the box office. What I'm talking about doesn't need to be marketed, doesn't need for us to "rally around" anything: what I'm talking about needs only to be focused and then left to do its own work.
When Portland, Oregon, flooded in February, 1996, we did not need anything like what is going on today across America. We did not need to be sales-pitched or whipped into a frenzy: this was our home and we all knew what needed to be done and we all knew what we needed to do (either help or stay out of the way). What united us was this problem that we had: nobody felt the need to tell us what our problem was or what we needed. The same thing happened, I am told, in the aftermath of the Los Angeles and San Francisco earthquakes of the past decade. I wonder what the difference might be.
And the same sort of thing went on in the Twelve Step program. Sure, there were a few who thought everybody needed to "rally around" something -- usually a fundraising event. But they were the exception: most of us simply rolled our eyes. Besides, those who supported the bulk of the fund-raising efforts never needed to be hustled! Almost all of us in the Program were aware that we all had a common problem -- in many cases a deadly problem -- and that together we could at least cope and get some focus, if not solve the problem.
Any idea or any proposition or any belief that doesn't make sense, that doesn't fit naturally into the scenario, requires that we keep revitalizing it in order for it to last and to remain effective. This is often true for extended war efforts, and it has especially been true for religious zeal. If the object of the needed zeal is based in faith, you need to "keep coming back," as they say in the Twelve Step program; "every Sunday," as they say in church.
In contrast, if it's something that you discovered yourself or something that just makes so much sense that the same idea will dawn on everybody placed into the same situation, then we never need to add anything to it.
I would suggest that the unity that I'm talking about needs for nobody to "rally around" anything: this common experience of having been brutally attacked (that could have been any one of us); this common experience of having been terrorized; this common experience of having our entire lifestyles uprooted -- from the very personal realm of our private hopes and fears to the way our government has been systematically sacrificing our Constitutional Liberties.
I would also suggest that several elements of George Bush's war effort will require that people "rally around" it if he is to get the public support needed to shout down any reasoned opposition to that effort. Many of the bills being passed these days that are designed to nullify our Constitutional protections of the right to privacy and protections against police abuses will need for the people to "rally around" something to distract from or discredit the watchdog groups if these bills are to be carried without notice.
And just about everything having to do with George Bush's desire to insert his personal religious belief and ritual right into the middle of every American's day-to-day life will require that people "rally around" just about every lame slogan that's ever been used to try to do away with the First Amendment protection against intrusive religion at the hands of the government. This is Bush's toughest assignment because it is his most patently absurd. People will trade their Liberty for a little safety, but don't you dare touch our Religious Liberty -- unless, of course, it means that we get to be on top! Bush will need something as vicious as an all-out war effort to distract the opposition on this one. People will need to "rally around" something mighty important and sound off with a great big war whoop to drown out that opposition. (And that war whoop happens to be the song "God Bless America!")
There's what I think, let's see what some of the other readers think about this one.
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Christian Ambrose"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <email@example.com>
Subject: If Not God, What Can We Rally Around To Unite?
Date: October 19, 2001 9:41 PM
I'm surprised my Christian friends haven't really asked me how I've handled the terrorism situation or what I would propose we rally around. Your answer was fine but I'd also point out that we can rally about the sanctity of life and forgiveness (Christians love hearing about that). We can look at what the terrorists were upset about and try opening a dialog with them. We can even use this as a time to remember the heroes and how this tragedy caused us to for a moment realize that we are all humans regardless of what we believe. We can use our patriotism as a rallying point. There is nothing religious about that; patriotism is fine so long as you don't go overboard. Every ideal has its share of fanatics but that does not make the ideal in itself bad. We can rally for our country and look forward to the day when we can once again know peace.
From: "Nora Miller"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Subject: If Not God, What Can We Rally Around To Unite?
Date: October 20, 2001 4:54 PM
Dear Cliff and Dee:
I think you, Cliff, did your usual terrific job of address one of the crucial issues underlying Dee's question, that of whether we need to "rally around" anything at this moment. However, I would suggest that the question also requires a challenge on the religion half of the question.
What does the questioner imply when he suggests that we "rally around God" in the face of troubles?
I think that most theists believe that one cannot act morally without directions from their god, handed down to them by the human keepers of "his" will. They operate on the premise that religion provides the only answers to questions of right and wrong and that once armed with those answers, they as individuals need not ask any further questions about the causes of their problems or the appropriateness of their actions and reactions.
In discussions with my very well-read and very Catholic father-in-law about a different religious war at a different time in history, he stated this notion explicitly -- "If you do not fear retribution in the after-life for your actions in life, what makes you behave morally now?"
One of the tenets of the Christian family of religious sects (and of many non-Christian faiths as well, I think) is that humans are innately wicked, licentious and devoid of moral sense. Only threats of extreme punishment serve to hold this nature in check -- hence Hell, the death penalty and the Inquisition, to name a few attempts over the course of history to control humanity's evil instincts.
Today, when a theist suggests to me that only religion can guide us in these darks times, I take one of two tacks. If I feel confrontational at the moment, I will point out that religion got us into this darkness to begin with, as it so often has before. While the theist may draw what he considers a clear distinction between his religion and the twisted Islamic subsect that apparently guided the terrorists, I as an atheist see very little difference and I point that out. If some god, any god, says go kill that guy over there, for whatever reason, anger or retribution, it seems like an immoral act to me.
If I feel more like trying to reason with the theist who claims that moral action can only come from a religious base, I point out that I personally act morally without fear of heavenly retribution and that I know plenty of others who do as well. I act morally because it creates a moral environment around me, because I believe the meaning of the Golden Rule, that how I treat others will ultimately help determine how they treat me and because I believe that what I do and don't do teaches others by example how an intelligent species operates when operating rationally.
I also point out that just claiming to act "morally" doesn't address the question of how you define morality and what actions qualify as moral or immoral. Religious leaders in the past, acting on the moral directive from their gods, have committed any number of atrocities I would not call moral by any wild extreme of defintion (consider the Inquisition which I mentioned above.) If the theist counters that religious thought should not be held responsible for fallible human interpretation, I point out that all religious thoughts are human thoughts and that perhaps when humans act morally, we don't have to attribute that to interpretation of divine commands either!
As a mature human, I act in a moral way because I choose to act morally, not because someone else tells me I must. As a mature human, I take responsibility for my choices and I willingly acknowledge and bear the consequences of my acts, rather than handing over the responsibility to some hidden and inaccessible source that does not have to explain its motivations.
Thus if someone wants me to follow him into war, he must convince my rational sense of morality, if he can. Appeals that attempt to obscure motivations or to characterize "our" side as wholly good and the other side as wholly bad or to motivate me out of fear of God's wrath, in short, that lie to me about the situation in order to get my cooperation, these appeals fail with me because I use my intellect to judge morality, not my fear of hell.
From: "Sally Watts"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <email@example.com>
Subject: If Not God, What Can We Rally Around To Unite?
Date: October 19, 2001 12:16 PM
The person asking the question is putting the cart before the horse. God exists in people's minds largely because most humans need something to unite them with others. My response would be that if there were no god to unite them, we'd just invent one -- like we already have, many times over.
From: "Kenneth Ray Whitley"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <email@example.com>
Subject: If not god, what can we rally around to unite?
Date: October 19, 2001 6:03 PM
If not god, what can we rally around to unite?
Holy Moly, as a Vietnam veteran this question shocked my very fabric. Did we Americans only unite around god, prior to this terrorist incident at the WTC? I never thought for a moment that god held us all together, as a free nation, under nothing, before, or after these terrorist attacks. I have always believed we united around ideals of freedom, such as: Freedom of religion, to include none if so wished. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom to pursue happiness. Freedom, generally, to sign up, or not to join, in our nation's offensive or defensive military tactics. Freedom to work where we please and further our educational needs if need be, etc.
To imply that we as a nation should gather around an invisible image of our own making to prop us up, sounds dangerous and self defeating. What if we kept losing ground in our efforts toward national honor while having his supreme crutch? Would our religious leaders then blame our past sins for these future failures? What if the preachers promised us victory, only, if we sent them more money? And they would! Would that imply one could buy military successes and god's goodwill or would we really only line charlatan preachers pockets? I don't know. Give me a break. I hear similar comments from our current enemy within Afghanistan saying, "Don't worry my fellow soldiers, Allah alone will defeat the wicked Satan empire to our west."
Should we now act similarly to them to gain favor with an invisible paper tiger? Can't every American see how wrong their situation is for calling on Allah in defeating us? In you dreams, tribal leader -- dude. If so, could we be right in then doing this same act? Must we always begin a fight through uniting, first, around a god? I think, not now, not ever again, because we Americans must become realist in a real world. Dreamed up friends don't bring us victory. Human flesh, blood, and bones slowly bring a victorious outcome, over time, when nothing else can, or will, so don't bank on a figment of imagination, god, in the first damn place.
Amen, never.
A proud Atheist,
Kenneth Ray Whitley
Cleveland, Ohio
From: "InPRO IAfrica"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Subject: If Not God, What Can We Rally Around To Unite?
Date: October 19, 2001 10:14 AM
Without having read your whole response/ideas in detail, I would briefly respond with some of your and other points which I think are at the core of the 'problem' you refer to :
1. Is there a god,etc -- old debate which you will never get anywhere with believers as most are so dependant on the religious belief and so illogical that it's a total waste of time anyway -- we all know this.
2. For me, more to the point is why the need to unite? what does it achieve?? You have brought this up yourself anyway. Uniting is all about self-righteous arrogance, and totally lacks humility and questioning.
I cannot help wondering what my personal hero, Albert Einstein, would have said about all this??
Some of my impressions of the USA in this regard (as a generalisation, and compared to Europe) are that it is arrogant, has double standards, never questions itself (self-righteous about everything, including religion) has little capacity to think things through logically, philosophically, compationately, etc, to understand the other side -- Just a few of the very many questions that should be being asked by US citizens -- Is democracy the answer? Who are the voters and how qualified are they to come to many various decisions, actions, conclusions, etc?
It's actually that issue that is core, as Islam is not democracy orientated, just as medieval christianity (and current christians including Bush himself) were and are somewhat short of anyway -- Islam (religion -- all of them) does not like democracy as it would undermine the religion itself and give people freedom of choice (contrary to what Bush would like to do, I thought the Christian (and Islamic) God wanted us to have freedom of choice?? !!) Notice that no Americans have dared questioned themselves publicly (as far as I have seen on CNN). When debating with Christians, rather assume there is a god (it's what they would like) but just assume it is Islam that is the right choice -- then they will spend time defending their own god as against others, and highlight their own inconsistancies and hypocracy in the process. If Islam is the right way (i.e., there is a god) then what they are all doing (boeings into buildings, etc) is probably fine depending on your interpretation of their good book. It's the same logic the Crusading Christians used to murder millions of muslims 1000 years ago. Those who are biblically orientated will know the many verses in the Bible that support intolerance and christian domination (in spite of the 'we know better now' attitude and justification of christians) and that were used in the Crusades.
If Bush and like-minded christian fundamentalists had their way, would they not want to wipe out other religions as well??? Is it only democracy, the constitution, Europe that is holding Bush back from doing exactly what the muslims (fundamentalists) are doing? Note Blair had repeated the fact that only Afghanistan is going to be treated this way, and other European countries are even less supportive of military strikes.
What if christians became the minority and Islam was the majority -- would they (christians) sit back and take all the crap christians hand out to others?
If the Christian God really exists, then would he want there to be revenge (turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc.)? Would he want to have any or innocent or select Afgans to die just because some Americans died? Religion is about dogma, intolerant self-rightiousness, not principles and values !
Is America really going after world terrorists, or just the ones that piss them off (selectively)? The terrorists (Al Queda) were in fact started and supported by the USA. initially anyway (against the Russians) -- so America does support its own terrorists. Would the Russians have been justified in bombing NY or USA due to stop American-sponsored terrorists wrecking havoc in other countries, as the USA have done world wide for decades?? What makes the average christian think that Islam is not the answer???
Listen to the lack of reasons, alternatively the reasons he criticises other religions, or supports his own are identical to what the muslim/hindu etc will say (get christians to debate with other religions) will highlight the lack of logic and hypocracy automatically.
I am personally slowly trying to get the South African government to accept and ulitmately implement the idea of having a 'critical thinking' school subject where philosophy, critical thinking, and related topics can be pushed -- education is meant to be about teaching people and children to think for themselves. Is this not what athiests should be slowly trying to do? If children grow up with religious (fanatically or otherwise) parents, the religious self-rightious problem will continue. We need to start at the base level and get kids to start questioning and thinking -- humility and questions, not self-righteous arrogance and dogma. Get Americans to debate the principles involved, irrespective of who is involved and what the agenda's are. This immediately highlights the lack of principles and logic. Self-righteousness along with a lack of questioning is something that is pushed hard by all religious persons, organisations, countries, and in my view is the core core problem.
Now Israel is doing likewise -- sending in the army to destroy so called terrorists. Where does this all stop? In South Africa we had the ANC terrorists, who then become freedom fighters, and are now the government. How does one define terrorists -- note a total lack of discussing this internationally. The IRA certainly does not see itself as a terrorist organisation, but Britain does!
Why did America not follow due process in international Law and only after (presuming) no success in getting the 'terrorists' , then do the military thing?? What if Bin Laden allowed himself to be caught openly (ie not killed, which I am sure is the USA special forces mandate) by the Americans or better still, the European Authorities and was tried in court there. Would that not highlight the illegality of the American operation and dictatorship?? (Personally I think that this would be a beautiful scenario) Why are people not questioning the religious aspects to all this openly -- religious discussions are always taboo.
Look at all the conflicts worldwide -- almost always started and continued by religion and its followers.
What becomes apparent in this whole crisis is that the priests and the politicians have not addressed the core issue of what are the standards and principles the whole world should adhere to??? -- Once these are stated (International law -- already exists??), then everybody knows where they stand, and all (including hypocritical Americans) can be judged by them openly.
So, to sum up,
Why unite? What does this achieve???
Why not question instead?
Why not unite (if necessary) around compassion and empathy, principals and values?
Why not highlight American hypocrisy and double standards, and ask if USA is prepared to be treated the same way as they are treating others (in fact that is exactly what Bin Laden is doing!!).
Happy questioning and thinking.
From: "James Call"
To: "Positive Atheism" <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Subject: Re: If Not God, What Can We Rally Around To Unite?
Date: October 22, 2001 8:58 PM
We rally around each other. We come together for our common self defense. We come together to aid the victims and comfort the bereaved. We do this because we hope that together, in numbers, we are safer against our enemies. We do this because we, most of us, feel pain ourselves when we see someone suffering. It helps to relieve that pain to help those in need. And, I suppose, we hope that help will be there when we need it. I think this humane impulse, seemingly common to most of us, is for theists abstracted, by and large, in many concepts of god. If the religious rally around god and we rally around humanity, what, really, is the difference? Not much. Except maybe that the idea of god is once removed from what it really is that we are coming together for.
James Call
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.


text:
Why Do We Need Gold to Offset Paper Money?
Original post by Colleen Reinhart of Demand Media
With political and economic uncertainties taking hold in Europe and the United States, more investors are flocking to gold as a safe haven investment.The rush to gold has people talking about the gold standard, and why countries don't peg their currencies to the commodity to stabilize the value of paper money. Although including gold in a portfolio may be a smart investment for risk-conscious investors, don't expect a gold standard renaissance anytime soon.
The Gold Standard
The gold standard is a monetary system that allows people to convert their currency holdings into a fixed amount of gold. This system pegs the value of a dollar in terms of a real, valued commodity -- important in the early days of paper money when people were issuing too much credit and Britain experienced gold and silver supply imbalances. The gold standard turned out to be too inflexible to be sustainable in modern economic times. The First World War brought new alliances and increased global debt, and economic growth later outpaced gold holdings in banks around the world. Gold gradually lost its link to the world's currencies, and in 1971, President Richard Nixon got rid of the gold standard for good, announcing that U.S. dollars would no longer have guaranteed gold convertibility.
Currencies Today
Today's currencies aren't linked to a single commodity, but gain and lose value based on investor speculation. When investors view a country as a profitable, stable place to invest, they buy up more of that country's money, driving up its value in relation to other currencies. Critics say that basing a currency's value on something tangible makes more sense than linking money to belief and speculation. Even in the face of economic uncertainty, a return to the gold standard is unlikely. Economies that use the gold standard aren't well-equipped to respond to the shocks that come with participating in an interconnected global economy, since leaders have limited control over the money supply. Maintaining a gold standard is also costly, since producing the gold to back up a country's currency gets expensive.
Investing in Gold
With the instability of the European Union and doubts about the United States stemming from deep political divisions, two of the world's largest currencies are in turmoil. Investors who previously considered their money safe in these countries are starting to look elsewhere for security. For many, gold has become the answer. Although investment advisers don't recommend that you suddenly run and shift all of your holdings to gold, having some in your portfolio does help mitigate risk. In the unlikely event that many major currencies collapse, people will still want gold, meaning the commodity should retain much of its value through even the toughest economic times. While gold is a relatively secure investment, holding gold does carry some risk. Prices rise and fall, and its value may not always keep pace with inflation. For growth and stability, your best bet is always a diversified portfolio.
How to Invest
If you're interested in purchasing gold, you can buy contracts through commodity exchanges. If you have plenty to invest, consider a full 100-ounce contract. If you have considerably less but still want a piece of the gold pie, micro contracts are available for smaller investors. With a micro contract, you can buy 10 ounces of gold at a time, but you need at least 100 ounces worth of contracts to take physical possession of a gold bar. Another way to buy gold in small amounts through the United States Mint in the form of American Eagle Gold Bullion Coins.
- "The Globe and Mail"; Why Invest in Gold; February 2010
- Library of Economics and Liberty; Gold Standard; Michael D. Bordo
- "The Wall Street Journal"; Gold Standard -- Forty Years Gone -- And Good Riddance; Mark Gongloff; August 2011
- CNBC; Happy 40th Birthday Gold-Free Dollar; John Carney; August 2011
- Yahoo! Finance; Investing in Gold -- Know the Basics; August 2011
- The United States Mint: American Eagle Gold Bullion Coins
About the Author
Colleen Reinhart began her writing career in 2006. She has worked as a technical writer for numerous companies, including Autodesk, and she worked as a marketing writer for Open Text in Waterloo, Ontario. Reinhart has a Bachelor of Arts in rhetoric and professional writing from the University of Waterloo.
Photo Credits
- Stockbyte/Stockbyte/Getty Images

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Season 2012/13
EA SPORTS FIFA 13 tournament!
- 24 December 2012 10:50
- Posted by Nicola McCarthy
Last season Joleon Lescott was proclaimed FIFA Champion at the training ground, so could he defend his FIFA crown this season?
James Milner, Gareth Barry and FIFA 13 cover star Joe Hart challenged Lescott on the EA SPORTS Dugout.
View all the action below!
Follow all the latest FIFA 13 news on Twitter and Facebook.


text:
Here's another clip from last night's CollegeHumor.com "The College Humor Show" premier party. Here, site owner Barry Diller razzes CH co-founder Ricky Van Veen, who minutes before burned Diller about a crappy movie he once made called Wonton Wonton.
For an old guy, Diller does a good job of reminding Van Veen who's his daddy. One thing we noticed in particular, thanks to Gawker Media founder Nick Denton (who is much taller than us and has a better line of sight) was Diller's strange stance. We started filming his fancy-feet about midway through the above clip. Awk!
More: See Buttermouth's exclusive sneak-peek into The College Humor Show, here.
CollegeHumor.com Owner Barry Diller Razzes Ricky Van Veen at The College Humor Show Premier Party
. Friday, February 6, 2009
Bookmark this post:
5 comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
- T-Shirt Magazine said...
I love the College Humor Show, it's funny as hell. It reminds me of Human Giant. You guys are hilarious!
- March 19, 2009 at 9:09 AM
- tower defense said...
Nice post.
But the video/flash is not working in firefox...
- May 13, 2009 at 5:23 AM
- Music Search said...
Thanks a lot for your very useful article. But I had trouble navigating around your website because I kept getting 502 bad gateway error. Just thought to let you know.
Anyways, apart from work, you must want to relax a bit and listen to nice music. So you can find it at music search engine Enjoy!
- March 1, 2010 at 7:50 AM
- Research Papers said...
Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.
- April 16, 2010 at 7:12 AM
- aeiou260199038 said...
I love the College Humor Show, it's funny as hell.labatterie It reminds me of Human Giant. You guys are hilarious!
- April 29, 2010 at 1:02 AM


text:
false pdp {"scheme":"product1_cr"}
false pdp {"scheme":"product2_cr"}
Rated 4 out of 5 by 6 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5 by claudiaog Excellent paddle set I purchased two sets and they are excellent quality. July 2, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by maamom all weather table tennis paddles These paddles are wonderful. I bought them for my husband after getting an all weather ping pong table. They are high quality, sturdy and feel wonderful in play. The colors are bright and fun. January 7, 2014
Rated 4 out of 5 by Federalist Spin master These paddles are great. Well constructed. The rubber surface is very tacky, which results in incredible spins. Can almost be too much in fact. May 30, 2014
Rated 1 out of 5 by jrambo Ping The table is great however, it was supposed to come with a metal net but it wasn't included in the box and frontage has went radio silent. They did have a company send me a fabric net but it doesn't fit my table so I have been having to use a board as a net. August 6, 2015
1-5 of 5
Product:65526-Outdoor Table Tennis Sport 510


text:
More Information
Wilmington church dedicated as Basilica Shrine of Saint Mary's
Published: Sunday, September 8, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, September 8, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
Of the many who have made their pilgrimage to Wilmington's Basilica Shrine of Saint Mary throughout the years, there are but a handful who can say they are descended from the hands that helped build the historic church.
On Sunday, during the celebration of the newly dedicated church as a minor basilica, James Black, a relative of Rafael Guastavino II and III, said he traveled from Maryland to touch the smooth brick and mortar his great- and great-great-grandfather designed.
"It's a lost art in my family now," Black said of architecture. "But I still feel that connection."
And connections are what served to help the Vatican dedicate the building as a minor
basilica early last month, whether those connections are to the building's art and architecture – like Black – or its significance in the community.
The Most Rev. Michael Burbidge, the Bishop of Raleigh, was on hand to help dedicate the church and said the church has always had an exemplary record of service.
"Throughout your rich history, the parishioners of Saint Mary knew that no matter how beautiful the church is, we cannot simply stay here and gaze," Burbidge said during his Mass.
The Rev. Robert Kus said the church has always served as a symbol to the community.
Those that worship there are guided to give back to the community, he said. It's for that reason that Kus said he knew the church would receive the designation as a minor basilica.
"I figured it would happen," he said. "I just didn't know when it would happen."
St. Mary is the only basilica in the Diocese of Raleigh and only the third in the state.
In the Catholic Church, all basilicas outside of Rome are considered minor basilicas. Only the four basilicas directly connected to the pope get the title of major basilica. Worldwide there are about 1,400 minor basilicas and about 80 in the United States.
"It's a huge honor," Kus said. "Many countries and states don't even have a basilica."
The designation means changes are afoot for the church, including the new name.
But also, Kus said, a coat of arms will be designed. Additionally, more community service events and special masses will be planned..
"There are still a lot of unknowns (from the new designation)," Kus said. "But we are up for it. We are up for anything."
Jason Gonzales: 343-2075
On Twitter: @StarNews_Jason
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
TREsemme Coupon – Save $1.00 Off Any Product
New Tresemme Coupon found via Save.ca (Mail Only)
Save $1.00 Any TRESemmé Product (excluding trial and travel)
Order TREsemme Coupon (Save.ca)
Order TREsemme Coupon (Walmart portal)
Coupon expiry date is unknown.
TREsemme Brand Of Hair Care Products
Here you will find a complete line of hair care products that are salon quality but not salon priced. You will get guaranteed results without paying an arm and a leg.
Personalized Hair Profiler: answer a few questions about your hair and this profiler will recommend what products that are right for you. Every one is different and so is their hair and hair care needs.
Anti Breakage, Classic Care, Climate Control, Classic Styling, Color Protection, Flawless Curls, Fresh Start, Heat Protection, Keratin Smooth, Moisture, Naturals, Nourishing Rituals, Platinum Strength, Smooth, Split Remedy, and Volume
If you have any of the above hair care concerns than you know which products to look for and try.
Styling Tips From The Experts
Here you will find great advice and tips on how to get your hair looking healthy and beautiful. Whether you are looking to add volume, waves, or just get that frizzy hair under control, you will find it here.
How-to videos that will guide you through different processes step-by-step. If you want beautiful, manageable hair that will turn heads then you just have to trust Tresemme.
In 1947 a new hair care product was introduced. Tresemme was born. The name is meant to convey the concept of "well loved" since when pronounced it sounds like the French term "tres-aime". This is meant to convey the way the hair care products treat your hair. When Tresemme was first created, only salon owners could buy it. Later, it was offered to the public in general.
Tresemme Canada has a lot to be proud of, but they are best known for one thing: hair repair. When hair is exposed to heat from blow dryers and chemicals that are used to style hair, it becomes brittle and has split ends. The formula used by Tresemme Canada helps to repair the hair and leave it looking soft and full. Today Tresemme Canada has the same solid reputation it had when you could only find it in salons. It also has a line of hair treatment formulas for just about any hair type.


text:
A raccoon received by Health Department staff on February 12, has tested positive for rabies according to lab results received from the Department of Health Pensacola Branch Lab. The raccoon had contact with a dog at a home on Shady Grove Rd., South of Sneads. The dog has been placed in quarantine to prevent possible spread of the disease.
T.G. Harkrider, Environmental Health Director at the Jackson County Health Department stated that "anyone having knowledge of bites or other exposure from a suspected rabid animal to humans or to domestic animals should immediately contact the Health Department at 482-9227 during normal working hours".
The Jackson County Health Department has an answering service to relay information for assistance after hours and on weekends concerning animal bites and other exposure. This answering service can be reached by calling 526-2412.
Residents are also reminded that Jackson County and the State of Florida have laws requiring vaccination of all dogs and cats.


text:
Camas singer Katelynne Cox's holiday wish has already come true. Cox, 16, recently signed with Red Hammer Records, a Portland-based independent record label.
Red Hammer Records will release her first full-length album, "One Girl," on March 22. Cox's previous EP, "Unbelievable," was released on her own independent label, KC Records, in 2008.
Signing with Red Hammer Records is a big step for Cox, a student in Clark College's Running Start program.
"I'm really excited," she said. "I feel so honored to be signed with Red Hammer Records. It's a dream come true."
Her favorite song off "One Girl" is "Me," which deals with the idea of setting aside one's plans and surrendering to God's will.
Cox's management team is sending "Me" to Christian radio stations across the country in hopes of garnering airplay.
"It's an incredible song. It has a great message," Cox said.


text:
Ed Morrissey has blogged at Captain's Quarters since 2003, and has a daily radio show at BlogTalkRadio, where he serves as Political Director. Called "Captain Ed" by his readers, Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather.
Hastert Knew While Foley Flew
Well, well, well. It appears the Republicans actually can make the Foley controversy worse. As if it wasn't bad enough that John Boehner knew about Foley's track record of sexual harassment of his underage pages, now it turns out that Speaker Denny Hastert lied about what he knew and when he knew it. Roll Call reports that Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Hastert about Foley's predatory actions in late winter or early spring of this year:
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert.'
GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear.
Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.
I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he's the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner's earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley's activities.
Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley's actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.
Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.
CLARIFICATION: When I say resign, I mean from their leadership positions. Neither committed a crime, and their constituents should judge whether they should continue to represent them.
UPDATE: CQ readers seem to have misunderstood what this post concerns. Here's what Hastert's office was saying yesterday:
The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy.
Today, Reynolds' statement demolishes Hastert's denial. Hastert lied about his knowledge of the case. It doesn't make any difference if Hastert got Foley to resign, or whether some news outlets sat on the story. He bald-faced lied, and he apparently got Boehner to retract his statement that Boehner had informed him of Foley's inappropriate behavior in the spring. Hastert tried to cover his own butt by hiding the truth, and it appears Boehner tried to help him do it.
Also, this isn't a "dirty trick". The timing might have been manipulated, but a dirty trick involves false allegations. No one framed Foley -- he did this to himself.
UPDATE II: Another article from yesterday that reflects that Hastert's office denied knowing anything of the Foley allegations. Ron Bonjean, Hastert's spokesman, made it clear that Hastert knew nothing of the earlier allegations, and bear in mind that this was when people were asking about how the Republicans could have failed to inform the Page Board of the allegations.
UPDATE III: One last update, and then I'm moving on. I am not so much angry about the decision made by GOP leadership that the evidence and the demands of the parents to drop the issue left them little to do about Foley other than chastise him. I think they should have at least informed the Page Board, since that is the procedure, but that's a simple error in judgment. I'm not claiming that Hastert knew about the IMs months ago, because apparently no one but a few Democratic operatives knew about that until last week.
What makes me angry and disappointed is the denial by Hastert that he knew anything about Foley's issues on Friday. Recall that Majority Leader John Boehner had already told the press that he told Hastert about the earlier e-mails months ago, and after Hastert's statement, Boehner had to retract that. Only after Reynolds released his statement did Hastert acknowledge that he knew about Foley's earlier issues. It's the dishonesty and the butt-covering that I find unacceptable in a House Speaker, who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Northern Alliance Radio Network On The Air
We're back on the air with the Northern Alliance Radio Network this afternoon. Mitch and I will go from 1-3 pm at AM 1280 The Patriot, and we'll be discussing a wide range of topics. We're looking into the border-fence bill, the new legislation for terrorist detention, interrogation, and trial, and the announcement that the Twin Cities will host the 2008 Republican National Convention. Since I blogged at the RNC in 2004, I'll have a few stories to tell about what we can expect in 2008. We also will cover the Mark Foley scandal, but we're disappointed that we forgot to bring the proper bumber music. Mitch and I wanted to use "Uncle Ernie" by the Who, "Aqualung" by Jethro Tull, "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett & The Union Gap, "Baby Talks Dirty" by The Knack, and a number of others. If you have any suggestions, please post them in the comments.
Be sure to tune in if you're in the Twin Cities or listen to our live feed at the station's link. You can join the conversation at 651-289-4488. Hope to have you with us!
Has Pakistan Changed Sides?
Yesterday I noted the increase in cross-border attacks in Afghanistan in the three weeks since Pervez Musharraf signed a peace deal with the tribal chiefs in Waziristan and released thousands of captured Islamists. Today, the government of India now says that the train bombings in Mumbai this past July had the support of Pakistan's ISI:
Mumbai police Commissioner A.N. Roy said an intensive investigation that included using truth serum on suspects revealed that Pakistan's top spy agency had ''masterminded'' the bombings.
Roy said Pakistan's Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, or ISI, began planning the attacks in March and later provided training to those who carried out the bombings in Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
''The terror plot was ISI sponsored and executed by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives with help from the Students Islamic Movement of India,'' Roy said at a news conference to announce the completion of the investigation.
Lashkar is a Pakistan-based Islamic militant group, while the Students Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, is a banned Islamic group.
So far 15 people have been arrested, including 11 Pakistanis, Roy said, adding that three Indians were still on the run and another Pakistani was killed in one of the blasts.
Many people wondered about the connections between the ISI and the two Islamist groups. The ISI was instrumental in assisting the Taliban to power in the 1990s and has always had Islamist sympathies. If India has evidence of the connections it alleges, one has to conclude that either the ISI has gone rogue or Musharraf's surrender was worse than first imagined.
The Bush administration has taken the right first steps, which is to call Musharraf into conference with Hamid Karzai and attempt to force Musharraf to act responsibly about his own border. If that works, then perhaps Musharraf can address the unhelpful elements in the ISI. If it does not, then perhaps the American military can start respecting the Pakistani border much less in the future.
We refrained from pursuing terrorists into Pakistan for three reasons. First, it's sovereign territory, and we didn't want a war with Pakistan. Second, Musharraf assured us that he would pursue them himself, and for the first few years, he did. Lastly, any American incursions into Waziristan would have destabilized Musharraf and eliminated the assistance he provided us against the terrorists. Now that the second and third reasons no longer apply, it seems likely that we will not care anywhere near as much about Pakistani sovereignty or Musharraf's status in Pakistan.
Keith Ellison On The Hotseat
Keith Ellison, the DFL's candidate in MN-05, has a couple of problems in the local blogs this morning. First, our NARN partner Michael Brodkorb finds a photo of Ellison leading a march against police brutality in 1998, holding what looks like several copies of the Nation of Islam's Final Call:
Brodkorb alleges that Ellison was distributing these copies at the event, which puts lie to Ellison's insistence that he had no affiliation with the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan after the Million Man March in 1995. MN Publius, who like Brodkorb does paid political work, defends Ellison by claiming that the picture doesn't show Ellison distributing the copies of Final Call. I'm on the fence in that respect. Sometimes I pick up a copy of the Star Tribune, especially when dining out where no Internet connection exists, and I'd hate to be photographed doing that. On the other hand, I don't usually pick up more than one copy and then display it while I'm marching down the street at a protest.
I'll call that one a draw. However, Power Line -- which has done marvelous work on Ellison -- notes an Insight News article on Ellison's run for the state legislature in 1998 that establishes his support for the Nation of Islam in the same time frame:
Ellison-Muhammed, who says his affiliation with the Nation of Islam doesn't mean he isn't running to represent all the people in the district, feels the critical issues on the table include criminal justice, education, and economic development. ...
His solution? To use organizations that are already set up for community safety to contribute significantly to securing the neighborhood. Ellison-Muhammed would support legislation that bolsters patrol groups like Mission of Peace, the Nation of Islam, M.A.R.C.H Inc., AMAN, and SALAAM. ...
Anticipating possible criticism for his NOI affiliation, Ellison-Muhammed says he is aware that not everyone appreciates what the Nation does and feels there is a propaganda war being waged against its leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.
MN Publius argues that Ellison has never been a member of the Nation of Islam. In fact, Jon-David's direct quote is "Keith was never a member of the Nation of Islam, and has never had anything to do with Louis Farrakhan." This is patently false, and the Insight News article proves it. The article specifically goes into his connection to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam as a way to assure Minnesotans that Ellison's ties do not threaten Jewish voters, although Ellison takes the opportunity to declare that critics have victimized Farrakhan for pointing out his many anti-Semitic rants.
Ellison has lied and continues to lie about his ties to the Nation of Islam. At one point, he proposed having Farrakhan's organization patrol the streets of Minneapolis in place of the police, and this wasn't during his days as a U of M law student -- it was during his political career. Ellison's lies should concern voters in the Fifth Congressional District, and have them consider their alternatives to Ellison's radicalism.
A Perspective On Democratic Outrage Over Mark Foley
The Republican leadership in the House has plenty for which to answer over their laissez-faire treatment of Mark Foley when allegations of improper contact with underage pages first came to their attention. Despite knowing of Foley's "inappropriate" behavior this spring, Majority Leader John Boehner did nothing about it, after hearing that the parents of the page wanted the matter dropped. Regardless, the actions of Foley reflected badly on the GOP and the House, and action should have been taken at the time to punish Foley. Surely, the Republicans could at least have removed him from the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
However, Democratic protestations on this matter seem rather hypocritical, given the history of their party and page scandals:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who introduced a privileged resolution friday night to require an ethics probe, criticized Republican leaders, who she said, "have known of the egregious behavior of Congressman Mark Foley, yet were prepared to adjourn tonight without an Ethics Committee investigation."
"The investigation must determine when Mr. Foley sent the inappropriate emails, who knew of them, whether there was a pattern of inappropriate activity by Mr. Foley with pages or former pages, when the Republican leadership was notified, and what corrective action was taken once officials learned of any improper activity," she added.
This is true, and Pelosi is right to demand an ethics probe, to which John Boehner immediately agreed and the House supported unanimously. However, let's please recall the case of Gerry Studds and his sexual relationship with a 17-year-old page in 1983. This didn't involve a few e-mails and explicit instant messaging; Studds started a sexual relationship with a minor, and then announced in a press conference that people should mind their own business about his private life. The House censured Studds (he turned his back on them as the censure was read), but the Democrats endorsed Studds for five subsequent elections. The only reason he no longer serves in the House is because he retired. He didn't even lose his chair on the House Merchant Marine and Fishing Committee until 1995, when the Republicans took over and abolished the committee.
I agree that the Republicans have some 'splaining to do. However, Democrats hardly covered themselves in glory when running the show for the last decade they controlled Congress in a situation that was objectively more serious than Foley's pathetic cyber-sex efforts.
NOTE: Daniel Crane (R-IL) also got censured at the same time for a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page, and apologized to the House. He got defeated in his re-election bid.
Border Fence Passes Senate
In the end, the border fence bill passed the Senate by a wide margin, 80-19, belying the canard that the only option for any border security to get through Congress was through comprehensive immigration reform. Facing the midterm elections, eighty Senators could not find any excuse with which to explain why America continues to leave our southern border practically undefended in a time of war:
The Senate gave final approval last night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier.
The measure was pushed hard by House Republican leaders, who badly wanted to pass a piece of legislation that would make good on their promises to get tough on illegal immigrants, despite warnings from critics that a multibillion-dollar fence would do little to address the underlying economic, social and law enforcement problems, or to prevent others from slipping across the border. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) surprised many advocates of a more comprehensive approach to immigration problems when he took up the House bill last week.
But in Congress's rush to recess last night for the fall political campaigns, the fence bill passed easily, 80 to 19, with 26 Democrats joining 54 Republicans in support. One Republican, Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.); one independent, Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.); and 17 Democrats opposed the bill. The president has indicated that he will sign it.
Mexico's foreign affairs secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, told reporters in Mexico City yesterday that his country plans to send a letter strongly condemning the measure in an effort to dissuade Bush from signing the bill.
They also passed an addition to the Homeland Security budget appropriating $1.2 billion for the new barrier. The next session of Congress will have to find the rest of the estimate $6 billion it will take to complete the project, so foes of illegal immigration still have more work to do over the next two years that the barrier will get built. Advocates of normalization will still have some leverage in which to press their policies as well. The fight over immigration reform is far from over.
More interesting is the vote taken yesterday on the bill. The final tally of opposition comprises seventeen Democrats, one Republican (Lincoln Chafee, natch), and the lone independent, Jim Jeffords. Almost all of the Democratic leadership voted against this bill: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, and Carl Levin all opposed it. Even Joe Lieberman voted against it, although he shouldn't expect much appreciation from the netroots for that. Maria Cantwell voted against it even though she's facing a significant challenge to her seat in these mid-terms, and expect Mike McGavick to use that in upcoming ads.
But look who voted for the bill -- after trying to filibuster it. The Washington Times makes a comparison between votes on the passage of the bill and those on cloture, and sees a few that switched:
Eight Democratic senators who supported the bill last night switched their position from the previous day, when they voted to block the fence. They are Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles E. Schumer of New York.
Many of the Democrats who joined Republicans on the vote either face close elections this November or represent mostly conservative states.
But for the most part, Democrats opposed the measure.
No, most of them supported the measure (27-17), even if reluctant to do so. Why did these eight switch their votes? For Hillary especially, it is an admission of how popular a border barrier has become. She cannot hope to run for President while having gone on record against the passage of the bill. She's hoping to avoid discussion about her vote to block the bill from ever coming to the floor -- a reverse of Kerry's "I was for the bill before I was against it" fumble from 2004. The rest smelled the coffee after the collapse of the cloture vote (71-28).
This is why I predicted that Bill Frist would press the advantage this month on the border bill. While Americans might be ambivalent about what to do with the illegal immigrants already in the US, most agree that the easy migration routes should get secured in some fashion. The party that finally takes this seriously after decades of politically-correct dithering would get a boost at the polls out of that voter dissatisfaction. Frist harvested this low-hanging fruit, and observers in places like the New York Times failed to recognize it. (That link comes from Mickey Kaus, who pays me a very nice compliment in his excellent post on the border bill, as did Instapundit.)
Foley's Folly (Updated)
Sometimes people say that politics make them feel unclean, but this story will amplify that exponentially. Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican from Florida with an almost-assured re-election bid, has resigned from Congress after harrassing a teen-age intern. His abrupt departure leaves his organization bereft of its chair -- the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children:
Saying he was "deeply sorry," Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18.
A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. ...
They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Another message:
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
And this one:
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.
I'm not sure why this happens, but every generation or so we have to have a Congressional scandal involving interns and pages. This time, it's Foley's turn to embarrass his constituents. Apparently Foley had a habit of sending sexually explicit messages to his staffers. ABC has a dialog from 2003 that certifies Foley as quite the pervert, engaging in a sex chat that shows an obsession with a high-schooler's masturbatory habits.
Eeeeesh. And this guy chaired a caucus on exploited children?
UPDATE: A couple of points to note about this story. First and least importantly, the impact on the election seems lighter than first thought. According to USA Today, the withdrawal of Foley from the ballot will not keep the GOP off the ballot in November:
Florida law will not allow Republicans to put another name on the ballot in Foley's district. Gregory Langowski, executive director of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said that normally a special election would be held, but there isn't enough time for that. The state GOP is looking into the situation.
However, state law will allow Republicans to "designate a replacement candidate. All votes that go to Foley will count for the 'GOP-designated' candidate." That interpretation is based on language in Florida's election laws. There, it is stated that in a case such as this, "the ballots shall not be changed," but "ballots cast for the former party nominee will be counted for the person designated by the political party."
Foley won the district 68%-32% two years ago over Democrat Jeff Fisher. A poll this month had Foley under 50%, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Democrats were closely watching the contest even before Foley's resignation.
Great. Now if the Republicans can get Floridians to cast their votes for a disgraced sex obsessive, at least in name, they should hold onto the seat. At least if people want to support the GOP, their votes will count towards their eventual replacement even if the name of the candidate doesn't appear on the ballot.
More concerning are reports that the Republican leadership knew of Foley's extracurricular activities before his exposure, so to speak. Apparently, they took his denials at face value and dropped the investigation at the request of the parents involved:
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.
Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board — the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.
Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert's office. He said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.
"It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct," Shimkus said.
Obviously this was a huge mistake. One might have thought that someone could have checked his e-mail, although it looks like Foley was at least smart enough to avoid using his Congressional account. The board instructed him to cease all contact with the one page involved at the time and to refrain from inappropriate behavior with interns in the future. Without any endorsement from the parents, it would have been difficult to proceed, but one would think that someone would have suggested that the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children could find new leadership. It's an embarrassment the Republicans could have done without in this election.
The Incredible Lamery At Wonkette
It's almost too pathetic to post a response, but the Wonkette benchwarmers really have no clue about weblogs, photoshops, or criticism -- and their latest attack on Michelle Malkin exposes them as wanna-bes. Michelle penned a cultural critique about the potential effect of trashy chic on young girls, as exemplified by Bratz dolls and the recent restyling of Charlotte Church. Rather than actually responding with any intellectual criticism, Wonkette instead posted a picture that supposedly depicts Michelle in a bikini in 1992 -- as if that has anything to do with her critique of Charlotte Church.
As if that wasn't bad enough, they failed to realize that the picture was a pretty obvious photoshop. Note for instance the size of Michelle's head in proportion to the rest of the body:
Now, I've met Michelle Malkin and spent time at her house. In fact, I've seen her standing next to a fridge a couple of times, and I can tell you that Michelle is significantly shorter than the woman in this photograph. She's a little shorter than the First Mate, who gives up at least six inches to any standard-sized refrigerator. Anyone with half a brain and the ability to do about ten seconds of Googling could have figured that much out.
Besides, I have the original photograph:
I was a lot wilder before I married the First Mate. (I was in better shape, too.)
Confronted with their rather stupid error, did the bloggers at Wonkette offer an apology? Of course not. They posted more photoshopped pictures, none of which had even a passing relationship with their original, puerile point. They seem insistent on acting like middle-school adolescents with Mommy's Internet connection ... which describes Wonkette on any given day.
I'm not sure what it is about Michelle's success that drives the Left nuts, but the result reflects much more on them than it does on Michelle. (Allahpundit has a few choice words as well.)
UPDATE: Apparently, Gawker's doubling down. Probably not smart in a legal sense to offer doctored photographs to give someone a false reputation as a slut. Seems to me that a smart lawyer could get a pretty decent payday off of his 30% with that case.
UPDATE II: It seems I've bumped the Miss World photographs off of Power Line. Maybe I could win Miss Egregiality!
Has Frist Made The Case For 2008?
Senator Bill Frist will retire from Congress at the end of the year, and he's widely rumored to be considering a run for the Presidency in 2008. Last year, Frist had plenty of critics, including me, for failing to get judicial nominations or much of the original agenda through the Senate. Now, however, Frist appears to be firing on all cylinders. He has pushed through the detainee bill, a border barrier, and the on-line federal budget database, among other accomplishments. Some of these bills appeared to have little chance of avoiding filibusters and delaying tactics, but the tall Tennessean worked some magic, or twisted some arms, to get real accomplishments out of this session.
Here's a question for CQ readers: has Frist's valediction made the case for a 2008 run at the Presidency?
Oberstar Fails The Pork Test
The House has considered a new Coast Guard appropriation (HR 5681), but they did so under a suspension of the rules. This parliamentary manuever allows Representatives to undermine the new rule just created that forces them to identify their earmarks in the Congressional Record. Sure enough, sources on the Hill tells me that some shenanigans occurred with the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and section 405 confirms it. The addition to HR 5681 authorizes a multimillion-dollar research program at the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, a joint project of the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. The bill requires Congress to fund a study for the following purposes:
(K) identify ways to improve the integration of the Great Lakes marine transportation system into the national transportation system;
(L) examine the potential of expanded operations on the Great Lakes marine transportation system;
(M) identify ways to include intelligent transportation applications into the Great Lakes marine transportation system;
(N) analyze the effects and impacts of aging infrastructure and port corrosion on the Great Lakes marine transportation system;
(O) establish and maintain a model Great Lakes marine transportation system database; and
(P) identify market opportunities for, and impediments to, the use of United States-flag vessels in trade with Canada on the Great Lakes
All of this research will cost American taxpayers $11.5 million dollars over five years (2007-11). Sources on the Hill tell me that the secret earmarker -- the man who saw his opportunity for secrecy when the rules got suspended -- was none other than Minnesota's James Oberstar. The Democrat has represented MN-08 for 32 years, and his district includes Duluth and the shore of Lake Superior, where the GLMRI operates. Most recently, Oberstar interacted with the Coast Guard by blocking their use of the Great Lakes for firing exercises. Apparently he does not have a problem using the Coast Guard for pork-barrel exercises.
UPDATE: Please take a look at the GLMRI site. It has no links to any publications, nor to a mission statement, no contacts, and while the Research link does take readers to a fresh page, it has nothing to list. Despite the lack of action at GLMRI -- apparently they haven't had a board meeting in almost a year -- Oberstar wants to give them $11.5 million for a federal study of Great Lakes commerce and the rust problem on its shipping.
UPDATE II AND BUMP: Andy at Club For Growth, who first alerted me to this story, says he will have video this morning of the House debate, featuring Oberstar and Jeff Flake, who is angry about the end-run around the new earmark rule. Keep an eye on his site for that interesting confrontation.
Also, it's well worth mentioning that former Senator Rod Grams has come out of retirement to run against James Oberstar in MN-08. Fans of open government might want to lend some support.
Stabenow In Trouble? Maybe
The Democrats have salivated over the historic trend of midterms, hoping to gain enough seats in both chambers of Congress to wrest control away from the Republicans. However, a series of polls shows that their hopes in the Senate may come to naught as they may prove unable to hold the seats they already have. The latest to show weakness is Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, where anti-incumbent fervor and a lackluster record have threatened her first-term seat:
The fever among voters to throw incumbents out of office -- furiously stoked by Democrats in Washington -- might backfire in this state, where Republicans are riding a surge of voter discontent.
With Democrats holding both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, Michigan is suffering the worst economy of any state in the nation. The state's unemployment rate is nearly twice the national average of 4.7 percent, and the auto industry is losing jobs by the tens of thousands. A recent job fair offering factory work for $10 an hour with no benefits drew 4,000 applicants.
"They're Democrats, but they want jobs," John Katinsky said of his neighbors in this hard-hit town downriver from Detroit.
Much of the discontent is being directed at Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the first-term senator who is trying to fend off a challenge from Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard. "Only one state in America has lost jobs for three straight years and that's Michigan," Mr. Bouchard says. "That needs to change, and it's going to change by starting with the leadership."
The Washington Times reports that Bouchard has been buoyed by polling that shows Stabenow unable to breach the 50% mark, usually considered a sign that an incumbent seat is in play. Rasmussen, however, shows Stabenow with 51% at the end of August, which may have changed somewhat after the campaigns kicked into gear in gear. Real Clear Politics, now with its excellent interface and association with Time Magazine, shows more recent polling that still indicates that Bouchard has a long way to go.
If Bouchard -- a Rightroots candidate -- can make this a competitive race down the stretch, it will tax Democratic fundraising that they would prefer to use in takeaway races. It will add to the Democratic woes in New Jersey and Maryland, where Democratic seats are at serious risk of falling to the GOP. Michael Steele led in the SurveyUSA poll by a point, but the RCP aggregate shows him a few points back. Thomas Kean has done even better against incumbent Democrat Robert Menendez in the Garden State, where the RCP aggregate and most polling put him ahead but within the margin of error.
The Democrats cannot afford to lose any of these seats if they hope to win control of the upper chamber in November. If they cannot hold back the Republican challenges, they will have to put their efforts into defense in these states.
NOTE: Don't forget to visit the Rightroots web site and contribute to the key races that can help the Republicans retain control of Congress. We've raised over $123,000 so far, and we need to keep pushing to get support to the races that count. Michael Steele, Mike Bouchard, and Thomas Kean are all on our spotlight list, so you can help them directly and immediately.
Did The Washington Post Miss Its Own Story Yesterday?
The Washington Post editorial board attempts to recap the mudslinging in the George Allen-James Webb race for Allen's Senate seat, but while announcing that it considers allegations of decades-old use of racial epithets germane, it fails to account for all of the accusations in the contest. This seems rather odd, since the Post slams Allen for his alleged use of the N-word but never mentions the allegations reported yesterday about Webb's use of it and purported race-based assaults on Watts residents. What's odd about that? That story got reported ... by the Washington Post:
DID REPUBLICAN Sen. George Allen use racial slurs years ago? Did his Democratic challenger, James Webb? Does it matter, in a race between two candidates with long public records and substantial differences on Iraq, health care, the economy and other critical issues?
Yes, it does matter. Mr. Allen said he does not recall having used what newspapers delicately call "the N-word." But at least a half-dozen people, including ones with upstanding reputations and no evident political agendas, have now told journalists that he did. The stories they have recounted about Mr. Allen's behavior raise disturbing questions about his character and credibility.
In the wake of the furor over the senator's reported comments, Mr. Webb would not deny that he had employed the ugly term. He said he has never used it as a slur but added to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time in their life."
First, let's dispense with the canard that the allegations came from people without a political axe to grind. The only three that have made the allegations public are Ken Shelton, Christopher Taylor, and Larry Sabato. Both Shelton and Taylor have openly stated that they want to see Webb elected. Sabato has no first-person knowledge of Allen's supposed use of the epithet, and still hasn't explained why he didn't mention Allen's purported racism when he moderated Allen's debate in the 2000 election. Everyone else making the allegations have made them anonymously, as if Allen was some sort of John Gotti instead of a public official, and those teammates of Allen who have gone on the record have all said that he didn't use that kind of language or show that kind of animus.
Second, the Post gives an incomplete picture of allegations of Webb's use of the epithet. John Hawkins notes its use in Webb's fiction, as an example, but the Post published this rather damning story from one of Webb's former acquaintances:
Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.
Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.
"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."
The Post found this newsworhy enough to print one day, but not enough to include in its one-sided indictment of Allen the next. Not only is that unfair, it's rather revealing of the paper's bias in this race. The omission of the allegations of anti-Semitism coming from the Webb campaign, starting in the primary and crescendoing in the general election (which the Post has also covered) makes this editorial even more suspicious.
Does any of this matter? No, it doesn't, and the Post should know better. When one starts down this path, then elections become nothing more than a series of gotcha games where only the private investigators benefit. Instead of looking at issues that matter to Virginians, the campaigns start interviewing college buddies to find out whether someone got drunk or made stupid statements about race, women, or Elvis Presley. What's next -- a list of tasteless jokes told in middle school by each of the candidates?
George Allen just introduced a measure intended to benefit black farmers who missed a deadline for a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture. The Post could have talked about that, or about policy initiatives of both candidates, and demanded an end to the mudslinging in Virginia. Instead the editors chose to paint a one-sided picture of the controversy, ignoring even their own reporting, in order to kneecap a candidate they want to see defeated. I'm disappointed -- the Post's editors usually show more integrity than they did today.
Columbia Dean Abruptly Leaves After Invite Cancellation
The Dean of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University has abruptly left her position after her invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got cancelled by University president Lee Bollinger. Lisa Anderson resigned from her position, and the big question on campus is if Bollinger's intervention caused it or whether the exposure of her politics drove the decision:
The big question at Columbia University this week is whether the tensions between President Lee Bollinger and the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, led Ms. Anderson to step down.
The press office at the university confirmed yesterday that the dean, who has come under criticism for siding with anti-Israel factions on campus and for taking a junket to Saudi Arabia paid for by the regime in Riyadh, is leaving the post she has held for 10 years. Professors at SIPA said Ms. Anderson circulated an e-mail message at the end of the summer announcing her resignation, effective at the end of the academic year. It cited her desire to get back to teaching and research.
However, speculation is spreading on campus as to whether Ms. Anderson is stepping down because of tensions with Mr. Bollinger in the wake of his abrupt decision to overrule Ms. Anderson's plan to welcome the Iranian president to the World Leaders Forum on campus. Ms. Anderson's offer of hospitality to a leader who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who has denied the Holocaust drew criticism on campus from professors and students alike.
The Ahmadinejad invitation was not just a one-off, as it turns out. Anderson also invited rehabilitated Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gaddafi to speak at Columbia earlier this year. Gaddafi, who has ruled the North African nation for decades by force, lectured Columbia students on democracy and proclaimed Libya "the only democracy on the planet". That, along with her paid junket to Saudi Arabia and her apparent anti-Israeli stance, had to have heads scratching at the university and among its alumni.
Some question whether Anderson left on her own volition. A political science professor told the New York Sun's Eliana Johnson that he believes Bollinger pushed her out. That seems unlikely. Bollinger's cancellation of Ahmadinejad's visit was predicated not on outrage over the selection of speaker but over a more technical point about the nature of the venue. Bollinger said publicly that Anderson could invite Ahmadinejad to a function sponsored solely by Anderson's school rather than at the university-wide Leadership Forum. That doesn't sound as if Bollinger cared enough about the ludicrous nature of having the genocide-threatening Iranian president speak at Columbia to fire someone over it.
It does, however, look like exposure of the invitation made a difference in this case. Ms. Anderson will undoubtedly find somewhere else to teach, and hopefully the Great Dictators Lecture Series will come to an end at Columbia.
And Some People Think A Fence Is Bad
The Greeks have reportedly found a new method to deal with their illegal immigration problem, according to Der Spiegel. When interdicting boats that carry illegal immigrants on the Aegean, the Greek Coast Guard simply returns them to the sea -- but minus their boats. According to Turkish authorities, six people drowned and three remain missing when the Greeks threw 40 illegals into the water:
Greek authorities have denied knowledge of an alleged incident in which Greek officials threw illegal immigrants into the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey. On Tuesday morning, some 31 illegals were plucked out of the sea near the Turkish coastal city of Izmir. They claimed that the Greek Coast Guard had thrown them into the water. They did so, said one survivor, "without even asking if we could swim," according to Turkey's state-owned Anatolia news agency. Six people have reportedly drowned; three are missing.
Greek officials denied the charges in general terms. "We never throw people into the sea," said Haris Bournias, a Greek Coast Guard commander on the island of Chios. Turkey's coastline is a major transit area for illegal immigrants trying to reach Europe, and Bournias said smugglers regularly set immigrants adrift in little boats without lights. "Many people drown that way in the straits," said Bournias, and in fact early reports in the Turkish media claimed the survivors had washed ashore after their boat sank off the Turkish coast. ...
According to reports, the survivors included Palestinians, Lebanese, Tunisians, Iraqis and one Algerian. Residents on the coast of Izmir had called the Turkish Coast Guard on Tuesday morning after being awakened by barking dogs and cries for help. The suvivors claimed that they had set off from Izmir province in a boat and landed on Chios. But they were captured by uniformed Greeks who placed them on a Coast Guard ship that carried them back toward Izmir, where they were tossed into the sea. "Two of our friends drowned in front of our eyes," Muhammedi Alti, a Lebanese national, told the Anatolia news agency. "I still can't believe what we have lived through ... We had thought that human rights would be more valuable in Europe."
It's important to remember that the Greeks have denied this story and no international observers have independently corroborated it. However, the Greeks and Turks have an ongoing diplomatic feud over illegal immigration. The Greek border is the threshold for impoverished immigrants hoping to exploit Western economies for a better life. The Greeks want to keep their nation from being used as a conduit for illegal immigration, especially considering the security risks. They supposedly have a reciprocal agreement to return border crossers, but the Greeks say that the Turks have only agreed on 1400 cases -- out of over 22,000.
Any familiarity between this border and our southern border with Mexico is strictly coincidental, of course.
If the Greek Coast Guard really did what the Turks allege, they have committed a serious crime. Regardless of the security and economic problems that border-runners create, they cannot simply throw people into the sea to drown. If the Turks have lied -- and one hopes that turns out to be the case -- then these accusations will only backfire on them. The world's attention will turn to the Greek-Turk border as a potential gap in European security, and the Turks will come under greater pressure to secure it.
As far as our border is concerned, it looks like the Senate will vote on the border barier today. Bill Frist successfully limited debate on the bill yesterday, The US will get its border barrier, and far from turning America into Berlin, it will stop most of the unimpeded flow over the southern border that leaves us all vulnerable to more than just poor people looking for work.
Musharraf Deal In Waziristan Prompting More Attacks
The deal between Pervez Musharraf and the tribal leaders of Waziristan looks more and more like a surrender rather than a partnership against terror. The British newspaper The Guardian reports that American military sources indicate that attacks from Islamists in the border regions have more than doubled since the deal was announced:
Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.
Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.
A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, "especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan".
This is the result of Musharraf's deal with the tribal leaders, a deal that he probably couldn't avoid in any case. He had tried for years to use the Pakistani military to bring the Waziris under his thumb, and instead they thumbed their noses at him. After losing several hundred troops in largely unsuccessful efforts in the mountainous region, Musharraf decided to try enlisting their support instead.
It hasn't worked. Musharraf released thousands of pro-Islamist prisoners, to the consternation of the US, and that had the predictable effect of strengthening the Islamists in the region. When information came out that Mullah Omar blessed the deal, it surprised few but underscored the extent of Musharraf's capitulation. Now the newly-energized Islamists can traverse the border region with little concern for security on the Pakistani side.
Hamid Karzai cannot abide the constant infiltration on his borders, and he has a right to be angry. The Pakistani refusal to police their own border puts a lot more pressure on his own security forces and the NATO coalition trying to protect Afghanistan's first democratic republic. Since Pakistan's intelligence services helped create and support the Taliban in its previous incarnation, Karzai and his government have plenty of reason to believe that the Pakistani retreat may have more sinister motivations and implications, and that suspicion has created a great deal of tension between Karzai and Musharraf.
President Bush has tried to remain optimistic about Musharraf's efforts. However, the results speak for themselves, and we need to proceed with a more realistic understanding of Pakistan's stance. Perhaps this would be a good time to start pressing for the return of Pakistani democracy.
Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.
Click on the section title to expand the list.