|
|
|||
|
|
Prominent
South Carolina Republican It was not a pretty sight, according to witnesses. Romney, a possible Republican candidate for president in 2008, was in town to address the state executive committee. Cyndi Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, one of the largest GOP organizations in the state, came armed with a bunch of material — and questions — about the Mormon church. The incident only underlines what could become an uncomfortable debate over Romney’s faith if he runs for the White House. The issue will be on the table in South Carolina’s early primary contest, where roughly 35 percent of GOP voters are evangelical Christians, many of whom view Mormonism with skepticism. Mosteller, an evangelical, said she especially was concerned about the church’s attitude toward African-Americans and its stand on polygamy. The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. Today, it is one of the fastest-growing faith groups in the United States. Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, it is known formally as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormonism’s short history has been tumultuous, with an early embrace of polygamy, which it later renounced. Still, Mormons grapple with their polygamous past. It has been almost 30 years since the Mormon Church lifted a ban that kept black males from the church’s priesthood. Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as church leader, wrote that God put a curse on Cain — a “flat nose and black skin” — for killing his brother Abel. Mosteller said the issues of race and marriage concern her. She fears they could become campaign issues and hurt Republican chances. She had planned to ask the questions in an open committee session, but Romney nixed that idea by ending his short address with a final “thank you.” The governor then proceeded to meet with the media for about 15 minutes. Enter Mosteller. Sensing trouble, Romney aides hurriedly ushered reporters out the door. Afterward, Mosteller said the governor did not answer any of her questions. She described the meeting as “very tense.” Cindi Costa, a conservative Christian from Charleston and member of the Republican National Committee, waited outside the room. She earlier pleaded with Mosteller not to confront Romney. “This makes me sick,” Costa said. “Your personal faith is not game in politics. It’s a private matter.” The Romney campaign said the governor is focused on seeing that S.C. Republicans get elected to office this year. He has found Palmetto State voters “warm and open-minded.” He shares their conservative values, said Julie Teer, political director for Romney’s Commonwealth PAC. On previous visits here, Romney has appealed to voters not to rush to judgment. “They don’t know what I believe necessarily — yet. But they will,” he said in July. For any evangelical who had doubts, Romney offered what amounted to a personal testimony. “From a religious standpoint, Jesus Christ is my personal savior.” Costa said Mosteller’s questioning “besmirches her character. It makes her look hateful. This is not what we’re about. The party does not give religious tests,” “This is awful,” said Spartanburg GOP chairman Rick Beltram. “I’m unhappy with Cyndi.” State GOP chairman Katon Dawson isn’t pleased either. “She acted in bad taste.”
LOU
DOBBS BLUSTERS ABOUT MORMONS AND MEXICO BY RB Scott May 25, 2006 CNN's Lou Dobbs was once very effective as a business journalist, cracking through protective public relations facades with incisive, well researched questions. For a while it seemed he would make thoughtful, precise questioning work for him as the network's prime time news anchor. But Dobbs tossed objectivity into the floodwaters that swamped New Orleans last summer. His tough, reflective questions turned partisan and self-righteous. He became reporter, commentator, advocate and judge. These days, especially
when commenting on immigration and border security, his punditry glitters
with generalities, hyperbole and bombast one expects from radio talk
show hosts, not from serious reporters for a major news gathering
organizations. "LOU DOBBS ": I think he's done pretty well. He appears right now, Anderson, to be in charge of U.S. immigration policy and border security, such as it is. I think he's doing very well. COOPER: You say that why? Because the Bush administration hasn't come out critical of him? DOBBS: Oh, hasn't come out critical of him, doing exactly what he says. He doesn't want security on the northern border of his nation, and this president isn't providing security on our southern border. Because this is, after all, a president of a government exporting about 15 percent of their population to the United States, sending about 3 million of their citizens into this country so that they can get back more than $20 billion a year in remittances. This is the same country, good friend, neighbor and partner, as President Fox puts it, who's shipping us -- Mexico is now our leading source of meth, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. So, you know, it looks like the partnership is going just the way President Fox wants it. COOPER: It's interesting. He's visiting Utah. And the Hispanic population has tripled in Utah since 1990. And I guess he's going there to show how important Hispanics are and I guess illegal immigrants are as well to the work force in there. It's sort of an odd message, though. DOBBS: It's definitely an odd message. Until you consider that the Church of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, has about 1 million Mexican converts, has built 12 churches in Mexico, and has a vigorous enthusiasm for as many of Mexico's citizens as they possibly could attract to the state of Utah, irrespective of the cost to taxpayers. Once I picked myself up off the floor, I fired off a letter to Mr. Cooper that said: "I have tracked the Mormon Church all of my 35-year career as a journalist -- at United Press, then Life/Time/People, and now as a columnist covering Gov. Mitt Romney's prospective bid for the Presidency. In all those years, I have never once come across information that the Mormon Church is attempting to attract Mexican citizens to Utah at the expense of Utah taxpayers. "That claim is as outrageous and as wrong as Dobbs assertion that the Mormons have built "12 churches" in Mexico. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Mormon churches in Mexico [I later learned that at the end of 2003 Mexico had 199 Mormon stakes (dioceses) and roughly 1,800 wards and branches (parishes)] and that Mormons have been there since the late 1800s. In fact, Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, was born there. "If Mr. Dobbs has evidence that the church is encouraging Mexicans to move to Utah, he should present it. Otherwise, he should correct the error and apologize for making such an outrageous claim. Sloppy reporting like this only underscores perceptions that journalists play it fast and loose with the facts." Exhibit one for the prosecution: Lou Dobbs.
-30-
Rollin
Out the Welcome Wagon By David Burnett Editor's Note: Mr. Burnett is a photographer for Time Magazine. He and his wife, a novelist and political junkie, publish the "Blob" We're Just Sayin http://werejustsayin.blogspot.com/ April 22,
2006 David
Will Romney's
Ability to Raise Money in Arizona By GLEN JOHNSON BOSTON -- Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts raised cash for his campaign committee on Monday in what is shaping up as enemy territory - the home state of potential 2008 presidential rival John McCain of Arizona. Romney held a fundraiser in Phoenix, a foray that Romney's staff says highlights his ability to compete in Southwestern and Mountain states. They are home not only to McCain and a coveted bloc of Republican-leaning voters, but also many of Romney's fellow Mormons. It is McCain whom Romney singled out when the governor announced in December he would not seek a second term this year. Unlike the senator, who once joked he thought about being president "every day in the shower," Romney said his interest was more like the movie "Star Wars:" "It's in a galaxy far, far away." In repeated interviews, Romney has questioned the effectiveness of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, arguing it has had "unintended consequences" and "driven money into secret corners." Romney's staff regularly quips about McCain's age and questions the senator's ability to win over the influential and monied supporters of President Bush after their own rivalry developed during the 2000 presidential race. By 2009, McCain would be 72, three years older than Ronald Reagan was in 1981 when he became the oldest first-term president. McCain's staff, speaking privately like Romney's to avoid incurring the boss' wrath, labels Romney a johnny-come-lately to conservative Republican and national security causes. They also question whether a dashing candidate dubbed "Matinee Mitt" has the mettle to endure a rough nominating battle. McCain himself is far more generous. "I think he's a very good man; I think he's extremely attractive," the senator said in a recent interview in Washington. "I had some dealings with him when he was in charge of the Olympics, cleaning up the Olympics, where he did a great job." As for Romney's criticism of his campaign finance bill, McCain said: "It's no longer possible for a trial lawyer or a union leader or a corporate head to be called by a senator who's a powerful committee chairman and say, 'I want a check for six figures and by the way, your legislation is up before my committee.'" While the general election is still more than 2 1/2 years away, the fact that there will be neither a sitting president nor vice president running for the White House in 2008 has touched off early and intense competition in both parties. Public opinion polls have placed McCain atop the GOP pack. But Romney has not avoid the sniping. During a recent visit to the Olympics in Italy, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani - who is also considering a 2008 bid - said the security in Turin "is even an improvement" over the tight security at the Salt Lake City games in 2002. Left unsaid was that Romney had run those Olympics in Utah. "Romney's comments have not gone unnoticed, and his visit to Phoenix to raise some money has raised some eyebrows," said Scott Reed, a Republican political consultant who was campaign manager for Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "I'm not sure it's a smart long-term strategy," Reed added. "One thing I've learned about this business is that candidates remember - especially early on in campaigns when people are just getting started." A Romney spokeswoman insisted that any talk of a McCain-Romney rivalry was both premature and off target. "Governor Romney has a great deal of respect for Senator McCain and considers him a true American hero," said Julie Teer, political director of his Commonwealth PAC. "The purpose of the governor's trip to Arizona is to raise money for the Commonwealth PAC to help Republican candidates up and down the ticket there in 2006."
-30-
le
Nouvel Antisémitisme Triggers Anger Reaction
to the torture and murder of a young Parisian Jew paints By Nathan Samuels Note:
Mr. Samuels is a music professor and concert violinist in Paris, where
he has been a guest lecturer at Sciences Po. He was born, raised and
educated near Boston, Massachusetts
-30- THE CURRY
REPORT NOTE: George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. He appears on National Public Radio (NPR) three times a week as part of “News and Notes with Ed Gordon.” To contact Curry or to book him for a speaking engagement, go to his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. Six months after Hurricane Katrina, some public officials in New Orleans are waving a “Keep Out” sign in front of some of its poorest residents. In many instances, the culprits are Black. If some of the statements made by New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas, an African-American, had been uttered by a White person, he or she would have been lambasted as a racist. “We don’t need soap opera watchers right now,” Oliver said. “We’re going to target the people who are going to work. It’s not that I’m fed up, but that at some point there has to be a whole new level of motivation, and people have got to stop blaming the government for something they ought to do.” He added, “There has been a lot of pampering, and at some point, you have to say, ‘No, no, no, no.’” Instead of saying no to Oliver’s callousness, the council president was applauded by fellow council members Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson and Renee Gill Pratt. Oliver’s rant was a slap in the face of not only the residents, but to other communities that unselfishly embraced evacuees from New Orleans. An editorial in the Houston Chronicle, published under the headline, “No Welcome Home,” observed: “Thomas and other New Orleans leaders may characterize their stance as tough love, but to Houstonians who indiscriminately opened their homes, churches and pocketbooks to Katrina evacuees, the comments sound heartless. When people were in need, Houston and Harris County relief agencies did not screen applicants for their wage-earning potential before delivering medical care, shelter, and counseling to the victims.” The editorial concluded, “It seems that some of the designers of the future New Orleans want to discourage poor and disadvantaged residents from returning.” The Housing Authority of New Orleans, already in federal receivership, is actively extending what it calls “working preference” to public housing residents hoping to return. “Part of the overall process is asking about people’s willingness to work,” Nadine Jarmon, the federal receiver, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “If someone says, ‘Well, my income qualifies me for public housing and I want to come home,’ but they don’t express a willingness to work, or they don’t have a training background, or they weren’t working before Katrina, then you’re making a decision to pass over those people.” But is that right? As Houston City Councilman M. J. Khan told the Houston Chronicle, “A city is a combination of all kinds of people. We cannot pick and choose who will live in a city.” But that’s exactly what New Orleans is trying to do. While city officials ponder ways to exclude many of the poor, there is a different kind of discrimination going on in the housing market. A report titled, “Recovering States? The Gulf Coast Six Months After the Storms,” by Oxfam America notes: “Hurricane Katrina and Rita left in their path a massive housing crisis. More than 300,000 houses were destroyed, which is over 10 times the number destroyed in the next-most destructive US hurricane, Hurricane Andrew. At least 1,850,000 housing units were damaged. “In heavily impacted areas of Louisiana, approximately 112.340 households were without insurance. Of the 50,000 owners in Mississippi who received flood damage to their homes, some 35,000 had no flood insurance.” The report by Oxfam, international human rights organization, states that Mississippi and Louisiana have been awarded more than $11 billion in emergency Community Development Block Grant funds and President Bush has requested an additional $4.2 billion to rebuild housing in the region. “The parameters for assistance, however, end up excluding people with the fewest resources to recover on their own: renters and lowest-income homeowners.” Approximately 45 percent of the 300,000 destroyed homes were occupied by renters, the report said. In some Black pockets, such as the Gulfport and Moss Point/Pascagoula sections of Mississippi, more than 60 percent of the residents were renters. And they are expected to have an even harder time rebuilding. “Renters, who tend to have lower income than homeowners, were a significant portion of the people most adversely affected by the hurricane,” the Oxfam study said. “However, as currently drafted, only people living in owner-occupied homes are eligible for compensation under state assistance plans...” Rather than further penalizing renters, the report urged: “Increase homeownership opportunities for renters, thereby allowing them to build equity, by using federal rebuilding funds to provide homebuyer counseling, access to non-predatory mortgage financing, and connections to nonprofit housing developers with a stated mission and track record of building affordable single-family housing.” That’s much more constructive than trying to dismiss people as being “pampered” or “soap opera watchers.”
THE FORWARD Editor's Note:
Eric Uslaner and Mark Lichbach are professors of government and politics
at the University of Maryland, College Park. American Jews should not be surprised by the political divorce between televangelist Pat Robertson and his supporters in Israel. Even as President Bush courted the Jewish vote in 2004, Jews remained loyal to the Democratic Party, to a large degree out of fear of the religious right. Robertson recently said on his television program, "The 700 Club": "You read the Bible and [God] says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'" The claim that Prime Minister Sharon suffered a stroke because he withdrew Israeli settlers from Gaza stunned American Jews, most of whom support peace with the Palestinians and most of whom do not view God as seeking retribution for specific deeds. Such intemperate views confirmed Jewish fears of the Christian right. In the 2004 election, almost 80% of American Jews voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry, according to a survey by the National Jewish Democratic Council that we analyzed. The president did make inroads among the 15% of Jews who saw Israel as a central voting issue. A far greater share of Jewish voters, however, expressed strong dislike of Evangelical Christians. On a feeling thermometer ranging from 0, for extremely cold, to 100, for extremely warm, 37% of Jewish voters rated evangelicals at 0. In the 2004 American National Election Study, by comparison, only 4% of non-evangelical Christians rated fundamentalistÄChristians at 0. The average rating of evangelicals was 24 for Jews, compared to a positive 54 for non-Evangelical Christians. More importantly, American Jews' negativity toward evangelicals shaped their vote choice. Eighty-six percent of those most fearful of evangelicals cast ballots for Kerry, as compared to 72% of other Jews. It is true that many non-Jews were also turned off by the Christian right. For Christian America, however, the battle between fundamentalists and mainline believers revolves around the "culture war" in American politics. For mainline Christians, the battle with the religious right is over abortion and gay marriage. American Jews are very liberal on these social issues, but view the cultural wars though identity rather than policy lenses. For Pat Robertson and his allies, Israel is not simply a homeland for a people who have long faced discrimination and occasionally extermination — it is part of New Testament prophecy. The reestablishment of a Jewish state is a precondition for the final battle between good and evil at Armageddon. This ultimate conflict does not offer much solace to the Jews. Their choices are to convert to Christianity or to burn. This story is told in Revelations and in the "Left Behind" series of 11 novels that has sold more than 50 million copies. At the same time that the Christian right is becoming increasingly powerful within the GOP — and when its party leader, George W. Bush, identifies as a born-again Christian — the Republican Party has put a lot of effort into courting the Jewish vote. At least in 2004, however, those efforts failed. The surveys reveal that Jews who voted for Bush in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004 were largely motivated by fear of the Christian right. They were even more negative toward evangelicals than Jews who voted Democratic in both elections. At a November 2005 meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean said that Democrats "believe that Jews should feel comfortable in being American Jews without being constrained from practicing their faith or be compelled to convert to another religion." On the other side of the aisle, Ken Mehlman, the chair of the Republican National Committee, tells his fellow Jews that they should support the president who has stood by Israel. While the political operatives make their cases, it seems, Pat Robertson has unwittingly become Howard Dean's best campaigner for the Jewish vote — and Ken Mehlman's worst nightmare, in perhaps more ways than one.
-30- Olympic Skier
Shani Davis: Soul on Ice
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. He appears on National Public Radio (NPR) three times a week as part of “News and Notes with Ed Gordon.” To contact Curry or to book him for a speaking engagement, go to his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. Olympic skier Shani Davis turned in an impressive victory Saturday in the 1,000 meters, demonstrating that Blacks can win individual competition in the snow-white Winter Olympics. Rather than celebrating the victory of a 23-year-old man who grew up on the South Side of Chicago, however, Davis’ victory has been clouded by those who questioned his decision to concentrate on his individual race instead of participating in an earlier team event that could have helped another U.S. Olympian, Chad Hedrick, win a record-tying five gold medals. Without Davis, the team was eliminated in quarterfinal competition. For the record, Davis is not the first Black to win a gold medal at the Winter Olympics. In the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City, Vonetta Flowers won as part of a two-woman bobsled team and Jerome Iginla, a Black Canadian, was a member of the gold- winning Canadian hockey team. Davis is the first Black to win an individual gold medal. In the 1,000-meter event that Davis won, Hedrick came in sixth. He refused to shake the winner’s hand and told reporters, “Shani skated fast. That’s about all I’ll say.” At another point, he said: “I’m happy for Joey [Cheek, the silver medallist].” The bad-mouthing didn’t stop with the players. One of the U.S. coaches, Eric Heiden, said of Davis, “He is not a team player.” Many could have said the same about Heiden, the winner of five gold medals in 1980 at Lake Placid. Because he was not chosen as the final torchbearer at the 2002 Opening Ceremonies in Salt Lake City, Heiden refused to take part in the event. It was a Dutchman, Erben Wennemars, who won a bronze in the 2003 Olympics, that came to Davis’ defense. “Shani Davis is a fantastic champion,” Wennemars said. “For him, the pressure was high as it could get. Whatever the U.S. (thinks) about Shani Davis doesn’t matter. He’s the Olympic champion now, so he was right.” Davis now lives in Canada, where presumably he won’t have to deal with as many backward attitudes and petty jealousies. Ironically, Shani Davis’ success has given more visibility to a controversy surrounding Bryant Gumble. Gumbel, created a stir on his “Real Sports with Bryant Gumble” program on HBO. Dismissing the Winter Olympics with uncharacteristic candor, Gumble said: “So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of Blacks that make the Winter Games look like a GOP convention.” That opened the floodgates. Newsbusters.org, a conservative Web site committed to “exposing and combating liberal media bias,” posted the headline: “Shani Davis’s Gold Medal Makes Bryant Gumbel Look Even More Foolish.” It continued, “Nice timing, Bryant. Do you need some help removing that foot from you mouth?” The posts on the message board were even more critical. “I wonder if the NBA basketball court looks like the DNC convention to Gumball?” asked one reader, self- identified as “Realamericansvc.” Another one wrote, “Hey Bryant Gumbel: We STILL haven’t gotten an ‘update’ from you on how now that new ski resort in Mozambique is doing or how the Angolan hockey team is progressing. Cat got your tongue, you bigoted prick? “OH, and just do that you ‘get it’: American black athletes are traditionally not drawn to winter Olympic games because (1) yes, they are expensive to participate in and many black families (even middle class ones) just don’t have the cash you do to send their kids off to Aspen for moguls training, and (2) most young black athletes (even the ones whose families CAN afford it) are more drawn to basketball, football, and baseball than cross country skiing, figure skating and curling. So not only have we established that you are a BIGOTED PRICK, we have also established that you are an IGNORANT one at that.” Another wrote, “...But let Rush Limbaugh (when he was on ESPN) make an innocuous comment criticizing the sports media’s inflated expectations of some black quarterbacks – which in the end, ends up hurting, not helping them – and you’d have thought Rush was calling for a slave market sale to be held in downtown Philadelphia.” The Web site, outsports.com, observed: “We’re not alone in complaining about bias at Torino. Anybody who doubts that racism is rampant in winter sports should follow the hateful thread in a landslide of Shani Davis postings to message boards during the last few days. The anti’s are boiling over not just because they think he’s selfish, but because he’s black.” What a sad commentary on society.
[From The
Sunday Times} As a potential Republican candidate, the former mayor of New York is scoring freely, writes Andrew Sullivan in Washington -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of this is particularly noteworthy. The fastest growing theme in US evangelicalism is the pre-millennialist movement, while Left Behind, the fictional books dramatising the "end times", are the bestselling adult series in the US. What was surprising was that the Republican candidate addressing them was none other than Rudy Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay, divorced Catholic former mayor of New York. Giuliani gushed over his religious-right audience, according to an account on the evangelical website Crosswalk.com. "The principles of leadership apply universally," he said, "whether in business, government, a sports team or a church. It is wonderful to see you improving yourselves in a way to make your ministries more effective. It is a miracle what you do." He went on to stress his own faith in dealing with the crisis of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. When asked if he was running for president, he said: "Only God knows. I'll know better in a year whether I can fully commit to that process." The pastors said they'd pray for him. Giuliani replied: "I appreciate you. I can't tell you from my heart how much I appreciate what you are doing: saving people, telling them about Jesus Christ and bringing them to God." Take it from me: if Giuliani is talking Jesus, he's running for president. He hasn't been making much of a public splash, but he has been quietly traversing the country, heading up fundraisers and meeting the Republican base. This outreach to evangelical Christians is not necessarily cynical. Many evangelicals in the US do amazing work for the poor at home and abroad and deserve the thanks Giuliani gave. And insofar as he shares their Christian faith, he has no need to squirm. But what's more interesting is how receptive many of these grass-roots Republicans are to him. The polls of Republican voters two years before the primaries should be taken with a pinch of salt, but they are striking nonetheless. Giuliani is the most popular potential candidate, which can only mean evangelical Christians support him. Giuliani currently has 33per cent support, above his nearest rival John McCain with 28per cent. The most popular religious-right candidate is George Allen, the senator of Virginia, on 7per cent. Giuliani beats McCain even though Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion and McCain is pro-life. Giuliani has also walked in gay pride parades in New York and, after his messy divorce from his first wife, lived for a while in a town house with a gay male couple. He has performed in drag -- and rather well, I might add. On a whole slew of issues, he is at odds with the Christian-right base. Yet the Gallup poll showed him beating McCain 31per cent to 26per cent among self-described "conservatives". So why are they for him? The most plausible answer is that, since September 11, national security has trumped social issues in the highly pro-military south and Rocky Mountain west. Both McCain and Giuliani have impeccable reputations as hawks in the war on terror, but McCain has a long and bitter history with his party's base. Many of them despise him, and the feeling is mutual. In 2000, McCain openly blamed the religious Right for his loss to Bush in South Carolina. Giuliani has no such baggage. But the other main theme emerging in US politics is competent management. Last week, the House of Representatives Republicans issued a blistering report on the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina. Many conservatives are well aware the Bush administration has been nothing short of a fiscal catastrophe. There is a hunger for someone who knows how to manage and get government to actually work, someone who can pull the levers of administrative power to make things happen and someone who knows how to balance a budget. Giuliani is known for two things: turning a chaotic New York City into a bourgeois paradise; and for sterling leadership in an existential security crisis, September 11. His CV is almost designed for this moment. Moreover, Republican base voters know that the strident religiosity of the current President has alienated half the country. Not all of them are religious maniacs, demanding that every tenet of their faith be enshrined in government policy. Allen, the leading religious-right candidate, suffers somewhat because he is so much like Bush: a likeable frat boy from the south. Others such as Sam Brownback, senator for Kansas, are so extreme they would never win a general election. So Giuliani only needs to reassure the Christian base that he is not actively hostile and he has a great opening to exploit. His appeal, moreover, reaches both Republican and Democrat America. Another new poll, by Fox News, analysed how polarising the various candidates are. The poll looked at approval rates for candidates among their own party members and independents. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton polarises. She gets 82per cent support among Democrats, but only 48per cent among independents and even less among Republicans. McCain does better -- with 57per cent support among independents -- but is not so beloved in his own party, garnering only 64per cent. Giuliani does better than both, with Clinton-like levels of approval in his own ranks (81per cent) and McCain-like support among independents (63per cent). Americans are a little exhausted by the Republican-Democrat divide: Giuliani would help them with a touch of purple. The caveats remain, of course. Giuliani has never been subjected to a national campaign, while Clinton and McCain have. New York reporters hint at all sorts of mini-scandals and ethical matters that might come back to haunt Giuliani on a national stage. His strong candidate for Bush's homeland security department, Bernie Kerik, had to withdraw quickly under a blizzard of ethical queries. Giuliani's inclusive social views could also prove fatal in a party dominated by anti-gay sentiment. His first wife is not too thrilled with him, either. He has a temper. He has made enemies in his time as mayor. He may look strongest now -- before he has been drubbed in a brutal campaign. And yet he squares the Republican circles in ways nobody else can. He's inclusive but respectful of religion, a great manager and executive while also a powerful speaker and, above all, a man who stood up to terror in a way seared into the national -- and even global -- consciousness. If I were advising him, I'd urge him to pick a running mate who possesses major foreign policy experience to offset his lack of expertise. A Giuliani-Rice ticket? It's what Democratic nightmares are made of. The Sunday Times -30-
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (born 13 November 1969 in Mogadishu, Somalia) is a member of the Tweede Kamer (the Lower House of the Netherlands), for the Liberal Democratic Party (VVD). Her first name, Ayaan, means "lucky person" or simply "luck" in Somali. Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia. Because her father, Hirsi Magan Isse, was an opponent of Siyad Barre her family was forced to flee the country. They fled to Saudi Arabia, later moving to Ethiopia and then to Kenya where she attended high school. In 1992, after being forced into an arranged marriage with a distant cousin in Canada, she did not catch her connecting flight at Frankfurt, Germany and took a train to the Netherlands instead. In the Netherlands she received a residence permit on humanitarian grounds (even though she had landed in Germany and under EU rules should have applied for asylum there) and later citizenship. In an interview in the New York Times Magazine she also said that she gave a false date of birth to the Dutch immigration authorities and told them her name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while her real name was Ayaan Hirsi Magan. For more information read her complete, astonishing biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
I am here to defend the right to offend. It is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise called democracy cannot exist without free expression, particularly in the media. Journalists must not forgo the obligation of free speech, which people in other hemispheres are denied. I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other papers across Europe.
It was their duty as journalists to solicit and publish drawings of the prophet Muhammad.
Shame on those politicians who stated that publishing and re-publishing the drawings was ‘unnecessary’, ‘insensitive’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘wrong’. I am of the opinion that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark acted correctly when he refused to meet with representatives of tyrannical regimes who demanded from him that he limit the powers of the press. Today we should stand by him morally and materially. He is an example to all other European leaders. I wish my prime minister had Rasmussen’s guts. Shame on those European companies in the Middle East that advertised “we are not Danish” or “we don’t sell Danish products”. This is cowardice. Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after this, will they? The EU member states should compensate Danish companies for the damage they have suffered from boycotts. Liberty does not come cheap. A few million Euros is worth paying for the defence of free speech. If our governments neglect to help our Scandinavian friends then I hope citizens will organise a donation campaign for Danish companies. We have been flooded with opinions on how tasteless and tactless the cartoons are -- views emphasising that the cartoons only led to violence and discord. What good has come of the cartoons, so many wonder loudly? Well, publication of the cartoons confirmed that there is widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists and journalists who wish to describe, analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe. It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy. These people – many of whom hold European citizenship – have campaigned for censorship, for boycotts, for violence, and for new laws to ban ‘Islamophobia’. The cartoons revealed to the public eye that there are countries willing to violate diplomatic rules for political expediency. Evil governments like Saudi Arabia stage “grassroots” movements to boycott Danish milk and yoghurt, while they would mercilessly crash a grassroots movement fighting for the right to vote. Today I am here to defend the right to offend within the bounds of the law. You may wonder: why Berlin? And why me? Berlin is rich in the history of ideological challenges to the open society. This is the city where a wall kept people within the boundaries of the Communist state. It was the city which focalized the battle for the hearts and minds of citizens. Defenders of the open society educated people in the shortcomings of Communism. The work of Marx was discussed in universities, in op-ed pages and in schools. Dissidents who escaped from the East could write, make films, cartoons and use their creativity to persuade those in the West that Communism was far from paradise on earth. Despite the self-censorship of many in the West, who idealised and defended Communism, and the brutal censorship of the East, that battle was won. Today, the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed to a man named Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the seventh century, and who is regarded as a prophet. Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics. As far as I am concerned they have every right to be faithful to their convictions. But within Islam exists a hard-line Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These Islamists seek to convince other Muslims that their way of life is the best. But when opponents of Islamism try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive, blasphemous, socially irresponsible – even Islamophobic or racist. The issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders and races. Why me? I am a dissident, like those from the Eastern side of this city who defected to the West. I too defected to the West. I was born in Somalia, and grew up in Saudi Arabic and Kenya. I used to be faithful to the guidelines laid down by the prophet Muhammad. Like the thousands demonstrating against the Danish drawings, I used to hold the view that Muhammad was perfect -- the only source of, and indeed, the criterion between good and bad. In 1989 when Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie to be killed for insulting Muhammad, I thought he was right. Now I don’t. I think that the prophet was wrong to have placed himself and his ideas above critical thought.
The prophet did and said good things. He encouraged charity to others. But I wish to defend the position that he was also disrespectful and insensitive to those who disagreed with him. I think it is right to make critical drawings and films of Muhammad. It is necessary to write books on him in order to educate ordinary citizens on Muhammad. I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission. I am not the only dissident in Islam. There are more like me here in the West. If they have no bodyguards they work under false identities to protect themselves from harm. But there are also others who refuse to conform: in Teheran, in Doha and Riyadh, in Amman and Cairo, in Khartoum and in Mogadishu, in Lahore and in Kabul. The dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism, don’t have nuclear bombs or any other weapons. We have no money from oil like the Saudis. We will not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number we are too small and too scattered to become a collective of anything. In electoral terms here in the west we are practically useless. All we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair chance to express them. Our opponents will use force to silence us. They will use manipulation; they will claim they are mortally offended. They will claim we are mentally unstable and should not be taken seriously. The defenders of Communism, too, used these methods. Berlin is a city of optimism. Communism failed. The wall was broken down. Things may seem difficult and confusing today. But I am optimistic that the virtual wall, between lovers of liberty and those who succumb to the seduction and safety of totalitarian ideas will also, one day, come down. Berlin, 9.02.06 Ayaan Hirsi Ali -30- LA Times selectively reprinted -- and Wash. Times' Lambro selectively cited -- flawed AP article on Abramoff Summary:
The Los Angeles Times reprinted an abridged version of a flawed Associated
Press story about links between disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff
and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The Washington Times' Donald
Lambro also selectively cited the article in a column. From the AP article, as it appeared in the February 15 Los Angeles Times: Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for about two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone. Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory and an Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show. Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations about the time of each action. Like the original February 9 AP article, the version published by the Times never mentioned that Reid co-sponsored the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands -- an effort that Abramoff opposed. The AP also failed to note what subsequent action Reid took on the legislation; in fact, Reid supported the bill's passage in a May 6, 2002, speech on the Senate floor, as Media Matters has documented. The February 9 AP article -- but not the February 15 version in the Times -- identified the Abramoff aide Reid and his staff repeatedly met with to discuss the minimum wage bill as Ronald Platt. In response to the February 9 article, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall contacted Platt about whether Reid had taken any action against the minimum wage bill following their meeting, to which Platt responded, "I'm sure he didn't": According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid's position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That's what Platt says. "I didn't ask Reid to intervene," said Platt. "I wouldn't have asked him to intervene. I don't think anyone else would have asked. And I'm sure he didn't." As Marshall noted, the AP did not interview Platt for the February 9 article. In response, Platt emailed an account of his interactions with Reid (apparently reprinted here) to the AP. (As Media Matters has noted, this resulted in a misleading follow-up article by the AP on February 11.) In his statement, Platt wrote that the Abramoff billing records were "fraudulent" and that, in any case, the February 9 AP article "distorts the context of my 'contacts,' with Senator Reid's staff." Platt explained: I was fully aware of his [Reid's] strong support for and sponsorship of Senator [Edward M.] Kennedy's [D-MA] bill to ensure that the Marianas Islands would not be exempted from the minimum wage laws applicable to all other American citizens. Therefore, at no time did I ever discuss the substance of this issue with Senator Reid or his office. Nor did I ever ask that the bill be delayed. I only asked about the timing of when the bill would come to the Senate floor. This inquiry was routine. Like the February 9 AP article, the abbreviated version in the Times reported that Reid took actions "helpful" to Abramoff's tribal clients "at least five times." But unlike the original article, the version in the Times gave readers no indication of what these actions were. In fact, four of the five actions involved opposition to off-reservation Indian casinos. This position is consistent with Reid's longtime opposition to off-reservation gambling. As early as 1988, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. He proposed separate legislation in 1993 "prohibit[ing] states from opening gaming operations on off-reservation land" [AP, 5/28/93]. Both versions of the article quoted Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who pointed out that "[a]ll the actions that Sen. Reid took were consistent with his long-held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents." But the February 9 version contained substantial evidence supporting Manley's statement about off-reservation gambling -- evidence that was omitted from the February 15 article in the Times. The February 9 AP article noted that two of Reid's "letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues" were written in opposition to an off-reservation casino proposed by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. The letters, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), were sent to the Department of the Interior on March 5, 2002, and April 30, 2003. According to the AP, "The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena." The February 9 AP article explained that Reid and Ensign have defended their opposition to the Jena casino by pointing out their long-standing efforts to protect Nevada's gambling interests. The article further noted that Reid "has long argued" that such off-reservation casinos are generally illegal: Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments. "As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations. None of this information was included in the Los Angeles Times' version of the AP article. The February 9 AP article also described two other actions taken by Reid in opposition to tribal casinos but failed to adequately explain that these, too, were consistent with Reid's long-standing positions. The original AP article explained that "Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff." But as Media Matters has noted, the AP did not explain that in his November 19, 2002, floor statement, Reid said he opposed the legislation because it would allow the Bay Mills Indians to build an off-reservation casino "under the guise of settling a land claim." Nor did the AP note that like the Jenna proposal, the Saginaw Chippewa proposal was for an off-reservation casino. In its discussion of Reid's opposition to the Saginaw Chippewa casino, the Times version of the article explained only that Reid "once oppos[ed] legislation on the Senate floor" in a manner "helpful" to Abramoff's clients. Similarly, the February 9 AP article reported that in December 2002, Reid "signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California." The AP added that "[t]he casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes." But the AP did not explain that this proposal, too, was for an off-reservation casino. The Times version of the AP article offered no description of any of Reid's letters, stating only that Reid "four times sen[t] letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues" in a manner "helpful" to Abramoff's clients. The Washington Times' Lambro, in his February 16 column, also selectively cited the already misleading February 9 AP article. In doing so, Lambro baselessly claimed that Reid "is up to his eyeballs in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal." Lambro wrote that "the senator's staff had many contacts with the [Abramoff's] lobbying firm on behalf of their boss," but did not note that, in the AP's words, "[m]ost were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands." And like the AP, Lambro did not inform readers that Reid opposed the position taken by Abramoff's clients on that legislation. In addition, Lambro wrote, "We now know Mr. Reid wrote at least four letters to assist Indian tribes that hired the since-convicted lobbyist." Lambro ignored the subject of these letters, failing to mention that three of them were entirely consistent with Reid's long-standing opposition to off-reservation tribal gaming. From Lambro's February 16 Washington Times column: It turns out Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has been running around the country preaching the "culture of corruption" message, is up to his eyeballs in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. For several weeks, Mr. Reid has been leading a fierce offensive on this issue, while insisting no Democrat received any money in return for legislative favors in the widening scandal under Justice Department investigation. But new details reported last week by the Associated Press reveal Mr. Reid's fervent, repeated denials of any connection with Abramoff or his lobbying firm were not entirely true. We now know Mr. Reid wrote at least four letters to assist Indian tribes that hired the since-convicted lobbyist, that the senator's staff had many contacts with the lobbying firm on behalf of their boss, and that Mr. Reid accepted nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's associates and his Indian clients -- often right after he wrote the requested letters.
325,000
names on U.S. terrorism list http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11355793/#storyContinued Updated: 1:06 a.m. ET Feb. 15, 2006 By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a central repository of 325,000 names of alleged international terrorism suspects or people who aid them, a number that has more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003, according to counterterrorism officials. The list kept
by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) -- created in 2004
to be the primary U.S. terrorism intelligence agency -- contains a
far greater number of international terrorist suspects and associated
names in a single government database than has previously been disclosed.
Because the same person may appear under different spellings or aliases,
the true number of separate individuals is estimated to be more than
200,000, according to NCTC officials. The NSA is a key provider of information for the NCTC database, although officials refused to say how many names on the list are linked to the agency's controversial domestic eavesdropping effort. Under the program, the NSA has conducted wiretaps on an unknown number of U.S. citizens without warrants. The government has been trying to streamline what counterterrorism officials say are more than 26 terrorism-related databases compiled by agencies throughout the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Names from the NCTC list are provided to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which in turn provides names for watch lists maintained by the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies. Civil liberties advocates and privacy experts said they were surprised by the size of the NCTC database, and they said it further heightens their concerns that such government terrorism lists include the names of large numbers of innocent people. Timothy Sparapani, legislative counsel for privacy rights at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the numbers "shocking but unfortunately not surprising." ‘Spawning
faster than rabbits’ Asked whether names in the repository were collected through the NSA's domestic intelligence intercept program, the NCTC official said, "Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA." Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that he could not discuss specifics but said: "Information is collected, information is retained and information disseminated in a way to protect the privacy interests of all Americans." The NCTC name repository began under its predecessor agency in 2003 with 75,000 names, and it continues to grow. The center was created as part of a broad reorganization of U.S. intelligence agencies after failures to disrupt the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It is the main agency for analyzing and integrating terrorist intelligence and is under direction of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte. Its central database is the hub of an elaborate network of terrorism-related databases throughout the federal bureaucracy. Terrorism-related names and other data are sent to the NCTC under standards set by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, signed by President Bush in September 2003, according to a senior NCTC official. The directive calls upon agencies to supply data only about people who are "known or appropriately suspected to be . . . engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism." "We work on the basis that information reported to us has been collected in accordance with those guidelines," Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, the center's director, said in a statement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11355793/#storyContinued
Feb 14, 2006 3:33 pm US/Eastern Hunter Shot
By Cheney Has Heart Attack The victim, Harry Whittington, was immediately moved back to the intensive care unit for further treatment, said Peter Banko, the administrator at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial in Texas. Banko said doctors conducting a regular checkup on Whittington Tuesday morning discovered an irregularity in the heartbeat caused by a pellet, and they performed a cardiac catheterization around 10 a.m. EST. Whittington was in stable condition after treatment and expressed a desire to leave the hospital, but Banko said they would probably keep him for another week to make sure that more birdshot does not move to other vital organs. Cheney watched the news conference where doctors described Whittington's complications. Then the vice president called him, wished him well and asked if there was anything that he needed. A statement from Cheney's office said, "The vice president said that he stood ready to assist. Mr. Whittington's spirits were good, but obviously his situation deserves the careful monitoring that his doctors are providing." Cheney, an experienced hunter, has not spoken publicly about the accident. Critics of the Bush administration called for more answers from Cheney himself. The dustup over the accident and when it was made public "is part of the secretive nature of this administration," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "I think it's time the American people heard from the vice president." The accident was fodder for jokes on late night TV and early Tuesday at the White House, before news surfaced about problems with Whittington's heart. A Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report issued Monday said Whittington was retrieving a downed bird and stepped out of the hunting line he was sharing with Cheney. "Another covey was flushed and Cheney swung on a bird and fired, striking Whittington in the face, neck and chest at approximately 30 yards," the report said. The department found the main factor contributing to the accident was a "hunter's judgment factor." No other secondary factors were found to have played a role. Hospital officials said they knew that Whittington had some birdshot near his heart ever since Cheney accidentally shot him Saturday evening while aiming for a quail. The pellet always was at risk of moving closer since scar tissue had not had time to harden and remain in place, they said. They said they are not concerned about other birdshot — widely estimated to be between six and 200 pieces — that might still be lodged in Whittington's body. Cheney was using 7 1/2 shot from a 28-gauge shotgun. The doctors said Whittington did not experience classic symptoms of a heart attack, but they estimate that he probably had a minor one around 7:30 a.m. EST. They said they decided to treat the situation "conservatively" rather than conduct surgery to remove the pellet. They said he could live a healthy life with it left in place. Asked whether the pellet could move further into the heart and become fatal, hospital officials said that was a hypothetical question they could not answer. But they said they are extremely optimistic that he will recover. The shot was either touching or embedded in the heart muscle near the top chambers, called the atria, they said. Two things resulted: _It caused inflammation that pushed on the heart in a way to temporarily block blood flow, what the doctors called a "silent heart attack." This is not a traditional heart attack where an artery is blocked. They said Whittington's arteries, in fact, were healthy. _It irritated the atria, caused an irregular heartbeat known as atrial fibrillation, which is not immediately life-threatening. But it must be treated because long-term it can spur blood clots to form. Most cases can be corrected with medication. White House physicians who attended to Whittington at the scene after Cheney accidentally shot him helped advise the course of treatment, the hospital officials said. Whittington had initially been placed in intensive care after the accident. He had been moved to a "step-down unit" Monday after doctors decided to leave several birdshot pellets lodged in his skin rather than try to remove them. The accident raised questions about Cheney's adherence to hunting safety practices and the White House's failure to disclose the accident in a timely way. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department gave Cheney and Whittington warning citations for breaking Texas hunting law by failing to buy a $7 stamp allowing them to shoot upland game birds. A department spokesman said warnings are being issued in most cases because the stamp requirement only went into effect five months ago and many hunters weren't aware of it. Cheney's office said Monday night in a statement that Cheney had a $125 nonresident hunting license and has sent a $7 check to cover the cost of the stamp. Katharine Armstrong, a witness to the accident and owner of the ranch where the shooting occurred, said Whittington made a mistake by not announcing that he had walked up to rejoin the hunting line after going to retrieve his bird, and Cheney didn't see him as he took a shot. Several hunting safety experts agreed in interviews that it would have been a good idea for Whittington to announce himself. But every expert interviewed stressed that the shooter is responsible for avoiding other people. Bush was told about Cheney's involvement in the accident shortly before 8 p.m. Saturday — about an hour after it occurred — but the White House did not disclose the accident until Sunday afternoon, and then only in response to press questions.
Trenton Times Sunday February 12, 2006 `All
I want is equal rights' By
JOSEPH DEE TRENTON -- A milestone in a lawsuit that will determine whether New Jersey will join Massachusetts as only the second state to permit gay and lesbian couples to marry will be reached Wednesday, when the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that began more than 3 years ago. Prior to the arguments, scheduled for 10 a.m. at the Hughes Justice Complex on Market Street, groups that support same-sex marriage rights as well as those opposed are expected to gather outside and demonstrate. Inside the courtroom, emotions will likely give way to dispassionate debate and incisive questioning by the high court's seven justices. Once the arguments are finished, the justices will deliberate the case's fine legal points against a roiled social backdrop that includes steady progress for homosexuals seeking equality as well as stinging defeats, and even a pair of Academy Award-nominated movies that home in on the challenges sexual minorities confront as they carve out their lives in America. The crux of the case is rather straightforward. The plaintiffs argue that the current interpretation of state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates their constitutionally protected rights to privacy and equal protection. Lifting the barrier, attorneys for the plaintiffs say, would restore rights that already belong to gays and lesbians. "Marriage is about the same things for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples," said Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund attorney David S. Buckel, who will argue the plaintiffs' case Wednesday. "The gateway must be open on equal terms to all citizens." The state, however, contends that the same-sex marriage ban is not a barrier on par with other restrictions such as age thresholds or prohibitions of marriages between close blood relatives. Instead, the state argues that marriage has been considered an opposite-sex arrangement throughout the ages. It urges the court to view the plaintiffs' request as a fundamental change to the institution of marriage that the constitution does not require, rather than a removal of an unwarranted restriction. In an interview Friday, assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida, who will argue the state's case, said the Legislature is the place where the plaintiffs should be seeking relief, not the courts... http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1139735700292300.xml&coll=5 **** Hindustan Times, February 12, 2006 Freedom of expression is no fig leaf By Omar Abdullah
The events have raised several questions that I believe need to be addressed. Where does freedom of expression end and respect for others’ feelings and beliefs begin? Why is the Christian Right Wing hell bent on portraying all Muslims as bloodthirsty murderers? Does the moderate Muslim, which I still believe comprises the majority, need to introspect about why the rest of the world sees us the way it does? Finally, a question that I have been asking myself and that is that if the cartoons were published last September, why did all hell break loose this February? Anger is usually spontaneous, especially when it is about something as passionate as religion. In this case it took months for the anger to manifest itself into the violence we are all seeing. No right thinking person would question the right of the press, or the individual, to freedom of expression. In India, it’s something we hold very dear. Political leaders have paid a heavy price from time to time for trying to muzzle the press and because of this we have a fourth estate that has evolved into a responsible advocate of peoples’ issues. It does so in a manner that involves more self-policing rather than external control and seldom inflames passions in an irresponsible or hurtful manner. The same cannot be said for the newspaper involved in this latest controversy, the Danish paper, the Jyllands-Posten. It published cartoons of Prophet Mohamed (SAW) and depicted him in the most clichéd manner designed to hurt. They now hide behind the freedom of expression argument, an argument that other newspapers have subsequently used to justify publishing the same cartoons in an apparent show of solidarity. Up until this point I may have been willing to, rather grudgingly, concede some ground to these newspapers. I would have been outraged at the slight to my religion and the thoughtlessness of their actions but would have argued that we have to respect the right to free expression. But revelations of the last few days have ensured that I won’t concede them any space at all. They quite clearly have double standards. They commission cartoons of Prophet Mohamed (SAW) while at the same time refuse to publish cartoons of Jesus Christ. Why do they refuse cartoons of Jesus Christ? Because they believe that the cartoons will not be well received, the only bit of sensible thinking that they seem to have exercised. So it seems that it’s fine to inflame Muslim sentiments but not Christian sentiments. If this one single fact does not smack of double standards, then what does? You can’t hide behind freedom of expression when it suits you regardless of the implications and then deny others the same freedom. What do you tell Al Jazeera when it shows tapes of threats being made by Al Qaeda? Is that not freedom of expression? Or worse still, what about those who wish to use freedom of expression to deny the holocaust or ask for the wiping of a particular country off the map? These are, for the record, points of view that I personally have strong disagreement with. These viewpoints are criticised, and rightly so, for hurting the sentiments of a particular community. Is the violence that followed the repeated publishing of these cartoons not another form of freedom of expression? If the answer to these questions is in the negative, which it should be, then the publishing of the cartoons cannot possibly be justified using the same argument. All this could have been avoided with a timely apology, which wasn’t forthcoming. Instead we got a belligerent “we haven’t done anything wrong why should we apologise” argument from the newspapers involved. If Lebenon could apologise to the Danish Government for the destruction of it’s embassy, an act not of the Lebenese Government’s doing, then why not let cooler heads prevail? Extremists on both sides of the divide wait for opportunities like this to take advantage of. The pity is that we create these opportunities on an amazingly regular basis. Omar Abdullah *****
|
|
|
folklorique
costume teams of Hu supporters - Chinese flags in hand, with really
bad street demo music (from battery powered megaphones being held
next to cassette players) dancing and holding signs with that very
ESL style of writing: "Supporting the Visit of Premier Hu Jin
Tao"; across the street were hundreds of nay sayers, the Falun
Gong/Free Tibet/End the CCP groups. Their English skills weren't much
better, but the visual aids were a bit more stark: alleged pictures
of Falun Gong victims having had their organs harvested after being
arrested in China. The remarkable thing was how civil everyone was,
even though their screams were at maximum decibel level. There were
a few Park Service cops, apparently given a reprieve for a day, from
giving speeding tickets on the GW Parkway, but they never had to use
their truncheons, not even once. Inside the White House compound,
it was a picture of hospitality: The usual Grand Plan south lawn reception
(my first was July 1967, LBJ welcoming the Thai King) highlighted
by the fife and drum corps marching to and fro in front of the honored
guests, ran for about an hour. One colleague seemed to think, when
a 15 passenger van pulled up to the reviewing stand, just moments
before Hu arrived, that one of the people to step out, might be the
elusive General Tso himself. But, no chicken. There were only a few
screw ups, the most obvious one being the Chinese woman, a doctor
apparently, who gained access with a temporary press pass to the main
Media stand, who started yelling in the middle of Hu's speech, decrying
him and his regime, and imploring the President to send him packing.
It is always a jarring moment when a surprize happens like this: the
cameras all swirled in her direction, (and apparently the CNN feed
to China was somewhat sublimated during the 'embarassing moment')
as she railed for several minutes. [Note: this is the cool thing about
Blobbing: I dont have to back any of this crap up with actual facts,
I can just repeat some of the good gossip I heard downtown.] The interesting
thing is, no one saw this coming. Do we live in a time where the Plan
is always run without incident? That everything goes according to
the minutely detailed schedule? [Gee, after we forgot to be welcomed
with flowers in Baghdad 3 years ago, maybe we should have noticed
that things don't always work out like you think they will.] Anyway,
it would have been a great moment for Pres. Bush to nudge Hu, remind
him that Free Speech, even when it's embarassing socially, is something
near and dear to us. But no, in the fashion of guest rather than host,
the woman was taken away and according to press reports {boy, I LOVE
that phrase...) was arrested by DC police for Disturbing the Peace.
That aside, the most telling moment, the one we ll look at in two
or three years, was when Hu thought that he and Bush were supposed
to walk down from the stand again, and the President reached over
and grabbed him by the sleeve. That was an "Economist" magazine
cover moment. Subtle, full of wierd meaning, and something that may
end up on one of those demonstrators placards the next time they meet.
At the very least, it could be the picture to remind us that even
though we'd like them NOT to be using so damn much gasoline, that
they seem hell bent on having as many cars, and choking the streets
and atmosphere as badly as we have all these years. All that petroleum
going up in smoke. Hey, We're just sayin.
