Maybe she needs a career change

.......... at least that's what I thought when I read THIS report about a flight attendant screaming "We're going to crash, we're going to crash!"

I think somewhere in the flight attendant handbook, they discourage that kind of response. (HT -- Drudge)

China the next super power

That's what John Negroponte says. Breitbart.com has THIS article about Negroponte's comments and about China's rise to economic and military power.

Here's a thought. We have a vested interest in promoting free-market economics in China, because free market capitalism creates people who desire freedom, because economic prosperity creates the possibility for a sense of self that promotes self-worth and a desire for liberty.

China is going to become a world power. The only question that we have to ask is will they be more friend than foe. Let's hope so.

Here's an update and different perspective.

Multi-tasking is a myth

.... at least that's what this report seems to suggest to me.

Maybe we need to re-learn the fine art of concentration. But maybe technology is turning us into a nation of ADD workers.

Workers completed two-thirds of their work in an average day last year, down from about three-quarters in a 1994 study, according to research conducted for Day-Timers Inc., an East Texas, Pennsylvania-based maker of organizational products.

The biggest culprit is the technology that was supposed to make work quicker and easier, experts say.

"We never concentrate on one task anymore. You take a little chip out of it, and then you're on to the next thing," Challenger said on Wednesday. "It's harder to feel like you're accomplishing something."

Unlike a decade ago, U.S. workers are bombarded with e-mail, computer messages, cell phone calls, voice mails and the like, research showed.

The Bombing of a Mosque and what it teaches

The recent horrors of a Shiite mosque bombed in Iraq should remind us of history and this should help us understand a little bit better what is going on in the Muslim world generally and in Iraq specificaly.

Strife within Islam is long standing. And from the generation after Mohammed there has been a difference of opinion about what makes for real Islam. So, we need to realize that the bombing of a mosque in Iraq is a serious matter, because Muslims tend not to think of themselves as simply Muslims, except when they are defining themselves over against the WEST. Rather, they really do conceive of themselves as Shi' i or Sunni (of Sufi). These are more than denominational labels, they are divisions that go (in the minds of true believers) to the heart of what true Islam is.

So, the bombing of a Shiite Mosque in a predominantly Shite country is meant to provoke these long-standing divisions. Al Queda (who is most likely behind the bombing) shows its truly non-Muslim commitments. The agenda of Al Queda supercedes anything and everything that is close to the hearts of the Muslim people. The bombing of a mosque, any mosque, is a grave sacriledge in the minds of Muslims. Al Queda is more akin to a radical quasi-apocalyptic sect within Islam than anything else. The establishment of a caliphate (kingdom) of Islam is their guiding agenda, not submission (which is what Islam means) to Allah.

At the Website CQPRESS you can find a good article that summarizes the historic tensions in Islam and what they mean. Here's a taste.

This era ended with the first civil war (656-661), in which specific conflicts between particular interest groups provided the foundation for the broader political and theological divisions in the community and the Islamic tradition. The first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, had been successful in maintaining a sense of communal unity. But tensions within the community surfaced during the era of the third caliph, Uthman, who was from the Umayyad clan. Uthman was murdered in 656 by troops who mutinied over matters of pay and privileges, but the murder was the beginning of a major civil war.

The mutinous troops and others in Medina declared the new caliph to be Ali, a cousin of Muhammad who was an early convert and also the husband of Muhammad's daughter Fatimah (and, therefore, the father of Muhammad's only grandsons, Hasan and Husayn). According to Shi'i Muslim tradition, there were many people who believed that Muhammad had designated Ali as his successor. An Arabic term for faction or party is shi'ah, and the party or shi'ah of Ali emerged clearly during this first civil war. Ali's leadership was first challenged by a group including Aisha, the Prophet's most prominent wife and a daughter of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. Although Ali defeated this group militarily, it represented the tradition that became part of the mainstream majority, or Sunni, tradition in Islam, recognizing that all four of the first four caliphs were rightly guided and legitimate.

Ali faced a major military threat from the Umayyad clan, who demanded revenge for the murder of their kinsman, Uthman. The leader of the Umayyads was Muawiya, the governor of Syria. In a battle between the Umayyad army and the forces of Ali at Siffin in 657, Ali agreed to arbitration. As a result, a group of anti-Umayyad extremists withdrew from Ali's forces and became known as the Kharijites, or seceders, who demanded sinlessness as a quality of their leader and would recognize any pious Muslim as eligible to be the caliph. When Ali was murdered by a Kharijite in 661, most Muslims accepted Muawiya as caliph as a way of bringing an end to the intracommunal violence.

Many later divisions within the Muslim community were to be expressed in terms first articulated during this civil war. The mainstream, or Sunni, tradition reflects a combination of an emphasis on the consensus and piety of the community of the Prophet's companions, as reflected in the views of Aisha and her supporters, and the pragmatism of the Umayyad imperial administrators. The Sunni tradition always reflects the tension between the needs of state stability and the aspirations of a more egalitarian and pietistic religious vision. Shi'i Islam has its beginnings in the party of Ali and the argument that God always provides a special guide, or imam, for humans and that this guide has special characteristics, including being a descendant of the Prophet and having special divine guidance. Leadership and authority rest with this imamate and are not subject to human consensus or pragmatic reasons of state.

Physician-Assisted HOmicide?

Reports from New Orleans about a hospital in which terminally ill persons were "euthanized" (as the saying goes) -- during Hurricane Katrina -- have sounded a troubling note. All is not well in the medical world when medical personel feel free to give lethal injections to persons who are dying, in order to be able to escape from harm themselves. (The patients all had Do Not Resusitate orders from the patients, but had not requested to have their lives ended.)

Here's the take of one advocate for the rights of the terminally ill on the situation:

Commenting, Not Dead Yet, says, "In other words, the only way the staff could evacuate was if they could report there were no more living patients to take care of. This was not about compassion or mercy. It was about throwing someone else over the side of the lifeboat in order to save themselves."

Not Dead Yet compared the allegations to what transpired at a New Orleans nursing home where 34 residents who were abandoned by staff drowned. "Death by drowning is easy to prove and so the owners of the nursing home are charged with 34 counts of negligent homicide," said Not Dead Yet. "It's unclear what will happen in the case of LifeCare medical staff. It's hard to prove morphine medication overdoses in badly decomposed bodies."

The fear of those who were medical care givers under those conditions is understandable. NO doubt about it. But, you have to admit the medical profession seems to be a long way from Florence Nightingale's example.

If this is a harbinger of the state of our culture (and that's a big if, I know), then we may well be sliding toward the cultures of the ancient peoples of the Americas who found it helpful to sacrifice others (ritually), for their own perceived benefit. Am I way over the top on this one?

Read about the tragedy. Hat Tip Drudge Report

Supreme Hope for overturning Partial-birth abortion

Ed Whelan posts the following at Bench Memos.

AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has granted review of one of the court of appeals decisions invalidating the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. That should mean that the case will be set for oral argument in October (or possibly November) 2006. Given Justice Kennedy's dissent from the Court's 2000 ruling on a state partial-birth abortion statute in Stenberg v. Carhart, there should be five votes now to overturn that execrable ruling.

Please, God, let Ed's observations be correct about Justice Kennedy.

For the life of me, I have never been able to fathom how even abortion rights proponents can countenance the barbarism of partial birth abortion, given that the child is killed in the process of being born into the world. GO HERE for facts about this horrific and indefensible practice

The God of George Washington

Here's a very good interview of one of Washington's recent biographers.

Q: All in all, then, would you count Washington a Christian?

A:Not a Deist, certainly. Not a showy, belief-on-his-sleeves Christian, either. Yet he was in fact a pretty serious Christian, going a lot more to church than many of his contemporaries, and being seriously engaged with his time, money, and private devotions. Still, on many occasions, when asked directly, he avoided saying publicly that he was a Christian, or of which confession — perhaps determined not to let his private life become a political weapon. So the evidence on how specifically Christian he was is easy to find in his actions, but hard to find in his words.

It seems that George was a pretty serious Christian after all.

Katrina's Still a Tragedy, but the Racemongers can shut-up, at least

One heard so much preaching and shouting in the horrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina about how race played into the slow response of the federal government. The ever-amusing and self-serving Kayne West even said at a fund raising concert:

I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, "They're looting." You see a white family, it says, "They're looking for food." And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help -- with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!

George Bush doesn't care about black people!

Well the Katrina Report from the HOuse of Representatives is out and guess what --

RACE DIDN"T FIGURE INTO THE FEDERAL FAILURES AT ALL.

Star Parker reports

The House released its investigative report on Hurricane Katrina this week, under the title "A Failure of Initiative." The report is an indictment of government failure at all levels federal, state and local.

In 379 pages, plus 141 appendices, the report documents government failure in major areas that, if handled better, could have reduced the death and damage caused by Katrina.

But it is also important to note what the report does not say. Nowhere is there any conclusion that the poor response resulted from racism.

So, be careful when you hear the talking heads of the left waxing eloquent about matters that they do know about. It's always best to wait and see!

Find Out If you are a True Christian Believer

I came across an interesting quiz that scores how close to being an orthodox Christian you actually are. If you dare, take it for a spin. HERE IT IS!

The Quiz asks questions based on the declarations of the Christian Church at the Council of Chalcedon.

Of the many reasons that gay "marriages" are a bad idea

.... this is another one!

LAWYERS are prepared to advise potential immigrants how to gain British citizenship by signing up for “gay marriages” even if they are heterosexual.

Undercover reporters were told by six different firms of solicitors how to exploit a loophole in the civil partnership rules to get passports.

Immigrants face less rigorous tests if they seek to gain British citizenship through a civil partnership than through a heterosexual marriage.

Under laws that took effect last December, gay people have the same immigration rights as married people — and may secure a full passport after two years in the country.

However, while marriages have to be consummated to qualify there is no such requirement on couples in a civil partnership. It is thus not illegal for two heterosexual friends to form a civil partnership and then to “divorce” after two years once the foreigner has gained British citizenship.

It seems that our British friends have passed some laws allowing for gay "civil unions" that actually become a loop-hole for people who simply want (for whatever reason) to be able to immigrate to England and obtain an English passport. You really ought to read this!

Church burnings in Alabama

Jeff Jacoby in an article posted at boston.com

... writes about the rash of 10 church destroying arson fires in Alabama. The churches are all Baptist churches. He writes about the unwillingness of some on the Left to even entertain the possibility that these fires are motivated by anti-Christian bigotry and hatred. I am not suggesting that they are "hate crimes," but Jacoby is correct in his questions.

'

'I don't see any evidence that these fires are hate crimes," Mark Potok, a director of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, told the Los Angeles Times. ''Anti-Christian crimes are exceedingly rare in the South."

But are anti-Christian crimes really that rare? Or are they simply less interesting to the left, which prefers to cast Christians as victimizers, not victims?

A search of the SPLC's website, for example, turns up no references to Jay Scott Ballinger, a self-described Satan worshiper deeply hostile to Christianity, who was sentenced to life in prison for burning 26 churches between 1994 and 1999. Yet if those weren't ''hate crimes," what were they?

Running through the coverage of the latest church burnings is an almost palpable yearning to cast the story in racial terms. ''Federal investigators are looking for two white men for questioning in connection with a string of church fires in central Alabama," began a National Public Radio story on Friday. ''Race may be a factor." In fact, race seems not to be a factor at all -- five of the churches had mostly white congregations, five were largely black. To a media ever ready to expose racism in American culture, the arsonists' lack of regard for skin color must be maddening.

Read more here

A Valentine's Day Irony

Walmart has been ORDERED by a Massachusetts court to stock and sell the so-called "morning after" pill (that blocks the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus after a woman has had intercourse.) Read about it here.

A couple of things strike me about this story. One is the bloomin' irony of the ruling being given on Valentine's Day -- a day that celebrates the life of love. The second issue this raise, however, is more serious. Since when does a court decide it can tell a business what kind of products it must sell? Here we have a serious infringement of freedom. Of course, those who favor "choice" in matters of abortion will not see the irony of a court taking choice away from a buisness, its CEO and its board of directors. Why won't they see this? Because in some sectors of America all that is important is sexual choices -- all other choices can be sacrificed to make choice in reproduction possible.

What's next? Will the court require that Wal-Mart carry penis-enlargement medications for men who feel inadequate? O, I forgot, that has not yet been ruled a constitutional right by the Supreme Court.

A Letter of Thanksgiving from and Iraqi Mayor

Thanks to the Mudville Gazette for posting this. This is from the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq and you'll most likely never read about it in the Washington Post or NYT or Time or any MSM. Note the highlighted portions -- this guy knows how to write a letter of gratitude.

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.

The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

Cartoons, Religion, Umbrage

The new cycle has been filled with the reports of Muslim riots and protests and threats over the Danish newpaper cartoons that were published 5 months ago! There has been much in the way of commentary lately and even the US State Department weighed in, criticizing the cartoons.

Go here and here and here for some commentary.

What is going on with the Muslim response? There are many theories and observations offered. Some suggest that the religion of Islam is being hijacked by a particular brance of the religion.

Here's my thoughts about the kind of umbrage that is being expressed and how it compares to Christian responses to the offense that some Christians sometimes take at various actions or statements that seem blasphemous to us. (For example: the recent TV show "The Book of Daniel," or Andre Serano's "Piss Christ," or the theatre production, "Corpus Christi," in which Jesus is depicted as a homosexual.)

While conservative Christians have certainly reacted in anger and outrage when they have perceived disrespect towards Christ of the faith, there have never been wide-spread threats and riots and public demonstrations. The question one might ask is -- WHY?

No doubt there are many things that might figure into providing an answer. The fact that in the West and Enlightenment set the stage for people to be able to see the value that freedom of expression has, even when that expression is offensive. However, JOhn Locke and the leaders of enlightenment political thought were throughly shaped by Christian values. Another factor that lead up to the Enlightenment sense of tolerance is the horrific wars between Christian factions that plagued Europe following the Reformation.

One thing, however, that must not be overlooked is the distinction that exists between Christians and Muslims regarding the men upon whom their various religious beliefs and spiritual practices are based. Mohammed, in Islam, is the "mouth-piece" of God, who speaks and all one can do is "submit" to his will, is one wants to be faithful. God's way of dealing with those who will not submit is harsh and, ultimately, thorough -- DAMNATION.

Christians, however, see Jesus in a different light. Jesus is not simply one who speaks for God, but is in fact God Incarnate -- the Son of God -- and SEcond Person of the Trinity. Hence, not just his words, but his actions carry the weight of revelation. As God, Jesus -- in the teaching of all the major branches of Christianity -- does not demand that persons submit to the sovereign will. Rather, God "submits" to the rejection and rebellion of the human race and lays down his life in Jesus Christ for the sinfulness of the world.

So, when we Christians hear Jesus say, "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing," as he is being crucified, we have a definitive picture of how God treats the "enemies" of God. God's primary response is to forgive. That should inform our reflections a little bit about why there is a difference between Christian umbrage and Muslim resentiment. It is not that Christians are necessarily better or more civilized, but that the example of Christ is to bear insult and ill-treatment and forgive, rather than retaliate. Hence, Christians might need to speak up about blasphemous things, but they never need to defend the Son of God, who laid down his life and said -- forgive them.

Thoughts on the President's State of the Union address

I have been interested to look at some of the reaction that conservative commentators have put forth in response to the SOTU address -- especially the President's comments about American's "addiction to oil."

In his address President Bush suggested that the way forward to prosperity, security, and freedom for the USA is by developing new fuel sources and the technologies to use those. He mentioned clean burning coal plants, hydrogen fuels for cars, and better technology for hybrid cars that run on a combination of gas and electricity. Responses to this, which struck me as right and forward looking, include things such as this fro Iain Murray at National Review.

As an indication of what the rest of the world thought was important about the SOTU speech, here's the BBC's headline: "Bush urges end to oil addiction." That one, silly, inaccurate metaphor has attracted more press around the world than anything about Iraq, Iran, cloning, spending cuts or globalization. Le Monde called it his "principal announcement" and even translated the phrase as saying oil is like a drug to America. The lesson for Europe is that America will cave on something fundamental to its economy if you harp on about it long enough.

Or in another spot Murray says

It's worth looking at just who supplies the US with its oil. Of the top suppliers of oil to us, we presumably are seriously worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nigeria, Angola, Colombia and Algeria presumably fall into a middle ground where we are trying to support the governments against potential destabilizers. We are presumably happy with Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, Ecuador, the United Kingdom (!), Equatorial Guinea, Norway and Trinidad & Tobago (although some may fall in the middle ground). Reducing US energy use generally hurts all of these trading partners; unless we're advocating a Cuba-style boycott of Saudi (but not, according to the President, Venezuelan) oil that would simply increase the pain felt by American consumers at the gas pump, because the price of oil is set in a global market. The oil addiction message makes less and less sense the more you look at it.


What I don't understand is why Murray thinks the "oil addiction" message makes little sense. He is not the only conservative who thinks this, I know. It seems to me that the development of new fuel technologies is something that is entirely in keeping with a free market economy approach. Just because, at present, oil is "fundamental to America's economy," that need not be the case in future generations. In fact, new technologies could produce new jobs, new products, new services, and new conveniences that we could not imagine at present. (Think home computer revolution.) Why on earth would a conservative free-market person want to say the present situation is the determining factor for the future? I say let's encourage development of efficient, clean, renewable, and powerful fuels for the sake of the economy and for the sake of a better and more competitive America. Why should OPEC reap such great windfalls? And why should fuel profits be chanelled into the coffers of the gas and oil companies alone. Let them compete in a market place that encourages real competition in fuel production. It will be good for us all in every way.