superbrowns's Blog

 

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

Everybody Wants Obama!

Asharq Alawsat -- Suddenly Barack Obama, the candidate for the democratic presidential nomination for the US 2008 elections, has become everybody’s favourite topic of discussion and an example of a political success story.

In the Arab world, there is the famous following saying: “Everybody claims to be Laila’s love,” [Al kul yad’i hob Laila] and today everybody claims some kind of association with Barack Obama. Amongst all the chatter, several stories are being circulated about Obama. For example, some people claim that Obama’s forefathers immigrated from Quraish to Ethiopia and from there they settled and spread across the countries of the Horn of Africa until they arrived in Kenya!

In these discussions, people mention that Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama, emphasising his middle name (which was his Indonesian stepfather’s name). During these conversations, people say that the name “Barack” is derived from “Baraka” [an Arabic word meaning blessing] and that blessings are undoubtedly on their way to shower us and our loved ones.

The people of Africa are in search of a legendary hero from amongst them to rule the world’s superpower, and in Africa Obama’s popularity has soared to a similar level of popularity enjoyed by pop stars and footballers.

Amongst the Afro-Americans however, there are mixed feelings; some of them believe in Obama and believe that he is “one of them” whilst others consider him different since his mother is white. In terms of coffee, they compare him to a “Cappuccino” or a “Latte” but not an “Espresso” in reference to his mixed heritage. The disease of ethnic purity has even reached them!

Barack Obama is a rising star and he, the son of a Kenyan migrant, entered Harvard University and graduated from the prestigious Harvard Law School. The rise of Obama continued in the political field until he became the only Afro-American currently serving in the US Senate.

Until Barack Hussein Obama reaches the presidential office and leads the United States, the fictitious stories about him will continue. Even the Chinese, the Indians and the Eskimos will demand their share in Obama’s upcoming glory.

Barack Obama is a phenomenon and represents the political craze that is occupying the entire world. Let us sit back and enjoy the race.

If Obama gets elected to Office this is what to expect, first off he will ban all clothes and you will have to dress the Muslim way.

Then he will appoint his Vice President, Notice he is being sworn in to Office

Next he will be appointing security advisors

He will change the secret service

Then everybody in the USA must own a M-16

Now I say if you want this in the White House then vote OBAMA.

If you want to keep America the same Vote McCain......

Updated:07:18, Sunday June 15, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has given hands-on help in a flood zone in Illinois. Barack Obama In Illinois

He helped locals in the town of Quincy to fill sandbags to place on the banks of the Mississippi river, which is swelling to dangerous levels.

Authorities predict it will rise to record levels next week.

Mr Obama said: "Since I've been involved in public office we've not seen this kind of devastation."

He pledged to push federal and state governments to provide aid to the affected areas.

Mr Obama had been scheduled to campaign in nearby Iowa, but that state is also badly affected by flooding and he did not want to draw government resources away from battling the problems.

 

Even Obama states that this is worse then anything he has seen.

This is one time I will have to give Obama a thumbs up for, I can see by the picture that he is out of form when it comes to hard labor but instead of raising money for is campainge maybe he should do what Sr. Bush and bill did for New Orleans.

The differeance between New Orleans and and the flooding in the mid west, New Orleans is a party ground, they were too busy singing and dancing all night and couldn't wake up in time.

The mid west is a rise and shine get up early in the morning and work hard for a living area so they seen it comming, Instead of boozing it up they prepaird for what was comming.

First responce does not come from FEMA, it comes from yourself, if you know something is going to happen you react before it comes not after.

Princeton Releases Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis

 

.hideit {display:none} if (!ANSW.Trigger) ANSW.Trigger= new Object();ANSW.Trigger.trigger = "dblclick";ANSW.Trigger.triggerModKey=" "; ANSW.cobrand="cbs"; if (ANSW.Trigger.altClickSupported()) { if (document.getElementById('hideit'))document.getElementById('hideit').disabled=true; } -->

(UWIRE.com) This story was written by Esther Breger, The Daily Princetonian

---

Michelle Obama's thesis was released to the public by Princeton University Tuesday after several days of media scrutiny over its availability and content.

The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), her husband, received criticism from conservative media and bloggers when the University restricted access to her senior thesis until after the presidential election in November.

"A thesis can be restricted or unrestricted for a variety of reasons, including at the request of alumni," University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt '96 said in an e-mail. "It falls within the purview of alumni to discuss their academic work," she said.

Analysis of the thesis' content, in addition to its restricted availability, has featured prominently in blogs over the last few days. Written under Obama's maiden name of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson and titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," the thesis has come under scrutiny as the presidential campaign has advanced for its analysis of race relations.

What's in the thesis?

Obama, who concentrated in sociology and received a certificate in African-American studies, examined how the attitudes of black alumni have changed over the course of their time at the University. "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black community?" Obama wrote in her thesis.

After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.

Obama drew on her personal experiences as an example.

"As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates -- acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation," she wrote, citing the University's conservative values as a likely cause.

"Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments," she said, noting the small size of the African-American studies department and that there were only five black tenured professors at the University across all departments.

Obama studied the attitudes of black Princeton alumni to determine what effect their time at Princeton had on their identification with the black community. "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

Emeritus sociology professor Walter Wallace, who served as her thesis adviser, declined to comment for this story.

"It is important to consider the time period in which Michelle Obama wrote her thesis," College Democrats vice president Scott Weingart '09 said in an e-mail. "In 1985, Princeton was still a very conservative school; [Tiger Inn] would not admit women members for another six years. Today, the student body is a lot more progressive and diverse."

Completed theses are kept in Mudd Manuscript Library and are generally available to the public for viewing and scanning. Before today, callers to Mudd requesting information on Obama's thesis were told that the thesis has been made "temporarily unavailable" and were directed to the University Office of Communications. Following the thesis' release by the Obama campaign to politico.com, a political news site, the University lifted the restriction.

The University's actions were met with varying reactions by students.

"The school shoud generally default to freedom of information unless there is some compelling school or personal (e.g. the request of the author) interest at stake," Jason Anton '10, co-director of the Students for Barack Obama Princeton chapter, said in an e-mail.

"There's nothing about a senior thesis that's private in nature -- it's written with the knowledge that it will be kept in Mudd for all to read," Zahava Stadler '11 said.

Many students felt that the contents of the work could become a factor in the election, but they were unsure to what extent it would affect the outcome.

"Unfortunately, the thesis may very well revive the race card as a central theme of the election," Anton said.

"Her thesis seems especially pertinent given the questions that have been raised off and on about the supposed 'tight-rope' of racial identity politics that some claim Senator Obama has to carefully navigate," College Democrats president Rob Weiss '09 said in an e-mail.

Molly Alarcon '10, an Obama supporter, said she thought Michelle Obama's writing in college should not have any bearing on her husband's election, but her view was not shared by all students.

"In using Michelle Obama on the campaign trail, the Obama camp has made her a figure, and therefore a factor, in the campaign," Stadler said. "Her opinions and background are just as relevant as those of Obama's spokespeople and campaign manager, no more and no less."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

." Read the full thesis here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Obama Hopes to Visit Iraq Before Election Share -->by Bonney Kapp

Just days after Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari met with Republican candidate for president, John McCain, he took a phone call from Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

The two spoke as the Senator drove from his home in Chicago to Midway Airport this morning. When the candidate landed in Flint, Michigan, for his speech on competitiveness, Obama shared with reporters details about his conversation.

Obama said during the conversation, “We discussed a broad range of issues I thought it was very constructive. He emphasized to me his belief that as a consequence of the extraordinary efforts and sacrifice of US military forces, we’ve made significant progress in quelling the violence in Iraq. And that the Iraqi government is deeply interested in negotiating an effective Status of Forces agreement and a strategic framework agreement with the United States.”

Of course Obama is the candidate in the race who will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and has campaigned on such a platform since he got into the race. He said he told Zebari that while he was encouraged by the reduction of violence in Iraq, he “insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing US troops, making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq, that any negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement should be done in the open and with Congress’s authorization, because I believe that it’s in the interests of both Iraq and the United States that any such critical negotiations have strong bipartisan support and that they can be sustained through a future administration.”

He also stressed the need for  “political accommodations” and the importance of engaging nearby countries. Finally, he said, “I gave him an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that’s been made in Iraq, that we won’t act precipitously, but that we will move to end US combat forces in Iraq in a manner that’s as careful as we were careless getting in.”

When the Senator was asked if the Foreign Minister expressed concern for withdrawal, Obama replied, “No - he did not express that. He did emphasized his belief that we’ve made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.”

And on the much ballyhooed visit to Iraq, Obama said, “I told him that I look forward to seeing him in Baghdad.” A reporter asked if the trip might be before the Democrats’ August convention. “You know, we’ll make an announcement about that, but as I said, I’m interested in visiting Iraq and Afghanistan before the election.”

The RNC, which has been tracking the days since Obama’s last visit to the country in 2006, welcomes such a trip. “In the nearly 900 days since Barack Obama visited Iraq, the facts on the ground have changed dramatically – but his ideologically-driven position has not. When Obama visits Iraq, he’ll see that he was wrong to oppose the surge, wrong to continue to ignore our commanders’ advice and wrong to demand premature withdrawal. America cannot afford a Commander-in-Chief who needs on-the-job training,” said spokesman Alex Conant in a statement.

McCain, Obama Seek Joint Town Halls; Campaigns Can’t Agree on LogisticsFriday, June 13th, 2008

John McCain once again renewed his call for joint appearances with Barack Obama today, by reiterating his desire to hold joint town hall meetings together, including one next Thursday in Minneapolis as a way to “offer the best format for presenting both candidates’ visions for our country’s future in a substantive way.”

The Obama campaign, also amenable to the idea of sharing the stage, said in a statement, “Senator Obama believes that the American people deserve an open and accessible debate as they choose between real change and four more years of failed Bush policies, and he welcomed McCain’s invitation to offer voters ‘the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election.’”

So it would seem both sides agree that joint town halls seem to be a good idea. Let the debate begin!

Not so fast. While the two camps agree on the idea in theory, as a practical matter they’ve locked horns.

The two sides  just cannot agree on the number of joint appearances and when to hold them. While John McCain is offering ten such meetings, the Obama camp has seeking to meet five times between now and Election Day, “the three traditional debates plus a joint town hall on the economy in July and an in-depth debate on foreign policy in August,” the Obama camp spelled out.

“That package of five engagements would have been the most of any Presidential campaign in the modern era—offering a broad range of formats—and representing a historic commitment to openness and transparency,” they suggested.

In response, McCain’s campaign manager drafted a letter to Obama’s campaign manager and shared with the press. “At this moment, we fear that our negotiations over joint town hall meetings are turning into a debate about process. That is exactly what we have always hoped to avoid, and why we proposed a town hall format that would render many of these process issues moot,” the letter read.

Not to be outdone, the Obama camp chided McCain for rejecting their proposal. “It’s disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign decided to decline this proposal. Apparently they would rather contrive a political issue than foster a genuine discussion about the future of our country,” said campaign manager David Plouffe in a statement.

When McCain’s camp first floated the idea last month, Obama said he thought it was a good idea. Last week at a media availability in St. Louis, however, Obama admitted that it just wasn’t realistic to do all ten “given all the campaigning that I have to do since we just finished our primary election,” he explained.

McCain expressed disappointment in the Obama campaign’s proposal - which he said was one joint town hall to take place on the 4th of July. “Of all times, obviously that would be the least viewed,” McCain told reporters. A McCain spokesman went further and observed, “Barack Obama has more conditions for having a town hall with John McCain than he does for meetings with Mahmoud Amadinejad.”

When both candidates were invited to hold a joint town hall by outsiders Nancy Reagan, Lynda Johnson Robb, and Luci Baines Johnson, McCain was quick to accept. Obama’s campaign plans to stick to the five forums they proposed.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogroll, John McCain | No Comments

June 14, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama Obama brings a gun to a knife fight

 

The McCain campaign and RNC are pouncing on another line from the Obama pool report:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

McCain and the RNC took on the comment in terms that will be very familiar to people who followed Clinton campaign statements last year:

“Barack Obama’s call for ‘new politics’ is officially over. In just 24 hours, Barack Obama attacked one of America’s pioneering women CEOs, rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, referring also to the Obama campaign's shot at Carly Fiorina's lavish pay package and role in layoffs at Hewlett-Packard.

“Why is Barack Obama so negative? In the last 24 hours, he’s completely abandoned his campaign’s call for ‘new politics,’ equating the election to a ‘brawl’ and promising to ‘bring a gun,' " said the RNC's Alex Conant.

Obama doesn't actually use the phrase "new politics" a lot, and this is a box that the Clinton campaign tried, and failed, to keep him in last year, when it emerged early that he was happy to throw punches, and even to start fistfights, sending, for instance, the first negative mail to hit in Iowa last fall.

Obama never paid much of a price for his willingness to go negative. He also, to be fair, never promised that he wouldn't attack, and indeed often promised to be tougher than past Democrats, and bragged of his Chicago training. He disavowed nasty character attacks, but then everybody disavows nasty character attacks.

What's left of course, is to speculate on what form of political change Obama promises: It's not some sort of disarmament; it's not any large deviation from traditional Democratic policy; it's more a vaguer — and harder to control, and deliver — promise to lead the country past the deep cultural divisions around race, religion and even Vietnam that have dominated national politics for decades.

Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

Informal talks have already begun between Obama and Clinton fundraisers to discuss a merger, enabling Mr Obama to pay off Mrs Clinton’s campaign debts of $11 million (£5.6 million).

 

Hillary in charge of healthcare reform? As I recall, that didn’t work out to well in 1992.

Its Starting Already - Presenting, the Obama “Monkey” Doll

You know it was only a matter of time before some inbred conservative starting the real campaign against Obama - the white vs. black campaign.

Oh yes friends, the doll is no joke. It really does exist. The makers of the doll pretend that purchasing the “SockObama” is a great way to support the candidate!

Non-racists know better of course.

What this really is amounts to nothing more than a glaring act of racism pointed in Obama’s direction.

The owners of this operation are David J. Lawson and Elizabeth A. Lawson of Utah. They even had the balls to issue a comment on the toy. 

“…this is not a joke, and our intention is not to offend. Our objective is three fold:

1) Provide a cuddly toy for the millions of Obama fans to take a little piece of their favorite candidate home with them.

2) Have a means for children to become a part of the political process with a cuddly plush toy all their own.

3) Contribute a pivotal article of presidential election memoribilia.

After test marketing our product, we found a majority of our customer base finds our plush toy fun and loveable. By virtue of our plush toy now temporarily out of stock, we’ve had to expedite a new order of inventory to meet the needs of our customers who want TheSockObama.

Regards,

By Frank Salvato

People, the news media and pundits like to throw around the word “crisis.” The mainstream media and their ilk tell us that we are currently experiencing a crisis in the sub-prime mortgage market, an economic crisis, a crisis with the environment, a crisis in race relations and with oil prices. There is a crisis with the polar bears, the environmentalists tell us, as they taut their questionable consensus on the global warming crisis, this even as 31,000 scientists rebuke their “consensus.” Educators tell us there is a crisis in public education. We even have a steroid crisis in the sports industry. I won’t be opining about any of these “crisis” today.

We in the United States are experiencing a crisis of epidemic proportions. It is a crisis that threatens to end the great experiment in democracy that is our country. It is a crisis that involves apathy and arrogance, ignorance and a lack of fundamental prioritization. It is a crisis that centers on the loathsome practice of self-aggrandizement at the expense of others and that feeds on the “I’ve got mine, to hell with you” attitude possessed by the self-absorbed so prevalent in today’s American society.

We the People have a crisis of purpose.

The Me Generation on the 1960s and 1970s did a great deal of damage to our country. It did a great deal of damage to Western Civilization. While the counter-culture of this era promoted introspection – a good thing, it delivered to mainstream society the self-absorbed philosophy of moral relativism, in which an individual’s actions were presented relative to any extreme that would rationalize said action – a selfish and, therefore, bad thing. As the label indicates, the people caught-up in the Me Generation’s moral, cultural and sexual revolution of the time re-centered the focus of our culture from protecting our society so that it may be bequeathed to future generations to satisfying individual needs and desires, and placing the special interests of the individual above the necessary interests that nurture our uniquely American ideology.

With self-absorption comes the malaise of intellectually limited vision. Limited vision denies us the ability to take all of the elements of any complex situation into account because we relate more strongly to the elements that address our selfish interests. Limited vision facilitates a decision making process that excludes a critical examination of the consequences of our actions, especially when those consequences are born of the less than titillating components of any given issue. Employing limited vision decision-making is almost always emotion-based and, therefore, it is a popular mechanism, simply employed, by the apathetic and the ignorant, the arrogant and the self-absorbed.

We see this limited vision today – a byproduct of the narcissistic Me Generation – just as many of us recognized its existence yesterday.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column penned by US Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), he examines the transformation of the Democrat Party in the United States from that of defender of freedom and liberty and foe of totalitarian aggression to that of the self-loathing Progressive-Liberal-Socialist movement it has become. In the article he cites the turning point as having taken place in the late 1960s during the Me Generation’s antiwar activities.

Quite accurately, Senator Lieberman points out the limited vision employed by those protesting the war. Those protesting against US involvement in Vietnam stood ignorant to the complexities of the Cold War – the struggle between freedom, democracy and liberty and totalitarian, brutal, genocidal oppression. Instead of questing to understand these complexities, they demonized the actions of the United States and her allies because of what their ever diminishing attention span allowed them to see during the first televised war; serious and often none-to-pretty actions brought to them “in living color” by those Josef Stalin referred to as the “useful idiots” of the Western media; a media naïve, agenda-driven and one that had fallen prey to the propaganda of Soviet financed operatives working within the antiwar movement itself.

Today, these same useful idiots have risen – by act of attrition and less because of their abilities – to become the controllers of the mainstream media and political leaders, some occupying the highest offices within our government.

Before you make a visionless decision about where I am going with this let me state that this self-absorption exists on the Right side of the aisle as well.

In corporate America we witness a good number of CEOs and corporate boards – millionaires and billionaires all – wallowing in a stench of greed that would make Gordon Gecko shrink with inadequacy. We routinely see the bottom line trump national security in the outsourcing of manufacturing designed to facilitate the superiority and self-sufficiency of our Armed Forces. Patriotism and loyalty to country in corporate America are notions given short shrift and ideals that have become exceptions rather than the norm.

In politics we see a Republican Party leadership so completely self-absorbed in the inside the beltway mentality that it put its own self-interest ahead of its core constituencies and foot-soldiers. I am referring to the slap in the face every loyal Republican voter and party worker felt at the slating of New Hampshire and Iowa – two decidedly blue states – as the initial primary states for the 2008 election cycle. It is unconscionable that two liberal voting states were allowed to create a disadvantage for Conservative candidates within the Republican Party primary process. Although this disgrace could have been a failure of leadership, it is more likely by design given the candidate it has produced.

And in our society Right-leaners and Conservatives have fallen prey to narcissism and self-absorption as well. A perfect example of this is the ideological litmus test.

Logic mandates that the goal of any election is not to elect the best candidate running but the better candidate. I can say this with conviction because there isn’t any one human being who can satisfy the ideological needs of another; there is no politician, no one person striving to attain public office, who can satisfy all of the special interests of every voter. Ronald Reagan couldn’t do it. Abraham Lincoln couldn’t do it. George Washington couldn’t do it.

Employing a litmus test mentality ignores another element to voting that almost all of the American people fail to recognize; the duty to prevent bad candidates from reaching elected office.

We the People have a solemn duty to protect and defend the Charters of Freedom – the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They belong to us not to our government. In fact, the Charters were created not to create and empower our government but to limit its encroachment upon our freedoms and liberties. These incredible documents serve as a covenant between people and government; they are the wicks that burn in the lanterns of freedom that makes that shining city on the hill illuminated.

When we choose to employ ideological, political or religious litmus tests when deciding whether a candidate is worthy of our support or not we neglect the equally as important duty of protecting the elected office in question from the nefarious among us; we leave unsatisfied our civic responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom from those who would do them damage.

In a perfect world the American voting process would include a ballot choice that would allow us to cast a vote against one candidate without voting for another. Until that day we have to embrace our duty to defend our nation in protecting the Charters of Freedom, placing that duty above our special interests, above our personal desires, above our litmus tests. We have to preserve our uniquely American Heritage for the next generation and beyond, so that they can have personal interests and the freedom required to have them. If we fail in our duty we diminish the chance of passing freedom on to future generations. If we fail in our duty we will only have ourselves to blame and the culpability associated with a generation’s oppression will be cast upon our memories by our children and our children’s children.

Duty. Honor. Country.

The Troops Respond
Editorial
July 19, 2004

by: Robert Alt

Support Robert Alt’s Mission in Iraq.
Donate Today. Tuz, Iraq—As I walked into the barracks, Sgt. Kevin Porter, a 23-year old trooper in the Ohio National Guard serving south of Kirkuk, Iraq, called me over. He had just received a package from his family in Bellaire, Ohio, which included a then weeks-old copy of his local newspaper. The op-ed page featured a column by Andy Rooney opining about the character and morale of servicemen in Iraq. Rooney offered five questions that he wished a reporter would ask soldiers in Iraq, a group he dubbed "victims" rather than "heroes." Although Sgt. Porter is not someone who frequently talked politics or current events, this article struck a nerve with him and his fellow troopers. He asked if I might assist him and his fellow soldiers to respond to Rooney’s questions.

Some rightly may wonder why ink should be spilt on what is necessarily a belated response to Rooney, whose banal "did you ever notice" segments on "60 Minutes" have come to epitomize journalistic navel gazing. It is worth noting that Mr. Rooney was not always a curmudgeonly caricature. In WWII, his combat reporting for Stars and Stripes earned him the Bronze Star. Because of his admirable service, many Americans still lend their ears to what he has to say about our soldiers. Unfortunately, Mr. Rooney seems to have joined the ranks of journalists whose political disagreements with the current President and open disdain for the war in Iraq cloud their already questionable judgment. In this way, Rooney’s tirades and condescending tone directed toward the soldiers are typical of a sizable segment of today’s journalists, a group which a recent Pew survey confirmed to be more liberal than the public for whom they report. And so, after being told for the past year how the war is going, and how the troops are faring by those who are not doing the fighting, it is past time that the troops had their say.

Many of Rooney’s questions are skewed in a naked attempt to elicit a desired response. To the extent that he was not simply trying to score rhetorical points in his column, this reflects a belief that the soldiers can be easily led by the nose to tout a particular line. I do not share this opinion, and therefore I let Rooney’s questions stand in an attempt to show his calculation wrong. I did not color his questions, but assured they were asked verbatim by requesting that the troopers read Rooney’s written questions before answering. To the extent possible, I interviewed the troopers separately, so that they would not be influenced by another’s response, and I made efforts to assure that the most "pro-Rooney" responses that I found for each question were included. In the era of Dowd, I should note that any ellipses are not offered to alter the content, but for the traditional reasons of conciseness, grammar, and to show pauses.

Mr. Rooney’s first question was "Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?" Cpl. Caleb Clark of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio offered an emphatic response: "Absolutely. I think that what we are doing over here has a direct effect on international terrorism. And I think the government should continue to send soldiers over here until the job is done. I feel that we would be cheating the soldiers who went before us if we didn’t finish the job." Sgt. Porter shared the view of many soldiers who looked at the impact for future generations: "I think we did the right thing for the simple fact that if we didn’t, then our sons or grandchildren would have to come over here and do the same thing." Spc. David James of North Royalton, Ohio offered his usual candor: "Yeah, I think as a whole, I’m glad we’re over here; and me, I’m glad to be part of that whole… If we didn’t step up, who the hell would?" Spc. Daniel Richmond of Akron saw the benefits for both countries: "[T]he country [Iraq] needed our help. And we needed to come over here for our own safety: to help our country deal with the terrorism. And to help them set themselves up with a better government, so that things like terrorism… [don’t] happen." For Gulf War veteran Sgt. Joseph Black of Massillon, Ohio, the only complaint was that we waited this long: "Saddam should have been removed a long time ago, either by the United States or by the surrounding Arab states for the crimes he committed against his people." As you would expect, however, there was not unanimity on the question. Spc. Dickens thought "that there were other places that needed attention first," however, he recognized something that the question failed to address: the implications of agreement or disagreement with the war decision for the future. "[N]ow that we are here, we need to finish the job," he mused.

Mr. Rooney’s second question was: "Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?" This question drew a unanimous and emphatic response from every trooper with whom I spoke. Spc. Dickens explained that "[w]e’re doing exactly what we set out to do." As for pulling out, he took the prospect quite personally: "We’ve told the people that we are here to help. If they pull us out now, they would make me into a liar." Spc. Richmond recognized a simple fact which too many armchair analysts in the States overlook: "We are doing what is necessary to make Iraq a Democracy—it takes time." Sgt. Black echoed this sentiment, in stating that "[a]nyone who thinks that we could undo 35 years of brutality with a band-aid is sorely mistaken." Black emphasized the work that was being done by the his troop, including training the Iraqi National Guard and digging wells for local villages as evidence of the good that is being done on a daily basis by the military here in Iraq. Sgt. Porter pointed to the fact that his troop is "helping the Kurds and the Arabs to work together," something I witnessed in a contract which the platoon helped to negotiate between two villages, one Kurdish and one Arab, which had previous harbored distrust toward each other. And again, the irrepressible Spc. James offered candor: "Who the hell is saying we failed?" He conceded that "it’s tough over here, but you expect that… This is a war against terrorism; this is about winning the peace. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t going to be any fighting."

Mr. Rooney’s third question was: "Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?" Cpt. Trampes Crow, a civil affairs officer from Alabama, gave a response that was typical of the troops: "Every soldier thinks that headquarters is out of touch… What kind of question is that? Of course he is going to get the kind of answer he wants." Sgt. Black seconded this sentiment: "I think that is just a bogus question and a waste of ink. I think that every soldier going back to the days of spears and slingshots thought that their leaders were out of touch… But with modern communication, they are probably more in touch." Sgt. Porter thought that the "highest command has some sense of what’s going on, but they don’t know exactly what’s going on. But then, we don’t know what’s going on in headquarters, and if we did, [the orders] might make more sense." Spc. Richmond had his doubts, suggesting that "a lot of the commands they give us are out of touch with reality, even if they are for our safety." And 1Lt. Barry Naum of Chardon, Ohio offered something of a historical perspective: "[The orders] seem more sensible than if someone told me to get on a boat and charge on a beach filled with German machine guns. When have orders ever ’made sense’ to a soldier?"

Mr. Rooney’s fourth question descended into rhetorical absurdity: "If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?" Not surprisingly, all of the guys said they would prefer to be at home, something Spc. James expressed poignantly in noting that "[g]etting to see your family is better than any medal out there." But Cpt. Crow got to the larger question—and addressed what seemed to be the motivation behind Rooney’s simplistic question: "Who wouldn’t want a trip home? If he is getting at the bigger question of whether we should be here or whether we should go home, then we need to stay here to finish the job." Sgt. Porter suggested likewise: "Who doesn’t want to come home? But it’s not like you hear ’We want to go home! We want to go home.’"

And finally, Mr. Rooney’s fifth question: "Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you?" A lot of the guys had problems with the use of terms like brave or hero. Sgt. Porter’s response is representative: "Encouraged, yes. It’s good to hear that people are remembering you. But brave isn’t really a term we use. It’s just doing your job." Similarly, Sgt. Black stated: "Absolutely, I’m encouraged by the words of support back home. Am I brave, no. I’m just a guy; I’m just a soldier. But I’m very happy to have the support of my nation. I was blessed to have the support of the nation in the two wars that I have been in." Spc. James explained how much the support means: "Oh yeah, it’s a big motivator. Puts a smile on my face. You got kids from school writing you letters, and you’ve got family and friends. It’s a big help… A lot of people, they look up to you. I’m sure when I get home and I put on that uniform… it’s truly an honor to wear the uniform. You get treated better when you wear the uniform." Finally, Lt. Naum opined: "Yeah. It’s more encouraging than what the press is saying… It’s more encouraging than him telling me that I’m a victim. I’ve never been a victim."

Lt. Naum was referring to Mr. Rooney’s assertion later in the article that the National Guard members are predominantly serving just for the money, that they didn’t think that they would be called up, and therefore are they really victims rather than heroes. Sgt. Porter also protested that "We’re not victims. We signed up for this. Many of us re-enlisted." Refuting the idea that the National Guard members did not know what they were getting into, Lt. Naum noted that the vast majority of the soldiers who are E-4 and below enlisted after 9/11—after we were at war and at a time that they knew they were likely to be called up. Sgt. Black explained that many of the men not only volunteered once to join the National Guard, but volunteered a second time to come to Iraq. Indeed, a number of the men in this very platoon either transferred into the platoon to serve in Iraq or specifically volunteered to be deployed.

I wish that Mr. Rooney’s patronizing column was an isolated occurrence, but his style of talking down to the troops as simpletons who don’t know what they are doing or imputing negative morale is reflective of the current mode of journalism. Because quasi-journalists like Mr. Rooney do not agree with the war and believe that it was not justified to their standards, they extrapolate that the men must not have a sense of purpose. But as the soldiers’ responses to his poorly formulated questions ably demonstrate—he and his colleagues are sorely mistaken.

Robert D. Alt is a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University currently reporting from Iraq. You can follow his daily progress at No Left Turns.

 

 

Support Robert Alt’s Mission in Iraq.
Donate Today.

Grilscout, seeing that you can't handle the heat I want to cool you off!!!!!!! so here are some picks to make you shiver BRRRRRRRRRR.

I've been watching alot of C-span, The Government in action!!!!!

It has come to my attention that the Democrats don't want to do anything about our energy problem, when  they are in session and the Republicans ask what they are going to do about our problem, all the Democrats say is they have a plan, for the past two years the Democrats have had the control of congress and the house and for the past 2 years our gas prices have jumped 2 fold.

From what I understand the Republicans want to allow drilling in Alaska, Colorado, off shore drilling and something about slate rock drilling, It is not allowed because of the TREE HUGGERS.

Other Countries are off shore drilling about 45 miles off our coast in cubian waters, this is one of the places we are not allowed to drill, yet china is and if they slant drill they take our oil.

If we want prices to come under control we need to start drilling.

the plan is to wait for the election so a Democrat President is in office so They can take all the credit, what a way to treat the people that put them in office.

WILL YOU WEAR BLUE???


International Picture of the Year
Here are two very touching photos honored this year

First Place :

First Place

Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News

When 2nd Lt. James Cathey's body arrived at the Reno Airport , Marines climbed into the cargo hold of the plane and draped the flag over his casket as passengers watched the family gather on the tarmac.

During the arrival of another Marine's casket last year at Denver International Airport , Major Steve Beck described the scene as so powerful: 'See the people in the windows? They sat right there in the plane, watching those Marines. You gotta wonder what's going through their minds, knowing that they're on the plane that brought him home,' he said 'They will remember being on that plane for the rest of their lives. They're going to rem ember bringing that Marine home. And they should.'

Second Place

Second Place
Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News

The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. 'I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it,' she said. 'I think that's what he would have wanted.'

PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blue Fridays.

Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing blue every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the 'silent majority' We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or overbearing.

Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -- and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that . every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something blue. By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of blue much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers. If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family, it will not be long before the USA is covered in BLUE and it will let our troops know the once 'silent' majority is on their side more than ever, certainly more than the media lets on. The first thing a soldier says when asked 'What can we do to make things better for you?' is .'We need your support and your prayers.' Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example, and wear something blue every Friday.