Those of you who visit regularly may notice something different about this site. The last time I did a major upgrade, I upgraded to use something that I had written. There were still a lot of features that I wanted, but didn't have time to write. Finally, a few weeks ago, I was looking around at some of the packages offered by my hosting company, and it hit me - why waste time writing something when packages exist that will do what I want?
So, this is what I've got for now. I'm using an open-source blog generating tool to run the site, and it has all the features I was going to build - the ability to leave comments, a way to search all the posts, and a way to arrange the posts into categories. As far as the look, I was going to try to make it look the same, and just use this tool to manage it. I may still do that, but designing a theme for this package is more than I have time to tackle at the moment. Besides, I'd rather put my time into the content of the site. (This is my first post since mid-March…)
Another feature that this has is RSS feeds. These let you “subscribe” or make an “active bookmark”, then you're notified whenever there's a new post. There are feeds built in for the main blog itself, the comments, and each of the main and subcategories. I hope that this will allow me to write a bit more frequently, and this will keep you from having to check back if you're curious as to what I've said recently.
The old site still exists.(Edit: It's gone.) I will be importing the older posts as I have a chance - I've brought over a few, but they don't look quite the way I want them to, so it looks like I'll have some cleaning up to do.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
12:05 am
Daniel J. Summers
V for Vendetta, the latest film from the brothers who brought The Matrix to the big screen, hit theatres this past Friday. The movie has generated hyper-hype from both the left and the right. I had the occasion to view this film on Friday, and I'll have to say that the film did not live up to the hype on either side. This is a good thing - because of this, I found it to be a very entertaining film.
The plot can be spun to sound like the most rabid anti-Bush conspiracy theory out there. The scene is 20 years after 9/11, where the U. S. has collapsed, and Britain has been overtaken by a Christian government whose iron fist looks similar to that of the former U. S. S. R. The state-run television station spins the news the way the government wants, and their city-wide surveillance and announcement system makes Britain's current CCTV setup look amateur. The government has imposed a militant Christian law, in the mold of some of today's current militant Islamic countries. Of course, though, the entire government is corrupt - their Christian beliefs are only used to keep the people in fear. (I'll stop there so as not to give up the plot for those of you who may wish to see it.)
Enter “V”. He is inspired by Guy Fawkes, a 16th-century man who was arrested while trying to blow up Parliament. Throughout the film, we come to understand V's motivation for planning to do what Guy Fawkes could not. The government consistently refers to V as a “terrorist,” which is a term he embraces as well. This does not deter him from his goal, however; it only emboldens him as he goes on not only the populist “vendetta” of blowing up Parliament, but a personal vendetta against those who are responsible for his motivation.
Given what I've laid out above, it's not a stretch to think that it's a commentary on the Bush administration. (As a matter of fact, the original book could not have been - it was written in the late 70's about Margaret Thatcher's administration in Britain.) But, as a Republican and a fan of the Bush administration, I wasn't offended by the plot line. Apart from the “conservative” label of the oppressive government, there was no resemblance to the Bush administration (or the Clinton, Bush, or Reagan administrations). Maybe, if you believe every one of the paranoid conspiracy theories, and if you assume that anyone with an (R) beside their name hates everyone except heterosexual white people - just maybe you might be able to see some of our country's leadership in the fictitious British government. Personally, I don't think that our country would ever get to this point - the people would rise up long before that and squash the totalitarian regime.
Again, if you haven't seen this film yet, be careful about following these links - some contain spoilers…
On the left, the commentary has been just atrocious. In particular, I saw an MTV News special called “Unmasked” (link is near the top of the first page), in which Gideon Yago and Natalie Portman interviewed some young people about the film. These kids had swallowed the liberal ideology hook, line, and sinker; and Hugo Weaving's (Agent Smith from The Matrix and Elrond in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) views were even worse. In Natalie Portman's defense, she said that she didn't think the film, even with it's updated screenplay, was necessarily a commentary on any particular administration; rather, it was an illustration that unscrupulous people on either side of the political aisle could create problems. On the right, we've got lots of hyperbole as well. I remember hearing about this movie over 3 months ago, as a “here they go again, glorifying terrorists” type of report. More recently, Townhall.com's Megan Basham (who, by the way, I normally agree with - and, I love the fact that she's a movie critic whose last name sounds like “bash 'em”) has a scathing review of the film, where she decries the glorification of a “terrorist”.
One review I've read that pretty much gets it right is the one from Focus on the Family's Plugged In online magazine. Their review of V for Vendetta gives a plot synopsis, and lists both positive elements (which he does pick up on) and content that parents may find objectionable (this being a somewhat intense R-rated movie, there is some of that for them to chroincle.) The reviewer also brings up some good points about both the implications in the film, and the questions that it raises. My kudos to Adam Holz for a great open-minded review of this film.
For me, what I took away from the film was… well, ... nothing new. The story was interesting, the movie was well-done, and the special effects were pretty cool. But, as I said, the government was such a caricature of any conservative government that I would support that I didn't identify myself (or my political beliefs) as being part of the villainous government. This government really looked like the U. S. S. R. to me; and who wouldn't support someone who was fighting for the overthrow of that type of oppressive government? Yes, V (the character) has some issues, especially with his personal vendetta against those people who had abused him. Their murders were little more than vengeance killings, and aren't right at all.
To say something along the lines of “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” is flat-out wrong. You're only a freedom fighter if you're on the side freedom. The terrorists that attacked our country on 9/11 were not fighting for their freedom - they were attempting to instill terror in us. The colonists in this country who threw the Boston Tea Party were considered terrorists by the British empire - were they wrong to stage this demonstration of their belief that taxation without representation is wrong? V certainly doesn't have all the answers - but the questions it raises are important ones, and ones that we all should ponder - especially in our current world. Do we have the fortitude to stand up against a government like that? Should we?
Monday, January 16, 2006
9:38 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Again this year, I'm combining my thoughts on these two days into one column. (If you'd like, you can review 2005's combined entry and 2004's entries for MLK's birthday and the sanctity of human life.) Much has happened over the past year in the realm of life issues and race relations, and I'd like to take a look back to see what we can learn from these recent happenings.
Recently, discussion on abortion has come to the forefront, thanks to the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The people on the left like to pitch this as a case of women's rights, but the issue before the Supreme Court is even more basic than that. That question is, “Is there a right to ‘privacy’ in the Constitution?” In the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court “found” this previously unrecognized right deep within a “penumbra” in our nearly 200-year-old Constitution. In this specific case, we learn that the Constitution prohibits states from having laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. (I'm curious as to whether any people have appealed laws against other types of drugs, citing this precedent.) Based on the faulty logic of Griswold, the 1973 case Roe v. Wade struck down all restrictions on abortion, viewing it as just another contraceptive method.
In last year's entry, I dealt with the medical advances over the intervening 30 years since Roe was decided. I will, though, give you a link to one of the best abortion information resources I've seen - Abortion Facts. This site has links and information on almost every aspect of reproductive health, from a worldview that values life and realizes the negative effect that abortion has had not only on the babies that die each day, but on our society's view of life, women, and appropriate sexual behavior. Also, a startling statistic from the New York Daily News - for every 100 births in NYC last year, 74 abortions were performed. That's 42.5%!
Back in March 2005, we had another fight regarding life, this time on the other side with Terri Schiavo, a lady who had been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state for several years, but who had not recorded her wishes before she died. Her husband Michael claims that she had said that she would not have wanted heroic measures used to prolong her life, and that her current nature of medical care constituted “heroic” measures. He petitioned the court to order her nursing home to remove the feeding tube that was giving her food and water. On the other side, Terri's parents did not feel that their daughter would want to starve to death; rather, they wanted Michael to divorce Terri, at which point they would become the ones responsible for continuing her care. (Of course, had he divorced her, he wouldn't get any insurance money… Hmmm…) Astoundingly, Michael won, and Terri was starved to death, passing away on March 31st. He claims that it was what she would have wanted - but, sadly, she's not here to present her side. (Here's a link to the entry I wrote at the time about Terri and her case.)
This is the case where the “pro-choice” movement morphed into the “pro-death” movement. Their true beliefs about their opinion of human life was on display for all to see. Terri Schiavo had made her choice. Choosing not to have a living will means that her care would fall back to normal medical processes - every attempt to save her life would be made. The “pro-choice” crowd, though, ignoring her choice, sided with her adulterous husband in his quest for her death. I guess they're pro-choice, as long as the choice is death.
On January 28th, 2005, Condoleezza Rice was sworn in as only the second black (and first black female) Secretary of State. It is interesting that, for all the lip service the Democrats give to people of color, it was a Republican President who has appointed both black Secretaries of State our nation has had. Throughout this past year, she has been quite busy, working hard to act as this country's face to the rest of the world. She is presiding over the difficult diplomatic processes with North Korea and Iran, two rogue countries that are dangerously close to developing nuclear weapons.
Once September rolled around, though, we saw something much less inspiring. Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, destroying Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi and, though it only hit New Orleans, Louisiana with a glancing blow, the water broke some of the levees around the city, and it flooded. We heard reports of stacks of bodies, rapes, and rampant looting. (Thankfully, all but the looting seems to have been vastly overreported.) Then, we have the ridiculous outburst from Kanye West during a Katrina fundraising special, claiming that our President doesn't care about black people. Preposterous! And, during a time of national disaster, an irresponsible and disrespectful thing to do. Seems it was all a publicity stunt - his album came out a few weeks later, and his name was fresh on people's minds. So, he basically exploited the same people he claimed President Bush didn't care about. Definitely not a high point…
To wrap up our mini year-in-review, let's come back to the recently completed Alito hearings. Aspersions were cast on Judge Alito's character because he had been a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and that group had written that it opposed allowing minorities and women into Princeton. The only problem is that those lines came from a parody that was published in the Princeton student newspaper. (Look for the quotes from Dinesh D'Souza in that article.) Turns out, CAP was also concerned about the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program being banished from Princeton, and that is why Justice-to-Be Alito had joined the group. The group did oppose quotas of minority/female admissions, and they also opposed lowered admissions standards for minority/female admissions - but, they were not opposed to minorities or women based on their race or gender. (And, this insinuation from the left is getting more than a little insulting!) Also, during the hearings, one of the committee members said that they couldn't think of a single decision that Judge Alito had made that was beneficial to minorities. However, this article, written in November of 2005, shows his belief that all people are equal under the law, no matter what their skin color.
Our nation misses Dr. King's guidance. He believed that, just as God sees us all as people, men should look at men with color-blind eyes as well. I hope that, over the next few years, less focus will be placed on divisive things. And, I hope that minorities realize that while one group emphasizes our differences, there is another group that has accepted those of whatever color, and encourage them to do the things that will improve their lives.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
10:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Before I get into this, a side note - Jason Deal, a young man in our church, had a really bad ATV accident last week. He is currently paralyzed, although his back is not severed. Over the next few weeks, the doctors will be able to assess the nerve damage he sustained, and over the next half year, they will know if he will be able to regain any movement. To keep folks informed, his recovery is being blogged at jasondeal.blogspot.com. Take a moment to pray for him and his recovery.
Dear Cindy Sheehan,
First of all, congratulations - you have managed to illustrate everything that is wrong with the anti-war movement in one convenient package. Your pain is understandable, and I am truly sorry that your son was lost in the War on Terror. But, as any good counselor will tell you, there is a constructive way to deal with loss, and there is a destructive way.
Ma'am, your son Casey died as a hero. He was, by all accounts, a great young man who believed in giving of himself for others. I'm sure he learned this ethic while growing up in your home. Would he be happy with your self-serving stand - camping out across the street from the Commander in Chief while he's on vacation? What would he say to you if he could come back and see you trying to turn his selfless act of heroism into a self-aggrandizing vendetta of victimization?
Your demand to meet with the President is quite rich - especially given the fact that you've already met him once. He even kissed you! Back then, you said he was serious about winning the war, and you knew he was a man of faith. What's changed? Besides, you can't really expect him to set a new precedent along the lines of “anyone who comes and camps out across from the ranch can come talk”, do you?
You are letting your grief color your view of what is going on in this world. We are engaged in a global struggle against an enemy that has no qualms about launching a stealth attack on a civilian target whenever they feel like it. Even you, ma'am, are an infidel to them - especially as a divorcee. The enemy sees you as part of the problem - and we who believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom is the right thing to do to protect our nation also see you as part of the problem. This may explain why you've been associating yourself with groups like MoveOn.org.
The true irony in all this is that your son died to protect your freedom to do exactly what you're doing now. Few other countries (and the leaders of those countries) would extend to you the courtesy of allowing your protest at the edge of their personal property. But freedom is a two-edged sword - and this means that I also have the right to tell you that you are doing more harm than good. You've said that the war is not “worth it”, even that this countryis not worth dying for.
And, a word to your supporters, specifically Maureen Dowd. The moral authority of mothers who bury children killed in Iraq is not, as you claim, absolute. Let me explain about children - God blesses you with them, and you have approximately 18 years to instill in them the values that you feel are worth passing from one generation to another. Once they reach that age, though, they become adults. Mothers and fathers are not “sending their kids off to war.” Casey Sheehan, along with every other active duty, reserve, and guard member (a group which includes me), chose to join the military as adults. We pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, and to obey the orders of those appointed over us. Each of us has different reasons we made that decision - but, when it comes down to it, we have the integrity and honor to follow through on that commitment.
Ms. Sheehan, please go home. Go home to the children you still have with you. Celebrate the life you have. Celebrate Casey's life, his giving spirit, and the cause for which he chose to risk his life. If this country is distasteful to you, look into Canada, Britain, or Australia. (Or, better yet, look into Cuba, and see how our nation looks then.) Stop allowing anti-war and anti-Bush groups to exploit your loss and our nation's loss. And, finally, stop giving our enemy a morale boost. All of us who are still trying to win this war would greatly appreciate it.
Karl Rove – Allegations are flying about Karl Rove revealing a CIA agent's name to a reporter. As is standard procedure for the left, facts don't particularly matter. Rove did not reveal a name, only that Joe Wilson's wife was an employee at the CIA. Even if he had, she is not a covert agent, so laws against naming her identity do not apply. However, none of these facts are keeping the Democrats (and their more-than-willing accomplices in the press) from mounting what can only be described as a feeding frenzy, calling for Karl Rove to be fired.
The media is behaving particularly despicably in this. Check out the transcript of a recent press briefing at the White House. This is nothing short of desperation, and they know it. If Karl Rove were guilty, they would just be quiet and wait for the indictment - the longer Rove is around, the better for them. Of course, this is the way Democrats work. Remember, when George W. Bush (R) was certified as the winner of Florida's Presidential election, it was the Supreme Court enforcing existing law; when Christine Gregoire (D) was declared governor of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court invented new law.
Iraq - If the Democrats had to donate $1 to the Federal government every time they said something like “everyone knows there's no link between Iraq and Al-qaeda,” we wouldn't have a budget deficit. This technique is called the “Big Lie” - repeat it often enough, and people start to believe it. However, saying it three times does not make it so (unlike certain TV shows). The Weekly Standard published an article this past week called "The Mother of All Connections," that details the links between the administration of Saddam Hussein and the terror network of Osama bin Laden. It's quite lengthy, but well-researched, and demonstrates conclusively that Iraq was the next stop in the war on terror, and not just for the benefits of introducing freedom to the Middle East.
“Support the Troops” - This is another fave from the anti-Bush left. Even John Kerry got in on this when he was running for president. The logic is basically summed up like this - “Support the troops - bring them home.” This sounds good, all nice and touchy-feely (once again, the left's preference for feelings over facts is evident), but would actually be the worst possible thing to do at this point. Our nation's troops have worked hard to get Iraq and Afghanistan free, and we're still working to get them trained on maintaining their freedom. Pulling out now would be very disrespectful to the over 1,000 folks who have died in this war to date. (Again, why should that surprise me?) Think about it this way [ when a player on a sports team becomes injured, do they tell the other players "Hey man, we just need to quit - this is too dangerous!"? Of course not. We've seen, time and time again, these guys saying “You guys stay in it!” Seeing this through to its successful completion is the only way to honor and, yes, support, our troops.
I'll wrap this one up with a link to an excellent Dennis Prager column entitled, quite bluntly, "The Left Doesn't Support the Troops and Should Admit It." He puts the issue in quite plain terms that anyone should be able to understand.
Here recently, there has been a spate of apologies. Now, I believe in owning up for your actions when you are wrong, and I am training my children to do the same. But these mass apologies to which I'm referring are nothing more than meaningless “I feel your pain” drivel.
First up is the recent Senate apology for not outlawing lynching. For starters, there is no one in the Senate today who was around then and didn't “outlaw” lynching at the Federal level. Besides, lynching was already illegal, under assault and murder laws - whether backwoods Southern police departments prosecuted offenders is not the domain of the Senate (legislative branch - law enforcement is a task of the executive branch). The only thing this resolution does is bring up, yet again, the terrible part of Southern history that is lynching. It reminds some Americans, now in their eighties and nineties, of a time that they've worked hard to overcome and forget. With the Senate still dragging their feet on judicial confirmations, wasting their time on this meaningless document seems ludicrous. One pundit has an interesting take on it (although his view of whether it was “good” or not differs from mine) - he says that this resolution forced Senators to make a political choice. (I'm proud to say that one my senators, Lamar Alexander (R-TN), as well as Richard Shelby (R-AL) and both Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) and John Cornyn (R-TX) did not put their names on this.)
Next up is Richard Durbin's comments regarding the military, and his subsequent statement that he termed an "apology." He has used the patented “if then” apology technique - if what I said offended you, then I'm sorry. It's hard to say when this came into vogue - he's certainly not the first to try to pass something like that off as an apology. He said what he said, and offered us a window into his soul, his beliefs. If he doesn't have the spine to stick up for his conviction, well… that probably makes him like 70%+ of the elected officials in Washington, I suppose. ScrappleFace had a great parody on Sen. Durbin's apology - the “first draft” is a lot closer to an apology than what he actually said!
This apologizing can really get inane and picky - a candidate for office in New York has now apologized because, in describing her civil rights work in the 1960's, referred to a police vehicle as a "paddy wagon." This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm glad our Founding Fathers didn't have such thin skin as their progeny has now developed - they would have demanded an apology from Britain, and while they were standing there with their hands on their hips, the British would have killed them all.
Mass apologies, and apologies over trifling little issues, are meaningless. The only good thing they do is make it easy to tell who is more concerned with feelings than with accomplishment. As we go through life, things happen that either offend us, hurt us, or make us mad. When faced with these circumstances, we have two choices; we can either allow it to keep us down, and focus on our own feelings, or we can use it as motivation to make our lives better. The rugged men who founded our country chose the latter, and so do I. What will you choose?
Yesterday evening, Senate Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement on judicial nominations, and the use of the filibuster, to allow most of President Bush's nominees to receive floor votes. Lots of folks are heralding this as a good thing - but, to me, this is a failure. It is true that getting 5 judges voted on (and, most likely, in) is better than none - but this is the first President in history to have his nominations clear the Judiciary Committee (where unqualified judges are generally weeded out), but be filibustered on the floor of the full Senate. This list, culled from the Washington Times by radio host Neal Boortz, shows the percentage of nominations by post-WWII Presidents that have been approved. In prior administrations, the lowest was 77% (JFK), and there were three who were in the 80% range. President George W. Bush's judicial confirmation rate is currently 53.1%.
There are also huge problems wording of the “Memorandum of Understanding” part II. In it, these 14 folks state categorically that this agreement means nothing (as the “extraordinary circumstances” are not defined (how ordinary is a Supreme Court nomination? not very?)) and that, in effect, the Republican leadership loses (as they agree to not support a rule change, commonly called the “nuclear option”). This is unbelievable to me - why would 7 Republican Senators go along with such a spineless decision? Former Senate Majority / Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was defeated in the most recent election, as the people of South Dakota let the nation know how they felt about his obstructionist tactics - do these folks have that short of a memory? Republicans won a clear majority in both houses of Congress, and President Bush was reelected with a clear majority of both the electoral college (which matters) and the American people (which doesn't).
My opinion - nuke 'em. Invoke the nuclear/Constitutional option, force these people to make a vote for obstructionism. The American people want results, and are growing weary of this unmitigated power grab by the minority party.
And, a few side notes…
Notice in the Memo, that it's "Majority Leader Frist and “Democrat Leader Reid” - I'm pretty sure that Senator Reid's title is not “Democrat Leader,” but “Minority Leader.” Even in a “bi-partisan” compromise, the Democrat spin machine is on high.
While on vacation last week, I had the opportunity to finish a book I started over Christmas vacation - Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror by Ann Coulter. In it, she meticulously (and I mean meticulously - there are 877 footnotes throughout 292 printed pages) details how the left, liberals, Democrats (pick your favorite label); these folks have been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision they've made over the last 50 years. (Today, another revelation occurred that, to me, shows that it hasn't stopped yet - but more on that later.)
The book starts with a look at Alger Hiss and Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy is probably one of the most unfairly maligned people in United States history - especially since, within the last decade, declassified Soviet cables (intercepted by the Venona Project) have proved his allegations true. First, she makes the excellent point that Senator Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC). Instead, his modest job was to identify loyalty risks serving in sensitive positions. He was very good at his job, and identified several people that needed to be moved - not fired, not tried for treason and hanged, just moved out of the sensitive positions where they were currently.
Over the past 50+ years, the left has consistently been for containment, appeasement, and has been more than willing to cede portions of our national security to keep us from having to fight wars. I can't recall who said it, but the gist of it was “If these folks were just stupid, the laws of chance would dictate that they'd occasionally be right!” One paragraph (on page 154 of the paperback edition) summarizes just how duped they were in the Cold War, while debunking the claim that Truman's policies actually won the Cold War, it just took until Reagan's administration for them to work.
To review the record, as part of Truman's yeoman work on the Cold War, he cooperated with the Soviets at the Nuremberg Trials, white-washing their joint aggression with Hitler under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. He looked the other way when the Soviet Union murdered three million Russian prisoners of war returned home by the Allies. On his watch, the Soviet army consolidated its control over nine countries, China became a Communist dictatorship, and tens of millions of people were murdered under Communist tyrannies. Truman defended Communist spy Alger Hiss as a patriot who was framed by Republicans, and he tried to indict Whittaker Chambers for perjury. He refused to remove members of his administration identified to him by J. Edgar Hoover and others as Communist agents, including Harry Dexter White, whom Truman appointed to U. S. representative of the IMF. Among the Soviet spies advising Truman on China was Frank Coe, who refused to answer the question: “Are you a Soviet agent, Mr. Coe?” Soon thereafter Coe fled to Communist China, where he became a top policy-maker to Chairman Mao, helping the Chinese murder tens of millions of their own people. Truman was considered such a dupe of the Communists that the Army refused to tell him about the Venona Project. And that's how Truman won the Cold War!
Ann continues in other chapters to discuss the Bay of Pigs invasion, where we went back on our word by not supporting the Communist resistance there when Castro had very little power; Vietnam, where we were starting to make progress until a Democrat-controlled Congress used Watergate as an excuse to leave before winning; Grenada, where we went in and defeated Communism over a weekend; the Cold War, where an arms race did prove to be the way to bankrupt the Soviet economy; Iraq, where the same arguments once used against Vietnam and Grenada were once again being brought up, but yet we prevailed (not by appeasement, or inspections, but through force); and North Korea, where recent administrations have dropped the ball, but the current one is taking a strong stand.
While those who know Ann Coulter know that she simply delights in shredding the left to pieces, the content of this book is much more important that her amusing delivery method. What this book shows is that, using the 20/20 benefits of hindsight, the left's approach to defending our country only makes us weaker. When the decision was made to not prosecute Jane Fonda for her treasonous actions during the Vietnam War, the message was sent that this country wasn't interested in prosecuting anyone for these types of actions. So, Hollywood and the media have been more than willing to participate in this as well - which brings us to today's happenings.
Last week, Newsweek magazine ran a story that claimed that, as an interrogation technique, the Army had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. This caused riots in Afghanistan, where 15 people have been killed and over 100 injured. Today, they ran another article where they said that their source for that piece of information is now unsure that that's what happened. (Separately, they have claimed that this is not a retraction of the story.) So, what we've got here is an international news magazine including uncorroborated hearsay from a single source in a story, claiming it as fact. I have several problems with this.
First, didn't Newsweek learn anything from the CBS News / Bush ANG document fiasco? The public deserves better, and our troops on the ground certainly deserve better fact-checking before they have to contain riots for no good reason.
Second, why was Newsweek so eager to run this part of the story? I believe it's the same reason that CBS News ran with the Bush ANG story - they wanted terribly for it to be true. For all their accusations, it's the left in this country that doesn't seem to realize that the “War on Terror” is not a “War on Islam”. They want us to disrespect Islam, so then they can say they were right.
Third, this bad decision has placed our military in harm's way. Iraq is not the only place we've got a military presence, training locals to take over their own security. Afghanistan is farther along than Iraq, but we're still there. With claims like this, even if they are true, publicizing them as some scandalous new revelation gives aid and comfort to our enemies. All they need is one story like this to fire them up for days - and now, not only have they given the opposition the morale boost, 15 people are dead because of it. There's no way that either the reporter or the editors will be tried for either treason or murder - but I believe a case could be made for either of those charges.
Finally, what does it matter if they did do it? I'm not a student of Islam, but as a Christian, I believe the Bible is the holy, inspired Word of God. Any feeble attempt by man to eliminate it is simple futility - others have attempted to destroy God's Word, and have had little success. Flushing paper and ink down a toilet does not come anywhere close to destroying it - only that copy. I would think that Muslims would feel the same way about their holy book - but, I may be wrong. I don't see what it would hurt, though - these terrorists already call us the Great Satan!
If you have the opportunity, pick up Ann's book at the store or library, and read through it. It's a great analysis of conflicting foreign policy over the last 50 years - and, it's fun to read to boot!
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
10:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
At this point, it appears as though Terri Schiavo will be allowed to starve to death, on a court order issued at the request of her husband. This situation is particularly sad, especially with all the people around the case that disagree with the medical diagnosis that says she is in a persistent vegetative state. Opponents of her remaining alive cite the terrible precedent that has been set by Congress's weekend emergency session. I feel that the terrible precedent is allowing someone who should have long ago ceased being her guardian using a court order to, in effect, get away with murder.
This man whom she once married and with whom she planned to spend the rest of her life - this man has not been acting either as her husband, or in her best interests, for a long time. There have been reports from nurses that she is able to swallow Jell-O and liquids even without the feeding tube. He also secretly began living with someone else, and now has two children by her. He clearly wants to move on, and her parents clearly want to be her guardians - so why is he so bent on seeing her dead?
Other thoughts about this situation (that I won't fully develop, I'll just put them out there)…
The one thing that we have seen in all of this is the incredible hypocrisy of the left. Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo Bay? Last I checked, we never starved anyone to death there. Yet, that's what's going to happen to Terri.
For as long as I can remember being involved in the issue, the people on the other side of the “pro-life” movement have called themselves “pro-choice.” I guess, given their reaction to this case, they have now graduated to actually being “pro-death.”
The difference between Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson is that Scott got the job done quicker, but Michael won't be going to jail.
Others are much more eloquent than I, so rather than continue down this path, I'll link you to some of the better articles I've run across regarding this situation…
Thomas Sowell - “Cruel and Unusual”
The way Terri is being treated would be called “cruel and unusual punishment” if exerted on inmates in our prison system.
Cal Thomas - “Schiavo Case Matters in Symbol and Substance”
This case is not only important because a woman's life is at stake, but also because of the dangerous precedent it sets in a slide towards legalized euthanasia.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
10:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Jameson Reese Summers, our third child, was born on February 28th, 2005. His story is nothing short of a miracle, and I'd like to share it with you.
Back in 2000, when our second son Jordan was born, my wife Michelle had some complications. By the time her second C-section had healed, she had hernias all across her abdomen. The surgery to heal these involved placing mesh from hip to hip, and from her pelvis to the middle of her abdomen. Once in, this mesh fuses not only to the layers around the hernias, but also to the internal organs. We were told that our childbearing days needed to be over - this mesh would significantly complicate any future pregnancy.
In November of 2003, Michelle was diagnosed with post-strep GN, an auto-immune kidney disease, where once the body finishes fighting off a bout of strep throat, it turns towards the kidneys. By the time this was diagnosed, her kidneys were in very bad shape, and we were told that it would be over a year before they would be back to normal. In addition, our plan was working well - our two children were growing up, both potty-trained, and we were quite happy with our family.
In July of 2004, we learned that we were expecting our third child. Nearly everyone involved in my wife's health care tried to convince her to terminate the pregnancy. One notable exception was her OB, Dr. Keith Martin of OB/GYN Associates of Montgomery, who knew us from our second birth, and knew we would not be interested. Instead, he immediately began researching and consulting with her other doctors, and came up with a plan. We were praying for the baby to reach 24 weeks, after which point his chances of survival outside the womb would be much greater. 24 weeks came and went, and Jameson was still there! We were thankful for any days we got past that.
At 33 weeks, Michelle was hospitalized due to blood pressure fluctuations. We thought that the delivery day was just around the corner, but instead, the doctors gave Jameson a couple of steroid shots to mature his lungs, then sent Michelle home on bed rest, with twice-weekly appointments. At the 35-week appointment, Dr. Martin said that he was convinced that Jameson would do okay at 36 weeks, and that we would schedule it for the next Monday, which was exactly 36 weeks.
Of course, you've already figured out that Jameson was born, and that he is doing fine. The C-section at 36 weeks was done for the benefit of Michelle's health - her kidneys were really struggling, filtering for two while being squished! But, when Jameson was born, he had his umbilical cord around his neck, along with a knot in his cord. These are serious conditions - he would not have made it many more days with that knot in his cord. This was the perfect time for him to be born.
There are too many things that worked out for this to be mere chance. God had His hand on Michelle and Jameson, throughout the whole time. Dr. Martin worked overtime on managing Michelle's care, and when the general surgeon who had been scheduled to help with the mesh didn't show, he and one of his partners completed the very complicated C-section. Jameson truly is our miracle baby.
Of course, I wouldn't make you read all the way to here and not include a picture… :)
