KUALA LUMPUR, July 24 — Many individuals and groups have abused the name of God and religion to justify violence and terrorism, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today.

The prime minister said such extremism had been observed many times in the course of history and in each instance, the virtuous teachings of religion had been twisted and manipulated on behalf of one's religion, for the sake of political gain or personal profit.

"In our own time, we have witnessed many injustices committed in the name of religion, including the occupation of someone else's land and the dispossession that ensues from it. This is surely an affront to the dignity of the person, and a blemish upon the freedom that is a human being's birthright."

The prime minister was speaking at the opening of the International Conference on Religion in The Quest for Global Justice and Peace here today.

"The phenomenon of religious extremism should compel most of us, especially religious scholars and intellectuals, to engage with the wider public in order for them to play a vital role in combating ignorance and the perversion of religion," Abdullah said.

He said it was not enough for scholars to produce intellectual works and present papers at scholarly meetings, nor to lock themselves in their ivory towers.

Instead, they should be prepared to educate the public on the great issues that currently faced mankind.

"Our thinkers and researchers must be prepared to play their part in broadening public understanding of religion, and its role in promoting justice and peace," he said.

Outlining four important measures to tackle the problems, Abdullah said the religious curricula in schools and universities must be given a closer look, where it should emphasise the values and principles enshrined in the respective religions.

"Our religious education should convince us that the dignity and integrity of all human beings is worthy of our respect. Religion should inculcate a truly universal and inclusive outlook, not a mentality that is narrow, exclusive and parochial," he added.

Thirdly, he said, there was the need to amplify the role of the media in promoting a universal and inclusive dimension of religion that focused upon justice and peace.

"Journalists and media practitioners in general should deepen and broaden their understanding of religion, in order to play a more effective role in advancing the universal values of justice, peace and compassion which lie at the heart of our great religious philosophies."

Fourthly, he said, society must be prepared to implement positive religious values in the governance of our institutions, from the government all the way down to the basic family unit.

"We must combat the prevailing public mood which is sometimes prejudiced against religion, and often views religion as fundamentally divisive, " he said, adding that it was one of the main reasons the approach of Islam Hadhari was put forward when he became prime minister almost five years ago.

"I believe that when we strive to govern our institutions based on the positive values founded in the approach of Islam Hadhari, we can truly dispel the negative prejudices against religion and foster greater justice and peace," he said.

On another note, Abdullah indicated the importance of adopting the “middle path” concept, whereby people were enjoined to live lives in moderation.

Disclosing that the approach which was consistent with the “middle path” concept was used for development in Malaysia to ensure the fruits of development were shared by all, Abdullah said the same concept could also be used in tackling contemporary challenges, such as the enviromental and food crises faced by humanity today.

"Faith and religion teaches us that we should develop a harmonious relationship with the environment. Surely if we took heed of this approach towards managing the environment, we would not be faced with the problems of global warming and various other environmental issues," he said.

The two-day conference, organised by Universiti Sains Malaysia and Centre for Policy Research and International Study (CenPRIS), will, among others, discuss papers including on “International and External Impediments in Religion's Quest for Global Justice and Peace”, “Religious Values and Principles that Conduce Towards the Struggle for Global Justice and Peace” and “Religious Communities Working Together for Global Justice and Peace”.  — Bernama

my boss is also back and i broke the news of the messed up booking to her... she didn't scream and shout, but has yet to deliver any sort of comment...

i eventually broke my tasks down into little bits, pawned some of them off onto others, and did little bits bit by bit... and left the office in a fairly good mood. visiting the chronically indecisive clients at the hotel to get money for their day excursions proved very testing, but i only murdered them mentally. their complete disrespect and disregard for others is what got to me...

i met them at 19h00, told them i had another meeting at 19h30 (the show i was going to started at 8), but they only started fetching money at half-past... i finally left there at at 5 to 8 and made it to the theatre by 1 to 8...

i worry that when i am stressed like this i have thoughts of gratuitous violence, something i don't like, but find strangely satisfying at the time...

the show was OK, but nothing to really write home (or on a blog) about.

what bugged me on wednesday: having recent thoughts of violence against others, and that i don't seem to be able to see the silver lining in much at the moment (but i normally do)

what i learnt on wednesday: that when friends call off weddings at the last minute it can be handled positively by both sides

what i am grateful for: clean & dry washing waiting for me at home

Smadar wrote later, "I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades." As police began to arrive, Kuntar and the others dragged Danny and 4-year-old Einat down to the beach. With Einat watching, Kuntar shot Danny in the head and then threw his body into the surf. Kuntar then repeatedly smashed Einat's head against a rock with his rifle butt, killing her, too. Yael did not survive the attack either. In an effort to keep the baby from crying and betraying their hiding place, Smadar had accidentally suffocated her.

He was recently released in the prisoner exchange.

This week, Kuntar, dressed in fatigues and sporting a Hitlerian mustache and haircut, walked down a red carpet arrayed for him in Beirut. The government closed all offices and declared a national day of celebration. Tens of thousands of Lebanese cheered, waved flags, threw confetti, and set off fireworks as Hezbollah staged a rally to celebrate their "victory" over Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family." PA spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah ... on the return of the heroes of freedom ... headed by the great Samir Kuntar."

Vile.

Mona asks at the start, "What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?".

That might be an unfair question.  A better question would be what can you say about a culture that welcomes a child murderer as a hero?  And the answer is, that culture is fucked.  Perhaps even worse than fucked.  Because our own culture is fucked in the way our wars kill massive numbers of children, in the way blood is spilt daily, and we only react to news of whats happening to our own soldiers.  But this...  Imagine if the US threw a national holiday for a soldier accused of shooting an Iraqi man and beating his 4 year old daughter to death.

Violence might become necessary in the gravest situations, but worship of violence will always be the deepest kind of civil disease society can inflict upon itself.

I try, I really do. but sometimes just leaving well enough alone doesn't cut it. That's when I want to take a baseball bat to all the bumpers that say marriage is one man + one woman. That's when I need to find a militant homosexual...

It's harder than you think. When you google "militant homosexual" you get an incredible number of hits...all from anti-gay websites. I went to a couple. On one I found a list of 50 "gay-Jews" that were taking over the "gay movement" from the inside (I was actually quite impressed with the list making, if not the unbelievably obvious neo-Nazi overtones) then the urge to beat something to a pulp became too much. After I counted to ten and made a crank call to Dick Cheney's hotline, I cooled down enough to look again.

Still all anti-gay sites (want a list?), but I began to find more gay people listed...militant gays. Actually just one guy, and only painted that way over time, history and misrepresentation. You know him as Michael Swift, and he wrote "Gay Manifesto" first published in 1987 in the Gay Community News out of Boston. It was then reprinted in the Congressional Record without the preface (in italics) that states it was meant to be read as satire. The first paragraph is the one that you see on every anti-gay website, publication and mass mailing. Forgive me, but since it's been edited poorly before, I decided to put the entire article in as Swift wrote it.

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

...

With or without the preface, as I read that, I felt the anger frustration and now...prophecy??? It definitely has an aggressive tone, but I'm shaking my head in agreement the whole time I'm reading.

...

Where's Michael now? He's just the guy I need. I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Unfortunately the only websites that talk about him, or the militant gays or the gay agenda are the anti-gay websites, and I bet he's not giving out an address to them. Some sites even say Michael Swift was a pseudonym for an anonomous writer, but those same sites say the world is 3600 years old and was created in 7 days, so there you have it...

...

Back to the drawing board. Again I had to go to the anti-gay websites to get my information...then I quick shower with a wire brush, then to Wikipedia.

After the Ball is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the "gay liberation" phase of the '70s and '80s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message. It was not a "private publication", but was publicly available, having been published by Doubleday, one of the largest publishers in the world.

According to the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sears and Osten argue that After the Ball follows from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda" and that "the two men [Kirk and Madsen] proposed using tactics on 'straight' America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese -- mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques."^[12] The article goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of this "well-planned propaganda campaign".

...

Sign me up. 1988 summit of gay leaders? I had no idea. There I was trying to graduate from college and meet a nice girl to settle down with, and I missed a summit meeting.

At this point I'm beginning to think that there are no militant homosexuals out there. Or at least it was back in the 70s and 80s and now that the stigma of homosexuality might be beginning to lift there is just no need for this kind of talk.

Except on every anti-gay website I go to.

Fact is, they seem more obsessed with militants and agendas regarding homosexuality than the homosexuals. Let me think...how many times a day do I sit there and plot the overthrow of the family unit and all religious life...hmmmm...none. I will admit to getting fired up about wanting to have the same rights as everyone else. I also tend to bristle at the idea that someone says I'm going to Hell...but honestly...some of my best friends are straight. I even have a straight, married brother...there I've said it...it's out now. I fraternize with breeders...what militant homosexual-want-to-be would do that?

...

I'm torn between wanting to tell the anti-gay movement to keep their religion and sexual preference to themselves and I'll do the same...and going on a regular basis to anti-gay websites to find out what kind of evil things I've been up to, and who to contact to do more. I'm perplexed...

“All I am saying ...is that to the casual observer, it looks like something is going on.”

I am with you Olivia.  That and I have the privilege of witnessing Ruby’s girly reaction to Nate’s proximity.  They go to and from school together, he rescued her from losers and the woods and she helps him with gift bags – it is definitely suspicious.  And by ‘causal observer’ we know she means herself.  Girls aren’t all that great at code.  Well this one isn’t that’s for sure.  She might as well start singing – Nate and Ruby sitting in a tree... and making kissy sounds.

Ruby and Olivia are definitely friends now.  There may not have been a solidifying point but if you are trading barbs over whether or not a girl’s got a guy or not, you are definitely buds.  Pestering is a uniquely girlfriend tool.  Unlike teasing, bullying or abuse it is usually well intended but interfering all the same.  They are calling each other out on their weaknesses – Nate and the incessantly ringing cell phone.  I really like them together.

Gervais is a stalker.  Stalker in the crush sense and less on the psychotic bent.  He’s twelve and got the hots for Ruby, I feel bad for both of them.  It’s never going to happen.  In the burgeoning friendship between Naby (I decided they needed a couple name), Gervais has been left out in the cold.  It is unlikely he would have friends in his high school or college classes and the one guaranteed interaction he did have was now gone.  His two friends more interested in each other than conversing with him.  Bless his little heart. I am going to assume that the hair combing, headgear loss and reduction in toxic emissions is due to his lurvvvve for Ruby.  A girl can be just the motivation a guy needs sometimes.

When Nate sits next to Ruby, he nudges her with his knee.  Her interest in him, no matter how tepid, is reciprocated to some degree.

Huge family events are not something I can relate to.  I get weirded out in crowds so I can completely understand why Cora feels the needs to hide.  After all who would expect her to be in her sister’s room, let alone her sister’s wardrobe?  Roscoe could make anyone feel reassured, he’s such a ‘fraidy cat that being near him would make you feel more confident, brave and safe in comparison.  The dog definitely needs therapy.

In a lovely moment we hear about how Cora and Jamie first connected.  That Thanksgiving is their anniversary on many counts.  I guess that makes it an easy date to remember.  As I was reading about Jamie’s food poisoning from sushi I began to feel queasy.  I ate sushi last night, I tuck it away as a psychosomatic reaction.  So Cora finds a green, barely conscious, sweaty guy in her hall and decides to help him out.  What a keeper.  They bonded over ‘...movies and eating toasted thing’.  It did actually sound nice. 

Thankful lists?  As someone unacquainted with Thanksgiving and its accompanying traditions I am going to assume this is a Jamie-family thing.  The thought of Ruby having to stand in front of strangers and list the things she is grateful for is horrifying.  Sure Jamie is all enthusiastic and well meaning but surely he would realise that the extent of this event is going to terrify this girl?  I am all for bringing people into the fold but be realistic man!

I really enjoy the image of the two sisters sitting next to one another in a closet.  That simply by sitting with Cora, Ruby is comforting her in a time of high stress.  The contrast between Jamie and Cora’s upbringing is so vastly opposed it is no wonder that she is placing so much pressure on herself.  In-laws are scary.  The additional fertility factor is another point of contention, that she is disappointing everyone in her difficulty to conceive.  No wonder she’s scared.  The warmth that is beginning to seep into their relationship and interactions is welcomed and realistic.  It hasn’t been an instantaneous event, they are getting there inch by inch.  Ruby’s advice–

“This is happening.  So you need to go downstairs, face your fears, and make the best of it, and everything will be okay.”

This new streak of positivity is a reflection of Nate’s and Jamie’s affect on her.  You can’t be around two positive, jolly people and have it not impact you in some way.  And for Ruby it’s a good thing.

With flour smatterings, tears and a threat of eviscerating via egg beater it is no wonder that Ruby took some refuge at Nate’s.  Sure Cora didn’t threaten the egg beater attack but her current state of mind implies that it was a possibility.  Upon getting a litany of instructions from his dad, Nate continues to make excuses for his father’s mood.  To be honest, in the few interactions we have experienced with Mr Cross, he always seems to be a jerk.  How did Nate end up the way he did?  Ruby’s comparison between Mr Cross and her own mother is intriguing, are there some similarities that haven’t been made apparent to us as yet?

Ahh finally the story of Mrs Cross.  So she remarried after divorcing Nate’s dad (who could blame her) and immediately sprouted some daughters.  Nate proved too much to handle due to his extremely normal teenage behaviour so he was shipped off to his dad.  Nate really didn’t score well in the parental stakes.  It makes me even more suspicious that the positivity and niceness is a front.  That inside he is a seething mess of insecurities and even more screwed up than Ruby.  I am waiting for his pivotal truth moment.

Ruby’s brainstorm thankful list-

·         Heat and running water

·         Cora and Jamie – for taking her in

·         Harriet – for giving her a job

·         Olivia – for helping her out ‘that day’

·         Nate – for being a friend.

It’s a good list.  All things I would be grateful too but I do believe that Roscoe should be added.  She should be further grateful that he hasn’t developed any more anxieties or had that all important psychotic break.   The addition of Gervais and his burping cease-fire was interesting.  We haven’t heard about Gervais in many chapters and yet he is coming up strong in this one.  What is the relevance?  Or was she just adding Gervais’ name to take attention away from her gratefulness for Nate?  Some more body contact no matter how fleeting.  They like each other.  I have a smile on my face, I am a sucker for romance.

If you were left alone in the house of the guy you liked, you’d snoop right?  I sure would, definitely the bedroom.  Bedrooms say a lot about their inhabitants.  Mine for instance would state that I am a clutter freak but not unclean, a big novel reader and a comic book freak with an inability to put clothes away or make her bed.  (I just realised that everything I write in this blog about myself makes me sound like a nut job, I am really not one at all, just very forthcomingJ).  If Nate’s room said anything about him it would be the following – barren, lonely, sterile and soulless.  I would only associate one of those words with Nate.  There is nothing personal in there at all.  Mine room is littered with keepsakes, photos and hints at my family and interests.  Nate has nothing.  Maybe Nate and Ruby are more similar than she previously believed.  Their rooms reflect the temporary nature of their existence in their homes.  Like they both believe they need to be ready to go.  I am filled with dread.  We know why Ruby’s room is like it is, she is untrusting of her current situation after years of being on the go.  Nate, we have no idea.  This has something to do with the team and I feel strongly that is has something to do with his father.

The Hunter Family are large in number, loud in voice and exuberant in everything.  Jamie’s announcement was clumsy, putting all the family’s attention and hope onto Cora’s fertility state.  He would so get a punch in the arm later if I were her.  It is interesting that Ruby realised his mistake before he did.  She is becoming much more in tune to her sister‘s feelings than even she might believe.   He launches the advertising campaign complete with the Hunter Family snap featured.  It is interesting timing for Ruby to ask Cora about her definition of family at this time of stress and embarrassment.  Perhaps it’s her way of distracting her?  Ruby’s mention of Cora’s family with her and with Jamie being different brings us to another intriguing take on what is family.

“Well...I have my family of origin, which is you and Mom.  And then there is Jamie’s family, my family of marriage.  And hopefully, I’ll have another family, as well.  Our family, that we make.  Me and Jamie.”

Cora is obviously a sorter or compartmentaliser.  Probably the reason she has been able to achieve her current life while still holding on to concern and guilt over Ruby all these years.

“Family isn’t something that’s supposed to be static or set.  People marry in, divorce out.  They’re born, they die.  It’s always evolving, turning into something else.”

This is my favourite definition.  It appeals to my sensibilities and practical streak.  I really connected with the discussion of family following Cora’s definition especially Jamie’s Mom’s notes on her family and her small moment of link with Ruby.    Maybe this situation might not be as daunting for Ruby as I predicted.

As Ruby entered the quiet Cross house I was a little cautious.  I could feel that something was going to happen.  From Ruby’s perspective we see Mr Cross throwing a huge tantrum, Nate quickly trying to tidy what I assume is the result of his father’s anger and a pretty healthy example of verbal abuse.  The shameful way this man was speaking to his son was gut wrenching.  I felt pity for Nate and anger towards his father.  His finally words were particularly ghastly –

“You know what?  You disgust me.  I can’t even look at your face right now.”

If Nate lives and works under these conditions I am unsure how he maintains such a positive outlook.  Perhaps it is the only thing he can hold onto.  That it can’t get worse.  This supports my belief that people need to have a licence to breed.  Turns out that Nate and Ruby are more and more alike than ever.  I cannot believe she stayed there.  That she didn’t turn tail and run.  But for the first time, she was looking out for Nate and not visa versa.    After initially trying to hide the truth he’s honest in revealing that his dad has always had a temper and that he only hits him when he’s really worked up.  It takes Ruby telling him some of her family history for him to be honest though.  He is still very dismissive of it, like it’s normal.  That’s when I realise for him, it is normal.  It’s his life. 

He quit swimming because of his dad’s fiery nature.  He couldn’t deal with his father making a spectacle of himself at meets, being banned from the deck.  I had a similar dad but he was supporting me too much not approaching it from an angry place like Mr Cross.  No wonder he quit.  His mother is equally reprehensible, choosing ‘...to be a bit selective in how she processes information’.  Kind words for an unacceptable parenting choice.

Nate knows his options.  Heather helped him research it.  And yet he uses Ruby’s mother as an example of how you can stick it out and that social service don’t need to be brought into the situation. Both of them had the goal of being free in the future and yet Ruby realises that that may not be the most important thing.  The now, the present is important too.  In the end she decided not to push, to be supportive, to be understanding but all I can wonder is, how safe can Nate be?

__________________________________________________________________________________

A Note from Adele

This time folk it was longer.  There were many revelations in this chapter and I am glad we saw the truth of Nate’s living conditions.  His father really isn’t a nice chap at all.

Still taking questions for Sarah Dessen, if you are interested at sddiarist@gmail.com.

Apologies on the podcast front, we had a power outage at home for many, many hours last night and I can’t record at work.

Also to Sarah, have a fantastic holiday.  You deserve it.

I was thinking that Lock and Key would be great as a television series.  I initially thought movie but the idea of a tv show sounded more interesting.  If you were the casting director would would you choose, dead or alive, no price too big?  Who would it be?  I'll be posting my choices in a few days, who would you cast?

NEW YORK - Television news' royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week's overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC's Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC's Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a "Saturday Night Live" skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The reality is, "Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?" is a rhetorical question (a question with such a patently obvious answer there is no point in answering) to any but the most deluded.

But what we are seeing is that there is some evidence that the media - and particularly the three elite network anchors who had been described as "Obama's three press secretaries" - don't like being so obviously "in the tank" for Obama. They want to show their viewers that they really aren't as biased as everyone thinks they are. And that means finally asking Obama a few tough questions instead of merely basking in his magnificence the way they usually do.

Katie Couric - SURPRISE! - attempted to pin Obama down on some of his inherent contradictions regarding Iraq.

Obama stuck to the same position he gave at a press conference. Allow me to emphasize certain statements in boldface:

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

So our military gets only "a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence"? And so who gets the real credit for Obama? The Sunni sheiks and the Iraqi government for disarming Shiite militias such as Sadrs!

Does that jive with history? Is it just a coincidence that things were going poorly that Democrats were claiming defeat left and right, and then we had the surge, and then things started going well even as Democrats claimed they weren't? And our soldiers were just window dressing while Iraq fixed all of its own problems?

I hope you're not actually as stupid as Barack Obama thinks you are.

President Bush announced the surge strategy on January 7, 2007. 20,000 additional U.S. troops were committed, with the majority - 5 brigades - heading into Baghdad. Within slightly over a month, there were enough American troops to substantially back an Iraqi-led effort to secure the city of Baghdad.

Do you remember Demacrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, "The war is lost"? in April of 2007?

Who doesn't realize that it was General David Petraeus and the surge that John McCain had been advocating all along that turned things around?

Who doesn't realize that if we hadn't listened to great men like Petraeus - and ignored trivial fools like Obama - we would have cut and run in abject disgrace from an emboldened terrorist enemy?

According to the New York Times:

When the Anbar tribes first began cooperating, they told the Americans where the extremists were hiding weapons caches, burying bombs, and running safe houses. Then they set up checkpoints and began engaging in gunfights with Qaeda cells in the Ramadi area.

With attacks decreasing against both Americans and Iraqis in Anbar, and large numbers of tribesmen lining up to join local security forces, the American military has begun to try to replicate its success.

A story by the Times clearly shows the bulk of the Sunni fighters signing on to fight the terrorists and insurgents beginning sometime in May 2007, directly coinciding with the surge. 4,000 Marines deployed to Anbar province.

It is simply a lie to claim that the Sunnis began fighting on their own, or that the surge did not massively influence their willingness to fight. To the extent that the Anbar resistance preceded the surge, it was small, it relied greatly upon American soldiers, and it didn't explode until after the surge.

The same applies with the Shiite efforts. The effort to disarm Shiite militias such as Moktada al Sadrs Mahdi army. A New York Times story appearing on October 11, 2007 begins (again, boldface mine):

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

It wasn't until the surge took effect - and Shiites began to recognize that they were protecting them - that the Shiite people began to renounce the militias and the Shiite-backed Iraq government had the backing to demand the disarmament of the troublesome militias.

Barack Obama is thus revealed as a demonstrated liar without shame who gives our heroic soldiers - who have been absolutely magnificent - a "fraction of the credit." I GIVE THEM ALL THE CREDIT!!!

Our soldiers succeeded when cowardly and craven men like Harry Reid and Barack Obama predicted that they would fail, and very likely even rooted for them to fail (You might recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn acknowledging that good news from Iraq was bad news for Democrats; or you might recall Rep. Jack Murtha presuming that Marines were guilty of war crimes and convicting them before the trial which exonerated them).

The soldiers succeeded. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who failed.

Barack Obama gives our soldiers no credit because this man who "never has doubts about his foreign policy" cannot acknowledge he was wrong - no matter how obviously and completely wrong he was.

Liberals claim that Bush was inflexible and would not admit his mistakes? Obama is rigid to about the trillionth power.

Obama's rigid ability to deny reality emerged again as he went to Israel and Gaza.

He had previosly said:

"Let me be clear," Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Then as a result of Palestinian anger he said:

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

As a direct result of Obama's complete abandonment of his earlier position, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said of Obama's reversal:

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

Way to go, Barack. You sure contributed to Mideast peace. Any other issues you want to resolve with your courage, your integrity, your resolve, and your strength of character?

Now, any normal human being would acknowledge that they had changed their position. But not Barack Obama. He is so personally arrogant, so unyielding, so deceitful, and so intellectually dishonest even with himself, that he simply does not have that capacity within him.

"I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again...but I've also said that it is a final status issue" that must be decided by negotiation, he said in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

No. You continue to lie. You continue to say things that are the logical contradiction of what you said earlier, and then you continue to deceitfully and disingenuously misrepresent yourself having been consistent all along.

We can also go back to his incredibly foolish campaign promise from last July:

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."

"I would," Obama answered.

And his website USED to say:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Now he says:

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, "I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation."

The point is to say, "No. You didn't say that at all, you lying weasel. Are you such a completely dishonest man that you can so blatantly lie even to yourself? In grammatical terms, those "if...then" constructions are called "conditionals." The fact is, you have by now applied so many DIFFERENT PRECONDITIONS to your "without preconditions" policy that your original statement is revealed to have been a) foolish beyond belief; and b) a complete lie.

This man is dangerous, and it is nowhere revealed more than in his foreign policy. He is completely incompetent; he is completely untrustworthy; he is completely wrong; and he is completely unable to recognize obvious contradictions.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, let me make a point: Obama claims the surge was wrong because we've diverted resources we should have used in Afghanistan to Iraq. And Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to instead exert diplomatic pressure by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Obama believes that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.

Now, if Obama really thought that idea that would have worked in Iraq, why then is he now proposing what clearly amounts to the exact same surge strategy for Afghanistan instead of demanding a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?

Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Obama's position on the surge has essentially been: "The surge will fail." Then he said, "It kind of worked, but we still shouldn't have done it." And now he says, "The same strategy that I vehemently opposed in Iraq will work in Afghanistan but it was my idea all along."

I wrote an article titled, "U.S. vs. Nuclear Iran: Russia, China Block Any Resolution - Again," that establishes the virtually identical similarities between trying to check a possibly weaponized Iraq with the current environment of trying to check a possibly weaponized Iran. By Obama's philosophy, we can not move to use military power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons until: 1) We are absolutely certain they have them (a belief based on the known intelligence is not enough); 2) United Nations resolutions justifying war; and 3) a military alliance similar in size to that of the Gulf War in 1991. Since NONE of those three conditions are likely to be met, we cannot possibly attack Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. And then we would be dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist belligerent state that is immune to attack (unless you want World War III) and free to attack our interests again and again with impunity.

What would a President Obama do? This is a man who can't even stand up to his own rhetoric, much less terrorist murders.

Barack Obama is a complete disaster waiting to happen. If we are foolish enough to elect him president, rogue tyrants and totalitarian leaders will recognize Barack Obama's insipid pandering weakness and immediately begin to exploit him, and the world will be shocked to discover just how empty he truly is.

Vercotti : Doug (takes a drink) I was terrified of him - everyone was terrified of Doug...I've seen grown men pull their own 'eads off rather'n see Doug...

b. From an NYT profile ("Congressman Pushes Staff Hard, or Out the Door") of congressman Anthony Weiner (D - Brooklyn/Queens),

Librado Romero/The New York Times

Anthony Weiner with Marie Ternes, one of his aides.

focusing on his reputation as the hardest taskmaster in Congress on staffers:

2.a. Stig O'Tracey (Eric Idle), among those who had their heads nailed to the floor by Doug's brother Dinsdale, found ample reasons for letting bygones be bygones toward him:

Interviewer: Stig, I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.

Stig: No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.

Stig: Oh yeah, well - he did that, yeah.

Interviewer: Why?

Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law.

Interviewer: What had you done?

Stig: Er... Well he never told me that. But he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't want to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. There's nothing Dinsdale wouldn't do for you.

b. Weiner's former scheduler John J. Graff, who quit his staff after a short while, had his reasons as well for seeing the Congressman's sunnier, not seamier, side:

"I was given fair warning in my interviews that Anthony is very difficult to work for, and I was told all the horror stories — the telephone throwing, etc.," said Mr. Graff, who now works for the Democratic National Committee. "But in the end I decided I could deal with that. I do hope that he's able to work on his temper and get that under control. He's really talented, and it was really an honor to have the opportunity to work for him. I'm rooting for him for mayor."

3.a. In the end, Stig harbored no lasting ill will toward Dinsdale:

Interviewer [Terry Jones]: And you don't bear him any grudge?

Stig: A grudge! Old Dinsy? He was a real darling.

b. A like forgiveness toward Congressman Weiner obtained with Graff:

Even Mr. Graff, who told Mr. Weiner he was a "petulant child" when the congressman yelled at him about the conference call, said he did not hold a grudge.

4.a. Here's Stig's summary judgment on Dinsdale:

Stig: He was a cruel man, but fair.

b. And here's the Hon. Rep. Weiner on himself:

Mr. Weiner...described himself as a tough but fair boss.

Moral: If for some reason you find yourself prowling the Capitol late at night, and hear from a distant corridor a loud and unmistakable voice growling in fraternal search, "Dinsdale? DINS-daaaale...", you can't claim it lacked dispositive precedent...

Rating:

In twenty-first-century Los Angeles, Julia Huntington studies the human genome, seeking the origins of human emotion. As passionate about her marriage to her beloved Klaus as she is about her life's work, Julia is delighted to discover that she is pregnant.

Separated by nearly 150 years, Lavinia and Julia suffer the same shock when their men abandon them. Their powerful love becomes painful hate; their intense passion transforms into icy logic. The genes of the Huntington women have formed their emotions--now their life experiences drive them to make decisions that they, and those they love, may long regret.

Commentary: I started reading another of Learner's novels quite awhile ago, The Witch of Cologne, but I never finished it. However, I really enjoyed Soul--finished it in a day. Learner did a great job of interweaving two stories and two conflicts, transitioning well between one narrative and the next.

I think the best part about this book was the emotion and intensity involved--Learner takes the reader through a whole rollercoaster of ups and downs, and you can feel every single thing that happens to both Lavinia and Julia. I don't want to reveal too much, but I'm not sure I would have been as strong as Julia, strong enough to hold back from dealing revenge at such a horrible betrayal.

Usually a novel with two narratives can become unbalanced--I've read books before where I become far more interested in one story than the other. But Learner did a good job of paralleling Julia's and Lavinia's stories.

The one thing I can really pick on is Learner's central, scientific idea that supposedly tied the two stories together--the question of nature vs. nurture, of whether or not our DNA and basic genetic makeup can determine our behavior. It may be because I am personally so biased (I favor nurture over nature) but I felt that the scientific arguments and evidence presented in Soul were weak and not particularly engaging. The science and genetics weren't what linked these two related women--their situations and decisions did.

Maybe in the end, especially considering the climax, that is what Learner intended to prove.

Great read, fast-paced and very, very interesting.

I feel America's leaders have lied to us; either through gross incompetence or sheer deceit. I am leaning towards the latter. I thought President Bush spoke the truth when he said Saddam Hussein represented a real threat to the Middle East and Western civilization. I believed Colin Powell's remarks to the UN about the strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction (and I think Powell believed them when he said them). I believed it was a necessary evil to use military force in Iraq - even if it would distract from the on-going efforts in Afghanistan. How idiotic of me.

Had Israel not destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the 1980s, then history may have been different. However, they did. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, as politicians today try to re-write the reasons for the invasion. We nominally did it for security reasons. I now believe it was for a single reason: Oil. How could I have been duped so?

We squandered the good will of our citizens, the international community, and the resources in fighting the real battle against terrorism. All for what gain? Could I have been any more stupid?

I cringed at the so-called "Patriot Act", because of how it impinged civil liberties - yet I did not actively oppose it. I thought it necessary in the wake of September 11 and our need for counter-terrorism. What I fool I have been.

The words of The Who resonate with me: "I get on my knees and I pray, we won't get fooled again".

I watched the Watergate hearings on television when I was young. Then, there was an aura of innocence lost. If the president could be so deceitful, what hope was there for integrity in any political process?

The feeling I have today is strangely reminiscent of that era.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Considering the game is only three months away, we're a bit perplexed by all the unanswered questions still lingering around this project, so we took the opportunity to assault SC4 director Katsutoshi Sasaki with a barrage of queries...

1UP: In Japan, you recently revealed two guest characters, Scheherazade and Angol Fear, each designed by a famous manga artist. But those characters haven't been promoted in the U.S. and aren't in the playable demo here today...will they still be in the U.S. game?

Katsutoshi Sasaki: Yes, they will definitely both be in the U.S. version as well.

SCREENS: Click the image above to check out all Soul Calibur IV screens.

1UP: Will we see even more guest characters from other manga artists in the game?

KS: Yes, there are a few more characters from manga artists and other famous illustrators, too.

1UP: Will these guest characters have their own stages? The Star Wars guys have some pretty nifty arenas...

KS: No, there won't be a stage for each character. In the past we've always made a "home" stage for each fighter, but this time around we're not taking that approach.

1UP: So far, you've only revealed one all-new character who's actually part of the Soul Calibur world, Hilde. We have to wonder, are there any more real Calibur characters in this game?

KS: Yes, we do definitely have more...we still have many things to reveal, actually.

SCREENS: Click the image above to check out all Soul Calibur IV screens.

1UP: We also haven't seen anything about a new single-player mode like SC3's Chronicles of the Sword or SC2's Weapon Master Mode...will SC4 have something comparable?

KS: For SC4's single-player game, we're introducing a new mode called Active Matching Battle. This is a team battle mode where you have a pool of characters to choose from who must face a steady stream of opponents in one arena.

1UP: SC4 will also be the first game in the series to offer online play...how's that going? Is everything running OK so far?

KS: We're currently going through lots of trial and error getting the online up and running, and we're testing connectivity between Japan and the U.S. to make sure that everyone can play together with minimal stress or frustration. Another big component of this online experience that I need to mention is the Create-A-Soul mode. This time around, you can create a custom character and introduce it into the online versus mode. What's different is that this time you're not only changing your fighter's appearance, but also their attributes. For example, a certain piece of armor might raise your defense or give you special properties, and a new weapon may give you a stronger attack. It really adds a lot of depth to the online combat.

But there are two things that I think are worth noticing about the movie that are a little more questionable.  They're idealogical things.  And to get very deep into them, I have to discuss the movie itself.  So if you're going to get all grumpy with me for blowing some of the plot of the movie, come back and read after you've seen the flick.  If you keep going, know that you've been forewarned.

The first piece of idealogy that's creeping around is a bit of hypocrisy around whether or not the ends justify the means.

Early on, I was actually quite impressed with the statement that was made about the ends not justifying the means.  The Joker's way in the film is to force others into things they wouldn't do.  At first, he attempts to get Batman to reviel his identity.  Later he manipulates the people of the city of Gotham to kill the accountant dude.  After that he tries to get people to blow up a boat full of people.

In each case, he tries to control people by threatening a much worse result if they don't do it.  Basically, he's going to kill more people in each case if the people don't do what he wants.

There are two different reasons that I think it's wrong in these cases to do what the Joker wants.  The characters notice these reasons, too, and they point them out.

The first is that there's nothing to stop this from continuing and no good reason to trust the Joker.  The second is that the ends don't justify the means.  Just because a good result will happen, (or in this case a comparitively less evil result) this doesn't mean that we should do it.  Wrong is wrong and right is right regardless of the consequences.  The ends don't justify the means.

I realize that others might disagree with me.  I wouldn't complain about if it the characters seemed to believe that the ends did justify the means.  But characters like Batman, Gordon, and and the scientific guy (forgot both the actorts and characters name... Can anybody help me?) all speak out against giving into the Joker because the ends don't justify the means.

Until suddenly, the ends do justify the means.

At the end of the movie, they decide to pin the blame on Batman for the people that Harvey Dent/Two-Face killed.  In general, this would be a bad thing, to let Batman take the fall.  Lying is the wrong thing to do.  But suddenly, it's o.k. to compare the ramifications of lying with the ramifications of not lying and choose what we're going to do based on this.  And the scientist guy in general believes that Batman's sonar thing is a violation of peoples rights... except that he's willing to do it that one time. 

Perthaps the idea is that it's not as easy as it looks, to avoid acting as if the ends justify the means.  Maybe the idea is that the Joker is right: we don't have morals or values except when it's convenient.  This brings me to the other idealogy that's worth noticing in the movie.

I don't know exactly what the name is for this, but there is this growing ... thing in movies.  It started with horror flicks.

Once upon a time, horror movies had heroes.  Consider the first Nightmare On Elm Street.  I choose that precisely because it's fairly low-brow.  It's not exceptional, literary, or any of that.

But the climax of that movie is in the main characters taking the power back from Freddy Kreugar.  The idea is that they have to engage in an act of heroism.  The most important thing about humanity is that we can rise above our animal instincts.  Almost any horror movie where the main chatacters live, made before the mid 90's, is one where the main characters were braver or smarter than the villians.

No matter how bloody, violent, or otherwise immoral a movie or book was, there was something moral about the final message: there is something powerful about goodness and humanity than evil and inhumanity.

Since that time, the ethos is this: our only power is the power of endurance.  We must sink to the level of the enemy or simply try to outlast it.   It's not so much the violence of these movies as the nihlism that turns me off.   Consider the Saw movies, or The Descent, or The Mist.  In all of these, humanity and goodness are a liabality, a crutch.

Once screen writers asked "What's the scariest situation I can create." and I was o.k. with this.  It seems like the new question is "What is the most dehumanizing situation I can create?  How can I turn my human heros into animals?"

I started to notice how "The Dark Knight" fits into this mold when Bruce Wayne and Alfred had some conversations about endurance, and how some of the themes revolved around "Just how far will you go?"

Once in a Batman movie, the Joker might have jumped out at somebody, and we all would have jumped.  Once the most intense moment of these sorts of movies would have been the big battle.  But in The Dark Knight, the most intense moments are when The Joker tries to force Gordon to choose between his family members, as to who will live and who will die.

These two pieces of idealogy work together in the film.  In some ways Harvey Dent's character is the most idealistic.  (Remember the scene where he and Gordon argue?)  He has the furthest to fall.  He is the most utterly transformed.

Batman does submit some of his own ends-don't-justify-the-means mentality and he suffers for it as well.  Early on he won't be bullied into taking off his mask.  But later, he allows his reputation and relationship with the police to suffer when he takes the fall so that nobody will know what become of Harvey Dent.

There's a level on which Gordon is even less idealistic than Batman.  He suffers in the movie, but he doesn't really get transformed.   He actually becomes the Chief.  The subtext seems to be: Gordon started off operating in the real world.  He benefits by it.  He seems to begin the movie closest to embracing the idea that sometimes the ends do justify the means.  That's why he allows crooked cops to continue on the force.   Because he was operating in the real world, he was the one who ends the movie in some ways in a better position than when he started.

Am I thinking too much about all this?

Actually, I don't think so.  I think it's there, in the film.  I'm unsure if the script writers were aware of it, or the writers of the comics which these were quite closely based on.  Idealogy that we're not conscious of is the most dangerous sort, in my opinion.  When these motifs pop up over and over again, I think it's worth looking at.

(It's tempting to go-on from here and explore the ways that The Joker seems to be a terrorist and Gordon, Batman, and company seems to symbolize the military and government.  But that'll get hopelessly political and I'm trying to stay away from politics at this point in my life.)

This post was submitted to Randy Elrod's Watercooler Wednesdays.  Click here for some great readings on art and culture.

General James Jones, a high-level American envoy to Israel-Palestine, is preparing to release a report that is extremely critical of Israel's activities in the West Bank. According to Haaretz (see below), Jones was appointed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after the Annapolis Conference in order to "draft a strategic plan to facilitate stabilization of the security situation, as a necessary accompaniment to Israeli-Palestinian final-status negotiations." But after recent meetings with top Israeli officials and several visits to the region, Jones has few positive things to say. His report is thought to be a "scathing" indictment of Israel, lambasting the government for its "broad definition of its security interests in the West Bank" and its attitude toward the Palestinian security services. The overall picture, said one official, is "very harsh, and [will] make Israel look very bad." Fearing the response, Bush administration officials are apparently trying to squash Jones's report from going public.

------------

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1004143.html

Israel fears scathing U.S. report on its West Bank policiesBy Amos Harel and Avi IssacharoffTags: Israel, West Bank, IDF The United States security coordinator for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retired general James Jones, is preparing an extremely critical report of Israel's policies in the territories and its attitude toward the Palestinian Authority's security services.A few copies of the report's executive summary (or, according to some sources, a draft of it) have been given to senior Bush Administration officials, and it is reportedly arousing considerable discomfort. In recent weeks, the administration has been debating whether to allow Jones to publish his full report, or whether to tell him to shelve it and make do with the summary, given the approaching end of President George Bush's term.Jones was appointed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following the Annapolis peace conference last November. His assignment was to draft a strategic plan to facilitate stabilization of the security situation, as a necessary accompaniment to Israeli-Palestinian final-status negotiations. In this context, he assessed the PA security forces in the West Bank, whose reform is being overseen by another American general, Keith Dayton. Jones has visited the region several times and met with senior Israeli government officials and army officers. AdvertisementAccording to both Israeli and American sources, the envoy's conclusions about Israel are scathing. Israelis who met with Jones on his most recent visit here a few weeks ago, including Israel Defense Forces officers, said their impression was that the report would be "very harsh, and make Israel look very bad."Jones is apparently critical of Israel on two key issues. One is its fairly broad definition of its security interests in the West Bank under any final-status agreement. The other is its attitude toward the PA security services.However, the sources said, Jones also had some criticism for Washington: He said its efforts to reform the PA security services fell short and complained that U.S. government agencies are not coordinating their assistance for these forces. In addition, he reportedly concluded that the PA forces are not yet capable of effectively enforcing the law in the West Bank.The harsh criticisms contained in the executive summary are reportedly upsetting the Bush administration. Some senior U.S. officials are demanding that the full report not be published, so as not to create a storm in advance of the presidential elections in November. Jones, however, is apparently insisting that his full report be published,just as the report he issued last year on the Iraqi security forces was.Officials at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv declined to comment.

A majority of the film you literally see arms and legs get severed by explosions.  Peasants are forced to run through fields containing mines randomly thrown by the Burmese and get mowed down with machine guns while fleeing a village. There are many other gory details that Rambo dishes out to avenge these guys that I'll leave up to you to see.

I found myself reflecting on these events. Normally I am not emotionally upset with "gory" movies due to the fact that I know it is not completely real (in a sense) but the reality of those events happening on a daily basis around the world sickened me. Not just in Southeast Asia but elsewhere. To make matters worse I was watching this movie with my girlfriend (she was opposed to the movie from the start). Her opinion of the movie did not change from before to after.  It was gruesome and a reminder of atrocities that happen day to day.

My conclusion, simply put, of what can be learned from watching Rambo is its basis of fact with its shear volume of terror and violence. What did anyone else think about this newest Rambo movie? Any thoughts?

i mean it's one thing to be violent. but when you're 6 foot tall and you grab your 5 foot tall sister who weighs 37kg and throw her accros the room, you know there's something REALLY, REALLY wrong with you. it's just SICK, you know? i hope he goes to jail someday. i really do. i was lucky that my head didn't hit anything. but he threw me hard enough to make me bleed if my head hit a sharp object.

i came out and called him a prick. i hope he goes to jail someday. or worst, i hope he loses all his friends and he gets ostracized. he really doesn't deserve friends. i hope his friends hate him.

Traduzido e Adaptado do Blog: Picdit

__________________________________________________________
Bom, eu sei que eu traduzi apenas um parágrafo é que hoje estou muito cansado ,ok ?

Obrigado pela atenção e paciência !

What utterly absurd sentences for Mr and Mrs Darwin!  When there are violent thugs loose on the streets, this is the sort of idiocy that brings the law into disrepute.  The judge has made himself look an utter fool and has done nothing at all in the cause of justice.  Clearly these two people were dishonest but the greatest harm they perpetrated was on their sons.  I have no sympathy for the insurance company at all because, by definition, it is engaged in a process of long term, calculated but legalised fraud.  How many years are the directors and regulators of Equitable Life looking at?

Prison is a place for those convicted of violence, not for sad people like the Darwins.  How can the judge live with himself? What rationale can there be for this?  I hope he has no connection with the insurance industry.  He should have no further role in the judicial system.

(source)

Hate speech (or antilocution, or fighting words) is speech that incites other people to hate a certain group in society defined by common characteristics (race, gender, religion etc.). It usually also incites to commit violence and discrimination based on hatred.

The most famous case is that of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. These cartoons led to worldwide protest, not only against the cartoonists in question, their newspaper or their country, but against liberals and democrats in general.

However, hate speech is by no means an exclusively Muslim matter. It can be found everywhere where there is hate: it can be racist, anti-gay, islamophobe, etc. It can also be framed in anti-terrorist language: many western countries have initiated legislation outlawing hate speech that is part of Muslim mobilization of terrorists (in militant mosques for example).

(source)

Given the importance of freedom of expression, it is not universally accepted that hate speech can be legally prohibited. There is of course article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which outlaws hate speech:

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

However, contrary to hate crimes, such as attack on gays or muslims or writers/movie makers/cartoonists critical of Islam etc., the basic rule should be that speech as such is not a crime, even speech expressing or inciting hatred, violence or discrimination. Speech is protected by the right to free speech.

However, this right, like many human rights, is not absolute and can be limited when it endangers other human rights (like the right to life and bodily integrity, the right not to suffer discrimination etc.). The general defense of hateful speech has therefore some exceptions. It's a thin line between hateful words and hateful actions. Impressionable people can be led to violent crimes by hate speech. Hate is taught. The example of the Muhammad cartoons protests is again telling in this respect. Many protesters were encouraged by some Muslim leaders to commit acts of violence.

(source)

But much depends on the circumstances, the context and the manner of speech. Islamophobia in front of a crowded mosque is obviously not the same thing as islamophobia in an obscure publication. Examples of speech, in the wider sense of the word, such as hanging a noose in a tree in the front yard of the house of an African-American family, or spraying graffiti on someone's car or house, are more of a problem than posting a picture of a Koran in the toilet on a blog or a website. The first examples are clearly intimidation and can force people to sell their houses and move somewhere else. This has human rights implications (freedom of residence and property rights), which the latter examples don't have (it's difficult to argue that a photo of the Koran in a toilet, although undoubtedly an expression of hatred, harms anyone's freedom of religion).

When speech has implications for the rights of some people, it is legitimate to consider limiting this speech, according to the rules set out in the introductory post of this series.

An important distinction here: all this is about hate, not about speech that is merely offensive, insulting, ridiculing etc. That's the topic of a future post. The distinction, however, can be blurry. What is hateful and what is merely offensive is a matter of personal conviction, it differs between groups and it changes over time. Some groups may be more sensitive than others. If one decides to legislate the matter, this can complicate things.

Moreover, what to someone can be seen as hate - for example homophobia - may be a central tenet of someone else's religion and therefore protected by the freedom of religion. However, the freedom of religion is not absolute either.

And finally, some examples of speech that were once considered to be hateful - such as "nigger" - have been reclaimed by the groups that were previously targeted, and are sometimes even used as a badge of pride.

Another distinction: it is perhaps possible to imagine hate speech that is not directly or indirectly inciting violence and/or discrimination. Obviously, this kind of hate speech is less dangerous. However, like derogatory speech or offensive speech it does create a problem. It perpetuates negative stereotypes, devalues collective identities, deepens social cleavages and conflicts, makes it more difficult for the community to accept new identities, and it makes debate more difficult. So it makes it more difficult to create and uphold a tolerant, diverse society in which there can be civilized debate and discussion leading to better knowledge.

However, is this reason enough for a legal prohibition on hate speech? I don't think so. Is it reason enough to combat hate speech with other means? Sure. The remedy for harmful speech is not necessarily prohibition but counter-speech, and sometimes it is best to just ignore some kinds of speech. Engaging the hate mongers, let alone prosecuting them, gives them legitimacy, publicity, under-dog and victim status.

In general, it is not unwise to be concerned about political correctness, thought police and censorship.

PS: i would like to add that this has NOTHING to do with SE's event on 2-3 August.

RPG
FPS
Next gen Twisted metal

Countdown: (could not add one on article itself, that host site has nothing to do with the exclusive information)

New information about NEW PS3 exclusive