Do not be alarmed! We’re testing integrating a twitter microblog sort of thing into the main site. Some problems in the sidebar for now.
Test 4
Test 3
Test 2
Test?
Bailout bill passes Senate, goes to compromise: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/stimulus.next/index.html
The brilliant statesman who is Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX 32) last Thursday gave an interview to Hotline, an online component of The National Journal, saying:
Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. … And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.
He continued:
If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is. … So we either work together, or we’re going to find a way to get our message out.
Shall we remember some of the ways the Taliban found to get their message out?
Here’s more:
Women were banished from the work force. Girl’s schools were closed and women were expelled from universities. They were not allowed to leave the house without a male relative as escort. The windows of their houses were painted black and they were made to cover themselves from head to toe, even their eyes, using what is called a “burqa.” Women could only be examined by female doctors and nurses while at the same time, these were prohibited from working. Women’s health deteriorated rapidly and some died due to lack of adequate medical care.
Sessions is the Chairman of the Republican National Congressional Committee (RNCC). New RNC Chair, Michael Steele — on Friday, February 6 (one day after Sessions delivered his Taliban musings) — announced forced resignations of the entire RNCC staff, but apparently Sessions’ leadership remains. Considering Steele’s blustering about bipartisanship being overrated and his desire that Republicans come out fighting, it appears that erudite comparisons of Republican tactics to the successful workings of the Taliban are perfectly acceptable.
Interestingly, in 2005, the RNC passed nine resolutions reflecting their worldview. Leading as Resolution 1? [Bold mine]
1. RESOLUTION HONORING THE SPREAD OF FREEDOM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
WHEREAS, four years ago the Afghan people experienced the tyranny of the Taliban and now they enjoy the blessings of an emerging democracy, with women free to participate in the affairs of their community and their nation;
WHEREAS, four years ago the Iraqi people were often lined up and tortured and now they are lining up to vote; and
WHEREAS, American troops liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the greatest liberations in history; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee agrees with President Bush that freedom is not America’s gift to the world, but God’s gift to humanity, and applauds the steps taken around the world toward freedom.
As adopted by the Republican National Committee, January 19, 2005.
My shock and awe at Sessions’ stupidity and the apparent approval of the Republican party goes beyond the Taliban’s treatment of women. I am amazed that of all of the examples of a “positive, loyal opposition,”out there (Gandhi, MLK, Solidarity in Poland) Sessions looked to one of the most inhumane, draconian, and ideological groups known in modern history, and one that is antithetical to A-L-L of the principles upon which the United States is founded. (Nothwithstanding the U.S.’s complicity in planting the seeds of the Taliban’s creation during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)
Where is the outrage from thinking Republicans? Is a “thinking Republican” an oxymoron? The lack of response to this matter signals to me brain-equipped Republicans might have gone the way of the dodo.
And if Republicans whine “Nancy Pelosi made us do it!” then the the party really is using the Taliban model. Because if there is any group of men more frightened of women than Republican leadership, it is the Taliban.
Note: I was going to liveblog Geithner’s press conference on his new plan to address the failing financial markets, but I am too bent out of shape. Geithner is scheduled to speak at 11:00 a.m. EST. Enjoy, and feel confident that as lame as Treasury’s plan might turn out to be, it will never be as outrageously imbicilic as those of the the current Republican party.
More than a year ago, Cathy Gillentine of the “Galveston Daily News” penned a column railing against “evolutionists” for insisting that their children be taught science, and urged her readers to avoid seeing the famous hominid skeleton “Lucy,” then on display in Houston. It wasn’t much of a column: the crux of the argument was that evolution has “never been proven,” and that Lucy “looks like a little chimpanzee,” not a human. I wrote a reply, and GDN was gracious enough to print it. The critical phrases:
Much in the world is shocking, even disgusting and infuriating — but that does not make it false. [. . .] Evolutionary biology is proven by nuanced logic and complex facts. For someone deciding whether to accept evolution as “true,” the easy way out is to avoid the complexity and reject evolution on principle. I urge The Daily News’ readers not to take the easy route and, instead, to explore all the evidence. A good place to begin may be to visit “Lucy.”
Sadly, Ms. Gillentine hasn’t learned in the intervening year. Her latest column urges parents to impose themselves as something approximating conscientious objectors on their children’s behalf:
Another important thing you should be doing, if you are a Christian, is standing up for your beliefs and stop buying this “be tolerant of every thing and everybody” baloney. If, as a Christian, you believe Jesus is the Son of God and anybody who believes on Him receives eternal life, you believe the words in the Bible when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” And all those “many roads to heaven” theories, just like the theory of evolution, go down the drain.
Just yesterday, Ms. Gillentine contacted me to solicit a reply. We may disagree, but I admire her politeness. My reply (submitted to the GDN last night) follows:
In her recent column, Ms. Cathy Gillentine urges her readers to be aware of an alleged fundamental incompatability between Christianity and science (particularly evolutionary biology), and Christianity and tolerance of other religions. Thankfully for both Christianity and science, the former point is flat wrong (we should hope the latter is too, but that’s a subject for another day).
Evolutionary biology may conflict with an ankle-deep, flat, literal-word-only-no-subtext interpretation of the Bible, the kind that adds up the ages of the prophets and other major players to conclude that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. But other areas of science, like radiocarbon dating and geology, conflict with this interpretation of the Bible too – as did the early church fathers.
It’s true. Saint Augustine of Hippo, one of the greatest philosophers in Christian history, cautioned his readers and fellow Christians against reading the Bible only at its literal level. The Bible is so much more, he argued, that to hold its subtext and deeper meaning hostage to the bare literal meaning of its words would be almost sinful. He even urged Christians not to seek out ways to pit science and religion against each other: religion should stick to the theological, he said, not the natural.
Take my advice, and Augustine’s too: read Genesis as a parable, an analogy. Maybe each “day” of creation is an “age,” an allegory to describe the way life develops, and man’s relationship to God. Just don’t read it as a science textbook, because no-one, not even God, intended it that way.
It remains possible in the modern era to be a theologically fulfilled Christian, and an avid, informed consumer of modern science. That includes evolution. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
I had to trim my actual submission to 200 words, but you get the unedited version. Here’s hoping anybody pays attention.
