Inside Higher Ed: "Instead, the last two years have seen proud, often inflammatory, defenses of the professoriate’s ideological imbalance. These arguments, which have fallen into three categories, raise grave concerns about the academy’s overall direction.What a bunch of Barbara Streisand.
1. The cultural left is, simply, more intelligent than anyone else...
2. A left-leaning tilt in the faculty is a pedagogical necessity, because professors must expose gender, racial, and class bias while promoting peace, “diversity” and “cultural competence"...
3. A left-leaning professoriate is a structural necessity, because the liberal arts faculty must balance business school faculty and/or the general conservative political culture...
Monday, August 29, 2005
Inside Higher Ed :: Proving the Critics' Case
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Saddam and 9/11: Connected
Captain's Quarters: "In one editorial, two months before the attack, al-Nasiriyah -- a state-run newspaper for the Saddam regime -- managed to name all three attack targets for 9/11. They said that bin Laden had spent his time trying to work out how to bomb the White House, which would happen shortly before destroying the Pentagon. Then, in typically flowery Arabic fashion, the author claims that Americans will 'curse the memory of Frank Sinatra', an odd reference -- unless one remembers that 'New York, New York' remains Sinatra's signature song. In the event, the attack followed precisely this plan, except in reverse order: the World Trade Center went first, then the Pentagon, and the White House would likely have followed if the heroes of Flight 93 had not caused the terrorists to down the plane in Pennsylvania.
Even beyond that, the fawning tone and obvious support for Osama bin Laden in one of Saddam's newspapers belies any suggestion that the two could not find common ground for operations against their common enemy. Saddam wanted Iraqis to stand behind Osama and al-Qaeda and cheer on their attacks on the US."
Even beyond that, the fawning tone and obvious support for Osama bin Laden in one of Saddam's newspapers belies any suggestion that the two could not find common ground for operations against their common enemy. Saddam wanted Iraqis to stand behind Osama and al-Qaeda and cheer on their attacks on the US."
Commentary: What's the difference?
Commentary: "Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo is not perfect—otherwise, I would not have been able to document this essay—but it is powerful. Witness how few of Harvard’s faculty who understood the state of knowledge about sex differences were willing to speak out during the Summers affair. In the public-policy debate, witness the contorted ways in which even the opponents of policies like affirmative action frame their arguments so that no one can accuse them of saying that women are different from men or blacks from whites. Witness the unwillingness of the mainstream media to discuss group differences without assuring readers that the differences will disappear when the world becomes a better place.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
The nature of many of the consequences must be a matter of conjecture because people are so fearful of exploring them."
The taboo is not perfect—otherwise, I would not have been able to document this essay—but it is powerful. Witness how few of Harvard’s faculty who understood the state of knowledge about sex differences were willing to speak out during the Summers affair. In the public-policy debate, witness the contorted ways in which even the opponents of policies like affirmative action frame their arguments so that no one can accuse them of saying that women are different from men or blacks from whites. Witness the unwillingness of the mainstream media to discuss group differences without assuring readers that the differences will disappear when the world becomes a better place.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
The nature of many of the consequences must be a matter of conjecture because people are so fearful of exploring them."
Friday, August 26, 2005
Gates of Fire in Iraq
Michael Yon: "I saw Prosser's M4 on the ground, Where did that come from?This is a reporter. Well, not just any reporter.
I picked up Prosser's M4. It was empty. I saw only Prosser's bloody leg lying still, just inside the darkened doorway, because most of his body was hidden behind a stack of sheet metal.
'Give me some ammo! Give me a magazine!' I yelled, and the young 2nd lieutenant handed over a full 30-round magazine. I jacked it in, released the bolt and hit the forward assist. I had only one magazine, so checked that the selector was on semi-automatic."
Read the whole thing. And there's pictures.
The book referenced in the article is Gates of Fire.
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Hotel Rwanda is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen.
It is brutal. Human evil, depicted in all of it's horror.
True story.
I was nauseated by the film. I was made angry, and terribly sad.
If you do not see this film, you're soul will be the less for it.
Racism comes in many colors, but always wicked.
Fellow humans did this. I feel it is my duty to try and understand it.
Heroes like Paul Rusesabagina are worthy of remembrance.
This evil was ignored when it happened.
My Rating: Own it
For a riveting book by a black American about Africa and the Rwandan Genocide, read: Out of America
It is brutal. Human evil, depicted in all of it's horror.
True story.
I was nauseated by the film. I was made angry, and terribly sad.
If you do not see this film, you're soul will be the less for it.
Racism comes in many colors, but always wicked.
Fellow humans did this. I feel it is my duty to try and understand it.
Heroes like Paul Rusesabagina are worthy of remembrance.
This evil was ignored when it happened.
My Rating: Own it
For a riveting book by a black American about Africa and the Rwandan Genocide, read: Out of America
Blogging 100: Prerequisites
Orangejack Blog: "Hello class. Welcome to the Orangejack Blogging University. I am your professor, Rob. I look forward to being able to take you through your blogging degree.
We have two degrees to offer:
Associate's Degree of Blogging: complete both Freshmen & Sophomore level courses
Bachelor's Degree of Blogging: complete all four level courses
However, before we get started, there are a few questions you may have already. Let's get them cleared up so we can begin.
What is a blog?
Who blogs?
What do people blog about?
Why blog?
What is the blogging process?
How do you blog?"
We have two degrees to offer:
Associate's Degree of Blogging: complete both Freshmen & Sophomore level courses
Bachelor's Degree of Blogging: complete all four level courses
However, before we get started, there are a few questions you may have already. Let's get them cleared up so we can begin.
What is a blog?
Who blogs?
What do people blog about?
Why blog?
What is the blogging process?
How do you blog?"
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Barone: Constitution making (8/25/05)
USNews.com:: "Many in mainstream media profess to be fearful that the constitution will lead to theocracy in Iraq. Galbraith, who has been scathingly critical of the Bush administration on many counts, and Gerecht, who has been critical on occasion also, disagree.
They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going to make the same constitutional and policy choices that Americans would. This is of course true of other democracies. Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don't do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn't want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights? They just have different histories and different traditions, and have made different choices.
Some have argued that Iraq is a poor testing ground for democracy in the Middle East because it has multiple sects and ethnic groups—the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But I think the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn't necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent."
They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going to make the same constitutional and policy choices that Americans would. This is of course true of other democracies. Britain has an established Church of England, and the prime minister effectively (and the Queen formally) chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Canada provides public funding for Catholic and other religious schools. France bans girls from wearing headscarves in schools. Germany prohibits the publication of Nazi materials. We don't do any of these things, and most Americans wouldn't want to. But who would argue that Britain, Canada, France, and Germany are not acceptable representative democracies with acceptable levels of human rights? They just have different histories and different traditions, and have made different choices.
Some have argued that Iraq is a poor testing ground for democracy in the Middle East because it has multiple sects and ethnic groups—the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. But I think the multi-sect, multi-ethnic character of Iraq is actually helpful in forging an acceptable democracy. It forces constitution-makers to confront squarely the age-old dilemma of representative government, how to reconcile majority rule with minority rights. In a mono-ethnic, mono-sect state, or one in which one group is the overwhelming majority (Shiite Iran, Sunni Egypt), that issue doesn't necessarily present itself, and you risk getting the tyranny of the majority that our own Founding Fathers strove to prevent."
Iraqi Constitution Draft: on Parent's and Children
Welcome to MassRight: "I have to say this is pretty competently written modern constitution. Way better than what the EU managed. I'm a little surprised it doesn't specify a means of amendment, is about all.
I'd suggest we could legitimately borrow an idea from theirs:
Art. 29, 2nd — Children have the right to upbringing, education and care from their parents; parents have the right to respect and care from their children, especially in times of want, disability or old age. "
I'd suggest we could legitimately borrow an idea from theirs:
Art. 29, 2nd — Children have the right to upbringing, education and care from their parents; parents have the right to respect and care from their children, especially in times of want, disability or old age. "
The Great Raid (2005)
I also saw this the other night. My wife was not ready for a tough edged war film, but then again she never is. And what else were we going to see on our date night? The 40 year old Virgin? Wedding Crashers? Deuce Bigalow the disgusting Gigolo? Those aren't exactly what I would call "chick flicks". Come on Hollywood, you're killin' me. But I digress...
I'm really glad I saw this film, in the same way that I'm glad I saw Band of Brothers.
This is not anywhere near as good as Band of Brothers but then again it isn't 10 hours long and it is better than a few of the one hour episodes of BoB.
In two hours this film tells an amazing and true story of heroism and the horror of torture and slaughter in Japanese POW camps. The next time someone asks why Truman dropped the Bomb, remind them that surrender was a disgrace to the Japanese and then show them this film. It puts the current discussion about Guantanamo Bay in proper historical perspective.
Dont' miss it on the Big Screen.
My rating: Big Screen
I'm really glad I saw this film, in the same way that I'm glad I saw Band of Brothers.
This is not anywhere near as good as Band of Brothers but then again it isn't 10 hours long and it is better than a few of the one hour episodes of BoB.
In two hours this film tells an amazing and true story of heroism and the horror of torture and slaughter in Japanese POW camps. The next time someone asks why Truman dropped the Bomb, remind them that surrender was a disgrace to the Japanese and then show them this film. It puts the current discussion about Guantanamo Bay in proper historical perspective.
Dont' miss it on the Big Screen.
My rating: Big Screen
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Not since Minority Report have I had my expectations of a movie been so vastly exceeded.
This was far more interesting than I would have thought from the previews.
The movie is carefully titled: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The 1971 film that we are all familiar with was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
The change is significant. This film is about Charlie and what he has that none of the other characters possess: Significance and Maturity.
The film showcases the powerful parable that Roald Dahl created about parents, children and what is truly important.
As will all great parables the moral is a mature balance between extremes.
Veruca: always buying but never feeling content.
Augustus: always eating but never full.
Mike TV: Always entertained but no joy.
Violet: always achieving but never satisfied.
Each child represents the age old trap that parents fall into by giving their children what they want, rather than what they need.
What they need is what Charlie has, and Willy has not.
Charlie has little food, belongings, achievement or entertainments. What he has is a family of mature adults who give him grace and truth. Charlie has boundaries and real responsibility because his parents have the same and have begun to pass these things onto him.
Willy's character is much different in this film than in the 1971 version. In this film he is not whimsical or lovable. I believe he is intended to be a mirror of Michael Jackson: an adult struggling to find a childhood that was crushed by a Father's expectations.
In this version Willy's father is a dentist who forbade candy and demanded bizarre and torturous headgear braces for Willy's teeth. So Willy grows up to be a candy maker who builds a factory that has much in common with the Neverland Ranch: An very odd aging owner running around with children doing bizarre and childlike things.
We report, you decide.
I also think the Mike TV character is meant to evoke the two teenage Columbine murderers. Mike is introduced as being from Denver, CO and is found playing terribly violent video games as his passive parent looks on.
We report... yeah, yeah.
Finally, the climactic scene in this film is when Charlie chooses his family (and his responsibilities to them) over the passing pleasures of the flesh (represented by the other children).
This maturity, nurtured by the connection to his loved ones, is what all of the other characters lack, and what Willy finally finds.
Even though this movie lacked the emotional climax of the 1971 film, it is a much more profound statement: The hero is more truly heroic, and the moral is profoundly moral.
I suspect I will use this film as an illustration of the differences between maturity and immaturity in children and adults.
My Rating: Own It
This was far more interesting than I would have thought from the previews.
The movie is carefully titled: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The 1971 film that we are all familiar with was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
The change is significant. This film is about Charlie and what he has that none of the other characters possess: Significance and Maturity.
The film showcases the powerful parable that Roald Dahl created about parents, children and what is truly important.
As will all great parables the moral is a mature balance between extremes.
Veruca: always buying but never feeling content.
Augustus: always eating but never full.
Mike TV: Always entertained but no joy.
Violet: always achieving but never satisfied.
Each child represents the age old trap that parents fall into by giving their children what they want, rather than what they need.
What they need is what Charlie has, and Willy has not.
Charlie has little food, belongings, achievement or entertainments. What he has is a family of mature adults who give him grace and truth. Charlie has boundaries and real responsibility because his parents have the same and have begun to pass these things onto him.
Willy's character is much different in this film than in the 1971 version. In this film he is not whimsical or lovable. I believe he is intended to be a mirror of Michael Jackson: an adult struggling to find a childhood that was crushed by a Father's expectations.
In this version Willy's father is a dentist who forbade candy and demanded bizarre and torturous headgear braces for Willy's teeth. So Willy grows up to be a candy maker who builds a factory that has much in common with the Neverland Ranch: An very odd aging owner running around with children doing bizarre and childlike things.
We report, you decide.
I also think the Mike TV character is meant to evoke the two teenage Columbine murderers. Mike is introduced as being from Denver, CO and is found playing terribly violent video games as his passive parent looks on.
We report... yeah, yeah.
Finally, the climactic scene in this film is when Charlie chooses his family (and his responsibilities to them) over the passing pleasures of the flesh (represented by the other children).
This maturity, nurtured by the connection to his loved ones, is what all of the other characters lack, and what Willy finally finds.
Even though this movie lacked the emotional climax of the 1971 film, it is a much more profound statement: The hero is more truly heroic, and the moral is profoundly moral.
I suspect I will use this film as an illustration of the differences between maturity and immaturity in children and adults.
My Rating: Own It
Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace
If you missed this, then you missed it.
Has there ever been, in the history of warfare, more accomplished with so few casualties and death. One country (Iraq) is writing it's constitution that was until 2 years ago a depot's hell hole and active sponsor of global terrorism. Another country (Afghanistan) has a constitution that was an oppressive police state and terrorist training center until 3 years ago.
And it has cost us 2000 brave souls. Yet in peacetime, brave souls die in the military as well.
Has it been worth it. If you can't say yes, I think there is something wrong with you. Either your misinformed or lack the moral courage to understand a just war (Do you think we should have overthrown the Taliban?)
Also, I think you devalue the service of our brave soldiers by claiming that the war they are fighting is "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." You may say you support the troops but disagree with the war. I think the troops understand exactly what you are saying.
And the troops are re-enlisting at increasing levels especially in combat units (This was another issue with my Father in Law; his news gathering is limited to the LA Times and watching network news so he's chronically misinformed).
The troops seem to believe in the mission, and believe in the President. I think we might as well.
Power Line: "Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.A few months ago I heard my Father in Law say that Bush was a bad President because of all the boys that had died in Iraq. This from a man who is old enough to remember WWII let alone Korea and Viet Nam.
That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.
The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq 'on President Bush's watch.' As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime."
Has there ever been, in the history of warfare, more accomplished with so few casualties and death. One country (Iraq) is writing it's constitution that was until 2 years ago a depot's hell hole and active sponsor of global terrorism. Another country (Afghanistan) has a constitution that was an oppressive police state and terrorist training center until 3 years ago.
And it has cost us 2000 brave souls. Yet in peacetime, brave souls die in the military as well.
Has it been worth it. If you can't say yes, I think there is something wrong with you. Either your misinformed or lack the moral courage to understand a just war (Do you think we should have overthrown the Taliban?)
Also, I think you devalue the service of our brave soldiers by claiming that the war they are fighting is "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." You may say you support the troops but disagree with the war. I think the troops understand exactly what you are saying.
And the troops are re-enlisting at increasing levels especially in combat units (This was another issue with my Father in Law; his news gathering is limited to the LA Times and watching network news so he's chronically misinformed).
The troops seem to believe in the mission, and believe in the President. I think we might as well.
NYT vs. The Truth
Jack Kelly: "Colonel Thomas Spoehr is annoyed with New York Times reporter Michael Moss, for what I think is a good reason.
Spoehr is the director of materiel for the Army staff. He had a good news story to tell Moss, which Moss converted into a bad news story."
Spoehr is the director of materiel for the Army staff. He had a good news story to tell Moss, which Moss converted into a bad news story."
China: Arrest first, ask questions Later
World Magazine: "Eric Pilson is not entirely sure what provoked the police raid on his friend's house in Hubei province, China. The number of people slowly gathering at the home—42 Chinese in total—may have aroused suspicion.
Whatever the reason, Americans Mr. Pilson and Daniel Cohee found themselves snatched up in a raid on the underground South China Church on Aug. 2. While they were reading their Bibles after breakfast on the second floor, plainclothes officers barged in. The officers shoved and yanked the two seminarians toward the door, at first not even allowing Mr. Pilson to slip on his shoes, while rounding up the rest of the household."
Read the whole thing.
Update on the interview, from the interviewed.
Update: More on the Interview, from the Interviewed
A quick note on this article by World Magazine: the interviewer quotes me as
saying:
"Almost primarily just the nationals are treated most poorly, just because
Americans are high-profile,"
and
"Chinese are weaker. They can do what they want to them and no one really
cares."
During my phone interview with Ms. Priya Abraham, the article's author, I
communicated to her not the weakness of the Chinese Christians, but rather
their vulnerability. Many of the evangelists who were arrested with us had
left their families to follow Christ and were not allowed to return to their
hometowns due to a high risk of arrest. In addition, many had changed their
names or had new identifications in order to remain safe from the public
security bureau. Therefore, when arrested, they had very few people, other
than their own Church leaders, who could cry out and defend them when being
mistreated. As American citizens, we were treated relatively well by the
Hubei police, because we could appeal to our own government's protection,
but such is not the case for the Chinese Christians. According to accurate
reports, most of those arrested with us were brutally beaten and tortured,
some to the point of critical hospitalization and permanent injuries.
Meanwhile, Daniel and I were merely handcuffed, pushed, shoved, yelled at,
and held for a time. After pressing them with our rights as American
citizens to call our embassy or to be released, the Hubei police started to
"befriend" us, telling us we were welcome to come back anytime and even
offering to share a drink with us after being set free [ although I'm not
sure why exactly ]. These local police officers were extremely undisciplined
and seemed more like a gang of thugs than upholders of law and order; they
realized they could possibly get in trouble for mistreating Americans, so
they let us go and acted like we were old friends. These same police then
hopped in their unmarked audis and drove to the local prison where they knew
they could act freely on their hatred of the South China Church, taking full
vengeance on the other 40 or so Chinese Christians being held; without any
risk of losing their jobs or being held accountable.
Just two days before our arrest, I spoke with one of the South China
Church's evangelists, a young girl named "Jane" who had been learning
english in order to become a translator for future foreign teachers. She had
not seen her family in 5 years because she had earlier been arrested at age
16 and served 7 months in prison for "illegal evangelism", and she told me
how her parents demanded that she stop preaching the gospel because she
would get arrested again, and how they disowned her because she refused to
obey them rather than God. During our conversation, I asked her how she and
the other evangelists had such a passion for the Gospel and were willing to
give up everything to follow Christ, even risking their own lives in order
to faithfully proclaim it. She said simply that God had called her to this
task, and that she would follow His calling wherever it led her; she had a
supreme confidence in the everlasting faithfulness of God because of the
person and work of Christ. These Chinese evangelists were ready and willing
to endure tremendous suffering for the sake of the Gospel; realizing the
cost of following Christ was high, especially in such a hostile environment.
Two days later, during the raid, Jane was arrested and found with some
papers that had english words on them which she kept in order to practice
her english. Sadly, because of these papers, she was treated with greater
severity by the Hubei police, and she endured a horrendous series of
humiliating beatings with a sharp bamboo stick. The police suspected that
she had more information to offer because of her english studies, and she
was therefore singled out as a target of the more brutal torture. She has
since been released by the Hubei police and is undergoing treatment for her
injuries.
The point of the story is to illustrate the fact that those Chinese
Christians which I met within the South China Church are not weak in the
least or in any way "weaker" than Americans, contra the misquote in the
World magazine article, but rather they have great strength and perseverance
which comes from their utter dependence on God's sovereign hand and His
unchangeable love in Christ Jesus. They are simply more vulnerable to such
severe persecution because their government offers little to no protection
of their human rights or religious freedom. I hope this clears up any
confusion for those who read this article. Thank You.
- Eric Pilson
Whatever the reason, Americans Mr. Pilson and Daniel Cohee found themselves snatched up in a raid on the underground South China Church on Aug. 2. While they were reading their Bibles after breakfast on the second floor, plainclothes officers barged in. The officers shoved and yanked the two seminarians toward the door, at first not even allowing Mr. Pilson to slip on his shoes, while rounding up the rest of the household."
Read the whole thing.
Update on the interview, from the interviewed.
Update: More on the Interview, from the Interviewed
A quick note on this article by World Magazine: the interviewer quotes me as
saying:
"Almost primarily just the nationals are treated most poorly, just because
Americans are high-profile,"
and
"Chinese are weaker. They can do what they want to them and no one really
cares."
During my phone interview with Ms. Priya Abraham, the article's author, I
communicated to her not the weakness of the Chinese Christians, but rather
their vulnerability. Many of the evangelists who were arrested with us had
left their families to follow Christ and were not allowed to return to their
hometowns due to a high risk of arrest. In addition, many had changed their
names or had new identifications in order to remain safe from the public
security bureau. Therefore, when arrested, they had very few people, other
than their own Church leaders, who could cry out and defend them when being
mistreated. As American citizens, we were treated relatively well by the
Hubei police, because we could appeal to our own government's protection,
but such is not the case for the Chinese Christians. According to accurate
reports, most of those arrested with us were brutally beaten and tortured,
some to the point of critical hospitalization and permanent injuries.
Meanwhile, Daniel and I were merely handcuffed, pushed, shoved, yelled at,
and held for a time. After pressing them with our rights as American
citizens to call our embassy or to be released, the Hubei police started to
"befriend" us, telling us we were welcome to come back anytime and even
offering to share a drink with us after being set free [ although I'm not
sure why exactly ]. These local police officers were extremely undisciplined
and seemed more like a gang of thugs than upholders of law and order; they
realized they could possibly get in trouble for mistreating Americans, so
they let us go and acted like we were old friends. These same police then
hopped in their unmarked audis and drove to the local prison where they knew
they could act freely on their hatred of the South China Church, taking full
vengeance on the other 40 or so Chinese Christians being held; without any
risk of losing their jobs or being held accountable.
Just two days before our arrest, I spoke with one of the South China
Church's evangelists, a young girl named "Jane" who had been learning
english in order to become a translator for future foreign teachers. She had
not seen her family in 5 years because she had earlier been arrested at age
16 and served 7 months in prison for "illegal evangelism", and she told me
how her parents demanded that she stop preaching the gospel because she
would get arrested again, and how they disowned her because she refused to
obey them rather than God. During our conversation, I asked her how she and
the other evangelists had such a passion for the Gospel and were willing to
give up everything to follow Christ, even risking their own lives in order
to faithfully proclaim it. She said simply that God had called her to this
task, and that she would follow His calling wherever it led her; she had a
supreme confidence in the everlasting faithfulness of God because of the
person and work of Christ. These Chinese evangelists were ready and willing
to endure tremendous suffering for the sake of the Gospel; realizing the
cost of following Christ was high, especially in such a hostile environment.
Two days later, during the raid, Jane was arrested and found with some
papers that had english words on them which she kept in order to practice
her english. Sadly, because of these papers, she was treated with greater
severity by the Hubei police, and she endured a horrendous series of
humiliating beatings with a sharp bamboo stick. The police suspected that
she had more information to offer because of her english studies, and she
was therefore singled out as a target of the more brutal torture. She has
since been released by the Hubei police and is undergoing treatment for her
injuries.
The point of the story is to illustrate the fact that those Chinese
Christians which I met within the South China Church are not weak in the
least or in any way "weaker" than Americans, contra the misquote in the
World magazine article, but rather they have great strength and perseverance
which comes from their utter dependence on God's sovereign hand and His
unchangeable love in Christ Jesus. They are simply more vulnerable to such
severe persecution because their government offers little to no protection
of their human rights or religious freedom. I hope this clears up any
confusion for those who read this article. Thank You.
- Eric Pilson
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Bush disses Robertson
BREITBART.COM - Just The News: "The Bush administration swiftly and unequivocally distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a frequent target of U.S. foreign policy.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: 'Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.'
Acknowledging differences with the Caracas government, and saying it should be promoting democracy in the Western Hemisphere, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks 'inappropriate.'
'This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views,' McCormack said in a flat refutation of Robertson's suggestion that the United States 'take out' Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a 'launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism.'"
And in a related story, top Democratic Party leaders distanced themselves from Micheal Moore saying...
O wait a minute. Actually, Moore got to sit in the Presidential Box and the Democratic National Convention.
Both parties have nuts. It's just that one is led by them, the other endures them.
Steyn: 'Peace Mom's' marriage a metaphor for Dems
'Peace Mom's' marriage a metaphor for Dems: "There's one Cindy Sheehan, and she's on TV 'round the clock. Because, if you're as heavily invested as Dowd in the notion that those 'killed in Iraq' are 'children,' then Sheehan's status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza.
They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as 'children.' If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee 'child' who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing."
They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as 'children.' If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee 'child' who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing."
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Communique: From the Powerful Mr. KR
Nihilist In Golf Pants:
"TO: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
FROM: You Know Who
SUBJECT: Everything is going according to plan"
"TO: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
FROM: You Know Who
SUBJECT: Everything is going according to plan"
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Eric Swanson: 1776
Eric Swanson: 1776: "1776 fills in many of the gaps in early American history. What was most amazing about the book was the incredible odds that Americans overcame to ultimately prevail in our quest for independence. We lost nearly every conflict, troops were deserting in droves...many defecting to the British, morale was often low and Washinton's leadership was in question. The 350 page book includes only two American victories in 1776--Boston and Trenton on Christmas night, where the Americans crossed the Delaware to surprise the British and Hessian soldiers. "I wonder if there were a lot of "Cindy Sheehans" in that time, demanding an end to the Revolution because of grief at their dead. I'm glad Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence prevailed.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Cindy sealed the deal: Democrat to Republican
Scott Randolph.net: "Then it happend. The good little democrat in me tied the little noose around his neck and jumped off the stool. He just couldn’t take it anymore.
Take what? The whining. The constant whining by the extreme left about the reasons for war, the incompetence of this administration, and how we’ve all been lied to, and how we should pull out of Iraq immediately, because, *gulp* our soldiers were in danger.
Guess what folks….they signed up to join the Army, not the boy scouts. Anytime your orientation to a new job involves an automatic weapon, you should be smart enough to figure out there’s danger involved. I actually read some people’s comments about many of the soldiers over there being naive….they weren’t expecting to go to war, so, they should be allowed to go home. Wow.
Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them."
via MassRight
Take what? The whining. The constant whining by the extreme left about the reasons for war, the incompetence of this administration, and how we’ve all been lied to, and how we should pull out of Iraq immediately, because, *gulp* our soldiers were in danger.
Guess what folks….they signed up to join the Army, not the boy scouts. Anytime your orientation to a new job involves an automatic weapon, you should be smart enough to figure out there’s danger involved. I actually read some people’s comments about many of the soldiers over there being naive….they weren’t expecting to go to war, so, they should be allowed to go home. Wow.
Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them."
via MassRight
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Xbox 360 price announced
I.T. Vibe: "Microsoft has announced that its next generation gaming console, the Xbox 360, will be shipping in two versions when it goes on sale this Christmas.
The basic version of the Xbox 360 will cost $299, but will be lacking various value-added features which come with the more expensive pack.
For gamers who want a more fully featured system, the more expensive bundle, costing $399, will include a 20GB detachable hard-drive, a wireless controller, a headset, a remote control, an additional faceplate and an HD-ready AV cable."
Save your money kids. After all, nothing good is too expensive, right?
The basic version of the Xbox 360 will cost $299, but will be lacking various value-added features which come with the more expensive pack.
For gamers who want a more fully featured system, the more expensive bundle, costing $399, will include a 20GB detachable hard-drive, a wireless controller, a headset, a remote control, an additional faceplate and an HD-ready AV cable."
Save your money kids. After all, nothing good is too expensive, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)