MediaCynic.com

Archives
Homepage
Linking to Us
Recent Headlines




Add to MyYahoo

Add to MyMSN

Add to Bloglines

Add to NewsGator

Add to Pluck





Categories

2008 Election
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Economy
John Edwards
Entertainment
Environment
Al Gore
Health Care
Immigration
International
Iraq
John Kerry
Media
Middle East
Miscellaneous
Plamegate
Politics
Polls
Religion
Condoleezza Rice
Donald Rumsfeld
Scandals
Science
Social security
Supreme Court
Taxes
Technology






MediaCynic.com Homepage | Religion

The Reverend Wright Rides Again

Rev. Jeremiah Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers: the interview will air on PBS on Friday night at 9:00 p.m. ET. Snippets of the interview have leaked out and they aren't pretty. This is the very last thing the Obama campaign needs, heading into an Indiana primary. Chris Matthews of MSNBC calls Jeremiah Wright "Barack Obama's Iraq."



Posted on April 24, 2008
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Barack Obama's Pastor Problem

After the Jeremiah Wright scandal broke wide on Friday, Senator Obama did the rounds of the talk shows Friday night to try to stem the bleeding. Obama appeared on Anderson Cooper 360, on Fox News with Major Garrett and on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann. Garrett grilled Obama, who looked like a deer in the headlights. Olbermann lobbed mostly softballs at him. The best interview by far was by Anderson Cooper (see the video here and the transcript here). Obama's defense was really pathetic. After saying earlier that he didn't think his pastor was particularly controversial, he now said he condemned the statements that are upsetting everyone. "If it offends you then I condemn it." How bold of him.

His next defense was that he was never in the church when Wright was making his horrible statements that we saw in the tapes. You know, the statements by Wright that the U.S. created the AIDS virus to commit genocide upon the black race, how FDR lied to the American people, that he knew Pearl Harbor was coming and allowed servicemen to die intentionally, that we deserved to be hit on 9/11 and that blacks should sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America."

He then previewed what will most likely be his argument in the coming weeks: that Wright is part of an older, angrier black generation and that he is the new generation that can bring us all together. What a load of nonsense. He seemed like a typical uncomfortable, triangulating, disingenuous politician who has been caught in a big lie. And he has. How can he expect voters to believe that he spent twenty years being mentored by this guy -- who he said brought him to Christ and is a spiritual advisor -- and not know about his hate-filled, divisive philosophy?

Reverend Wright married Michelle and Barack Obama. He baptized his two children. He blessed his house (you know, the one involved in the Rezko transaction). Coop got Barack to admit that when he was at Harvard Law School he would listen to tapes of Rev. Wright over and over. His book is based on one of Wright's sermons and he has clearly picked up his oratorical style.

Wright's rants are un-American, racist and full of hate speech, the kind of hate speech that is banned in Germany and France. And the new minister is just as confrontational: Sunday he accused the media of "crucifying" Rev. Wright. Wright crucified himself with his appalling, vitriolic speeches. Now Barack Obama has decided to give a big speech tomorrow about race. Will he defend Wright? Most likely, he'll try to position himself as the great healer, the great savior of America. But it's too late. We've seen he's just another politician. Not much Change there.

Posted on March 17, 2008
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Pope Benedict Says Sorry -- Sort Of

Pope Benedict said he was sorry -- sort of -- for his remarks in a recent speech that have infuriated the Muslim world. "The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers" said Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state.
But Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the statement did not go far enough and called on the pontiff to apologise in person. "The Vatican Secretary of State says that the Pope is sorry because his statements had been badly interpreted, but there is no bad interpretation," Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, a senior official from the opposition party told AFP.

*****

In his speech at Regensburg University on Tuesday, the German-born Pope quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire. Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted the emperor saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." He also said that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Reactions to the speech have come from such leaders as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said efforts to link Islam and terrorism should be clearly opposed. Street protests have been held in Pakistan, India, Turkey and Gaza. In the West Bank city of Nablus, two churches were firebombed on Saturday in attacks claimed by a group which said it was protesting against the Pope's remarks. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel has come to the pontiff's defence, saying the aim of the speech had been misunderstood.
Pope Benedict has never had the relationship with the media that his predecessor had and he has been remarkably unsuccessful at creating a media-friendly image. In today's world -- in which Muslims around the world literally went nuts over some cartoons -- it's probably not the most diplomatic choice to quote some long-dead personage who said that Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

He'd also get a lot more sympathy from the West if he weren't busy backtracking on the Vatican's official position that supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and hadn't just fired the Vatican's chief astronomer for his supportive statements about science.

His handlers are crazy if they let him go to Turkey, as planned.

Posted on September 16, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Pope Benedict Visits Auschwitz

Winding up his trip to Poland, Pope Benedict made an emotional visit to Auschwitz, in which he broke with tradition by asking the question "Why did God allow the Holocaust to happen?"
The sight of a German Pope crossing into the death camp beneath the infamously false Nazi sign, "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Will Set You Free), is arguably the most striking image of Benedict’s 14-month-old papacy. Walking alone with his hands clasped in front of him, an utterly grim expression fixed across his face, the 79-year-old pontiff entered as both the leader of the billion-strong Roman Catholic Church, and a World War II-generation German citizen. "To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man is almost impossible — and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a Pope from Germany," he said.

With these words, Benedict set off on a rather remarkable theological meditation on the Holocaust. "Why, Lord" he asked, "did you remain silent?" It is of course an unanswerable question, but one that Benedict used to implore Catholics and non-Catholics alike to pray — and work — so that it never happens again. He unpacked the singular aims of Hitler’s Final Solution, and discovered universal religious and Christian theological lessons: "The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth," he said. "Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are entirely valid."

"If this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke to humanity and took us to himself, then that God finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone — to those men, who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world." He concluded the point by returning to the specific question of Christianity: "By destroying Israel, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful," he said. Benedict went on to say that the remains of cruelty on display at the extermination camps "don’t instill hatred in us; instead they show us the terrifying effect of hatred."

Almost as if on cue, as Benedict's voyage to Auschwitz drew toward its close early Sunday evening, the wind picked up and a cool rain began to fall. The final ceremony began with the Pope pausing to pray at memorials in the different languages of the 1.5 million killed. But by the time he reached the final plaque, the rain had stopped, the umbrellas were tucked away, and the pack of reporters noticed that across the broad field of half-standing brick barracks of Birkenau, a vivid rainbow had appeared. The editors of TIME, like those who A. M. Rosenthal worked for back in the 1950s, would surely not normally consider this news. But on a day that the German Pope came to Auschwitz to ponder God’s silence, that surprising explosion of colors seemed well worth reporting.
Stanislaw Krejewski of the Polish Council of Christians and Jews noted that it was a very Jewish speech: the Pope quoted the psalms which are part of the Jewish tradition and create a link between Christians and Jews.
"It was moving when he said clearly that the Nazis, by killing the Jewish nation, aimed to kill God," he said. "Linking Christianity's roots with Judaism is a strong argument against anti-Semitism," said sociologist Jadwiga Staniszkis. "I think this speech should be read."
Pope Benedict is certainly making his mark on the papacy: it was a moving speech. But how ever did he manage that rainbow?

Posted on May 29, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Pat Robertson, the Magic Protein Shake And the 2,000 Lb. Leg Press

Photo of Pat Robertson doing a leg press Televangelist Pat Robertson claims that he can leg press 2,000 pounds. That's right, 2,000 pounds. He attributes his super strength to his magic protein shake and his personal trainer saviour, Jesus Christ.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says he has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, but some say he'd be in a pretty tough spot if he tried. The "700 Club" host's feat of strength is recounted on the Web site of his Christian Broadcasting Network, in a posting headlined "How Pat Robertson Leg Pressed 2,000 Pounds." This photo provided by the Christian Broadcasting Network shows religious broadcaster Pat Robertson leg pressing what is claimed to be 2,000 pounds at the fitness center at the Founders Inn on Regent University campus in Virginia Beach, Va., Feb. 1, 2003. A CBN spokesman claims the photo is from 2003 even though the date stamp on the photo says 8/1/1994.

According to the CBN Web site, Robertson worked his way up to lifting a ton with the help of his physician, who is not named. The posting does not say when the lift occurred, but a CBN spokeswoman released photos to The Associated Press that she said showed Robertson lifting 2,000 pounds in 2003, when Robertson was 73. He is now 76.

*****

Clay Travis of CBS SportsLine.com called the 2,000-pound assertion impossible in a column this week, writing that the leg-press record for football players at Florida State University is 665 pounds less. "Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time?" Travis asked.

*****

The CBN Web site attributes Robertson's energy in part to "his age-defying protein shake." The site offers a recipe for the shake, which contains ingredients such as soy protein isolate, whey protein isolate, flaxseed oil and apple cider vinegar.
Oh please. He's just trying to outdo Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has said she can leg press 400 lbs.

Posted on May 27, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Iran Ups the Ante With Holocaust Cartoon Contest

The Islamic fury over the Mohammed cartoons continues into midweek with more violent protests in the Middle Eastern countries. Several people were killed today in protests in Afghanistan. Adding fuel to the fire, a French weekly newspaper called Charlie Hebdo reprinted the cartoons then -- just for good measure -- added a new one, according to a Reuters news story.
The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday and published one of its own, further angering Muslim groups.

The weekly's front page carried the new cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad burying his face in his hands and saying: "It's hard to be loved by fools." President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could enflame passions. "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided," Chirac said.

Moderate Muslims, while condemning the cartoons, have expressed fears that radicals are hijacking the debate over the boundary between media freedom and religious respect.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the boycotts of Danish products continue, and in Palestine there are threats to kidnap Westerners.
In countries including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Muslims are boycotting Danish goods, and, in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian militants threatened to kidnap Westerners if governments don't apologize for the actions of newspapers in their countries. Iran cut trade relations with Denmark when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Feb. 4 issued a decree calling on the Trade Ministry to terminate economic agreements with all Western countries where the cartoons were published.
But the Award for the Most Disgusting Yet Juvenile Response to the Cartoons by an Official Government Agency clearly goes to Iran. The daily Hamshahri, one of Iran's five biggest newspapers, is running a contest asking for cartoons ridiculing the Holocaust. The Iranian government supports the contest (the municipal government owns the newspaper in question.)

Last night on The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert revealed that the Muslims had been "Punk'd"; he then proceeded to do a standup routine showing how "one man's joke is another man's jihad."

What the protestors don't seem to realize is that the more out of control and violent the protests, the more difficult it's going to be for mainstream newspapers and TV shows to explain the story without showing the cartoons themselves.

Posted on February 8, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Mohammed Cartoon Fury Continues Unabated

The furor over the Dutch cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed continues unabated. In fact, the violence appears to be escalating. The latest developments:
  • The Pakistan Medical Association is now refusing to prescribe any drugs from firms based in European countries where the Mohammed cartoons were published. The Association will boycott drugs from from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the "blasphemous" drawings. That means no Tamiflu for Pakistanis -- Tamiflu is made by Roche in Switzerland. Roche also manufactures the breast cancer drug Herceptin, the HIV drugs Fortovase and Invirase, the Cystic Fybrosis drug Pulmozyme and the acne drug Accutane -- just to name a few. Hey, what a great idea -- make sure your own people don't get their cancer drugs just to spite a bunch of Danish cartoonists.
  • In India riots broke out over the cartoons. The riot police used tear gas and water cannons to quell the protest -- four students were injured.
  • Four are dead in Kabul where 2,000 armed protesters tried to break into a U.S. army base outside Bagram, the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan. They must not have gotten the sniveling memo from the U.S. State Department condemning the cartoons.
  • British Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has declared that the Danish cartoonists should be tried under Islamic law and then (after it's proven that they committed the crime of blasphemy) they should be executed. He noted with dismay that this did not appear to be legal under British law. Bummer.
  • Meanwhile, American Muslims peacefully protested against the Philadelphia Inquirer for reprinting the cartoons; they also have threatened a boycott of the newspaper if the newspaper does not apologize. The demonstrators carried signs that said, "Freedom of Speech, Not Irresponsible Speech," "No to Hate" and "Islam=Nonviolence." Not a death threat or burning effigy in sight so far, just civilized, non-violent protests -- the way citizens of enlightened nations tend to do.


Posted on February 6, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Mohammed Cartoons Spark Rage in Middle East

The republishing of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed have caused outrage in some Islamic communities. The cartoons were originally published in Denmark in the Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten. The Financial Times reports that Danish products are being boycotted in some Middle East countries.
Publication of the cartoons in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the Netherlands triggered condemnation in the Muslim and Arab world, where consumers turned their anger on Danish companies.

Arla, the dairy company based in Denmark, where the cartoons were first published, admitted on Thursday its sales in some Middle East countries had fallen to zero. Carrefour, the French retailer, said it had removed Danish products from shelves in its Middle East operations.

Other Danish companies targeted in the boycott include Lego, the toymaker, and Novo Nordisk, the pharmaceuticals company.

As popular protests spread, the leaders of Egypt and Afghanistan warned the cartoons had offended millions of Muslims and could be exploited by terrorists in their war against the west.
Of course, in their righteous zeal to denounce an unflattering comic portraying Mohammed, they are conveniently ignoring the offensive anti-Semitic and anti-Christian comics that run every day in the mainstream, supposedly "moderate" Arab media.

A Deutsche Welle article reports that an independent Jordanian newspapers has published the controversial cartoons.
Meanwhile, a Jordanian gossip tabloid defiantly published three of the cartoons that have triggered outrage in the Arab and Muslim world.

"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Editor & Publisher also has articles on the story including a fired French editor and protest by gunmen in the Gaza Strip. In the blogosphere the topic is being heavily discussed. If you run a Technorati search for "Jyllands-posten Mohammed," there are hundreds of posts. CJR Daily blogs about the blogosphere coverage and says the blogs uncovered this collection of depictions of Mohammed throughout history which includes a few of the recent cartoons.

Right now various European newspapers are trying to decide whether to cave into this xenophobic nonsense and refuse to run editorial cartoons or to be brave and stand up for freedom of expression. If anyone is offended by the Danish cartoons and wants to show his displeasure by refusing to buy Danish Butter Cookies or some of the other myriad Danish products that are being removed from Middle Eastern store shelves, fine. That's a non-violent way to protest (although it's quite unfair to Danish companies who had nothing to do with the cartoons in question). But if anyone carries out a threat of violence to innocent bystanders -- Danish or otherwise -- because of a cartoon, they they should be dealt with in a very harsh manner.

Why not show your support for free speech by either 1) eating a delicious Danish Butter Cookie, 2) buying a Bang & Olufson stereo system or 3) buying a new set of Legos for a favorite child.

Posted on February 2, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Pope Benedict's Interesting Hat

Well, here's something you don't see everyday: the current Pope looking suspiciously like Kris Kringle. Today, Pope Benedict XVI arrived for his weekly audience in St. Peter's Square wearing a red cape and red hat trimmed with ermine. To onlookers, it appeared that Santa Claus had just arrived. His bold move sent historians scurrying to figure out the name of the mysterious chapeau and its Medieval origins.
The German-born Pope delighted the crowds at his weekly audience by wearing a red velvet cap trimmed with white fur along with his scarlet cape as he drove around the square. A Vatican insider said: "The Pope was told it was cold outside and he said he had just the thing. "He came out holding the hat and said he would wear it. He even joked that it made him look like Father Christmas."

The traditional hat, known as a camauro, used to be worn by popes in the Middle Ages to keep their heads warm. In modern times only John XXIII, who was pope from 1958 to 1963, was regularly seen in one.

Pope Benedict changed into his more familiar white skull cap when he arrived at the podium, where he told a packed square that Christmas was a time to remember the true roots of the faith.

Looking over the crowd towards a 100ft Christmas tree, the Pope said that Christmas lights adorning cities and houses around the world should "remind us of another light, invisible to the eyes but not to the heart". The Pope has already shown a taste for traditional papal dress, preferring delicate red slippers for daily wear rather than the robust walking shoes favoured by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
Pope Benedict is definitly showing signs of breaking out of the mold: he's a intelligent man who appears to be much more media savvy than many gave him credit for. We love Santa Claus, and now he looks like Santa Claus. It's most interesting.

Posted on December 21, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

The Vatican Stands Behind Charles Darwin

In a bit of a shocker, the Vatican has come out swinging in the evolution wars. The Vatican is defending Charles Darwin and evolution and has criticized the so-called "Intelligent Design" theory which is favored by Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. Many fundamentalist preachers lecture their flock that God created the Earth, the dinosaurs and Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago, which the Vatican (and scientists) find to be ridiculous.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better". His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
Kudos to the Vatican for issuing the smackdown to this absurd theory that has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Posted on November 8, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

James Dobson's Strange Explanation

Karl Rove's kidney stones and possible impending indictment continue to take a toll on President Bush' ability to spin situations favorably. As the flap over the nomination of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court Justice grows bigger, Bush really put his foot in it today. When asked why he picked Harriet, the president replied that "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion."

That one statement has opened the door for intense questioning of Miers about her religion and how it might affect her vote. He picked her because of her religion? That's not going to play well with the majority of Americans who don't like the idea of anyone imposing his religious views on the rest of us (e.g., the Schiavo debacle). Bush got backed into a corner when James Dobson blabbed to the media that he had information about Miers from Karl Rove "that he probably shouldn't have." Naturally, the Judiciary Committee wants to know what kind of back room deal was struck between Dobson and Rove, and what this inside information consists of. The leading theory? That Rove promised Dobson that Miers would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dobson denies it, but many senators aren't buying it.
On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Dobson said Rove told him that Miers had been a member of Texas Right to Life. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said she was not a member of the organization "that I'm aware of." "My understanding is that she attended some events, some fund-raising events that they had," McClellan said.

Miers bought a $150 ticket to a 1989 fund-raising dinner for another anti-abortion group — Texans United for Life — according to the president of the group, now called the Texans for Life Coalition.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know. We don’t confirm Justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals," the Vermont senator said. "No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun."
Amen, Brother Leahy.

Posted on October 12, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Bush Endorses Unintelligent Design

President George W. Bush has now officially endorsed teaching the religious concept of "Intelligent Design" in schools. So, what's the problem? Well, for starters, the "Intelligent Design" theory of creation isn't science. Ergo, it shouldn't be taught in science class. The Washington Post reports:
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.

Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it sounds reasonable, but it's really just Creationism-lite. Many prominent physicists who deal with questions of the origin and structure of the universe believe in God and evolution, as do most Americans. But religion and matters of faith don't belong in the science classes of our public schools. That should be left for a survey of religion course or for sunday school. American students are falling behind the rest of the world in their math and science studies which will have grave implications for their future. This is not going to help.

Posted on August 3, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

No Mac and Cheese For Falwell Followers

Listen up, freedom-lovers. Those commies at Kraft Foods have got be stopped. And Jerry Falwell is just the man to do it. Falwell is calling for a boycott of Kraft Foods because of the company's sponsorship of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. The Illinois State House and Chicago newspapers support the event. Kraft donated $25,000 to the event, no doubt realizing that macaroni and cheese is eaten by both gay and straight consumers.

Posted on June 22, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Saudi Arabia Erupts Over The Possibility of Women Driving

It's the only country in the world that bans women from driving. You guessed right, it's that bastion of liberty and democracy: Saudi Arabia. But one man wanted to at least get the discussion going about the possiblity of reversing the absurd ban. The blowback from this brave legislator's proposal has been incendiary.
Consultative Council member Mohammad al-Zulfa's proposal has unleashed a storm in this conservative country where the subject of women drivers remains taboo. Al-Zulfa's cell phone now constantly rings with furious Saudis accusing him of encouraging women to commit the double sins of discarding their veils and mixing with men. He gets phone text messages calling on Allah to freeze his blood. Chat rooms bristle with insulting accusations that al-Zulfa is "driven by carnal instincts with 454 horsepower."

There even have been calls to kick al-Zulfa from the council and strip him of his Saudi nationality. The uproar may be astounding to outsiders. But in Saudi Arabia, where the religious establishment has the upper hand in defining women's freedoms, the issue touches on the kingdom's strict Islamic lifestyle.

Conservatives, who believe women should be shielded from strange men, say driving will allow a woman to leave home whenever she pleases and go wherever she wishes. Some say it will present her with opportunities to violate Islamic law, such as exposing her eyes while driving or interacting with strange men, like police officers or mechanics. "Driving by women leads to evil," Munir al-Shahrani wrote in a letter to the editor of the Al-Watan daily. "Can you imagine what it will be like if her car broke down? She would have to seek help from men."

But al-Zulfa contends neither the law nor Islam bans women from driving. Instead, the ban is based on fatwas, or Islamic edicts, by senior clerics who say that any driving by women would create situations for sinful temptation.

It is the same argument used to restrict other freedoms. Without written permission from a male guardian, women may not travel, get an education or work. Regardless of permission, they are not allowed to mix with men in public or leave home without wearing black cloaks, called abayas.
So, let's get this straight. Mohammad al-Zulfa is getting wireless text messages on a PDA threatening him for even suggesting that women be allowed to live in the 21st century? That pretty much sums up modern Saudi Arabia: the fundamentalists use the latest technology to make sure that the women stay in the Stone Age.

Posted on June 2, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Desecration Comes in Many Forms

Lee Smith has a very interesting article in Slate entitled "Quranic Etiquette: Why My Egyptian Doorman Ate My Homework" that explains all the things you can't do to the Koran. Apparently, it's a desecration even to mention the book in such a frivolous format as this blog. And that's just the beginning. There are rules for how the book can be displayed, who is allowed to touch it and when (never after you've touched a dog, for example).
Some Quranic etiquette is intellectual: One should pronounce each word correctly; one should seek to discover what difficult words mean. There are also prestige issues. For instance, one should not place any other book on top of the Quran. This last was a violation that my Cairo doorman Muhammad was ever concerned to root out. Once he had satisfied himself that I had not put the Quran under any other book or item in my apartment, he would instruct me to pour us both a glass of whiskey, after which he would not touch the Quran again until he was sober and had somewhat repented for a clear transgression.

Once, Muhammad discovered in my garbage an exam I had taken that tested knowledge of certain ayat (or verses) from the Quran, and he reproached me for putting the holy book in the trash. I said that it was not the Quran itself, but only words taken from it. His response was astonishing: "You can either burn your exam," he explained, "or do this...." At which point, he tore off a verse, rolled it up, put it into his mouth, and swallowed it. I note that Muhammad was a doorman and not a scholar, but apparently in this particular instance, there was no problem if the Quran was to wind up in the toilet presently.....

At any rate, it is dangerous to invest artifacts with too much metaphysical significance. The fact that many Muslims regard the Quran as the literal word of God, as we have frequently been reminded over the last week, poses an enormous problem. Without reinterpreting or recontextualizing a sacred text that suited the exigencies of an ancient Arabian community, it is going to be difficult for 21st-century believers to get along with non-Muslims on a very small planet.
I don't recall anything like that in Sunday School at all. All we got was "don't eat the paste." But we did have some really cool Old Testament comics. Somehow I don't think those would be allowed either.

Posted on May 19, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Laura Bush Shows Flair For Comedy

Laura Bush's speech at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner Saturday night was a big hit. Her timing and delivery were perfect as she gently teased the president, in the tradition of the event.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been attending these dinners for years and just quietly sitting there. Well, I've got a few things I want to say for a change.

This is going to be fun because he really doesn't have a clue about what I'm gonna' to say next. George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now.

I'm not kidding.

I said to him the other day, "George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."

I am married to the president of the United States, and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching Desperate Housewives— with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George.

One night, after George went to bed, Lynne Cheney, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and I went to Chippendale's. I wouldn't even mention it except Ruth Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't tell you what happened, but Lynne's Secret Service codename is now "Dollar Bill."

But George and I are complete opposites — I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear —
The president's poll numbers are sinking like lead weights in water, so Rove pulls out Laura Bush. She's popular and makes the president seem like a good sport, and the public loved it. And that's smart politics.

Posted on May 2, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Frist About to Go Nuclear: In More Ways Than One

According to The Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is ready to go nuclear: in more ways than one. If he's not careful, he's going to drop an atom bomb on his political career.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday.

The strategy carries significant risks for the Tennessee Republican, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid. It could embroil the Senate in a bitter stalemate that would complicate passage of President Bush's agenda and raise questions about Frist's leadership capabilities. Should he fail to make the move or to get the necessary votes, however, Frist risks the ire of key conservative groups that will play big roles in the 2008 GOP primaries.
Clearly, Frist has his eye on those 2008 presidential primaries and is terrified of incurring the wrath of the religious right. Otherwise, why in the world would he be participating in this so-called "Justice Sunday". What is Justice Sunday, you ask? Why it's an upcoming telecast by "prominent Christian conservatives" which will portray Democrats as being "against people of faith" because they have blocked 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees from coming to a floor vote (they allowed 229 to go through).
Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and Democratic Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell both oppose ending the filibuster and have warned that such a move could come back to hurt Republicans in the future. After all, things change and when Republicans are in the minority they may need that filibuster rule one day.

Senator Frist tries to portray himself as a voice of reason. But appearing on this telecast could alienate libertarian and fiscal conservative Republicans, many of whom are moderate on social issues and are mighty uncomfortable with Frist's questionable conduct during the Schiavo debacle. So, what will happen during this telecast anyway? Will Frist witness to the congregation that he's had a vision that the next president will have an M.D.? Will he speak in tongues? Will there be snakes? Please, let there be snakes.

Posted on April 14, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Cardinal Bernard Law Celebrates Mass

What a slap in the face to Boston Catholics: Cardinal Bernard Law celebrated Mass in mourning for Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Basilica today, in spite of protests from victims' rights groups. You remember Cardinal Law? He's the guy that moved known pedophile priests from parish to parish, instead of turning them into the police. Many Catholics in Boston called for his resignation, but the Vatican called him to Rome and gave him the job of being archpriest at the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome, one of the four basilicas which report directly to the Vatican. Some punishment.

Posted on April 11, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Senator Mel Martinez Fesses Up Over Infamous Schiavo Talking Points Memo

The gig is up for Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida); he finally admitted that it was his office that drafted the now infamous memo saying how great the Schiavo case could be for Republicans politically. The hot potato memo has been denounced by every single Senator, as they all tried to edge away from the cliff of negative public opinion over Congress' meddling in the Schiavo case. According to Raw Story, Martinez's aide drafted the memo which he had in a coat pocket. Then, a Three Stooges Moment occurred:
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asked for information on the bill a Martinez authored in regards to the Schiavo case, Martinez said, and Martinez "pulled a one-page document from his coat pocket and handed to Harkin," according to AP.

"Unbeknownst to me," Martinez revealed, "I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo."
Oops.

Posted on April 7, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

More Trouble for Tom DeLay

Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's troubles show no sign of ending any time soon. The New York Times reports on further information that has come to light about Mr. DeLay's fundraising and lobbying activities.
The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.

Although several members of Congress employ family members as campaign managers or on their political action committees, advocacy groups seeking an overhaul of federal campaign-finance and ethics laws say that the payments to Mr. DeLay's family members were unusually generous, and should be the focus of new scrutiny of the Texas congressman.

Mr. DeLay, whose position as majority leader makes him the second-most-powerful House member, has offered a vigorous public defense in recent weeks to a flurry of ethics accusations from Democratic lawmakers and campaign watchdog groups, including charges that he violated House rules on travel. The executive director of Americans for a Republican Majority and a major fund-raiser for the committee were indicted in Texas last year on charges of illegal fund-raising, and prosecutors there have refused to rule out the possibility of charges against Mr. DeLay in the continuing inquiry.

In recent weeks, public interest groups have called on the House ethics committee and the Justice Department to review lavish, privately financed overseas trips for Mr. DeLay and his aides, including a 1997 trip to Russia that was underwritten by a conservative education group closely linked to a powerful Republican lobbyist who often boasted of his influence with the majority leader.
DeLay's poll numbers in his home district appear to be in a freefall after his grandstanding in the Terry Schiavo case, and his recent statements threatening to hold judges to account for their actions in the case. The fact that the so-called "activist trial judge" in the Schiavo case - Judge Greer - is a Conservative Republican Baptist apparently has yet to register with Mr. DeLay. Recent polls show that most Americans greatly disapprove of Congress' meddling in the Schiavo family's private tragedy. Add in a few more ethics violations, some shady fundraising allegations and suddenly the House Majority Leader's political future doesn't look quite so bright.

Posted on April 5, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

American Catholics Out of Step With Vatican on Social Issues

A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll sheds some interesting light on the attitudes of American Catholics. 78% believe Catholics should be allowed to use birth control. 63% believe that priests should be allowed to marry. 59% would like church doctrine on stem cell research to be less strict. 55% believe women should be allowed to become priests. 49% believe Catholics should be able to divorce and re-marry without getting an annulment. But only 37% of Catholics believe that church doctrine on abortion should be less strict.

These poll numbers illustrate the challenges ahead for the next pope. American Catholics are an independent lot, and donations from American churches send a sizable amount of money to the Vatican. Many dioceses are without priests at all; they have to rely on a "circuit-riding" priest who handles several parishes. If priests could marry and women could become priests this would alleviate the priest shortage, argue many American Catholics. Some also believe it would raise the standards on the kind of people seeking the priesthood and would help greatly with the church's devastating sexual abuse scandals.

But given the fact that John Paul II personally chose 100 of the cardinals who will be locked in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, it seems unlikely that they will elect a liberal Catholic who thinks Vatican II was a good thing.

Posted on April 3, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Pope John Paul II Dead at 84

Pope John Paul II passed away today at the age of 84. Of all of his many accomplishments, I believe that his ecumenical outreach and recognition of Israel as a sovereign state will be his most lasting legacies. Considered a liberal on the subjects of religious tolerance and civil rights, he was the first Pope to set foot in a mosque and a synagogue. He traveled the globe to meet Catholics from all nations and to meet with leaders of other religions. His apology for the Catholic Church's actions during the Holocaust was a bold move, not appreciated by his native Poland. He rebuked President Bush for the Iraq War and remained opposed to that war to the end and tirelessly campaigned against the death penalty. His liberalism on these issues contrasted strongly with his ultra-conservative attitudes on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, celibacy for the priesthood, homosexuality and women's role in the church. Although embraced by the third world churches, those attitudes did not sit well with many American Catholics, especially the issues of birth control and not allowing priests to marry. A linguist, he was outgoing, caring and openly affectionate: all traits which endeared him to the public.

He was a complex and devout man who changed the Office of the Holy See in profound ways. May he rest in peace.

Posted on April 2, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Conservative Women Score Big: Ken Mehlman Officially Not Gay

Whew, that's a relief! Raw Story gives us the early scoop on a GQ cover story about gay Republicans, the gay mafia, the outing of gay-bashing, gay Republicans in or out of Bush's inner circle, or something like that. But the best part of the article is the fabulous news for the ladies: smooth-talking, single, 38 year-old Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is officially not gay! After refusing to take reporters' many questions about his sexual orientation and all that unkind Beltway gossip about his being a fellow traveler, finally we get the definitive word about his datability.
"Ken Mehlman is not gay," Steve Schmidt, a senior official of the Bush campaign and a friend of Mehlman’s told Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent who wrote the piece for the magazine.
James Dobson will be so relieved.

Posted on March 18, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Christian Right Plays Hardball With Bush

The New York Times reports that the religious right is calling in its markers. Extremely unhappy with President Bush's comments that he wants to privatize social security and overhaul the tax code before worrying about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the Arlington Group fired off a letter to Karl Rove which is rather threatening in its tone. It basically says that Bush either pushes forward on the gay marriage ban or the Christian right is going to block the social security reforms. The Arlington Group is jam-packed with heavy hiters from the Christian right: Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich. It's pay the piper time for Bush on gay marriage. And phoning in his support to the giant pro life rally outside the White House yesterday instead of walking outside his house for a photo op has further infuriated the group. Bush does not have the Senate votes for the anti-gay marriage amendment right now and hates to waste his political capital on a losing issue. But either he gives it the old college try, or the Christian right is going to revolt. Will he make it through the political minefield? It's too early to tell, but I know they're grumpy in the West Wing today.

Posted on January 25, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Mel Gibson Stirs Passions

Who could forget a young and handsome Australian named Mel Gibson in Mad Max, the film that made him famous? And who knew that he'd turn from the People's Sexiest Man Alive to today's Most Controversial Director Alive?

I haven't yet seen The Passion of the Christ, Gibson's film which portrays the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ. So far, critics either love it or hate it. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper loved it. Roeper said, "This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film." But David Ansen of Newsweek said it "plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade ... an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see ... Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion." Ouch.

So what is this movie: a brilliant and moving portrayal of the greatest story ever told or an anti-Semitic, violent gore-fest? I suppose I'll have to see it for myself before I can give an opinion

Posted on February 24, 2004
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Our Blogs

Bloggers Blog
Book Blog
Crafters Craft
Drivers Drive
Fantasy SF Blog
Gamers Game
Health News Blog
HowToWeb.com
The IWJ Blog
Lovers Love
Media Cynic
Petosphere
Pleasant Morning Buzz
Science News Blog
Shopping Blog
Singers Sing
Surfers Surf
Traders Trade
Video Nacho
Watchers Watch
Workers Work
The Write News
Writer's Blog


Text Ads




www.mediacynic.com
Copyright © 2003-2007 by Writers Write, Inc. All Rights Reserved.