Results of my OKCupid Politics Test . . . Big surprise
11.28.05 (8:54 pm) [edit]
| You are a Social Conservative (23% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (61% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Buyer Beaware: Cell Phones
11.28.05 (3:51 pm) [edit]
Recently, my cell phone met with a watery fate.
Needless to say, she no work. So when I went to Verizon to see what could be done, the rude and unhelpful woman said basically that I should go wash myself. Why? Because if it has water damage, it's out of warranty.
Fine.
I asked if I were to get a new phone, what my options were. What insued made me want to reach across the kiosk and throttle her. She made no apologies, made me feel as if I was a nuisance unto her, and said little for any customer service. Not to mention, her cold demeaner was less than comforting. . .
ME: Could I transfer my photos to the new phone (it's a picture phone)?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: No.
ME: Why
EVIL PHONE WENCH: There is nothing we can do for you.
ME: Um, ok. I got that because you said it already. I'm talking about something different. -- You transfer the phone number library, right?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: Yes.
ME: So then why can't you transfer the pictures?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: It's impossible. There's nothing we can do for you once there's water damage.
ME: I don't think you're hearing me. Either that or you are hearing me and you don't get what I'm saying. How about this, what if it just needs to be re-programmed?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: I'm not opening up the phone, there is nothing that can be done.
ME: I'm not asking you to do that. Re-programming would involve typing on the outside of the phone. That would be non-invasive.
EVIL PHONE WENCH: [looks on her computer] If you're going to buy a new phone it'll cost you $300.
ME: Wait a tick! I paid $150 for this phone. If I buy the same model, why is it going to cost me more than it did a year and a half ago? It should be less, if anything, because it's older technology.
EVIL PHONE WENCH: That's what we have.
ME: Get me your manager.
EVIL PHONE WENCH: I am the manager.
ME: (starting to get angry) Ok, what about this; I recently purchased a whole bunch of ringtones. Can you credit me back?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: No.
ME: Why not?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: You'd have to ask customer service.
ME: I thought this was customer service. What is that sign above your head saying???
EVIL PHONE WENCH: I mean over the phone.
ME: Well, can we get them on the phone right now?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: You're phone only has one line.
ME: I know! What would that matter anyway!? I meant on [i]your[/i] land line! My phone won't even call right now because it's broken and you won't even try and fix it in any way! If my phone actually worked, I wouldn't be stuck here talking to the likes of you!
EVIL PHONE WENCH: Fine.
She then proceeds to call and ask the person on the other end of her phone my question. Then she tells this person to tell [i]me[/i] "that." Whatever "that" is, I don't know because the customer service dude comes on the line and says . . .
CUSTOMER SERVICE DUDE: I don't understand the question.
ME: This wench here just told me that you can't transfer the ringtones. Can I at least get a credit back from you guys because I didn't even really get to use them. If I can't get them onto my new phone, and you still keep my money, that's not fair.
CUSTOMER SERVICE DUDE: Lemme ask my manager and do some research for you. Hold on. Ok?
This is when the elevator music came onto the line and the wench at the desk started helping another person before she was finnished with me. The dude came back on and basically passed the buck. He said that Verizon can't refund me because Verizon didn't charge me. It was the ringtone company and I would have to take it up with them but this is as far as Verizon could take it.
I thanked him because at least he seemed like he cared minimally. I felt bad for him because he seemed like he was really trying. Then I hung up the phone and started back at the wench once more. I really didn't care if I interupted her conversation with the new customer. It was still my turn.
ME: Are you sure there is no way you could transfer at least the photos?
EVIL PHONE WENCH: There is nothing I can do and I'm not opening the phone. I'm not authorized to do that.
[though I'm sure someone in the store was authorized. . .]
ME: I'm not ASKING you to open the phone!!!
EVIL PHONE WENCH: There's nothing that can be done.
At this point, I lost it. I shouted at the women, "Thank you for being so completely useless" and then I stormed out of the store, yelling, "F&@$ this! I'm going to T-Moble!!!!"
The truth of the matter is (and unfortunately), I'm not. I'm locked into a plan right now. It would cost me extra to get out of it so I'm keeping my plan. I just wanted other people to know how stupid Verizon is. If anyone in the store was planning on selling their souls to these people, then perhaps I should bring this incident to their attention. Oh what goes through our heads in times of anger.
I waited a few more days to see if maybe my phone would come back to life. Thing is, it turns on. You just can't call out or receive calls or text message. Last night, it started making calls and texting again. I was thrilled! Then this morning, I tried again to make sure. Nothing. It's just not reliable anymore.
At any case, I did some thinking. Why should I have to pay Verizon another penny for a new phone if I don't have to?
I recently got a 10% off coupon for eBay in the mail (because I'm such a great customer) so maybe I could find a better deal through a factory seller there.
Lo' and behold I did!
So instead of $300 something I ended up paying less than I did the first time when I originally purchased this phone! And all I have to do now is wait for it to come in the mail nd then program it to my number all by myself.
Eat that one, Verizon.
The day after Thanksgiving, I went to Fry's Electronics. I asked them if they had anything to store or transfer ringtones and/or photos from one cell to another and perhaps also to a computer.
Yes, Virginia, for $70 you can.
For my phone specifically (because it's an audiovox), it won't transfer the ringtones, though. But it will do photos and phone numbers. For most LG, Sanyo, Samsung, and Motorollas, it will.
So now I don't have to go into Verizon and pay them extra to even transfer my phone book. I can do it myself. I get the added bonus of being able to save my photos on the computer as well!
Eat that too, Verizon!
But there is a point to my writing this besides venting my frustrations on my blog. I want everyone to know about the ringtone and photo situation.
When you buy ringtones on your phone, you can't transfer them. Be it through your phone company or the ringtone company you purchase it directly from, there's no retribution. They basically rob you blind. You buy something that you can't keep. If God forbid something goes wrong, you're on you're own and they keep your money in the end. You have to pay even more through the nose in the wake.
They'll also lie and say, "There's nothing that can be done," when for $70 at Fry's you can buy something that will work on just about any phone for a long time.
In case you were wondering, the equipment package at Fry's also includes connectors for running internet to your computer from your phone, six different cords for many types of cellphone-jacks, and software to make your own ringtones! Not to mention the other stuff like storing your phonebook, photos, and ringtones that you already have (all depending on the model, of course).
The item is called DataPilot Cell Phone Data Transfer Suite. You can check them out at =http://www.datapilot.comdatapilot.com
But buyer beaware. The cell phone companies are not your friends!
NEWSFLASH: Turkey Released, Torture Suit To Follow
11.23.05 (12:36 am) [edit]
Ever see the movie [i]Groundhog Day?[/i] In that movie, Bill Murrey's character is a newscaster who covers the same day (Groundhog Day) over and over again. He does a story on Puxatony Phil, the official groundhog that dictates how winter will end up.
This tradition with the groundhog is so pointless and asinine that reliving such a ceremony (and day, for that matter and among other issues) drives the protagonist to attempt suicide... and fail since he still is doomed to repeat the same day.
Many of us can be thankful for one thing this and every year; we are thankful that Thanksgiving comes but once a year. No, not just because of the dreaded family get-togethers and the higher suicide rate (yes, the two are corelated), but that with Thanksgiving comes the traditional (and asinine) pardoning of the official national turkey.
Quick note, another thing to be thankful for is that at least it's not actually Groundhog Day . . . yet.
This year, the turkey was named "Biscuits & Gravy," or something like that I believe. Confusing? Yes. Does anyone else find these pet names for turkeys a little sick also? I think the next one should just be named dinner.
Does anyone know how this stupid holiday tradition got started? For those of you who are still completely unaware of what I'm talking about, each year the President of the United States pardons a turkey before Thanksgiving at a White House ceremony.
The tradition's origin is aparantly uncertain. One story claims that Harry Truman pardoned a turkey in 1947, but the Truman Library has been unable to find any evidence for this. Another claims that the tradition dates back to Abraham Lincoln pardoning his son Tad's pet turkey. However false these stories may be, both of them have been quoted in recent presidential speeches. Now that creates even greater faith in one's political leaders.
What's certain is that for many years it has been that a turkey—and its alternate—have been and continue to be pardoned each year. An alternate is chosen just in case the first bird is unable to perform its duties. Can you say bar-b-q? . . . maybe that'll be the name of next year's!
For the last fifteen years, the turkeys were given to Kidwell Farm, a petting zoo at Frying Pan Park in Herndon, Virginia.
[i]That's right; it's called Frying Pan Park.[/i]
The turkeys would receive a last minute pardon before arriving, and are then led to their new home at the Turkey Barn after enduring a turkey "roast" full of poultry humor and history. And that's where the geneva conventions come in. These birds are not enemy combatants. Being subject to such torture is against their turkey rights, mandated by the UN. Anyone know who the lawyer representing the Abu Ghraib victims is?
I think I'm going to barf.
This year, however, the turkeys were flown to Disneyland in California where they will serve as honorary grand marshals for Disneyland's Thanksgiving Day parade. After that, they will spend the rest of their lives at a Disneyland ranch, employed wearing Mickey and Goofy suits.
Kinda reminds me of that time the dog died and your mother told you that he ran away to go live on a farm. Conspiracy theorists should go wild with this one. C'mon, more supposed evidence that Bush is a liar. The die hard conservatives will remind everyone that Clinton did the same, only worse. It'll be big fun with Tucker on CNN!
They tell you the turkey is freed, but they really just lower him into Ted Kennedy's cage (that's the second Ted joke this week. I'm on a roll!). No, I got it! I betcha this year they just sent Marshmallow or whatever it's name is to Iraq. Muslims don't eat pork, but do they eat turkey? Anyone? Eh??
Now don't get me wrong, I'm an animal lover. And I love to eat them too! The thing I don't get is why people have stupid traditions having to do with animals that are so downright dopey? It all just seems like a major waste of time.
And even if it really meant something (which it doesn't) it all brings further attention to the fact that we're only "pardoning" one or two turkeys per year while we devour millions of these turkeys' pals. I won't eat you, but your mama looks mighty tastey next to the cranberry!
Personally, I think it's all just deli style favoritism. Does anyone think to pardon a ham on Christmas? What about pardoning a cow on the 4th of July? A duck on bastille day??
I probably shouldn't even suggest this kinda thing because then it'll just create more stupid animal traditions. Better yet, I'll keep my mouth shut.
Any way you slice (or carve) it, at least we'll be eating well tomorrow (pardoned turkeys included). We won't have to care about much anything except napping. That is, at least until the day after tomorrow. Then we'll have to worry about mowing down Martha-Jean down at the Wal-Mart so we can get the best deal on a crappy Apex DVD player. But that's an entirely different stupid tradition we Americans hold sacred. Perhaps for another day.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Jordanians are shocked
11.22.05 (11:33 pm) [edit]
Originally seen at http://dorcas.tblog.com
[line]
[i][b]By Dennis Prager, Nov 15, 2005[/b][/i]
Jordanians are shocked that Islamic terrorists would blow up families, including families celebrating a wedding. They are so shocked that for the first time in history, Muslims have taken to publicly demonstrating against Islamic terror.
And why are they shocked? Because the terrorists blew up Jordanians. As long as Islamic terrorists blew up men, women and children who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, American, Australian and black Sudanese, the Arab and larger Muslim worlds were not particularly disturbed. In fact, Palestinians, who comprise the majority of Jordan's population, celebrated when Jews were blown up at Passover seders and at weddings. And they took to the streets and cheered in the Palestinian fashion, handing out candy, when Americans were incinerated in office buildings.
For some reason, Palestinians, most other Arabs and many Muslims around the world thought that the credulity-straining evil of targeting the most innocent for death, paralysis, blindness and brain damage would be confined to non-Arabs and non-Muslims. In fact, the idea that this Palestinian-made cancer would target Arab Muslims is so inconceivable to most Arabs that many now believe the terror attack in Amman was orchestrated by Jews (the Israeli Mossad).
Of course, Arab Muslim men, women and children are blown up almost weekly in Iraq, but, hey, that's OK because the monsters doing it hate America and seek Israel's annihilation. And in the Arab world -- and in much of the Muslim and leftist worlds -- hatred of America and Israel gets you a moral pass. In the Arab/Muslim worlds (with individual exceptions, of course), as among the world's leftists, an act is almost incapable of being judged evil if it is committed by those who hate America (especially the America of George W. Bush) or Israel.
In a previous column, I proposed that supporters of the war in Iraq ask opponents of the war just one question: Without in any way compromising your opposition to the war, would you at least acknowledge that the people we are fighting in Iraq are evil? Virtually every one of the many letters I received from readers opposed to the war was incapable of answering in the positive. By fighting America and George W. Bush, the "insurgents" are essentially inoculated against moral judgment.
Likewise it has been nearly impossible for the Arab, Muslim and leftist worlds to morally condemn the blowing up of Israelis.
"Palestinians have no Apache helicopters -- what do you expect them to do?"
"They are simply resisting occupation."
"The Israelis are also terrorists."
These arguments of the Left, the Arab world and countless other Muslims have given the Islamic terrorists the moral green light to continue their atrocities.
Until, that is, they inflicted one of these atrocities on Arabs in the land of the Palestinians. So, at least for the time being, the sight of charred and dismembered Arab families at a wedding has trumped the anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's killers.
Now there is widespread condemnation of Zarqawi's terror in Jordan. There is even a fear that the name of Islam will suffer. Unfortunately, however, it is only because Zarqawi was foolish enough to massacre Jordanian civilians, and not
What IF Al Quaeda Hit Frisco?
11.17.05 (11:18 am) [edit]
Everyone seems to be all up in arms lately with Bill O'Reilly. There's a switch. His latest statement where he asks the hypothetical question, "What if Al Quaeda hit San Francisco? Should the US protect them if they vote to keep military recruiters out of schools?"
While that statement is obviously way over the top and clearly a hypothetical thought excercize, many are jumping the chance to join (or re-join) the anit-O'Reilly band wagon. Apologies have been demanded.
A conservative commentator makes a contraversial statement. Oooh. I think I see the beast of the Apocalypse. Oh wait, no. That's just Ted Kennedy. My bad.
The thing that I find truly interesting is that no one wants to enlist the draft to help the shortage of men on the field and no one (lfar-left iberals) want to have anyone sign up voluntarily either. Could it be that the liberal establishment is simply anti-military? Who gets to apologize for that one?
"But invading the schools and signing 12 year olds up for the service is wrong!"
Yes. Yes, it is. That's why, for one thing, you have to be at least 18 to join the military (in less you have parental consent after 17). For another thing, military recruiters DO NOT FORCE ANYONE to join ANYTHING.
Has anyone actually sat in a classroom during a recruiter presentation? They hand out literature and explain the benefits. It's then up to the individual to decide.
Plus, for many kids this is the best offer they'll get for a college education. They even are able to receive trade training in the military!
"But these kids are still uninformed that they have to go to war once they sign up! It's misleading!"
If anyone by now is still unaware that there is a war going on, I'd have to say that the military wouldn't even take them on simply because they're either too high or too stupid to join. Honestly, how far do you have to have your head up your butt in order to not know that if you join the service, you may have to go to war.
When I was in high school, a few of my friends went into the military. I always brought it up to them that even though we are now in a time of peace (we were at the time), a bomb could drop tomorrow and we'd be at war. People should know that. They said, of course. They weighed out the consequences.
And that was a time of peace. Now we're at war. Whatever the reasons, whatever the personal disagreement, the fact is we are. If we want to leave Iraq we gotta leave right. That means more support for our men and women that are already there.
So the people of San Fran voted to keep military out of high schools during a time of war and keep kids from cheaper college in exchange for their service. Maybe because the public is uninformed. Maybe because it's San Francisco. Or maybe it's because they just don't want this war to end well.
Whatever the case, it all sounds very self-defeating from an American standpoint.
I say once again, forget what Bill O'Reilly said, where's the apology for that vote?
YAY COLLEGE!
11.16.05 (1:12 pm) [edit]
Was walkin' along to one of my classes this afternoon and I happen to see this sign at a big booth near the cafe'. . .
I don't think Breast Cancer needs any more of my help. I think it's doin' just fine without me.
We need more booths like this!
Remembering Arafat
11.15.05 (10:24 am) [edit]
Yassir Arafat, frequently cited as the father of modern-day terror, died one year ago. One would think that in describing this man and his dark legacy, the mainstream media would reflect the reality that marked his rule. Instead, the media ignore the real impact this man and his disastrous choices have had on the region. 
Arafat said "No" to peace and "Yes" to more terror
Reuters states that Arafat failed "to realize his dream of a Palestinian state." Yet Arafat was offered his "dream" and rejected it. The article, heavy on the official commemorations of Arafat, does not even mention the historic Camp David Summit in which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat Gaza, a Jerusalem capital, and a sizeable percentage of the West Bank. As former American President Bill Clinton said this week, Arafat made a "colossal, historical blunder" in not accepting Israel's offer. Former U.S. envoy Dennis Ross offered this explanation at the time, "Arafat could not accept Camp David... because when the conflict ends, the cause that defines Arafat also ends."
A LEGACY OF VIOLENCE
Not only did Arafat reject Barak's offer, he launched a war of terror that has since claimed the lives of thousands of Israelis and even more of his own people. Typical of Reuters' assessment:
Arafat, a former guerrilla leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize and the deep admiration of his people only to sink into renewed conflict with Israel, left a complicated legacy.
But Arafat did not passively "sink" into violence. He consciously rejected the offer of a state and chose violence. His legacy, as documented by HonestReporting here, is far from complicated. Under his "leadership" the PLO pioneered the hallmarks of modern terrorism:
- hostage taking -- The Munich Olympics set a deadly modern precedent
- airplane high-jacking -- Long before September 11, the PLO had hijacked dozens of passenger jets;
- school massacres -- The horrific massacre in Chechenya had its precedent in Israel
- suicide bombing -- Bombings in Iraq, Spain, London, Africa, Jordan and many places around the world today were first utilized by the PLO.
A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION
Meanwhile, Arafat stole hundreds of millions of dollars that were supposed to help the people he claimed to champion. The Palestinian Authority today is trying unsuccessfully to deal with the rampant corruption that he institutionalized. According to Issam Abu Issa, the former chairman of the Palestine International Bank:
Rather than use donor funds for their intended purposes, Arafat regularly diverted money to his own accounts. It is amazing that some U.S. officials still see the Palestinian Authority as a partner even after U.S. congressional records revealed authenticated PLO papers signed by Arafat in which he instructed his staff to divert donors' money to projects benefiting himself, his family, and his associates. (Middle East Quarterly)
What's so complicated about that legacy?
Comments to Reuters: editor@reuters.com
The New York Times referred to the official Palestinian commemorations in the Muqata, Arafat's headquarters, in this manner:
Israel confined Mr. Arafat to the compound for most of the last three years of his life, though he was treated at a French military hospital for two weeks before his death on Nov. 11, 2004. His funeral the next day at the Muqata was a chaotic affair attended by tens of thousands of anguished mourners.
After the Oslo Accords, Arafat was free to travel both within the disputed territories and abroad. It was only after repeated terrorist attacks, which were shown to be supported directly by Arafat, that Israel confined him to a large cluster of buildings in central Ramallah.
Comments to The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com
The Washington Post also removes personal responsibility from Arafat by noting that "Israel stopped regarding Arafat as a partner after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks broke down in late 2000 and a second Palestinian uprising erupted."
Both the breakdown in talks and the spontaneous "eruption" of violence were direct choices of Arafat. It is astonishing that the media have chosen not to point out these basic facts. As former American envoy Dennis Ross concluded, 'Arafat could not accept Camp David... because when the conflict ends, the cause that defines Arafat also ends.'
Comments to The Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Perhaps The Arab Times, hardly an unbiased source, said it best several years ago when they wrote:
He (Arafat) has destroyed Palestine. He has led it to terrorism, death and a hopeless situation... All Arab leaders know this fact. It won't be possible for us to gain from the Middle East road map for peace if this man remains in power.
MISPLACED HERO
This week, three suicide bombers blew up three hotels in Amman, Jordan, killing 57 people, including many Palestinians. Newsweek ran a story accompanied by the following picture. Look carefully at the wall behind the family in mourning. An HonestReporting subscriber wrote to us:
I can't help but notice the irony of these Palestinians mourning the deaths of their relatives caused by the Jordanian suicide bombers with a picture of the father of all suicide bombers proudly displayed on the wall behind them.
We agree. Strange that the reporter didn't find it appropriate to mention this irony.
Palestinian members of the Al-Akhras clan gather in a mourning room in the West Bank village of Silet-Al-Thaher to grieve over the loss of 17 relatives in the Amman bombing.
Comments to Newsweek: Letters@newsweek.com
It is not enough for the media to simply say that Arafat was unsuccessful in his goal of establishing a Palestinian State. Any reflection on his life that does not mention the terror that he facilitated or the corruption that characterized his rule is a gross mischaracterization of the man and his dubious legacy.
Did your local paper gloss over the anniversary of Arafat's death? Let them know of their obligation for reporting that give all the facts.
INTELLIGIBLE DESIGN
11.10.05 (11:49 am) [edit]
[i][b]by Rabbi Avi Shafran[/b][/i]
Among the unquestioned assertions that have entered public discourse through sheer force of repetition is that faith and science are utterly unrelated. It is a mantra invoked often these days, in the context of the debate over whether "Intelligent Design," a presentation of vexing problems in contemporary biological theory, has a place in the public school classroom. The essence of "Intelligent Design," as its name implies, is that there are things about nature that are not easily, if at all, explainable by resort to random forces alone.
Among such things are the emergence of life from inanimate matter; the development of reproductive capacity; and complex biological systems whose multiple components confer advantage only in tandem with one another. Noteworthy, too, are the facts that no scientist has ever succeeded in animating inanimate material, and that none has ever induced a mutation in a living organism that caused it to become a different organism - or even to demonstrate a new ability.
Although ID's proponents claim to have no… well… designs, on identifying the source of the plan they perceive in nature, they are viewed by some as theological Trojan horses, trying to sneak G-d into the study of science. To be sure, design indeed implies a Designer, and so the critics are correct about the effect of including ID in science courses. But not necessarily about its inappropriateness. Does the possibility of a guiding force, beyond randomness, in fact have no place in the endeavor to understand the universe?
One thing is certain: that wasn't the case for most of human intellectual history. The word science derives from the Latin scientia, or knowledge. And once upon a time, no essential distinction was made between what was called "natural science" and "moral science" - the latter concerning itself with teleology, human purpose and, yes, G-d. In more recent years, however, a compartmentalization has been imposed on knowledge. "Science" has come to mean the physical sciences alone, banishing areas of human thoughts about more fundamental, if ethereal, ideas to other, artificially created realms, like "philosophy" or "religion."
It is interesting to note, as does Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, that in Biblical Hebrew, of all languages, there is no word for religion. Explains the famed 19th century German rabbinic luminary: Judaism provides no separate compartment for things spiritual; the holy imbues the entire sphere of human life, indeed the entire universe itself. Is it unthinkable, even in our open-minded world, to consider Rabbi Hirsch's contention, and to consider, further, reinstating science's original meaning - the quest for knowledge of every sort? As it happens, physical science itself has been increasingly compartmentalized. "Science" has become a plethora of sciences: biology, physics, chemistry, geology, genetics and many more.
Nor are each of those categories the final splitting of the atom, as it were. Physics is no longer mere physics. It is mechanical physics and sub-atomic physics, cosmology and fluid mechanics - each a discrete discipline unto itself. We would be terribly short-sighted to prevent the consideration of one subset of science in the course of studying another. Living things, for instance, are not only entities that undergo certain stages and display certain behaviors; they are chemical factories too.
Would a teacher of biology be out of line to include elements of chemistry in the curriculum? "Ah!" the secularist crusaders exclaim. "But one can observe a biological entity or process, and perform chemical experiments! Biology and chemistry are still physical, not speculative, sciences!" Indeed they are. But what we cannot see or measure can still be entirely real. There are even contemporary sciences that are only quasi-physical. Psychology, for instance. Or pure mathematics.
Or astrophysics, which, while it deals with physical entities, largely concerns theories about realms beyond our reach. Not to mention the counterintuitive world of subatomic physics. "Okay," respond the secularists, with condescension. "But even in psychology and particle physics, observations can be made, and theories verified or disproven. G-d is not like that!" Maybe, though, He is. That is precisely what ID proponents claim - that things inexplicable by resort to randomness are in fact evident in nature.
One might even suggest something similar about history. My own study of Jewish history has led me to conclude that the evidence for the existence of G-d is every bit as convincing as the evidence for the existence of DNA. What is more, all that modern science affirms is the result of the use of our senses. We see, we hear, we measure, we think. And so, does not our innate sense that our lives are meaningful, that there is Something beyond us, deserve some consideration in a curriculum covering what we know and perceive and theorize about the universe? Is the idea really so subversive?
The Orthodox Jewish community of which I am a part has no monkey in this race; we operate our own private schools, and recognition of G-d is very much a part of what our children are taught. It is unfortunate, though, that the students in most of our nation's public schools are indoctrinated in the religion of Randomness and Meaninglessness. They, and American society as a whole, would benefit considerably were they exposed to the possibility of design, in our universe and in our lives.
I don't know if the Constitution permits or forbids it, but intellectual integrity would seem to demand it.
[i][Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.][/i]
Booms Over Gaza
11.10.05 (11:42 am) [edit]
Booms Over Gaza
Sidestepping the continuing threat of Qassam rockets flying over the Gaza border towards Israeli population centers, The Guardian reported that: Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening "sound bombs" that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children. Both The Guardian and the BBC quote Palestinian Dr Eyad Sarraj, a psychiatrist, who, in a sweeping statement lacking credible scientific or medical evidence, claims: the sonic booms are having serious effects on children in Gaza, including anxiety, panic, fear, poor concentration and low academic success. Sarraj also claims that the number of miscarriages among pregnant women increase during periods of frequent sonic booms. The Guardian states that 28 sonic booms occurred over the course of last week, in addition to 29 during a period in September - hardly a prolonged period of time in which to produce credible medical evidence to back up these claims. The anecdotal evidence of Dr Sarraj, the head of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program (an expert on obstetrics?) is used to back up the story. In fact, Dr Sarraj is no stranger to giving questionable comment to the media, attempting to explain suicide bombing as the result of the "trauma of Israeli occupation" and stating that "the principle behind [suicide bombing] is that it is better to die in dignity rather than to live in humiliation and shame". Sarraj, while blaming Israel, fails to acknowledge the role of indoctrination and incitement within the Palestinian Authority for creating a breeding ground for suicide bombers. Sonic booms, by the IDF's own admission, are a loud yet non-lethal reminder to the Palestinian population that terrorists are still operating from within their midst. Compare, however, The Guardian report with a feature in the same paper only days later on Palestinian Qassam missile attacks on Israeli towns. According to The Guardian, the missiles' "main effect is fear and uncertainty." While underestimating the potential lethality of a Qassam hitting a school, kindergarten or even a child's bedroom, The Guardian at least interviews Israelis directly affected by Qassam strikes. In stark contrast to these credible eyewitnesses, why is it that The Guardian is prepared to take Palestinian anecdotal evidence at face value? Comments to The Guardian: letters@guardian.co.uk HIJACKING PALESTINIAN HEALTH FOR POLITICAL ENDS The sonic boom claims are not, however, the first time that health issues have been hijacked to promote the Palestinian political agenda in the media. As the NGO Monitor points out, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, one of two organizations currently petitioning the Israeli High Court over the use of sonic booms, has a long history of radical anti-Israel political activities. Sonic booms are not even the first of many 'dastardly Israeli schemes' claimed to affect Palestinian health. The litany of libelous accusations to have appeared in the media, many critiqued by HonestReporting, includes these: Needless to say, all of these were comprehensively debunked, but only after various media outlets had run the stories and the damage had been done. A viewing of the 'Pallywood' movie, as featured by HonestReporting, reveals compelling evidence of how the media is manipulated and taken in by such falsehoods. The footage includes a Palestinian doctor coaching his patient into claiming that she had been forced to give birth at an IDF checkpoint as a result of Israeli soldiers detaining her ambulance. This, despite the fact that this supposed 'victim' of Israeli brutality had actually given birth not at a checkpoint, but in the hospital - the very same doctor having performed the delivery himself. Scholars for Middle East Peace documents many instances of Palestinian abuse of medical norms for political purposes, including misuse of ambulances and violation of medical neutrality, false reports of Israeli medical malfeasance, and diversion of public health funds to terrorism. So perhaps it is time that certain media outlets start to question the bedside manner of so-called Palestinian 'health officials' who act in the service of demonizing Israel and promoting false or exaggerated propaganda. THE MEDIA STRUGGLE HIGHLIGHTED IN NEW BOOK "The Other War" isn't a sterile, number crunching analysis of news headlines and journalists' political predilections. Instead, it has the refreshing feel of a documentary... Ms. Gutmann lays the blame where it mostly belongs: on moral relativist, reflexively anti-Israel journalists. Sometimes, though, the biased coverage isn't entirely their fault. Palestinians with guns, Ms. Gutmann writes, don't allow themselves to be photographed if they can help it. (Imagine the response if Israel adopted that policy). And often, the Palestinians won't haul out the guns until nighttime. During the day, when the cameras are clicking, it's all sticks and stones.
Stephanie Gutmann's new book, "The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy", is reviewed by Townhall:
Speaking recently in San Francisco, Ms. Gutmann stated:
I wanted to do a primer about media coverage and how it works. I still find people who say 'it must be true because I saw it on CNN.' If people think that's the absolute truth, there's still a place to remind them that news is manufactured by people and that people are involved in every step of the way.
"The Other War" is a valuable contribution in the battle to reveal what really goes on behind the scenes of Mideast media coverage and recommended reading on this important issue.
Deadly Toys
11.08.05 (7:40 am) [edit]
As HonestReporting has repeatedly stated, pictures are central aspects of news stories. The decision of which photograph should accompany a report is an editorial matter of tremendous importance. It can completely change the way an textual story is understood by the reader. On Saturday (Nov. 5), a Palestinian child playing with a replica of an M-16 assault rifle in Jenin was mistakenly shot and killed during a firefight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists. As Reuters described: The Israeli army said soldiers in the Jenin refugee camp came under fire from Palestinian gunmen in several locations and returned fire, hitting the boy who they said was later discovered to have been holding a toy weapon. The New York Times provides greater detail: Soldiers noticed what they thought was an armed gunman standing about 130 yards away, and opened fire, hitting the target, which turned out to be the boy, the army said. He was evacuated by the Palestinian Red Crescent, and when the Israeli soldiers "approached the spot, they found the weapon which the Palestinian was holding and discovered it to be a plastic gun," an Israeli Army statement said. Obviously, a soldier being under fire from multiple directions 130 yards away could easily mistake a plastic replica for a real gun. From the pictures above, therefore, one could easily understand how the boy could be confused for one of the gunmen. Most media outlets, such as BBC , Boston Globe and Kansas City Star, decided to accompany the story with pictures of the grieving mother or the child's body: These photos, while eliciting sympathy for the loss, fail to illustrate how this tragedy occurred. The journalists have left many questions unasked in this incident, among them: Yet, in the wake of this event, not a single reporter has written about Palestinian responsibility in protecting such children. Unfortunately, as HonestReporting has documented, this would not be the first time that children's lives have been placed in the line of fire in support of the Palestinian cause. (For more on this issue, see HR's affiliate Teach Kids Peace.) After the incident, the IDF spokesman issued the followings statement: The Israel Defence Forces regret the incident and stress again the danger which Palestinian gunmen and terrorists place the civilian Palestinian population by operating from within it against Israeli targets. Certainly the death of any child is a tragedy. Yet it is the responsibility of journalists reporting on the incident and editors selecting photographs to bring all contextual material - visual or otherwise - to accurately reflect what really happened. Did this story run in your local paper? If so, HonestReporting encourages you to write a letter to the editor, pointing out the fuller context of this matter.
