|
 |
Letters |
 |
Click here to write a letter to the editor.
Re: Rights of ISRAEL AND PALESTINIANS (01/25/08)
By Tom Carew (01/25/08)
Many Arabs and their allies continue to attack the right of Israel to construct a state (or anything else) on what they term Arab land. The verifiable historical record is as follows.
1. Re the owners, the 10,427 sq miles in question were under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 when it was taken by an Arab-Allied coalition in WW I, with Faysal'a **Arab Revolt** forces, advised by Galwayman Col Pierce Joyce, the Jewish Legion led by Irish Col John Henry Pattterson, and the 10th Irish Division, fighting alongside Australian, New Zealand and GB troops.
2. The 3 separate Ottoman districts within Palestine, which had never been united except as the historical Jewish homeland, were then united and temporarily run by the British **Occupied Enemy Territory Administraion** until the 3rd military Chief Administrator, Lt-Gen Louis Bols, handed over to the civilian High Commissioner, Liberal ex-MP Herbert Samuel, on June 20, 1920.
3. This was under the international Mandate, from [a] the April 25, 1920 San Remo Conference, [b] the Treaty of Sevres of Aug 10, 1929, and [c] confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and Palestine accordingly became international property being prepared for independence by the UK as Trustee, on behalf of the League.
4. That international mandate obliged UK to facilitate **re-constituting the Jewish national home** in the one place on earth with that enduring historical connection, Palestine.
5. That re-constitution was already well established under Ottoman Sunni Muslim rule, with the new Jewish city of Tel Aviv being built from 1909, on sand-dunes north of Jaffa, freely purchased [not stolen]. The creation of new rural settlements was started in 1878 by Jews from the ancient communities in Safed and Jerusalem, and the Kibbutz movement also from 1909.
6. The UK TUC-Labour Party Aug 1917 Joint War Aims Memorandum included restoring the Jewish national homeland, and that became UK policy on Nov 2, 1917 [Balfour Declaration]. The dynamic of Jewish regeneration was strongly co-operative, not primarily military or political, with the agricultural Kibbutz, and the Histadrut trade union confederation, which organises both Arab and Jewish workers.
7. There was no parallel Arab movement for any Palestinian homeland because they saw themselves as simply part of Greater/Southern Syria.
8. The UN 1947 Committee recommended 7-3, with the Australian Chair not voting, that Palestine be shared by both an Arab as well as by a Jewish state, and the General Assembly accepted that, by 33-11, on Nov 29, 1947.
9. The British withdrew in May, 1948, under their 11th High Commissioner, Rathmines-born Gen Alan Gordon Cunningham, but the Arabs rejected the existence of ANY Jewish state, however tiny, and launched a war of extermination on the new UN-mandated State of Israel. They lost, ending with even less land than the UN had proposed, but only Pres Sadat in Egypt and King Hussein in Jordan abandoned the failed Arab war-strategy. Hamas has its triple-aim of [a] an Islamic Republic, [b] from the River Jordan to the Med Sea, and [c] achieved by violence.
10. Due to that Arab-initiated war, 711,000 Arabs [UN estimate] fled, but as many Jewish refugees [from the Arab world and Iran] were absorbed by the new Israel. Exactly what had happened in 1947 when 7.5m Muslims from India were absorbed by Pakistan, and 7.5m Hindus, Christians and Sikhs were absorbed by India. No **right of return** there, and Pres Musharraf himself is Delhi-born.
11. Israel integrated all her 800,000 refugees, but the oil-rich Arab despots have cynically and cruelly left their refugees in camps, as useful human propaganda fodder.
12. Israel alone contains more Arabs, 1.4m, all full citizens, in her liberal democracy, than the whole of Palestine had in 1947. And the central obstacle to regional peace and collaboration is, as since 1947, the enduring Arab refusal to accept their neighbour - Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2002 but Hezb-Allah still attack across the undisputed international frontier, and rockets rain from Hamas-run Gaza on Israeli civilians, in spite of the complete Israeli withdrawl in Aug, 2005.
Yours, etc,
Tom Carew,
Ranelagh,
Dublin, 6,
Ireland.
Re: Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous (11/12/07)
By Seraphim Larsen (11/12/07)
While JB Williams claims to be "presenting the facts", a few minutes of digging shows just how much he is abusing them.
"No nonsense" commentator indeed! I suppose that's why Williams mentioned Microsoft and Verizon as contributors to the Ron Paul campaign, but neglected to state that members of the US Army and the US Navy contributed more than either Microsoft or Verizon! And members of the US Air Force contributed more than Verizon!
Facts indeed! Williams spins the fact that individual employees of Google contributed 0.003% of Paul's Q4 donations, into a claim that Google board member Al Gore has some kind of influence on the campaign!
Liberals indeed! I have been a registered Republican for nearly all my adult life, yet I support Ron Paul. Whatever happened to Conservative support for the Constitution? for limited government? for limited taxation? for balanced budgets? for non-intervention?
Dangerous indeed! So dangerous that Williams can't allow himself to present the actual facts!
Williams should be ashamed!
Seraphim Larsen
Re: Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous (11/12/07)
By David Durbin (11/12/07)
This was quite a good article by JB Williams.
I keep looking for the press to "flesh out the dirt" on Ron Paul and they have been totally unable to find even a "paid" parking ticket, let alone an unpaid one. The accusations of internet shenanigans by the Ron Paul campaign were quickly tied directly back to a Giuliani black-flag propaganda campaign. (I have the article, if you are in need of it) All this only reinforces my desire to vote for Ron Paul!
If Democrat voters are becoming as disenfranchised with their own party as the Republican voters are with theirs, and consider switching to Republican, then Ron Paul has a decent chance of winning in the general elections and the Republican Party has Ron Paul's coattails to help other candidates. After all, every political party wants an "electable" candidate, don't they?
By pointing out how Bush "spends like a Democrat" and "invades like a Caesar", while seeing that Hillary-clone, New York Politician, Giuliani is the top "conservative" candidate, your author's definition of an American "conservative" is a bit of a spaced-out, wacko newspeak!
The only thing dangerous in America is "leftist" writers like yours who are deceptively trying to prevent a REAL CONSERVATIVE from being elected, so that communists like Hillary can win.
Be honest with America: There is nothing that either an ordinary Democrat or an ordinary Republican has to fear in a man of integrity that faithfully follows the Constitution, which ALL politicians, including Bush and Giuliani, take an oath to protect and defend, but none ever do.
Which brings up the real SELFISH concern on your part. If men of integrity like Ron Paul take office, then men like yourselves and political party machinery hacks cannot run this country into the ground anymore.
And THAT you cannot allow!
Best Regards,
David Durbin
Americandaily - and Bruce Walker's propaganda (10/25/07)
By Barbara Sibold (10/25/07)
American Fascism Awareness Day - By Bruce Walker on Oct 16, 07
Admittedly I was interested who picks up on David Horowitz obvious FrontPage hoax and spreads it a little further on the net. These things are easy to see in our times.
Best wishes to Bruce Walker. Doesn't he think that the article should have been slightly updated from the crude language of the seventies to better fit into the new century?
I find it pretty interesting that he does not tell his readers the date of tthis invented counteraction is 31st of Nov! It could have given his readers an idea what the story is about. At least the ones that are not as easily tricked.
Very strange to watch US media. It may be fashionable nowadays to trick people that the Nazis were lefties. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But truth doesn't seem to be what your paper is dealing with. Propaganda may be a better word for that.
Barbara Sibold
Cologne
Germany
Re: Non-Christian Obama Kisses Up To Bible Believers (10/11/07)
By Stephen Combs (10/11/07)
Dear Mr. Swank,
I appreciate your comments regarding the visit of Senator Obama to RWOC. Unfortunately, you assume many facts not in evidence.
1) Senator Obama did not speak from the pulpit but was instead allowed to briefly say a word of hello from his seat.
2) The applaud for Senator Obama was one of respect for the office he holds not for the comments he supposedly made while in the pulpit.
3) RWOC was not founded by IPHC nor is it a member body of that organization. While Ron Carpenter Jr. did attend college at Emmanuel, a IPHC-sponsored school, the church is not affiliated with the organization.
4) RWOC never extended an invitation to Senator Obama. Instead, his office contacted church staff to advise them of the Senators intent. As a courtesy to the elected official, the church obliged.
5) While you may hold a M.Div., it certainly does not entitle you to assume the position of authority on the mind of God concerning the actions of His people and the judgment they will face.
It saddens me that those in the body of Christ continue to throw stones at others within the same body. GOD GRIEVES! Maybe if you were actually present in the service and not merely relying upon second-hand AP information, you would have your facts straight. If you want to know the heart of a great Pastor, you might take the time to get to know Pastor Ron. From the humble beginnings of a 16-member church to one with now over 12,000, Pastor Ron has consistently preached the kingdom and the infallible Word of God. If you actually had your facts in order instead of playing Monday morning quarterback, you might see the 50-75 people getting saved every Sunday, or the countless number of people touched by the ministry of RWOC. It might surprise you to know that the church has literally changed the spiritual and racially-charged climate that previously existed in South Carolinas Upstate. Take some time to discover the multitude of drug addicts, prostitutes, ex-convicts, and destitute to whom RWOC has provided life-changing support and ministry. Redemption WORLD Outreach Center is doing just that, reaching out to a WORLD that is hurting and in need; never compromising the Word of God. I suspect the impact of RWOC on the lives of the lost is far greater than your stone-throwing column written for a small segment of the Christian community. While Im sure your article was well intentioned, it was heavily flawed. Get your facts straight rather, simply GET THE FACTS!
Consumed by His Call,
Stephen Combs
Member, Redemption World Outreach Center
Re: "Mustafa Ali to Blame, not Islam" by Dave Gibson (10/08/07)
By Justin L. Peyton (10/08/07)
Yes, Mustafa Ali is a Muslim and had a long criminal history. To conclude, however, Alis recent horrendous criminal activity was caused by religious identity is as despicable a stereotype as concluding his criminal activity was caused by racial identity. Unfortunately, there are within all groups of people, individuals who do not respect the rule of law and are willing to debase human life in pursuit of their personal goals.
Mr. Gibson suggests that Islam is to blame for Alis criminal activity without providing any evidence that Ali was motivated by religious ideology. In fact, Mr. Gibson notes in his article that Mustafa Ali "never said a word throughout the ordeal." Without any verbal indication during the commission of the crime or during his subsequent confession that his actions were motivated by religious ideology, on what basis does Mr. Gibson presume to know Mustafa Alis internal motivations?
Nor did Mr. Gibson offer any evidence to back his assertion that Mustafa Ali was indoctrinated with the same type of radical ideology found in Chauncey Baileys case. Mr. Gibson simply makes this assumption because Mustafa Ali is Muslim and previously served time in prison. At the same time, he completely ignores the motivation that drives many potential bank robbers: economic hardship.
Finally, if we were to accept Mr. Gibsons flimsy assertion that the presence of a few obnoxious strains of Islam brewing in Americas prisons, and the actions inspired in their misguided followers, invalidate the entire religion of Islam, then we would have to similarly invalidate Christianity, based on the actions of groups like the Aryan Nation, which hijack Christianity and use it as the base of their foul beliefs. Truthfully, both types of ideologies should be seen as fringe movements, rather than mainstream beliefs.
Justin L. Peyton
Director of Civil Rights
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Pennsylvania Chapter
Re: Palesrtnian Refugees. (10/07/07)
By Tom Carew (10/07/07)
Dear Sir,
The UK Protestant leader, Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, had recent wide-ranging contacts in Lebanon, Syria and Armenia, with not only official figures, but also visited refugee camps. That there are Arab refugees languishing in camps since 1948 is absolutely appalling, but the responsibility for this sad state of affairs is seldom mentioned.
In 1947, when UK granted independence to India and Pakistan, nearly 11 times as many Muslims were displaced, some 7.5m, who moved from India to Pakistan, while some 711,000 Arabs [UN estimate] left Israel. And an equal number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction - exactly as happened with Jewish refugees fleeing Arab lands and Iran to Israel. No mention ever of any **right of return** for those Muslims to India, or for nearly 1m Jews displaced from the Arab world and Iran from 1947.
The 12th Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf, was born in India [in Delhi in 1943], while the first Sikh to become India's 14th PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh, was born in Pakistan [in the Punjab in 1932]. The 15m displaced persons on the Indian sub-continent were not cynically and callously left to rot in camps, not were the Jewish refugees who came to Israel from 1947.
In addition to those who fled to Israel, many more Jews fled elsewhere, such as to US, and in 1962 to France from Algeria.
Nearly 1m Jews in Arab world and Iran in 1947 are now reduced to 1% of that level, but Israel alone has MORE Arabs than those in the WHOLE of British-administerd Palestine in 1947 [ 1.4m against 1.2m] .
Very relevant facts, forgotten often, and, for whatever reasons, also little used even by Israeli official spokespersons, but essential to have any perspective on this situation.
The unique creation of UNRWA, a UN agency dedicated solely to the Palestinian Arabs, may ultimately have hindered, not facilitated, their re-integration into society. The 15m refugees on the Indian sub-continent enjoyed no such dedicated agency.
And Muslim oil revenues would be more than sufficient to integrate all Palestinian Arabs into their host societies, and/or into Gaza and the West Bank. This ongoing scandal surely deserves urgent but informed attention.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Carew
Dublin City,
Ireland
Gibson Article About US Postal Service on 9/30/2007. (10/06/07)
By TJ (10/06/07)
Dear Editor,
You may want to check out the facts of your writers articles before they go to print. It seems as though Mr. Dave Gibson has been incorrectly informed about the goings on a the United States Post Office. First I noticed that Mr. Gibson makes this point, "For 31 years, the taxpayers were forced to provide financial support beyond the funds which Congress budgeted" and this one, "The Postal service estimates their letter handling operations to be worth $45 million a year. While that figure is impressive, it is completely negated when you consider the fact that the U.S. taxpayers are forced to provide the USPS with $100 million a year." I'm sure that Mr. Gibson included this in his article entitled The Time Has Come To Close The Post Office to encite the general public. Because any research into the Postal Service would show that we are not supported by tax dollars. When is the last time you or anyone else went to their local Post Office and paid tax on a stamp or mailing service? Furthermore, statements like this one, "It was also discovered that the Postal service was paying $1,750 bonuses to any employee who took an online "morale-boosting" test." I'd like to know more about this. As a Postal Service employee I was never allowed or offered to take this online "morale-boosting" test, nor recieve the $1,750 bonus attached to it.
I think more time should be spent looking into the top heaviness that the Postal Service has and why it is that you need 4 supervisors to manage 10 employees? Then ask this question.....Why is the post office trying to "get rid" of hard working employees who have been injured on the job.????
Thanks
Terry J.
Dave Gibson Article About US Postal Service on 9/30/2007. (10/01/07)
By Michael Wilson (10/01/07)
I thought you had to do a little "leg work" to be a good reporter. I did not know that you could make blatantly incorrect statements such as Dave Gibson did on his article concerning the US Postal Service on 9/30/2007. For Mr. Gibson to even hint that tax payers have bailed out the the postal service would be completely inaccurate and false. The USPS has not received any money from our government since the early 1970's. He stated that taxpayers are giving the USPS 100 million dollars a year. I believe the Editor needs to check these facts and Mr. Gibson needs to make a retraction (and maybe a few apologies to the local postal employees!).
The USPS is the most efficient and most inexpensive postal service in the entire WORLD. We fund all our expenses from selling stamps and other philatelic items. Mr. Gibson also fails to state that if the competition of delivering mail were opened up to private sector companies it would be the end of universal delivery as we know it. The USPS makes money in large cities but loses money in rural areas. No company in there right minds would spend the needed amount of money to acquire the necessary equipment it would take to deliver to all of the US's rural areas. The logistics of the operation is just to expensive. Mr. Gibson is accurate on a few of his statements but fails to have knowlegde of the "big picture" of the business of the USPS. Next time do a little "leg work" before making yourself look so foolish!
Michael Wilson
Postmaster
Kerrville, TX 78028
Regarding Bush gets Savage with the Veto Pen (06/22/07)
By Barry Ohman (06/22/07)
George Walker Bush will go down in American history as the most incompetent president to have ever served in the White House. Religion and Politics do not go together but the 60 million religious right in the United States feel that they should control the majority. Well the days of George Walker Bush and the Religious Right will be over in another 18 months.
Garbage that comes from online papers like the American Daily is nothing more than propaganda backing the liars in the Bush Administration trying to convince the readers what a fine bunch they are. George Walker Bush claiming to be a devout born again Christian is like Hitler saying he was sorry for killing six million Jews. A Christian doesn't start a war based on lies, they don't hold people in military prisons indefinitely without charging them, he sent 3500 plus young American soldiers to their deaths as well and has never went to one funeral of any of the 3500 who have died for the sake of the Devil's spawn George Walker Bush. George Walker Bush's soul now belongs to Satan as well as those that back the War Monger as you may not pass through the Eye of the Needle with a fully laden camel meaning you can't go to Heaven with the sins of this earth on your back.
Barry Ohman
RE: AB 755 (06/04/07)
By Jordan Riak (06/04/07)
Dear Editor:
AB 755, which would have given California children partial protection against assault and battery -- a protection that all other citizens take for granted -- is no more. California State Assemblywoman Sally Lieber's courageous, forward-looking bill has been bullied into oblivion.
How did that happen?
The bill's opponents declined to evaluate it on its merits. They ducked every opportunity to engage in a debate based on the facts. They seemed indifferent to, or willfully ignorant of, the ethical considerations that arise when an inferior class of citizen is afforded less-than-equal protection of the law. They ignored the findings of science. And they refused to examine how reforms similar to AB 755 have functioned over time elsewhere in the developed world. Instead, they regurgitated the time-honored, unctuous bromides about the sanctity of the family, and about the need for government to keep its nose out of people's private lives -- exactly the same arguments that, until recently, gave spouse batterers near-total immunity. They mounted a clever propapaganda campaign that wildly exaggerated the bills presumed punitive intentions, e.g.,"to turn loving parents into criminals," and by minimizing the abusive behaviors it was intended to curb, e.g., "giving a naughty child a gentle tap on the bottom to get his attention."
It worked.
In rejecting a measure that would have protected many children from mistreatment, injury and, in some cases, death, this legislature set a new low standard in the annals of state government for cowardly abrogation of moral responsibility. While pretending to protect "The Family," it turned its back on the children. It declined to extend the most basic of human rights -- the right to be safe from assault and battery -- to the state's most vulnerable citizens.
Jordan Riak, Exec. Dir.
Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education
"Project NoSpank" at www.nospank.net
My response to a fund raising letter from the DCC Committee (05/12/07)
By Warren Ogren (05/12/07)
Sorry, (And I am truly sorry, as I have supported the Democratic Party most my life.)
I cannot continue to support a party that has turned traitorous to a point where it puts its priorities on pandering to both the illegal Latino vote, and greedy corporate America that promotes the invasion of slave labor into my nation for its bottom line profits at the expense of the middle class of this country.
If you manage to push through the obscene agenda of amnesty for up to twenty million, stealth army, criminal illegal Mexicans, BELIEVE THIS, the Democratic Party (and also the rotten to the core Republican Party) will be responsible for the second civil war in this country that will, with the atomic weapons available today, make the first look like kids out playing cops and robbers. We are now on a slippery slope into that war, and the end result will be world chaos. IS IT WORTH IT?
My four brothers and I volunteered for service in the last just war, (I served in the China - India âBurma theatre as an OSS agent.) so it makes me sick at heart to see the greed and treasonous actions taking place in this government today.
AMNESTY FOR THE STEALTH INVADING ARMY OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, (WHICH HAS, AS ITS AVOWED AGENDA, THE TAKEOVER OF THIS NATION) IS PURE INSANITY!
WAKE UP PROUD AMERICANS, BEFORE THERE NO LONGER IS AN AMERICA TO BE PROUD OF!
Warren Ogren
About "Catholics, Witches and New Age" (05/05/07)
By Oscar Ayala A. (05/05/07)
It is a public shame to real the article "Catholics, Witches and New Age", published in your diary on May 2.
This is a phamphlet full of ignorance and it denies the existence and validity of so many different ways to perceive and live the world and the Divine. The author obviously neglects the fact the "holy" Bible itself is merely a human book, cutted and pasted according to human interpretation and interest; also the everyone knows today that myth of Christ itself was clearly taken from eastern traditions, and so on.
I advice Mr. J Grant Swank Jr. to revise his views or at least what he preaches comdemning others, citing notions and systems that clearly, he ignores. He must remember that when each of us points one finger to condemn others, there are four others pointing to us. His condemning language is full of division, anger and criticism, that doesn't do any good nowdays, and of course, that was not what Jesus Christ came to teach.
Regards,
Oscar Ayala A.
Cali, Colombia
Regarding Aaron Goldstein's rather bizzarre... (04/07/07)
By Paul B (04/07/07)
Regarding Aaron Goldstein's rather bizzarre and slightly(!) devious attempt to link Rosie O'Donnell to holocaust denial. She hasn't actually said anything about the holocaust that I'm aware of, and neither has anyone else of substance in this debate.
Please save us the semantic games and word association psyops, because frankly its all becoming a little too obvious. I'm sorry Aaron finds the holocaust to be such a convenience that he would play such vulgar games with its memory. I'm sorry that your editorial staff were happy to let him do so.
Paul B
Australia
Re: Mea Culpa by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III Esq. (03/30/07)
By David Pittelli (03/30/07)
Dear Mr. Del Gallo,
A number of points, starting with the trivial:
1) The difference between my calculated 6.97 and your calculated 6.83 is
merely the result of rounding errors in your calculation. So we can ignore
that.
2) The 30% national dropout rate figure (your âASSUMPTION 2â) is
irrelevant to the question at hand (i.e., to what extent the fatherless
have a higher dropout rate than do children living with a father). Your
calculations will give exactly the same differential with different
national dropout rate figures, for any number between 0% and about 37%.
(Your calculations are easier to explain, but actually more complex, with
more variables, not simpler.)
3) In addition to the three Assumptions that your three pieces of data are
accurate, you are also assuming that each piece of data measures something
identical to that factor you need to perform your calculations. As I will
demonstrate in the rest of this letter, this is not the case.
4) You state âASSUMPTION 1: 26% of children comes from fatherless homes.
Source: divorcemag.com.â First, that source has 27% as the sum of the
âmother onlyâ and âno parentâ figures, not 26%.
5) More importantly, with ASSUMPTION 1, you are falsely assuming that
their sample represents the same universe of children as does your sample.
But their universe is of all children aged 0-17, while your universe of
relevant children is clustered around the age of 17 (e.g., 16, 17, 18).
6) I have not seen any statistics on fatherless rates for children at
different ages, but it is evident that they are not fixed over time. Let
us imagine that, at birth, 10% of children are fatherless. And that over
the next 18 years, breakups, divorce and death bring the fatherless rate
of 17-year-olds to 50%. Given that the group of all children under age 18
contains approximately equal numbers of children at each age,
fatherlessness is in a simple, approximately linear relationship with
childrenâs age, and the reported statistics in this case will show that
the fatherless rate of all children is about 30% (the average of 10% and
50%).
7) Of course, infants, 7-year-olds, and even 12-year-olds essentially
never drop out of school. Most dropouts are 16 or 17, or even 18. So if we
look at an average age of a dropout as 17, and 50% of 17-year-olds are
fatherless, then we would expect (in the absence of a fatherlessness
effect) that 50% of dropouts would be from fatherless homes, not 26% or
30% or anything like that.
7B) Perhaps 50% is too high (or too low), but the 26% figure is certainly
way too low. And 50% is not implausible, considering that some kids are
fatherless from birth, and according to
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
Percentage of married people who reach their 5th, 10th, and 15th
anniversaries:
5th: 82%
10th: 65%
15th: 52%
8) I do not know the methodology of the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, but I would expect that a boy who became fatherless at
age 16 or 17, and then dropped out at 17, would be counted as an example
of a dropout from a fatherless family, not as a dropout from an intact
family. So comparing apples to apples (or 17-year-old dropouts to the
universe of 17-year-olds), we would expect, in the universe of children
who might drop out, a baseline of about 50% -- not 26% -- to be from
fatherless homes.
9) Admittedly, 50% is less than the 71% apparently reported by the
National Association of Secondary School Principals, but only so much less
as to imply a fatherlessness effect of 2.45-fold, as I have previously
shown, not 7- or 9-fold.
10) That brings us to other factors making the 26% (or 27%) quoted average
fatherless rate not comparable to the fatherless rate expected among high
school dropouts, if fatherlessness itself has no effect.
11) The basic point of your initial letter was that fatherlessness swamps
race and class in terms of its connection with dropping out of school.
While I am prepared to believe that fatherhood may be as important, or
even somewhat more important, than race or class, one would have to do a
multivariate analysis to show that.
12) Further, there are deeper, philosophical questions to ask about how
one should do such an analysis, most having to do with oneâs assumptions
about first causes, free will, and what one means by âall else being
equal.â
13) I agree that, as some other fathersâ rights writers (such as Daniel
Amneus) have pointed out, it is erroneous to use multivariate analysis to
factor out things like a childâs current income, or the poverty rate of
dropouts versus graduates, if there is some chance that the poverty itself
is caused by the fatherlessness. This is unquestionably the case, and
indeed poverty is, to Amneus, much of the mechanism by which
fatherlessness hurts children. So on this, he is right.
14) But one can still consider those socioeconomic factors which predated
parental breakup, such as parental education and income prior to that
point. If low-educated and low-income parents are more likely to have
children out of wedlock (as they are) and are more likely to break up and
divorce (as they are), and low-income and low-educated parents have
children who are more likely to drop out of high school even if these
parents stay together (as they are), then we have a situation where the
baseline percent weâd expect among dropouts isnât 50%, as tentatively
expressed in #7 and #8 above, but rather higher.
15) As I wrote to you, âif within the socioeconomic classes for which
dropping out of high school is at all likely, the fatherless rate of
children aged 16-17 is 65%, then the fatherless are âonlyâ 1.32 times as
likely to drop out as are those living with a father.â
16) For that matter, if within the socioeconomic classes for which
dropping out of high school is at all likely, the fatherless rate of
children aged 16-17 is 71%, then the fatherless are no more likely to drop
out than are those living with a father.
17) As it happens, I do not expect it is the case that fatherlessness has
absolutely no effect on dropout rates, but such a situation fits the sum
of available data as well as does your claimed 7-fold or 9-fold
difference.
David Pittelli
Re: Personal Responsibility and Pride in Service (02/22/07)
By Jana Crowder (02/22/07)
I really enjoyed your website, but am mad at the fact that as an editor, you allow such yellow journalism on this site. I understand everyone has a right to an opinion, but distorting ones words to mean something else to benefit this Aurthers agenda is just wrong?
Here is a link to the Boston Globe below on which Renee Taylor talks about in her OPINION and she is way off base. It's the American contractors who are not getting the help. She states that I said Truckers get no support, which I didn't and feel that if you would of read her so called supported Resources you would see how this is so twisted. You must realize that her husband was a truck driver in Iraq, who is not getting the attention for helping write a song for some trucking singer, named Joey Holiday, so it seems to me that she is using my website and my name to gain media attention for herself. Proof, type in "American Contractors, or Contractors in Iraq" You can visit my website and read what I've been doing and then decided what her agenda is. Is this her OPINION or is it Yellow Journalism to get her noticed?
Also remember that when a contractors goes into Iraq the rules change and so there her sources do not come into play....KBR statements states that Truck Drivers won't drive at night, but FACT is that Truck Drivers do drive at night, KBR has changed their so called statement when ever they feel they can. I have hard copies of several different KBR Statements concerning driving in Iraq and to which all are different. If you need facts, then let me know. I would be glad to send you the information.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/10/16/us_contractors_in_iraq_face_peril_neglect/
Here is Renee website, www.uglypuppy.net
This is not a Truckers WAR, ask Sam Walker who was injured in Musul when a Human Bomber walked in and exploded himself in a military base lunch room, or Jack H. Who was an engineer who was video taped being Beheaded in Iraq.
Really now, all I request is that the word "Trucker" be switch to Contractors. I don't mind the story, let just get it right.
Jana Crowder- www.americancontractorsiniraq.com
Regarding the "Soldiers Response To Media's Lies on Iraq" (02/01/07)
By Tom Brown (02/01/07)
Although I support the troops wherever they are ordered to go, I don't buy into this "more troops" mantra for one second. Unless we've done a rotten job of training our troops, we need to take the politically correct, U.N. gloves off and let those that are there, get down to brass tax with the intention of clearing out Iraq of terrorists while training the Iraqis, then bring them home. After all, once that's done, who would benefit from us staying there any longer?
The 20,000 troops Bush wants to send could be used more effectively HERE AT HOME on our borders. It is not now, never was, and never should be, our job to "spread democracy" all over the globe. Someone ought to teach these soldiers the history of democracy so they can see that what they believe they're fighting for is a bad thing. The country they are from is not a democracy (although the powers that be have made significant progress toward turning it into one) and someone should clue them in on that little secret. Our job is to maintain a peaceful republic that promotes FAIR trade, not FREE trade, looks after its own here at home, lives by the supreme law of the land, and stays out of foreign affairs.
If our soldiers truly believe in fighting for our safety, then they should get out of the military and bring their expertise home to civilians who are MORE THAN WILLING to stand on our borders and defend this country. George Washington warned us of foreign entanglements but liberals have done a pretty good job of keeping that belief out of the minds of our children and soldiers.
Our soldiers, and those willing to join the military, need to understand how grave our situation is here at home. Their instincts for patriotism are commendable, so letâs educate them on what defending America really means. They don't need to be in the military overseas to protect America, that belief has done nothing but turn the world against us over the last century. Do they know we're still at war with Vietnam and Korea? That we're just in "cease fire" mode? Why would they suppose that is?
We should let them know they can bypass Uncle Sam and stay here with their families, raise their kids, educate them and protect their country all at the same time. Our government doesn't need them to spread "democracy", they have enough U.N. troops now to do that. Let every regions soldiers spread "democracy" so if and when America needs to defend its REPUBLIC at home (gee, what a concept), it can.
The Sunni's she speaks of are such a glaring example of what needs to be done here. Their men are protecting their families and way of life THERE AT HOME, not half way around the world. "But no ones' attacking America", one could say. Not violently. Not yet. But when our military is spread out enough all over the globe, don't they think the opportunity will present itself? There would be plenty of takers in that endeavor, once we're an unarmed society, as per U.N. dictates, and our military is no where to be found because they're spreading "Democracy" like a cancer. Then we'll have foreign troops, who would like nothing better than the opportunity to be aggressive on American soil, protecting the wives and children of our SOLDIERS OVERSEAS. Does something seem rather odd about that? A tad more personal then having the Chinese make our army boots don't ya think?
Since our troops are in close with the civilians in Iraq, they should be asking why the Middle East hates America so much. And then ask themselves if those hate causing actions represent the hearts of the American people, it's government, or both. Therein lies their true education. American soldiers around the world should be asking locals that question. They might learn something other than what our government spoon feeds them. Then they should be asking what a republic is, as I'm sure they're not familiar with that concept, and why their country IS that and not a "democracy". Soldiers are taught to follow orders, not think for themselves, so in a word, our soldiers need KNOWLEDGE to become the true defenders of their country that they wish to be.
I know this sounds like a condemnation of American soldiers overseas, but that is not my intention. I respect and admire their courage enough to disdain their misuse by unscrupulous, power hungry, "Global minded" idiots. My father flew in WWII and retired a Lt. Col. from the military. Then he spent the rest of his life finding out just what he was promoting and fighting for, then teaching to anyone who would listen. In the end, I don't think he believed it was his country and its freedom he was put there to defend. He certainly knew it shouldn't have been democracy. Would he have joined today's military? Not a snowballs chance in hell.
If American soldiers knew what so many of us here at home OUTSIDE of the military know, I believe most of them would stay away from service and find ways to be involved in the ACTUAL PROTECTION of their American Republic, and not pursue the defense of U.N. "democracy". They are our neighbors, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives. Why on earth would we want them anywhere else but HERE? Can you imagine how they would feel if stationed overseas and having to hear about ANOTHER, more devastating attack on their home soil, while they're off getting shot at for "democracy"? I know how I would feel, and SERVING my government, vs. my country, would be the LAST thing on my mind.
I know being an American soldier is a way of life, but they need to be mindful of just who that way of life benefits. A thorough understanding of our foreign policy throughout the 20th century, vs. the foreign policy of our founding fathers, ought to be sufficient. But most of all, they should understand that there are MILLIONS of us at home who are trying our best to look out for THEM, and bring them home, where they belong, before we don't need them anymore.
God bless our troops!
Re: Out with the New In with the Raw (01/01/07)
By Gerry Wade (01/01/07)
While I agree that the corporations and both political parties are
selling out the American people with their encouragement of illegal
immigration, I believe that their motives are quite different. It goes
well beyond employment. For President Bush, it is cheap labor, his
support for a single united North America (http://www.spp.gov/) and his
love fest with Mexico. Why would a president tell Homeland Security to
create a separate "OTM"..Other Than Mexican..category for illegal
aliens? For the Democrats, the answer is more obvious. They care mostly
about legalizing these millions (i.e. at least 30-35 million, not 12) of
illegals for votes. It has been shown that the overwhelming majority of
illegal aliens would support the Democratic party leading to their
continued empowerment. There are millions of anchor babies born to
illegal alien women who are stealing citizenship and benefits. These are
hardly "Guest workers" coming to work. Flooding our schools and
hospitals with illegal alien children is not part of a "temporary worker
program".
For the Republicans, their support for "earned legalization" is just
outright political suicide. But our current President is so delusional
that he somehow believes his gratitude will make these masses vote for
Republicans despite the obvious.
Most of all, the media has been the most serious accomplice in
promoting falsehoods about the value of this third world influx into the US with
all its associated problems-- the clash of cultures, the loss of our
language, the abandonment of our national sovereignty not to mention the
tremendous drain on our social services and the exponential growth of
crime, disease and deaths caused by illegal alien drunk drivers. It's
time for the big media to broadcast and print the truth instead of
pushing their own agenda.
Gerry Wade
REBUTTLE TO: Christian Yoga? C-mon! (12/24/06)
By Gurumeet Kaur Khalsa (12/24/06)
Dear Marsha West,
Thank you for posting your article, âChristian Yoga? Câmon!â on The American Daily. I was intrigued by your comments because yoga and Christianity is one of my favorite topics. I have taught yoga for 35 years to hundreds of Christians. You have made some inquiry into yogic teachings and Hindu traditions in India, so I am curious about what you think of many peoplesâ claim in India that during the âmissing yearsâ (unaccounted for in Jesusâ life in the bible) that Jesus went to India. There are meditations that we teach in yoga, which are attributed to Jesus, which are for forgiveness and healing. When Jesus said (Matthew 6:22), âTherefore let thine eye be single and your whole body will be filled with light,â it is highly reminiscent of yogic technology. Yoga teaches students to focus at the third eye or the inner eye, which is considered the consciousness of intuition and fills our being with the light of understanding when we meditate at that point. It is written that Jesus wore white, not a common practice at that time, which is also a yogic technology that magnifies the aura or electromagnetic field because it reflects the light.
You did not mention that the goal of yoga is âunionâ and the experience of the interdependence of the creation and the entire universe. This idea may not fit well with the claim that yoga belongs only to the Hindus, if its goal is unity. As yoga teachers, we welcome and teach students of every religion and encourage people to worship as they choose. In fact, yoga teachers themselves represent people of all religions. Yoga is known for helping people to embrace and enhance their experience of their religion, whatever it may be. The claim that yoga is the sole domain of Hindus is not born out historically or geographically, since yogic practices have been found in many ancient cultures and, even in India, yoga is practiced by people of hundreds of different religious sects. In fact, Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras, was a follower of the Sankhya philosophy. The Sankhya doctrine was not incorporated into any religion. It never obtained wide acceptability among Hindu philosophers. Guru Nanak, 1469-1539, the founder of the Sikh religion had many dynamic discourses that have been recorded with the yogis, and he admonished them for refusing to share the technology of yoga with the masses, when people could be healed through yoga and experience its many other benefits. That is why my yoga teacher, Yogi Bhajan, 1929-2004, who was raised in a Catholic school by Nuns (http://www.3ho.org/YogiBhajan.html) and was not Hindu, came to teach the masses in America. He believed that the technology should be shared openly with all people. He said those who practice yoga cannot be deceived or controlled and that keeping the technology secret was a power play. He said yoga is not a religion, although it does give us the experience and consciousness that our bodies are sacred temples. Letâs see, where have we heard that before? Oh yes, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? âŠTherefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
Yogi Bhajan also said the following about the popularity and growth of yoga: âBy the year 2013 the world population will be seven billion. The change in technology, psychology, and sociology will be huge. The chaos of information in the computer age will make it difficult for people to cope with their day-to-day lives. The body, mind, and spirit will have to be organized to meet these natural human phenomena. Every human, no matter to which religion they belong, will face a reality in the future where they will need a strong, healthy nervous system. They will need mental clarity and the back-up of spiritual strength to face this coming world. We can say with confidence, the only way to do this is through yogic techniques by which body, mind, and spirit can be enhanced. To sustain themselves, tomorrowâs individual must have yogic training. It is a need of the times. By 2013, forty to sixty percent of the population will be practicing yoga. People will see that those who practice yoga are bright and beautiful, calm and blissful. They will recognize that the yogic community is sincere and dependable, serving and giving. Yoga, with its every system is gong to prevail. We clearly see this trend, and it will lead to the end of human insanity and the prevalence of yogic glory. Yoga is the science for all humanity. It is the custodian of human grace and radiance. It holds a great future for every human being. It brings mental caliber for purpose and prosperity of life. The future of yoga is bright, bountiful, and blissful.â
The history of yoga in America has been filled with claims that it represents everything from the devil worship to sexual perversion to black magic and mind control and more. Today, the latest statistics say that 20 million people across America are practicing yoga and they have found all of these claims to be false, many of them being very devout, practicing Christians.
It looks like yoga is here to stay for awhile.
God bless you. Sat Nam (Truth is Godâs Name).
Gurumeet Kaur Khalsa
Minister of Divinity of Sikh Dharma and Kundalini Yoga Teacher
Re: "Realpolitik: An Interview with John O'Sullivan" (12/20/06)
By Graydon Wilson (12/20/06)
John O'Sullivan demonstrates a level of understanding of Ireland and Britain's involvement there generally comparable to the understanding that might be expected from a junior high school child in Bulgaria as regards the American War Between the States.
When it is remembered that he was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, her conduct becomes somewhat more understandable, just as learning that the mechanic had loosened the brake lines helps to explain a drunk driver's precipitous plunge over a cliff.
Mr. O'Sullivan certainly is entitled to his own opinions. It would be helpful, however, if they were formed on the basis of actual facts and not uninformed suppositions. It is precisely that manner of approach to decision-making that has resulted in the quagmire in which America finds itself in Iraq.
That the interviewer, Bernard Chapin, regards Mr. Sullivan as "one of the most famous political commentators alive" tells legions about Mr. Chapin himself.
Graydon Wilson
|
|
|
|
|
