Notes for Nov. 2 Elections
"I do think there is a high probability right now that Republicans take control of the House." U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., Oct. 27, 2010
"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Will Rogers, Humorist, Democrat
"The magnitude of the catastrophe facing the Democratic Party in the fall elections is only gradually becoming clear to the leaders of both parties. "The Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House. They will lose more House seats in 2010 than the 54 they lost in 1994 and they will lose the Senate, possibly with some seats to spare. In state after state, the races that were once marginal are now solidly Republican, those that were possible takeaways are now likely GOP wins and the impossible seats are now fully in play." Former Clinton pollster/advisor, Dick Morris, Sep. 8, 2010
I plan on voting on Tues. Nov. 2 to help make history, to rescue my adopted nation from radical egalitarians and to hopefully rebuild this country for posterity.
Oct 29, 2010
Sep 8, 2010
Direct quotes from the Koran
Direct quotes from the Koran in relation to September 11: possible justification used by Islamic militants for 9/11 and other acts of terror
"O thou Prophet! strive strenuously against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them; for their resort is hell, and an ill journey shall it be" Sura 9:73
"But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, Allah is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5
"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast bonds... and those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray, He will guide them... and admit them to Paradise..." Sura 47:4-6
"There is no compulsion in religion; the right has been distinquished from the wrong, and whoso disbelieves in false deities and believes in Allah, he has got hold of the firm handle in which is no breaking off; but Allah both hears and knows"
Sura 9:73
"... whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends Allah will relent toward him. Lo Allah is forgiving, merciful." Sura 5:39-40
"Whoevewr commits sin commits it only against himself." Sura 4:111
Please consult the Koran for authenticity, context and for the complete works.
"O thou Prophet! strive strenuously against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them; for their resort is hell, and an ill journey shall it be" Sura 9:73
"But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, Allah is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5
"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast bonds... and those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray, He will guide them... and admit them to Paradise..." Sura 47:4-6
"There is no compulsion in religion; the right has been distinquished from the wrong, and whoso disbelieves in false deities and believes in Allah, he has got hold of the firm handle in which is no breaking off; but Allah both hears and knows"
Sura 9:73
"... whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends Allah will relent toward him. Lo Allah is forgiving, merciful." Sura 5:39-40
"Whoevewr commits sin commits it only against himself." Sura 4:111
Please consult the Koran for authenticity, context and for the complete works.
Aug 17, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque on the Move? CBS reports
Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue
August 17, 2010 6:04 PM
Print Share 43
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
From julieparise
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.
So will the mosque be moving?
New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center. Paterson told Congressman Peter King about the meeting, and King said the governor asked him to make it public.
You need to download the latest version of flash player to use this player
Need Help?
“The purpose of the meeting would be for the governor to discuss with the leaders of the mosque where state property is available,” said Rep. King. “Whether or not people from the mosque would be willing to consider that property.”
King added that the governor “seemed very enthused” about the anticipated discussions.
For at least a week, the governor’s message to the developers has been one of hopeful understanding.
“I hope that they type of cultural understanding that they’re trying to promote when they build the center could be practiced right now,” Paterson said.
Sources tell CBS 2’s Kramer that Gov. Paterson is concerned that Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a staunch supporter of putting the mosque at ground zero, and President Barack Obama, might be advising mosque leaders to dig in their heels and insist on the present location.
But there was a glimmer of hope that they are open to a compromise.
A Tuesday tweet from the Park51 Twitter account said:
“For the past week, we have focused on trying to respond to attacks and detractors of our project. What’s become clear is – they won’t listen.”
In the next 140 character post, they added:
“Starting today, we’re going to begin addressing questions regarding park51. We’re open to any sensible discussion.”
Paterson’s office confirmed that discussions between his staff and the developer’s staff have been ongoing and said the governor expects to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.
Congressman King said the openness of the developers to a compromise will be the real test of their intentions.
“If the leaders of the mosque take up the governor on his proposal, it would show that their real intention is to bring people together,” he said. “And not just make a political statement by having a mosque at Ground Zero.”
There’s also the issue of separation of church and state, and whether the governor should provide state land for a mosque.
King said in this case it would be okay, especially if the compromise meets the need of both sides.
As for the debate over the mosque in its current proposed location, religious leaders said Monday they are worried this one building is leading to a nationwide backlash.
It is the question Muslim leaders and those of other faiths are asking.
“How far is too close? If two blocks near the Burlington factory is too close then why in Brooklyn is the mosque being opposed in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn? Is that far enough?” said Mahdi Bray, the executive director of Muslim American Society Freedom.
Officials said the ground zero mosque controversy is just one of many attempts to prevent mosques from being built all over the country, and that it may have emboldened other protestors.
Protests have been held on Staten Island, and California, and Tennessee, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida.
“The building of mosques and the resistance to buildings of mosques has increased throughout America as well as the destruction and vandalizing of mosque in Florida with a pipe bomb,” Bray said.
Leaders of other faiths joined the Muslins American Society Freedom on Tuesday.
“I know how I would feel if people started saying there were certain places you weren’t allowed to put up a synagogue and therefore I know what should not be done to people who want to put up a cultural center that will include a prayer space,” said Rabbi Aurthus Waskow, the director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
But on Tuesday at ground zero many said they were opposed to putting the mosque so close to where the 9/11 attacks took place; not to mosque construction in other parts of the city.
“It’s the location, yeah, this is holy ground. A lot of people died here,” said Steven Van Cook of Queens.
“My objection is to ground zero. This is a holy place. It should remain as a holy place,” added Steven Goldberg of Bayside.
What about building it in another place in Manhattan?
“No, I wouldn’t mind because you know it’s freedom of speech in the country, but I object to it being here,” Goldberg said.
When asked is he is opposed to the location or the building mosques in New York City, Vito Serzelczyk of Marlton, N.J., said, “Location, location, location. This is a very sensitive area. I was here on Sept. 11. It was a terrible, tragic event and I feel sorry for the families of those people, victims, and this is not really the place to build the new mosque.”
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue
August 17, 2010 6:04 PM
Print Share 43
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
From julieparise
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.
So will the mosque be moving?
New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center. Paterson told Congressman Peter King about the meeting, and King said the governor asked him to make it public.
You need to download the latest version of flash player to use this player
Need Help?
“The purpose of the meeting would be for the governor to discuss with the leaders of the mosque where state property is available,” said Rep. King. “Whether or not people from the mosque would be willing to consider that property.”
King added that the governor “seemed very enthused” about the anticipated discussions.
For at least a week, the governor’s message to the developers has been one of hopeful understanding.
“I hope that they type of cultural understanding that they’re trying to promote when they build the center could be practiced right now,” Paterson said.
Sources tell CBS 2’s Kramer that Gov. Paterson is concerned that Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a staunch supporter of putting the mosque at ground zero, and President Barack Obama, might be advising mosque leaders to dig in their heels and insist on the present location.
But there was a glimmer of hope that they are open to a compromise.
A Tuesday tweet from the Park51 Twitter account said:
“For the past week, we have focused on trying to respond to attacks and detractors of our project. What’s become clear is – they won’t listen.”
In the next 140 character post, they added:
“Starting today, we’re going to begin addressing questions regarding park51. We’re open to any sensible discussion.”
Paterson’s office confirmed that discussions between his staff and the developer’s staff have been ongoing and said the governor expects to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.
Congressman King said the openness of the developers to a compromise will be the real test of their intentions.
“If the leaders of the mosque take up the governor on his proposal, it would show that their real intention is to bring people together,” he said. “And not just make a political statement by having a mosque at Ground Zero.”
There’s also the issue of separation of church and state, and whether the governor should provide state land for a mosque.
King said in this case it would be okay, especially if the compromise meets the need of both sides.
As for the debate over the mosque in its current proposed location, religious leaders said Monday they are worried this one building is leading to a nationwide backlash.
It is the question Muslim leaders and those of other faiths are asking.
“How far is too close? If two blocks near the Burlington factory is too close then why in Brooklyn is the mosque being opposed in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn? Is that far enough?” said Mahdi Bray, the executive director of Muslim American Society Freedom.
Officials said the ground zero mosque controversy is just one of many attempts to prevent mosques from being built all over the country, and that it may have emboldened other protestors.
Protests have been held on Staten Island, and California, and Tennessee, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida.
“The building of mosques and the resistance to buildings of mosques has increased throughout America as well as the destruction and vandalizing of mosque in Florida with a pipe bomb,” Bray said.
Leaders of other faiths joined the Muslins American Society Freedom on Tuesday.
“I know how I would feel if people started saying there were certain places you weren’t allowed to put up a synagogue and therefore I know what should not be done to people who want to put up a cultural center that will include a prayer space,” said Rabbi Aurthus Waskow, the director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
But on Tuesday at ground zero many said they were opposed to putting the mosque so close to where the 9/11 attacks took place; not to mosque construction in other parts of the city.
“It’s the location, yeah, this is holy ground. A lot of people died here,” said Steven Van Cook of Queens.
“My objection is to ground zero. This is a holy place. It should remain as a holy place,” added Steven Goldberg of Bayside.
What about building it in another place in Manhattan?
“No, I wouldn’t mind because you know it’s freedom of speech in the country, but I object to it being here,” Goldberg said.
When asked is he is opposed to the location or the building mosques in New York City, Vito Serzelczyk of Marlton, N.J., said, “Location, location, location. This is a very sensitive area. I was here on Sept. 11. It was a terrible, tragic event and I feel sorry for the families of those people, victims, and this is not really the place to build the new mosque.”
Apr 29, 2010
McLuhan and the Future of Education: A Christian Critique
By Guest Columnist Annette J. Ford
McLuhan and the Future of Education
Education is a vast field of communication. In light of our changing society, is our educational system still effective in its present form, or is a paradigm shift needed? Indiana University professor Curtis Bonk wrote, “Web technologies have blown the doors to educational opportunity wide open. Schools, colleges, universities, government agencies, and corporate training organizations not only need to take notice, they need to take action” (2009, p. 22). Collins and Halverson wrote, “People around the world are taking their education out of school into homes, libraries, Internet cafes, and workplaces, where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn, and how they want to learn” (2009, p. 3). Davidson and Goldberg asserted, “We continue to push old, uniform, and increasingly outdated educational products on young learners at their – and, by implication, society’s – peril” (2010, p. 24).
Many are calling for educational reform in our schools and universities. This essay first examines Marshall McLuhan’s views on education and reform, looking at (a) media ecology theory, (b) education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, (c) education’s progress from the print age to the electronic age, and (d) education’s future. The essay then critiques McLuhan’s ideas from a Christian worldview, looking at (a) a Christian perspective on educational reform, and (b) a Christian response to McLuhan’s views.
McLuhan’s Views on Education and Reform
Marshall McLuhan, originator of the media ecology theory, spoke to the issues of education and needed reform decades ago. He observed the effects of technology on our teacher-centered, knowledge-limiting school system, and wrote,
I say, therefore, with impersonal assurance, that unless we choose to abandon all electric forms of technology we cannot possibly retain in our teaching and learning the modes of instruction and apprehension associated with the mechanical forms of print and its innumerable progeny. (McLuhan, 1960, p. 10)
Media Ecology Theory
In order to understand McLuhan’s views on education and reform, a clear understanding of media ecology theory is necessary. Griffin summarized the theory as follows:
The media must be understood ecologically. Changes in communication technology alter the symbolic environment—the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings. We shaped our tools—the phonetic alphabet, printing press, and telegraph—and they in turn have shaped our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. Thus the medium is the message. (2009, p. A-5)
McLuhan said new media infiltrate our lives, “stripping the older forms of experience to their bare bones or basic codes” (1960, p. 11). This revolutionary change happens without our conscious acceptance of it, because we are so focused on what we know from the past that we do not see what is happening to us in the present (McLuhan, 1970). McLuhan and Fiore said, “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future" (1967, pp. 74-75).
A clear understanding of the past does offer, however, a better understanding of the future, if one is willing to learn and apply the lessons. Examining education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, and then to the electronic age, offers wisdom in reforms for the future.
Education’s Progress From the Tribal and Literacy Ages to the Print Age
McLuhan described the pre-printing press era as characterized by orality in the form of dialogue, disputation, and active teacher-student interaction (1960). The printing press changed the world to be visually focused. It empowered students to read widely, quickly and silently, rendering oral learning, memorization, and disputation unnecessary. Instructors no longer needed to mentor students personally in their thinking and writing (McLuhan, 1960). In this new era, education separated the functions of teaching and learning, and focused on learning the content of individual subjects such as math, science and history, rather than on gaining broad insight (McLuhan, 1960). This compartmentalizing happened because “print exists by virtue of the static separation of functions and fosters a mentality that gradually resists any but a separative and compartmentalizing or specialist outlook” (McLuhan, 1962, p. 126).
Education’s Progress from the Print Age to the Electronic Age
McLuhan said, “Today radio, telegraph and T.V. have no moving parts. The electronic age abandons mechanism for the movement of light and information only…. It is inconceivable that school and society alike should not receive the full impact of this change” (1960, p. 2). “The new electric structures for teaching and learning are basically a return to dialogue, or to the fusion of teaching and learning functions” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 15). “Ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. 'Time' has ceased, 'space' has vanished. We now live in a global village ... a simultaneous happening” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967, p. 63). Since McLuhan wrote, the Internet arrived, enabling further connectivity. The Internet combines television’s visual capabilities with the telephone’s two-way connection, and adds the library’s information access, creating a worldwide network unimaginable to past generations.
Although society has transitioned to the electronic age, our education system still operates in the print age. McLuhan said, “I can understand the ferment in our schools, because our educational system is totally rearview mirror. It’s a dying and outdated system founded on literate values and fragmented and classified data” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Davidson and Goldberg said:
Youth who learn via peer-to-peer mediated forms may be less likely to be excited and motivated by the typical forms of learning than they were even a decade ago. Conventional modes of learning tend to be passive, lecture driven, hierarchical, and largely unidirectional from instructor to student. (2010, p. 50)
McLuhan said the environment outside the school is far richer and more informational than within the school, making school an interruption of learning rather than a place of true learning (1970). He said the child of the electronic era “finds it difficult if not impossible to adjust to the fragmented, visual goals of our education after having had all his senses involved by the electric media; he craves in-depth involvement, not linear detachment and uniform sequential patterns” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Just as the assembly line approach to factory production has been largely replaced by electronic functions, so the assembly-line approach to education must be changed to become relevant and effective in our electronic world.
Education’s Future
McLuhan said, “In our schools there is simply too much to learn by the traditional analytic methods; this is an age of information overload. The only way to make the schools other than prisons without bars is to start fresh with new techniques and values” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 14).
Discovery learning.
The future of education, according to McLuhan, lies in discovery rather than in instruction (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967). “There will be no instruction in our schools in a very few years…. No instruction at all. There will be discovery. Teams of students will be prowling the environment on research programmes, and that applies to elementary school children. Discovery takes the place of instruction in any environment in which the information levels are very high” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 3). McLuhan pictured discovery learning taking place by, for example, giving groups of four or five elementary students a project like “Punishment in Society,” and releasing them for several weeks to discover, discuss, investigate and research in the broader community, like detectives (1970, p. 7).
The MacArthur Foundation’s ThinkeringSpace project is a contemporary example of discovery learning. It creates “new experiential opportunities for exploring through tinkering and interacting both locally and remotely. By promoting fluid interplay of physical and virtual experiences, these environments introduce a new genre of hybrid interactive spaces” (Moura, Fahnstrom, Prygrocki, & McLeish, 2009, p. 48).
Discovery learning in schools requires instructors who facilitate and guide the discovery process. McWilliam said that in order for university students to thrive in our increasingly fluid society, they need the active participation of instructors who are meddlers in the middle instead of the traditional sages on the stage or more recent guides on the side (2008, p. 265). McWilliam advocated a shift in pedagogy toward encouraging “experimentation and risk-taking” by the teacher becoming a “usefully ignorant… designer, editor and assembler” and a “collaborative critic and authentic evaluator” (2008, p. 265).
No known answers, no absolutes.
McLuhan asserted that strong moral stances and spiritual values are part of the defunct print age (1960, p. 10). He said, “Our kids have no goals because they understand the world they are living in and you can’t have goals in an electronic total-field world. You cannot have fixed objectives” (1970, p. 2). He said the reason instruction should be replaced by exploration is “children reject any form of instruction, the answers to which are already known” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 7). He said, “I don’t care what problem you mention, I would welcome an opportunity to see the youngsters tackle it head on with a full understanding that there are no answers known and no holds barred” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 10). He said, “The meaning of the electronic is total decentralism, total diversity” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 4). “There is no maintaining of a point of view, but only the common participation in creating perpetually new insight and understanding in a total field of unified awareness” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 9).
Christian Critique of McLuhan’s View
Scripture says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB). Where is truth in the electronic future of education? Where is truth in McLuhan’s thinking?
Christian Perspective on Educational Reform
Schultze wrote, “We find ourselves talking about the entire educational enterprise apart from our responsibility to be better persons, caring neighbors, and wiser citizens. New educational technologies certainly deliver information, but can they also cultivate careful discernment and good judgment?” (2002, p. 56). Answers to this question lie both in shalom – “living a good and right life in tune with the moral wisdom gained through revealed truth” (Schultze, 2002, p. 72), and in mentoring.
Technology and shalom.
Educators in an increasingly electronic world must remember, “Unless we intentionally cultivate intimacy in a cyber-world, we will find it evaporating from our lives as we pursue instrumental practices” (Schultze, 2002, p. 36). Caught up in the wonder and novelty of emerging technologies, people easily forget the negative part of the Faustian bargain with technology described by Postman: “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (1990, para. 5). Conway offered this solution to overcoming the negative side of technology:
So those who are members of the Body of Christ, who are building on the foundation of gratitude, praise, and service to the God made known in Jesus, need to help each other discern the attitudes of mind and heart that reflect his love and openness. Only by growing into this way of being and acting can the web of technological decision making become part of the movement toward the shalom of Christ’s kingdom.
(1999, p. 114)
Educators seeking reform must remember that “the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (Schultze, 2000, p. 121).
Educational reform through mentoring.
Jesus taught large groups of people, but he also focused much time and energy on a group of twelve men, three of whom were closest to him. In a world depersonalized by technology, education systems must offer the personal touch and kindness that small group mentoring and peer mentoring offer. Christian educators must work to bring the Christian disciplines of mentoring and discipleship into the classroom – even the secular classroom – developing a system of mentoring that will give each student personal challenge, worth, and attention as trained and trainer, mentee and mentor, learner and teacher. This is possible to an extent through the Internet, but “No fancy technologies that promise to relieve us of the burden of being somewhere are adequate substitutes for conversation, let alone for communities of hospitality and neighborliness. Being in real time and place speaks volumes” (Schultze, 2002, p. 179).
Christian Response to McLuhan
Although McLuhan tried to simply present facts and remain neutral in all he said, and although much of his analysis of the impact of new technologies is true, his postmodern view of absolutes is unscriptural. Referring to Internet based education, Davidson and Goldberg wrote, “The larger questions remain pressing, even universal: What to believe and on what grounds? On what rests the credibility of sources, on what basis are claims to be trusted, and what are the most and least compelling uses of available knowledge?” (2010, pp. 73, 74). As already described, McLuhan believed absolutes, moral values, and set answers are outdated and counterproductive in the electronic age.
Schultze said, “Like ethical chameleons we adapt our moral practices to the latest technologies rather than summoning our technologies to follow a long-term moral vision” (2002, p. 29). Christians must come back to the foundational premise that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17, NIV), and that truth, rather than shackling us and preventing progress, will set us free (John 8:32, NIV). Christians must be open to be led by God’s Spirit “in all the value judgments and decisions made on our pilgrimages as disciples of Jesus within a technological culture” (Conway, 1999, p. 115).
Conclusion
McLuhan implied that a paradigm shift is needed in education. Educators and researchers are looking for ways to introduce needed reform in an outdated system. Reform is necessary, but will be effective only if grounded in the truth of Scripture. With God’s guidance, Christians will discover great reforms that will revolutionize the world in education for the furtherance of the Gospel.
Resources
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1960). New media and the new education. (Report No. 1974). Retrieved from ERIC database: http://firstsearch.oclc.org.ezproxy.arbor.edu
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man (1st ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1970). Education in the electronic age. Interchange 1(4), 1-12.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York, NY: Random House.
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 263-269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
Moura, H., Fahnstrom, D., Prygrocki, G., & McLeish, T. J. (2009). ThinkeringSpace: Designing for collaboration around the book and beyond. Visible Language, 43(1), 44-59.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Rogaway, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. In U. C. Davis, Ethics in an age of technology, ECS 188. (Reprinted from Playboy Magazine, 1969).
Schultze, Q. (2000). Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
McLuhan and the Future of Education
Education is a vast field of communication. In light of our changing society, is our educational system still effective in its present form, or is a paradigm shift needed? Indiana University professor Curtis Bonk wrote, “Web technologies have blown the doors to educational opportunity wide open. Schools, colleges, universities, government agencies, and corporate training organizations not only need to take notice, they need to take action” (2009, p. 22). Collins and Halverson wrote, “People around the world are taking their education out of school into homes, libraries, Internet cafes, and workplaces, where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn, and how they want to learn” (2009, p. 3). Davidson and Goldberg asserted, “We continue to push old, uniform, and increasingly outdated educational products on young learners at their – and, by implication, society’s – peril” (2010, p. 24).
Many are calling for educational reform in our schools and universities. This essay first examines Marshall McLuhan’s views on education and reform, looking at (a) media ecology theory, (b) education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, (c) education’s progress from the print age to the electronic age, and (d) education’s future. The essay then critiques McLuhan’s ideas from a Christian worldview, looking at (a) a Christian perspective on educational reform, and (b) a Christian response to McLuhan’s views.
McLuhan’s Views on Education and Reform
Marshall McLuhan, originator of the media ecology theory, spoke to the issues of education and needed reform decades ago. He observed the effects of technology on our teacher-centered, knowledge-limiting school system, and wrote,
I say, therefore, with impersonal assurance, that unless we choose to abandon all electric forms of technology we cannot possibly retain in our teaching and learning the modes of instruction and apprehension associated with the mechanical forms of print and its innumerable progeny. (McLuhan, 1960, p. 10)
Media Ecology Theory
In order to understand McLuhan’s views on education and reform, a clear understanding of media ecology theory is necessary. Griffin summarized the theory as follows:
The media must be understood ecologically. Changes in communication technology alter the symbolic environment—the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings. We shaped our tools—the phonetic alphabet, printing press, and telegraph—and they in turn have shaped our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. Thus the medium is the message. (2009, p. A-5)
McLuhan said new media infiltrate our lives, “stripping the older forms of experience to their bare bones or basic codes” (1960, p. 11). This revolutionary change happens without our conscious acceptance of it, because we are so focused on what we know from the past that we do not see what is happening to us in the present (McLuhan, 1970). McLuhan and Fiore said, “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future" (1967, pp. 74-75).
A clear understanding of the past does offer, however, a better understanding of the future, if one is willing to learn and apply the lessons. Examining education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, and then to the electronic age, offers wisdom in reforms for the future.
Education’s Progress From the Tribal and Literacy Ages to the Print Age
McLuhan described the pre-printing press era as characterized by orality in the form of dialogue, disputation, and active teacher-student interaction (1960). The printing press changed the world to be visually focused. It empowered students to read widely, quickly and silently, rendering oral learning, memorization, and disputation unnecessary. Instructors no longer needed to mentor students personally in their thinking and writing (McLuhan, 1960). In this new era, education separated the functions of teaching and learning, and focused on learning the content of individual subjects such as math, science and history, rather than on gaining broad insight (McLuhan, 1960). This compartmentalizing happened because “print exists by virtue of the static separation of functions and fosters a mentality that gradually resists any but a separative and compartmentalizing or specialist outlook” (McLuhan, 1962, p. 126).
Education’s Progress from the Print Age to the Electronic Age
McLuhan said, “Today radio, telegraph and T.V. have no moving parts. The electronic age abandons mechanism for the movement of light and information only…. It is inconceivable that school and society alike should not receive the full impact of this change” (1960, p. 2). “The new electric structures for teaching and learning are basically a return to dialogue, or to the fusion of teaching and learning functions” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 15). “Ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. 'Time' has ceased, 'space' has vanished. We now live in a global village ... a simultaneous happening” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967, p. 63). Since McLuhan wrote, the Internet arrived, enabling further connectivity. The Internet combines television’s visual capabilities with the telephone’s two-way connection, and adds the library’s information access, creating a worldwide network unimaginable to past generations.
Although society has transitioned to the electronic age, our education system still operates in the print age. McLuhan said, “I can understand the ferment in our schools, because our educational system is totally rearview mirror. It’s a dying and outdated system founded on literate values and fragmented and classified data” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Davidson and Goldberg said:
Youth who learn via peer-to-peer mediated forms may be less likely to be excited and motivated by the typical forms of learning than they were even a decade ago. Conventional modes of learning tend to be passive, lecture driven, hierarchical, and largely unidirectional from instructor to student. (2010, p. 50)
McLuhan said the environment outside the school is far richer and more informational than within the school, making school an interruption of learning rather than a place of true learning (1970). He said the child of the electronic era “finds it difficult if not impossible to adjust to the fragmented, visual goals of our education after having had all his senses involved by the electric media; he craves in-depth involvement, not linear detachment and uniform sequential patterns” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Just as the assembly line approach to factory production has been largely replaced by electronic functions, so the assembly-line approach to education must be changed to become relevant and effective in our electronic world.
Education’s Future
McLuhan said, “In our schools there is simply too much to learn by the traditional analytic methods; this is an age of information overload. The only way to make the schools other than prisons without bars is to start fresh with new techniques and values” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 14).
Discovery learning.
The future of education, according to McLuhan, lies in discovery rather than in instruction (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967). “There will be no instruction in our schools in a very few years…. No instruction at all. There will be discovery. Teams of students will be prowling the environment on research programmes, and that applies to elementary school children. Discovery takes the place of instruction in any environment in which the information levels are very high” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 3). McLuhan pictured discovery learning taking place by, for example, giving groups of four or five elementary students a project like “Punishment in Society,” and releasing them for several weeks to discover, discuss, investigate and research in the broader community, like detectives (1970, p. 7).
The MacArthur Foundation’s ThinkeringSpace project is a contemporary example of discovery learning. It creates “new experiential opportunities for exploring through tinkering and interacting both locally and remotely. By promoting fluid interplay of physical and virtual experiences, these environments introduce a new genre of hybrid interactive spaces” (Moura, Fahnstrom, Prygrocki, & McLeish, 2009, p. 48).
Discovery learning in schools requires instructors who facilitate and guide the discovery process. McWilliam said that in order for university students to thrive in our increasingly fluid society, they need the active participation of instructors who are meddlers in the middle instead of the traditional sages on the stage or more recent guides on the side (2008, p. 265). McWilliam advocated a shift in pedagogy toward encouraging “experimentation and risk-taking” by the teacher becoming a “usefully ignorant… designer, editor and assembler” and a “collaborative critic and authentic evaluator” (2008, p. 265).
No known answers, no absolutes.
McLuhan asserted that strong moral stances and spiritual values are part of the defunct print age (1960, p. 10). He said, “Our kids have no goals because they understand the world they are living in and you can’t have goals in an electronic total-field world. You cannot have fixed objectives” (1970, p. 2). He said the reason instruction should be replaced by exploration is “children reject any form of instruction, the answers to which are already known” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 7). He said, “I don’t care what problem you mention, I would welcome an opportunity to see the youngsters tackle it head on with a full understanding that there are no answers known and no holds barred” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 10). He said, “The meaning of the electronic is total decentralism, total diversity” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 4). “There is no maintaining of a point of view, but only the common participation in creating perpetually new insight and understanding in a total field of unified awareness” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 9).
Christian Critique of McLuhan’s View
Scripture says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB). Where is truth in the electronic future of education? Where is truth in McLuhan’s thinking?
Christian Perspective on Educational Reform
Schultze wrote, “We find ourselves talking about the entire educational enterprise apart from our responsibility to be better persons, caring neighbors, and wiser citizens. New educational technologies certainly deliver information, but can they also cultivate careful discernment and good judgment?” (2002, p. 56). Answers to this question lie both in shalom – “living a good and right life in tune with the moral wisdom gained through revealed truth” (Schultze, 2002, p. 72), and in mentoring.
Technology and shalom.
Educators in an increasingly electronic world must remember, “Unless we intentionally cultivate intimacy in a cyber-world, we will find it evaporating from our lives as we pursue instrumental practices” (Schultze, 2002, p. 36). Caught up in the wonder and novelty of emerging technologies, people easily forget the negative part of the Faustian bargain with technology described by Postman: “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (1990, para. 5). Conway offered this solution to overcoming the negative side of technology:
So those who are members of the Body of Christ, who are building on the foundation of gratitude, praise, and service to the God made known in Jesus, need to help each other discern the attitudes of mind and heart that reflect his love and openness. Only by growing into this way of being and acting can the web of technological decision making become part of the movement toward the shalom of Christ’s kingdom.
(1999, p. 114)
Educators seeking reform must remember that “the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (Schultze, 2000, p. 121).
Educational reform through mentoring.
Jesus taught large groups of people, but he also focused much time and energy on a group of twelve men, three of whom were closest to him. In a world depersonalized by technology, education systems must offer the personal touch and kindness that small group mentoring and peer mentoring offer. Christian educators must work to bring the Christian disciplines of mentoring and discipleship into the classroom – even the secular classroom – developing a system of mentoring that will give each student personal challenge, worth, and attention as trained and trainer, mentee and mentor, learner and teacher. This is possible to an extent through the Internet, but “No fancy technologies that promise to relieve us of the burden of being somewhere are adequate substitutes for conversation, let alone for communities of hospitality and neighborliness. Being in real time and place speaks volumes” (Schultze, 2002, p. 179).
Christian Response to McLuhan
Although McLuhan tried to simply present facts and remain neutral in all he said, and although much of his analysis of the impact of new technologies is true, his postmodern view of absolutes is unscriptural. Referring to Internet based education, Davidson and Goldberg wrote, “The larger questions remain pressing, even universal: What to believe and on what grounds? On what rests the credibility of sources, on what basis are claims to be trusted, and what are the most and least compelling uses of available knowledge?” (2010, pp. 73, 74). As already described, McLuhan believed absolutes, moral values, and set answers are outdated and counterproductive in the electronic age.
Schultze said, “Like ethical chameleons we adapt our moral practices to the latest technologies rather than summoning our technologies to follow a long-term moral vision” (2002, p. 29). Christians must come back to the foundational premise that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17, NIV), and that truth, rather than shackling us and preventing progress, will set us free (John 8:32, NIV). Christians must be open to be led by God’s Spirit “in all the value judgments and decisions made on our pilgrimages as disciples of Jesus within a technological culture” (Conway, 1999, p. 115).
Conclusion
McLuhan implied that a paradigm shift is needed in education. Educators and researchers are looking for ways to introduce needed reform in an outdated system. Reform is necessary, but will be effective only if grounded in the truth of Scripture. With God’s guidance, Christians will discover great reforms that will revolutionize the world in education for the furtherance of the Gospel.
Resources
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1960). New media and the new education. (Report No. 1974). Retrieved from ERIC database: http://firstsearch.oclc.org.ezproxy.arbor.edu
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man (1st ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1970). Education in the electronic age. Interchange 1(4), 1-12.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York, NY: Random House.
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 263-269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
Moura, H., Fahnstrom, D., Prygrocki, G., & McLeish, T. J. (2009). ThinkeringSpace: Designing for collaboration around the book and beyond. Visible Language, 43(1), 44-59.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Rogaway, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. In U. C. Davis, Ethics in an age of technology, ECS 188. (Reprinted from Playboy Magazine, 1969).
Schultze, Q. (2000). Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mar 26, 2010
Engaging our media culture
Engaging our media culture by guest columnist, Annette Ford
Postman and the Effects of Media on Culture
Gifted communicator and celebrated professor Neil Postman wrote, spoke, and taught extensively about media ecology, the theory initiated by Marshall McLuhan. Postman said, “I believe I know something about what technologies do to culture, and I know even more about what technologies undo in a culture” (1990, para. 4). An investigation of Postman’s ideas reveals four points to consider regarding the effects of media on culture: 1) The influence of new media, 2) The influence of power holders, 3) The influence of television, and 4) The influence of Truth. Other media theorists’ ideas add further understanding to these points.
The Influence of New Media
Postman described the profound influence of each new technology on society. He said just as changes in the ecological world neither add to nor subtract from the existing environment, but instead alter it completely, “a new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (1993, p. 18). McLuhan’s viewpoint elaborates this, saying,
“When we continually use a communication technology it alters our symbolic environment – the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. We concentrate on analyzing or resisting the content of media messages, yet we miss the fact that the medium itself is actually the message.” (Griffin, 2009, p. 309)
Although McLuhan asserted this change is neither positive nor negative, Postman said, “I don’t see any point in studying media unless one does so within a moral or ethical context” (2000, para. 6). He said technological change is a Faustian bargain. “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (Postman, 1990, para. 5).
Postman adhered to McLuhan’s description of history and of new technologies’ influence on culture. McLuhan divided history into: 1) the Tribal Age, where listening and storytelling shaped society; 2) the Literate Age, where the phonetic alphabet introduced linear instead of cyclical thinking; 3) the Print Age, where the printing press introduced mass production; and 4) the Electronic Age, where the telegraph became the first of many devices to extend not only the human ear or eye, but also the whole central nervous system (Griffin, 2009).
Postman described the progress of change from tool-bearing cultures to technocracies to the present American Technopoly (1993). He said Technopoly is the control of technology over culture, and it redefines “what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (1993, p. 48).
Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. (Postman, 1993, p. xii)
According to Postman each new technological shift profoundly changes society, though not necessarily for the good of the people.
The Influence of Power Holders
Postman described the power of society’s experts, of the elite who make decisions for the masses (1993). Schultze said, “These managers aim for greater production and distribution efficiencies and for more control over markets…. They seek and reward only impact, not virtue” (2002, pp. 150, 157).
Agenda-setting theory agrees with this view. It speaks of the “gatekeepers” of the news, “the handful of news editors who set the agenda,” who “select, emphasize, elaborate, and even exclude news stories or parts of news stories to create a certain effect for the audience” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 199). McCombs and Shaw said, “The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). They view media as shaping the way we see reality and what we perceive as truth (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). In his cultural studies theory Hall said because much of our information comes from the giant corporations of society, the media “keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world” (Griffin, 2009, p. 338).
Hall believed “the mass media provide the guiding myths that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control” (Griffin, 2009, p. 341.
Hall also said, however, the media are not overtly trying to manipulate society, but rather they reinforce society’s generally accepted ideas, thus presenting those ideas as the only acceptable ones (Griffin, 2009). Uses and gratifications theory also presented the view that the audience exercises control, saying the audience responds only if the media gratifies them (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Although Postman spoke strongly about the control of power holders over media, he did concede that the audience has a strong influence on media as well. (Postman, 1996).
The Influence of Television
Postman perceived television as a negative influence on society. Griffin said, “Postman argued that television is detrimental to society because it has led to the loss of serious public discourse. Television changes the form of information ‘from discursive to nondiscursive, from propositional to presentational, from rationalistic to emotive’” (2009, p. 319). Hall, in his Cultural Studies theory, explained the necessity for making meaning through discourse, the “‘giving and taking of meaning’ between the members of society or a group” (1997, p. 2). Postman said television hindered this discourse.
Postman also described television’s trivializing force (Postman, 1993). It reduces education, for example, to mere entertainment. In “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Postman argued that “educational television” is no more or less educational than “Little House on the Prairie,” “Cheers,” or “The Tonight Show.” Each one forms people’s opinions, and each one’s primary purpose is to entertain and to encourage people to love television (Postman, 1985, p. 144). This follows McLuhan’s thinking. Since the medium is the message, television as the medium in this case has one purpose – entertainment and the love of television – so the television programs all convey the same message.
Cultivation theory and social learning theory also decry the negative influence of television on society. Cultivation theory suggests extensive television watching will make people more fearful (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Social learning theory “predicts that the use of force modeled on television today may erupt in antisocial behavior years later” (Griffin, 2009, p. 347).
McLuhan said, “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us” (Griffin, 2009, p. 308). Griffin wrote, “As Boudrillard suggests, ‘It’s not TV as a mirror of society, but just the reverse: it’s society as the mirror of television.’… The issue is not whether media distort reality. In today’s world the media have become the reality – the only one we have” (2009, p. 309).
The Influence of Truth
McLuhan said the progress and influences of technology are not right or wrong, they just exist. Hall urged people to fight injustice through semantic battle (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner’s Cultural Environment Movement believe the public must take control of television to ensure more equitable stories are told (Griffin, 2009). Some theorists only ask hard questions about how to bring positive change to society. Other theorists give some answers, but few offer the radical, world changing answers found in the Word of God.
“The first step in dethroning technology, to chasing it back to its proper place in the order of things,” said Conway, “is not to belittle it or detract from its intellectual fascination or its power to set men and women free from drudgery, but, rather, to erect around it and over it other values and wisdoms that oblige us to see technology in its correct perspective (1999, p. 31). Schultze said the media “are really extensions of our God-given ability to cocreate culture. In spite of their limitations, the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (2000, p. 121).
Postman said, “The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory” (1990, para. 35). In the same paragraph he quoted the words of the prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Herein lies the answer. Rather than being cloaked in “technological glory,” the world will change positively if its citizens instead cloak themselves in godly justice, mercy and humility.
In his many books, articles and public addresses, Neil Postman spoke of the influence on society of new media, of power holders, and of television. He also touched on the influence of the Truth. In all, however, his core belief could be summarized in the words of Thoreau, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Postman, 1990, para. 35).
References
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Hall, S. (1997). Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, England: Sage.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage.
Postman, N. (1996, January 17). Re: Neil Postman ponders high tech [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january96/postman_1-17.html
Postman, N. (2000, June). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote address at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031013150449/http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for life: Christian stewardship in community and media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Postman and the Effects of Media on Culture
Gifted communicator and celebrated professor Neil Postman wrote, spoke, and taught extensively about media ecology, the theory initiated by Marshall McLuhan. Postman said, “I believe I know something about what technologies do to culture, and I know even more about what technologies undo in a culture” (1990, para. 4). An investigation of Postman’s ideas reveals four points to consider regarding the effects of media on culture: 1) The influence of new media, 2) The influence of power holders, 3) The influence of television, and 4) The influence of Truth. Other media theorists’ ideas add further understanding to these points.
The Influence of New Media
Postman described the profound influence of each new technology on society. He said just as changes in the ecological world neither add to nor subtract from the existing environment, but instead alter it completely, “a new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (1993, p. 18). McLuhan’s viewpoint elaborates this, saying,
“When we continually use a communication technology it alters our symbolic environment – the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. We concentrate on analyzing or resisting the content of media messages, yet we miss the fact that the medium itself is actually the message.” (Griffin, 2009, p. 309)
Although McLuhan asserted this change is neither positive nor negative, Postman said, “I don’t see any point in studying media unless one does so within a moral or ethical context” (2000, para. 6). He said technological change is a Faustian bargain. “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (Postman, 1990, para. 5).
Postman adhered to McLuhan’s description of history and of new technologies’ influence on culture. McLuhan divided history into: 1) the Tribal Age, where listening and storytelling shaped society; 2) the Literate Age, where the phonetic alphabet introduced linear instead of cyclical thinking; 3) the Print Age, where the printing press introduced mass production; and 4) the Electronic Age, where the telegraph became the first of many devices to extend not only the human ear or eye, but also the whole central nervous system (Griffin, 2009).
Postman described the progress of change from tool-bearing cultures to technocracies to the present American Technopoly (1993). He said Technopoly is the control of technology over culture, and it redefines “what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (1993, p. 48).
Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. (Postman, 1993, p. xii)
According to Postman each new technological shift profoundly changes society, though not necessarily for the good of the people.
The Influence of Power Holders
Postman described the power of society’s experts, of the elite who make decisions for the masses (1993). Schultze said, “These managers aim for greater production and distribution efficiencies and for more control over markets…. They seek and reward only impact, not virtue” (2002, pp. 150, 157).
Agenda-setting theory agrees with this view. It speaks of the “gatekeepers” of the news, “the handful of news editors who set the agenda,” who “select, emphasize, elaborate, and even exclude news stories or parts of news stories to create a certain effect for the audience” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 199). McCombs and Shaw said, “The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). They view media as shaping the way we see reality and what we perceive as truth (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). In his cultural studies theory Hall said because much of our information comes from the giant corporations of society, the media “keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world” (Griffin, 2009, p. 338).
Hall believed “the mass media provide the guiding myths that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control” (Griffin, 2009, p. 341.
Hall also said, however, the media are not overtly trying to manipulate society, but rather they reinforce society’s generally accepted ideas, thus presenting those ideas as the only acceptable ones (Griffin, 2009). Uses and gratifications theory also presented the view that the audience exercises control, saying the audience responds only if the media gratifies them (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Although Postman spoke strongly about the control of power holders over media, he did concede that the audience has a strong influence on media as well. (Postman, 1996).
The Influence of Television
Postman perceived television as a negative influence on society. Griffin said, “Postman argued that television is detrimental to society because it has led to the loss of serious public discourse. Television changes the form of information ‘from discursive to nondiscursive, from propositional to presentational, from rationalistic to emotive’” (2009, p. 319). Hall, in his Cultural Studies theory, explained the necessity for making meaning through discourse, the “‘giving and taking of meaning’ between the members of society or a group” (1997, p. 2). Postman said television hindered this discourse.
Postman also described television’s trivializing force (Postman, 1993). It reduces education, for example, to mere entertainment. In “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Postman argued that “educational television” is no more or less educational than “Little House on the Prairie,” “Cheers,” or “The Tonight Show.” Each one forms people’s opinions, and each one’s primary purpose is to entertain and to encourage people to love television (Postman, 1985, p. 144). This follows McLuhan’s thinking. Since the medium is the message, television as the medium in this case has one purpose – entertainment and the love of television – so the television programs all convey the same message.
Cultivation theory and social learning theory also decry the negative influence of television on society. Cultivation theory suggests extensive television watching will make people more fearful (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Social learning theory “predicts that the use of force modeled on television today may erupt in antisocial behavior years later” (Griffin, 2009, p. 347).
McLuhan said, “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us” (Griffin, 2009, p. 308). Griffin wrote, “As Boudrillard suggests, ‘It’s not TV as a mirror of society, but just the reverse: it’s society as the mirror of television.’… The issue is not whether media distort reality. In today’s world the media have become the reality – the only one we have” (2009, p. 309).
The Influence of Truth
McLuhan said the progress and influences of technology are not right or wrong, they just exist. Hall urged people to fight injustice through semantic battle (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner’s Cultural Environment Movement believe the public must take control of television to ensure more equitable stories are told (Griffin, 2009). Some theorists only ask hard questions about how to bring positive change to society. Other theorists give some answers, but few offer the radical, world changing answers found in the Word of God.
“The first step in dethroning technology, to chasing it back to its proper place in the order of things,” said Conway, “is not to belittle it or detract from its intellectual fascination or its power to set men and women free from drudgery, but, rather, to erect around it and over it other values and wisdoms that oblige us to see technology in its correct perspective (1999, p. 31). Schultze said the media “are really extensions of our God-given ability to cocreate culture. In spite of their limitations, the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (2000, p. 121).
Postman said, “The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory” (1990, para. 35). In the same paragraph he quoted the words of the prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Herein lies the answer. Rather than being cloaked in “technological glory,” the world will change positively if its citizens instead cloak themselves in godly justice, mercy and humility.
In his many books, articles and public addresses, Neil Postman spoke of the influence on society of new media, of power holders, and of television. He also touched on the influence of the Truth. In all, however, his core belief could be summarized in the words of Thoreau, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Postman, 1990, para. 35).
References
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Hall, S. (1997). Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, England: Sage.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage.
Postman, N. (1996, January 17). Re: Neil Postman ponders high tech [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january96/postman_1-17.html
Postman, N. (2000, June). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote address at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031013150449/http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for life: Christian stewardship in community and media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mar 21, 2010
Democrats: "You're doing this TO the American people"
Democrats: "You're doing this TO the American people"
Tea Party protesters disrupted Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press stakeout at a House Office Building, yelling "you're a disgrace to your office" . . . on Sunday, adding yet another layer of chaos to an already tense afternoon on Capitol Hill.
In a moment of apparently unscripted political theater, Pelosi and Democratic leaders marched arm in arm — with civil rights pioneer John Lewis — across the Capitol complex while protesters yelled at them and police held a barricade.
The Pelosi disruption came inside the Cannon office building, where Democrats where whipping the final votes for the historic health care overhaul. When Pelosi said "We're doing this for the American people," a protestor yelled "you're doing this TO the American people!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34765.html#ixzz0iqNfRUK0
Tea Party protesters disrupted Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press stakeout at a House Office Building, yelling "you're a disgrace to your office" . . . on Sunday, adding yet another layer of chaos to an already tense afternoon on Capitol Hill.
In a moment of apparently unscripted political theater, Pelosi and Democratic leaders marched arm in arm — with civil rights pioneer John Lewis — across the Capitol complex while protesters yelled at them and police held a barricade.
The Pelosi disruption came inside the Cannon office building, where Democrats where whipping the final votes for the historic health care overhaul. When Pelosi said "We're doing this for the American people," a protestor yelled "you're doing this TO the American people!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34765.html#ixzz0iqNfRUK0
Mar 20, 2010
Speed Deemin': Dems Race toward Sunday 'Vote'
Speed Deemin': Dems Race toward Sunday 'Vote' by guest columnist, Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council
The sun is streaming through windows across Capitol Hill, a striking picture of one of America's greatest skylines. But underneath the city's highest dome, few leaders are venturing out. Instead, they're hunkered down, preparing for one of the most important decisions of their political lives. For most of them, Sunday will not be a day of rest--but a day of unrest, as an exhausting year-long battle comes to an uncertain close. The President has postponed his overseas trip, trying to wring every last second out of his personal lobbying campaign. For shaky Democrats, that means uncomfortable sit-downs in the Oval Office where the President uses some familiar back-scratching to lean on "undecideds."
But it will take more than "rides on Air Force One" to woo party holdouts, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest score. New estimates from the CBO put the price tag of this reconciliation plan well over $1,200,000,000,000.00--most of which would be inherited by the lucky winner of the 2016 presidential election. Together with unsavory new taxes ($569.2 billions worth!), the CBO spotlights the bill's deep gashes in Medicare coverage ($523.5 million in cuts) and confirms that married couples will still be punished with steeper insurance premiums. Believe it or not, nearly half all the individual mandates under this bill will be paid by American families earning less than $66,150 per year. The CBO also points out that a million Americans will have to get their coverage from a bankrupt Medicaid program on the brink of collapsing.
And if you thought dealing with the IRS is a nightmare now, just wait. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee say the agency's tentacles will strangle families under ObamaCare. According to their report, the IRS is on the verge of an unprecedented power grab under the President's bill. It will have the authority to: verify if you have "acceptable" health care coverage, fine you for failure to prove that you have purchased "minimum essential coverage," and even confiscate your tax refund.
Of course, the agency will need a massive cash influx ($10 billion!) to provide this kind of surveillance. That's why the GOP is predicting a huge increase in IRS audits and an army of 16,500 new agents and employees to hunt down taxpayers. For all the phony talk of "reducing the deficit," Democrats are neglecting to mention the very real deficits--of money and freedom--incurred by every American if this plan goes into effect. This legislation spells a loss of U.S. life, savings, doctors, and freedom in exchange for nothing but greater government involvement in our personal decisions.
Meanwhile, President Obama is meeting with Democrats and telling them, "Our fates are tied to the health bill." The reality is, the people whose fates are truly tied to this bill are the Americans that none of us have met. They're the unborn, who our dollars will be directed to kill. They're the next generation, who will survive abortion only to suffer the weight of this crushing debt. Like the great men before them, the 111th Congress will walk the long marble hallways to their seats this weekend, where the great voices still echo, "Independence forever!" Ultimately, every one of them will cast a vote heard throughout history. They will choose to pay for legislation with our country's future or stand with the millions of us who know that "liberty--once lost--is lost forever."
Originally published in FRC.org on March 20, 2010
The sun is streaming through windows across Capitol Hill, a striking picture of one of America's greatest skylines. But underneath the city's highest dome, few leaders are venturing out. Instead, they're hunkered down, preparing for one of the most important decisions of their political lives. For most of them, Sunday will not be a day of rest--but a day of unrest, as an exhausting year-long battle comes to an uncertain close. The President has postponed his overseas trip, trying to wring every last second out of his personal lobbying campaign. For shaky Democrats, that means uncomfortable sit-downs in the Oval Office where the President uses some familiar back-scratching to lean on "undecideds."
But it will take more than "rides on Air Force One" to woo party holdouts, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest score. New estimates from the CBO put the price tag of this reconciliation plan well over $1,200,000,000,000.00--most of which would be inherited by the lucky winner of the 2016 presidential election. Together with unsavory new taxes ($569.2 billions worth!), the CBO spotlights the bill's deep gashes in Medicare coverage ($523.5 million in cuts) and confirms that married couples will still be punished with steeper insurance premiums. Believe it or not, nearly half all the individual mandates under this bill will be paid by American families earning less than $66,150 per year. The CBO also points out that a million Americans will have to get their coverage from a bankrupt Medicaid program on the brink of collapsing.
And if you thought dealing with the IRS is a nightmare now, just wait. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee say the agency's tentacles will strangle families under ObamaCare. According to their report, the IRS is on the verge of an unprecedented power grab under the President's bill. It will have the authority to: verify if you have "acceptable" health care coverage, fine you for failure to prove that you have purchased "minimum essential coverage," and even confiscate your tax refund.
Of course, the agency will need a massive cash influx ($10 billion!) to provide this kind of surveillance. That's why the GOP is predicting a huge increase in IRS audits and an army of 16,500 new agents and employees to hunt down taxpayers. For all the phony talk of "reducing the deficit," Democrats are neglecting to mention the very real deficits--of money and freedom--incurred by every American if this plan goes into effect. This legislation spells a loss of U.S. life, savings, doctors, and freedom in exchange for nothing but greater government involvement in our personal decisions.
Meanwhile, President Obama is meeting with Democrats and telling them, "Our fates are tied to the health bill." The reality is, the people whose fates are truly tied to this bill are the Americans that none of us have met. They're the unborn, who our dollars will be directed to kill. They're the next generation, who will survive abortion only to suffer the weight of this crushing debt. Like the great men before them, the 111th Congress will walk the long marble hallways to their seats this weekend, where the great voices still echo, "Independence forever!" Ultimately, every one of them will cast a vote heard throughout history. They will choose to pay for legislation with our country's future or stand with the millions of us who know that "liberty--once lost--is lost forever."
Originally published in FRC.org on March 20, 2010
Mar 19, 2010
Obama and Democrats' Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional?
Obama's healthcare bill: Obama and Democrats' Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional?
CNS.com March 19, 2010 story about President Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs and the Slaughter Solution (deem and pass strategy by Obama and the Democrats to pass the health care bill):
. . . Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has noted that a lawsuit was brought in regards to a similar matter in the 1998 case of Clinton vs. City of New York, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the line-item veto was not constitutional.
That ruling cited the Constitution and stated that for a bill to become law it was necessary that “1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives; 2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and 3) the text was signed into law by the president.”
Levin called the Slaughter Rule an “attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the process.”
“Gibbs’s incoherence is an attempt to deceive,” Levin told CNSNews.com on Thursday. “I have no doubt in my mind that the White House is working very closely with Pelosi and her lieutenants on this strategy of pretending they voted on an underlying bill when, in fact, they didn’t vote on it. So that’s why he is so deceitful.”
“His boss (Obama) yesterday, in an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier made quite clear that he’s well aware of what’s going on at the Hill and whatever comes to him, he’s going to sign,” said Levin. “So what we’ve learned from Brett Baier and you is that we have two branches of government that are absolutely committed to violating the Constitution in order to achieve an illegitimate ends.”
At the same White House briefing, another reporter asked Gibbs, “He’s (Obama) not worried that it’s constitutional?
Gibbs said, “He would sign that bill, yes.”
Another reporter also asked Gibbs if the White House was preparing a legal team to respond to lawsuits regarding the health care overhaul. Gibbs said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
The Landmark Legal Foundation is a conservative legal public interest group, led by Mark Levin, who also hosts a popular talk-radio show. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department and as deputy solicitor for the Department of the Interior.
On Monday, March 15, Levin announced on his radio show that he intended to bring the lawsuit if the Senate health care bill is passed through the House without a yea-and-nay vote on the actual legislation and president signs it into law.
A draft of the suit names as defendants President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Because the House violated the Constitution by never voting on the Senate bill, the Senate bill cannot be and is not the law of the United States,” the draft says. “Defendants, charged by law and the Constitution with enforcing the law, must be prevented from treating the Senate bill as the law of the United States. Any signature by the president is a nullity, and the piece of paper he has stated that he will sign or has signed is nothing more than that: a piece of paper.”
The House Rules Committee drafts the terms under which bills are brought to the floor and debated. Under a plan put together by Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the House would "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without ever holding a recorded vote on it as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
According to the plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
CNS.com March 19, 2010 story about President Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs and the Slaughter Solution (deem and pass strategy by Obama and the Democrats to pass the health care bill):
. . . Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has noted that a lawsuit was brought in regards to a similar matter in the 1998 case of Clinton vs. City of New York, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the line-item veto was not constitutional.
That ruling cited the Constitution and stated that for a bill to become law it was necessary that “1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives; 2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and 3) the text was signed into law by the president.”
Levin called the Slaughter Rule an “attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the process.”
“Gibbs’s incoherence is an attempt to deceive,” Levin told CNSNews.com on Thursday. “I have no doubt in my mind that the White House is working very closely with Pelosi and her lieutenants on this strategy of pretending they voted on an underlying bill when, in fact, they didn’t vote on it. So that’s why he is so deceitful.”
“His boss (Obama) yesterday, in an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier made quite clear that he’s well aware of what’s going on at the Hill and whatever comes to him, he’s going to sign,” said Levin. “So what we’ve learned from Brett Baier and you is that we have two branches of government that are absolutely committed to violating the Constitution in order to achieve an illegitimate ends.”
At the same White House briefing, another reporter asked Gibbs, “He’s (Obama) not worried that it’s constitutional?
Gibbs said, “He would sign that bill, yes.”
Another reporter also asked Gibbs if the White House was preparing a legal team to respond to lawsuits regarding the health care overhaul. Gibbs said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
The Landmark Legal Foundation is a conservative legal public interest group, led by Mark Levin, who also hosts a popular talk-radio show. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department and as deputy solicitor for the Department of the Interior.
On Monday, March 15, Levin announced on his radio show that he intended to bring the lawsuit if the Senate health care bill is passed through the House without a yea-and-nay vote on the actual legislation and president signs it into law.
A draft of the suit names as defendants President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Because the House violated the Constitution by never voting on the Senate bill, the Senate bill cannot be and is not the law of the United States,” the draft says. “Defendants, charged by law and the Constitution with enforcing the law, must be prevented from treating the Senate bill as the law of the United States. Any signature by the president is a nullity, and the piece of paper he has stated that he will sign or has signed is nothing more than that: a piece of paper.”
The House Rules Committee drafts the terms under which bills are brought to the floor and debated. Under a plan put together by Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the House would "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without ever holding a recorded vote on it as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
According to the plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
Slaughtering the Constitution?
Slaughtering the Constitution?By Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Guest Columnist (original posted in the Washington Times, March 19, 2010)
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census
Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census
Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
Mar 18, 2010
The future of American free enterprise contra Obama and beyond
The future of American free enterprise contra Obama and beyond
American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks was asked by Marvin Olasky (World, Jan. 16, 2010) about American free enterprise. Here are excerpts:
Q: Is the drive the drive to nationalize healthcare a special case or part of a bigger picture?
A: The current administration has two guiding principles, basically. Overseas, what they call diplomacy, which we call appeasement. At home, what they call fairness, which we call redistribution. Redistribution comes about because, for the current administration, the problem is that some people have more and some people have less. That's not a problem for me: I want more equality of opportunity for people to pursue their skills and passions, and individual opportunity will lead naturally to different outcomes.
Q: Once Congress finish with healthcare, one way or the other, what will be a hot issue during the rest of 2010?
A: Tax reform is coming around . . . . When people see that raising taxes cuts off opportunity for them, their kids, and their grandkids, and when we have to pay for the deficit by taxing the middle class, which inevitably will happen, this is going to become a hot, hot issue. It will start emerging in 2010. This is one area where AEI is utterly locked and loaded. We have the data and we're ready to go on this. I can't wait for that fight.
Q: Can candidates with strong conservative principles win elections?
A: Margaret Thatcher won in the U.K. Ronald Reagan won in the U.S. Our task has to be one of principle and not of political expediency in the 2010 midterm elections. It's a short-term vs. long-term problem: We're not working for one year or two years or 2012, but for the next hundred years. We're working for the free enterprise system that's going to benefit our kids and grandchildren and generations to come. The free enterprise system is a gift to America and America is a gift to the world, but only under the right circumstances. Those of us who believe these things need to hold our colleagues',m friends' and leaders' feet to the fire.
American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks was asked by Marvin Olasky (World, Jan. 16, 2010) about American free enterprise. Here are excerpts:
Q: Is the drive the drive to nationalize healthcare a special case or part of a bigger picture?
A: The current administration has two guiding principles, basically. Overseas, what they call diplomacy, which we call appeasement. At home, what they call fairness, which we call redistribution. Redistribution comes about because, for the current administration, the problem is that some people have more and some people have less. That's not a problem for me: I want more equality of opportunity for people to pursue their skills and passions, and individual opportunity will lead naturally to different outcomes.
Q: Once Congress finish with healthcare, one way or the other, what will be a hot issue during the rest of 2010?
A: Tax reform is coming around . . . . When people see that raising taxes cuts off opportunity for them, their kids, and their grandkids, and when we have to pay for the deficit by taxing the middle class, which inevitably will happen, this is going to become a hot, hot issue. It will start emerging in 2010. This is one area where AEI is utterly locked and loaded. We have the data and we're ready to go on this. I can't wait for that fight.
Q: Can candidates with strong conservative principles win elections?
A: Margaret Thatcher won in the U.K. Ronald Reagan won in the U.S. Our task has to be one of principle and not of political expediency in the 2010 midterm elections. It's a short-term vs. long-term problem: We're not working for one year or two years or 2012, but for the next hundred years. We're working for the free enterprise system that's going to benefit our kids and grandchildren and generations to come. The free enterprise system is a gift to America and America is a gift to the world, but only under the right circumstances. Those of us who believe these things need to hold our colleagues',m friends' and leaders' feet to the fire.
Mar 15, 2010
Former N.Y. Times Editor Takes Aim at Fox News
Former N.Y. Times Editor Takes Aim at Fox News
Monday, 15 Mar 2010 09:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
When it comes to arrogance, former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines tops Dan Rather.
Raines has come out with a Washington Post opinion piece headlined, “Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked.”
Raines takes “America’s old-school news organizations” to task for failing to blow the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a “propaganda campaign against the Obama administration.”
Specifically, Ailes has “overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II,” according to Raines.
As a result, after “14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of president Obama’s idea of sweeping [healthcare] reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation,” Raines complains.
“Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that [Rupert] Murdoch does not belong to our team?” Raines writes, referring to the head of News Corp, which owns the Fox network.
Raines is the same editor who presided over the Jayson Blair scandal. As a New York Times reporter for 3 ½ years, Blair not only routinely fabricated stories, he had 50 corrections.
After the 10th correction, Raines should have fired him. Raines brushed aside concerns raised by editors, including metro editor Jonathan Landman, who e-mailed newsroom administrators to say that management has to “stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.”
Based on an investigation of Blair’s stories, the Times concluded, “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”
In contrast, Fox News practices journalism the way The New York Times practiced it decades ago, when it was the pinnacle of the profession. Aside from opinion shows, Fox News has a rule that, on any controversial issue, guests from opposing sides must appear.
Ailes keeps track of the statistics religiously to make sure the rule is enforced. What could be more fair and balanced than that?
As a result, Public Policy Polling found in January that 49 percent of those surveyed trusted Fox News. In contrast, only 39 percent trusted CNN. Next came NBC, including its sister network MSNBC, with 35 percent. Least trusted were CBS with 32 percent and ABC with 31 percent.
That trust shows up in ratings and profits. While competitors have been laying off employees, Fox has been expanding.
Among cable networks, top-rated Fox News drew an average of 2.4 million viewers in prime time between Jan. 26 and Feb. 22, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN was in second place with 1.2 million viewers; MSNBC posted an average of only 949,000 viewers.
Instead of spewing “propaganda,” as Raines suggests, Fox News is the most-trusted television news source. By any standard, that is news. Tellingly, neither The New York Times nor Fox News’ competitors ran a story on the poll results.
In posing as the conscience of journalism, Raines exceeds Dan Rather in arrogance. Rather and his CBS show “60 Minutes Wednesday” thought they could get away with airing damaging documents about George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service even though their own experts warned that the documents were probably fake.
The supposedly typewritten documents were so crudely forged that they had proportional spacing that did not exist when they purportedly were written in 1972.
Last year, the same Dan Rather proposed that President Obama appoint a commission to address “the perilous state of America’s news media.” At stake, Rather says, is “our democratic republic.”
If Raines and Rather looked in the mirror, they would see what is wrong with the media today — and why their former news organizations are shriveling.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 15 Mar 2010 09:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
When it comes to arrogance, former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines tops Dan Rather.
Raines has come out with a Washington Post opinion piece headlined, “Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked.”
Raines takes “America’s old-school news organizations” to task for failing to blow the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a “propaganda campaign against the Obama administration.”
Specifically, Ailes has “overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II,” according to Raines.
As a result, after “14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of president Obama’s idea of sweeping [healthcare] reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation,” Raines complains.
“Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that [Rupert] Murdoch does not belong to our team?” Raines writes, referring to the head of News Corp, which owns the Fox network.
Raines is the same editor who presided over the Jayson Blair scandal. As a New York Times reporter for 3 ½ years, Blair not only routinely fabricated stories, he had 50 corrections.
After the 10th correction, Raines should have fired him. Raines brushed aside concerns raised by editors, including metro editor Jonathan Landman, who e-mailed newsroom administrators to say that management has to “stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.”
Based on an investigation of Blair’s stories, the Times concluded, “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”
In contrast, Fox News practices journalism the way The New York Times practiced it decades ago, when it was the pinnacle of the profession. Aside from opinion shows, Fox News has a rule that, on any controversial issue, guests from opposing sides must appear.
Ailes keeps track of the statistics religiously to make sure the rule is enforced. What could be more fair and balanced than that?
As a result, Public Policy Polling found in January that 49 percent of those surveyed trusted Fox News. In contrast, only 39 percent trusted CNN. Next came NBC, including its sister network MSNBC, with 35 percent. Least trusted were CBS with 32 percent and ABC with 31 percent.
That trust shows up in ratings and profits. While competitors have been laying off employees, Fox has been expanding.
Among cable networks, top-rated Fox News drew an average of 2.4 million viewers in prime time between Jan. 26 and Feb. 22, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN was in second place with 1.2 million viewers; MSNBC posted an average of only 949,000 viewers.
Instead of spewing “propaganda,” as Raines suggests, Fox News is the most-trusted television news source. By any standard, that is news. Tellingly, neither The New York Times nor Fox News’ competitors ran a story on the poll results.
In posing as the conscience of journalism, Raines exceeds Dan Rather in arrogance. Rather and his CBS show “60 Minutes Wednesday” thought they could get away with airing damaging documents about George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service even though their own experts warned that the documents were probably fake.
The supposedly typewritten documents were so crudely forged that they had proportional spacing that did not exist when they purportedly were written in 1972.
Last year, the same Dan Rather proposed that President Obama appoint a commission to address “the perilous state of America’s news media.” At stake, Rather says, is “our democratic republic.”
If Raines and Rather looked in the mirror, they would see what is wrong with the media today — and why their former news organizations are shriveling.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
It is not the rulers that produce wealth
Regarding Obama's federal decrees on the economy and health care:
"It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor and levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces." That population demands a basic fairness: It is not prepared, either in Peru or the United States, "to accept a society in which opportunities, property, and power are distributed arbitrarily.
Marvin Olasky (Univ. of Texas at Austin commenting and quoting Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto Polar; to go to the primary source, read De Soto's The Other Path, 1989.
What do you think?
"It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor and levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces." That population demands a basic fairness: It is not prepared, either in Peru or the United States, "to accept a society in which opportunities, property, and power are distributed arbitrarily.
Marvin Olasky (Univ. of Texas at Austin commenting and quoting Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto Polar; to go to the primary source, read De Soto's The Other Path, 1989.
What do you think?
Feb 24, 2010
Pa. abortion clinic found to be "deplorable and unsanitary" by federal agents
Pa. abortion doctor's license suspended after raid
Pa. abortion clinc found to be "deplorable and unsanitary" by federal agents
Feb 23, 9:24 PM (ET)
By JOANN LOVIGLIO for the Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Federal agents raided a clinic where abortions are performed and found "deplorable and unsanitary" conditions, including blood on the floor and parts of aborted fetuses in jars, according to the state agency that shut it down and suspended the license of the doctor in charge.
In the order suspending Dr. Kermit Gosnell's license, the Pennsylvania Department of State's Board of Medicine said investigators found numerous health and safety risks at Gosnell's abortion and pain-management clinic, including a preoperative and recovery area that consisted of several recliners grouped together.
The Women's Medical Society clinic is open during the day, but Gosnell does not arrive until somewhere between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. and is the only person with a medical license working there, according to the order.
A clinic employee told investigators that Gosnell directed her in his absence to conduct gynecological examinations and administer painkillers to patients, the document states.
The temporary suspension of Gosnell's license follows at least two raids by agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. At the time of one raid - at 9 p.m. on Feb. 18 - investigators found the clinic full of patients.
On Nov. 20, the document states, a patient died after being given two separate doses of painkillers plus anesthesia before an abortion.
Gosnell's number is unlisted and calls to the clinic rang unanswered. It's not known if he has an attorney. His practice is located near the University of Pennsylvania campus in a large corner building, where a note in the window said that all patient appointments were canceled.
No criminal charges have been filed. Officials from the Philadelphia district attorney's office, DEA and FBI declined to comment, citing the ongoing probe and a sealed search warrant.
Kenneth E. Brody, attorney for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, confirmed that the department was assisting in the investigation but declined to discuss details.
Separate from the criminal probe, an investigation by state regulators will determine whether there is enough evidence for a formal hearing before the state Board of Medicine, said Department of State spokesman Charles Young.
"The petition alleges in this case that there is a threat to public safety," Young said, "but he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise."
According to Department of State records, Gosnell, 69, received his medical license in 1967. He also was authorized to practice medicine in New York in 1970.
In 1996, he was fined $1,000 by the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine for employing an uncertified physician's assistant. No other disciplinary actions were found.
Pa. abortion clinc found to be "deplorable and unsanitary" by federal agents
Feb 23, 9:24 PM (ET)
By JOANN LOVIGLIO for the Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Federal agents raided a clinic where abortions are performed and found "deplorable and unsanitary" conditions, including blood on the floor and parts of aborted fetuses in jars, according to the state agency that shut it down and suspended the license of the doctor in charge.
In the order suspending Dr. Kermit Gosnell's license, the Pennsylvania Department of State's Board of Medicine said investigators found numerous health and safety risks at Gosnell's abortion and pain-management clinic, including a preoperative and recovery area that consisted of several recliners grouped together.
The Women's Medical Society clinic is open during the day, but Gosnell does not arrive until somewhere between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. and is the only person with a medical license working there, according to the order.
A clinic employee told investigators that Gosnell directed her in his absence to conduct gynecological examinations and administer painkillers to patients, the document states.
The temporary suspension of Gosnell's license follows at least two raids by agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. At the time of one raid - at 9 p.m. on Feb. 18 - investigators found the clinic full of patients.
On Nov. 20, the document states, a patient died after being given two separate doses of painkillers plus anesthesia before an abortion.
Gosnell's number is unlisted and calls to the clinic rang unanswered. It's not known if he has an attorney. His practice is located near the University of Pennsylvania campus in a large corner building, where a note in the window said that all patient appointments were canceled.
No criminal charges have been filed. Officials from the Philadelphia district attorney's office, DEA and FBI declined to comment, citing the ongoing probe and a sealed search warrant.
Kenneth E. Brody, attorney for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, confirmed that the department was assisting in the investigation but declined to discuss details.
Separate from the criminal probe, an investigation by state regulators will determine whether there is enough evidence for a formal hearing before the state Board of Medicine, said Department of State spokesman Charles Young.
"The petition alleges in this case that there is a threat to public safety," Young said, "but he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise."
According to Department of State records, Gosnell, 69, received his medical license in 1967. He also was authorized to practice medicine in New York in 1970.
In 1996, he was fined $1,000 by the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine for employing an uncertified physician's assistant. No other disciplinary actions were found.
Top generals' disagreement on gays in the military
General Disagreement on Gays in the Military
From Family Research Council's president, Tony Perkins (Feb. 23, 2010):
The military is used to escalating tensions--but not within its own ranks. Yesterday, two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than hinted at an internal conflict over the President's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" campaign. During hearings with the Armed Services Committee, the first cracks over the issue started to show among America's top brass. Both Army Chief Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz disagreed with their Navy counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen on the effects of overturning the policy.
"I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars..." Gen. Casey told the Senate panel. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness." In the meantime, the Army Chief completely rejected the push to stop "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dismissals until a final decision is made. "This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan ..." he said. Today, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway entered the fray in a House hearing, insisting that civil rights would ultimately have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the nation. Under a bill from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Congress would put a moratorium on the military's discharges over the next year while the Pentagon studies the policy change. Gen. Schwartz was forcefully opposed to the idea, saying it would put the current cases "in legal limbo."
Of course, this is a typical strategy of the administration, which tries to pick off laws by phasing out their enforcement. (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?) That's why the timing of his team's first strike on the issue was so important. Shortly after the State of the Union address, where President Obama called for repeal, the White House rushed Adm. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Hill for cover. Both leaders backed the campaign in an effort to head off any dissent. Until yesterday, they were quite successful.
So successful, in fact, that even I was caught in the crossfire. In October, the chaplain of Andrews Air Force Base asked me to speak at a non-political prayer luncheon. Just two days after the State of the Union address, the base rescinded its invitation, citing FRC statements "which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander-in-Chief." As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I was shocked that the military would exclude me from speaking to the spiritual needs of our servicemen solely because I exercised my free speech rights in a different forum--in support of the current law of the land. Unfortunately, this is just precursor of things to come in a post-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military.
This legislation would more than open the Armed Forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. Will the chaplains' sermons be censored? Would they have the freedom to counsel soldiers with same-sex attractions? Or would they be disqualified from the service altogether?
From Family Research Council's president, Tony Perkins (Feb. 23, 2010):
The military is used to escalating tensions--but not within its own ranks. Yesterday, two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than hinted at an internal conflict over the President's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" campaign. During hearings with the Armed Services Committee, the first cracks over the issue started to show among America's top brass. Both Army Chief Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz disagreed with their Navy counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen on the effects of overturning the policy.
"I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars..." Gen. Casey told the Senate panel. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness." In the meantime, the Army Chief completely rejected the push to stop "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dismissals until a final decision is made. "This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan ..." he said. Today, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway entered the fray in a House hearing, insisting that civil rights would ultimately have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the nation. Under a bill from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Congress would put a moratorium on the military's discharges over the next year while the Pentagon studies the policy change. Gen. Schwartz was forcefully opposed to the idea, saying it would put the current cases "in legal limbo."
Of course, this is a typical strategy of the administration, which tries to pick off laws by phasing out their enforcement. (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?) That's why the timing of his team's first strike on the issue was so important. Shortly after the State of the Union address, where President Obama called for repeal, the White House rushed Adm. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Hill for cover. Both leaders backed the campaign in an effort to head off any dissent. Until yesterday, they were quite successful.
So successful, in fact, that even I was caught in the crossfire. In October, the chaplain of Andrews Air Force Base asked me to speak at a non-political prayer luncheon. Just two days after the State of the Union address, the base rescinded its invitation, citing FRC statements "which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander-in-Chief." As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I was shocked that the military would exclude me from speaking to the spiritual needs of our servicemen solely because I exercised my free speech rights in a different forum--in support of the current law of the land. Unfortunately, this is just precursor of things to come in a post-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military.
This legislation would more than open the Armed Forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. Will the chaplains' sermons be censored? Would they have the freedom to counsel soldiers with same-sex attractions? Or would they be disqualified from the service altogether?
Feb 16, 2010
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012
By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
Feb 14, 2010
DeMint Slams Gore and "Warming" Hitting DC
DeMint Slams Gore and 'Warming' Hitting D.C.
Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 11:26 PM Article Font Size
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is using the snowstorm hitting Washington D.C. as an opportunity to make some points about former Vice President Al Gore and climate change.
The conservative senator took to Twitter on Tuesday amid reports that the area is due to receive another 10 to 20 inches of snow this week, according to The Hill.
DeMint tweeted: “It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”
Other conservatives have echoed DeMint's sentiments that the snowstorm should poke holes in evidence backing global warming.
The South Carolina senator was not the first Republican to use the snowstorm to make a political point, according to The Hill. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas, said that absence of votes in the House is a plus for taxpayers.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 11:26 PM Article Font Size
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is using the snowstorm hitting Washington D.C. as an opportunity to make some points about former Vice President Al Gore and climate change.
The conservative senator took to Twitter on Tuesday amid reports that the area is due to receive another 10 to 20 inches of snow this week, according to The Hill.
DeMint tweeted: “It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”
Other conservatives have echoed DeMint's sentiments that the snowstorm should poke holes in evidence backing global warming.
The South Carolina senator was not the first Republican to use the snowstorm to make a political point, according to The Hill. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas, said that absence of votes in the House is a plus for taxpayers.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Jan 20, 2010
The end of health care as Obama knows it
The end of health care as Obama know it
With the win by now U.S. Senator-elect Scott Brown in the hottest political senate race in decades, the end of health care as we know it is near. U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, put the Obama Administration and his Democrat colleagues on notice, saying:
"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
The secretive Democratic leadership meetings are also put on notice, as well as Obama's Chicago-style bullying and buying of senators. Care to make a wager?
With the win by now U.S. Senator-elect Scott Brown in the hottest political senate race in decades, the end of health care as we know it is near. U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, put the Obama Administration and his Democrat colleagues on notice, saying:
"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
The secretive Democratic leadership meetings are also put on notice, as well as Obama's Chicago-style bullying and buying of senators. Care to make a wager?
Jan 8, 2010
Up Pacquiao, down Tiger
Up Pacquiao, Down Tiger
Up Pacquiao
Voted 2009 Male Athlete of the Year (worldwide) was a little 5'6" 138lb boxing champ, Manny Pacquiao, a faithful husband, father of four, Christian and a hero to his (my native) country, the Philippines.
Down Tiger
Pacquiao's character is unlike the Athlete of the Decade, Tiger Woods, unfaithful husband, father, Buddhist American. As a Filipino-American and a former NCAA athlete scholar, I celebrate the best of the Philippines and continue to pray for my adopted, beloved country, America!
Resolve
In light of the above, this year: Resolve not to allow present temporal conditions reign over you. Do not allow current and changing atmospheric conditions cloud your eternal perspective. REE (Psalm 51:8-9.
Up Pacquiao
Voted 2009 Male Athlete of the Year (worldwide) was a little 5'6" 138lb boxing champ, Manny Pacquiao, a faithful husband, father of four, Christian and a hero to his (my native) country, the Philippines.
Down Tiger
Pacquiao's character is unlike the Athlete of the Decade, Tiger Woods, unfaithful husband, father, Buddhist American. As a Filipino-American and a former NCAA athlete scholar, I celebrate the best of the Philippines and continue to pray for my adopted, beloved country, America!
Resolve
In light of the above, this year: Resolve not to allow present temporal conditions reign over you. Do not allow current and changing atmospheric conditions cloud your eternal perspective. REE (Psalm 51:8-9.
Jan 7, 2010
Wise Words from President Theodore Roosevelt
Wise Words from President Theodore Roosevelt on personal life, national life and economic life
On this New Year, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
President Theodore Roosevelt, a Dutch Reformed Christian, also provided a recipe for a health nation: "A healthy state can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean,vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk."
His words against welfare, which by definition includes the current health care bill and the previous stimulus bills, was simple: Commanding the re-establishment of the
8th Commandment, Roosevelt bellowed: "Do not steal."
On this New Year, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
President Theodore Roosevelt, a Dutch Reformed Christian, also provided a recipe for a health nation: "A healthy state can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean,vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk."
His words against welfare, which by definition includes the current health care bill and the previous stimulus bills, was simple: Commanding the re-establishment of the
8th Commandment, Roosevelt bellowed: "Do not steal."
Jan 5, 2010
Obama and Xmas
Church not part of Obama's Christmas schedule: Merry Xmas from the Obamas
Time.com recently published "No Churchgoing Christmas for the First Family." President Barack Obama had time to play golf, basketball and involve himself in a myriad of activities but the Reason for the season was beyond his tight Christmas presidential schedule.
Unlike the Three Kings from the East who used camels to travel thousands of miles through the desert, Obama did not have time to pay homage to the King of Kings; he did have time to go to the tropical West--Hawaii--via Air Force One.
According to Time, in light of all the busyness and traditions undertaken by the Obamas, "there's one common Christmas practice not on the First Family's schedule: a visit to Christmas Eve church services."
A humble Jewish girl had the appropriate historical response: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant" (Luke 1:46-47). Mary continued: "His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation, He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble."
As Mary did, our rulers should humbly fear him during Christmas and everyday so that our country may experience mercy not destruction, economic or otherwise.
On this precise point, another ruler, King David, once said, "Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son [Jesus], lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way" (Psalm 2:10-12).
Time.com recently published "No Churchgoing Christmas for the First Family." President Barack Obama had time to play golf, basketball and involve himself in a myriad of activities but the Reason for the season was beyond his tight Christmas presidential schedule.
Unlike the Three Kings from the East who used camels to travel thousands of miles through the desert, Obama did not have time to pay homage to the King of Kings; he did have time to go to the tropical West--Hawaii--via Air Force One.
According to Time, in light of all the busyness and traditions undertaken by the Obamas, "there's one common Christmas practice not on the First Family's schedule: a visit to Christmas Eve church services."
A humble Jewish girl had the appropriate historical response: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant" (Luke 1:46-47). Mary continued: "His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation, He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble."
As Mary did, our rulers should humbly fear him during Christmas and everyday so that our country may experience mercy not destruction, economic or otherwise.
On this precise point, another ruler, King David, once said, "Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son [Jesus], lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way" (Psalm 2:10-12).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)