One of the most fundamental principles of any war is that, to win, you must divide your enemies and unite your friends. This principle is know by various names, including "divide and conquer" and "strength in numbers." How well has the Bush Administration applied this principle? Throughout the Middle East,…
In a political climate drenched with debate as well as petty fighting, many people embrace bipartisan cooperation when it makes one of its rare appearances. A no-brainer of a bill feels like a relief, and it indicates that Congress actually has the ability to conduct business in a productive way. The uncontested passage of a bill feels particularly sweet when the bill deals with an emotionally gratifying issue, like the recent creation of a national sex offender registry.
No one urged President Bush to veto this bill. Named for the America’s Most Wanted host’s kidnapped son, Adam Walsh, this bill had all the trappings of legislative gem: widespread bipartisan support, quick, painless passage, and the emotional pull that only arresting child molesters for 25 years can elicit.
The law establishes a national-level database of past sex offenders’ names and locations. Many states have implemented databases of this kind before, but this law penalizes past offenders more harshly for not providing current information, and increases criminal penalties for child predators as well. It certainly sounds like a Congressional slam-dunk, providing all Americans with more access to information, and better protecting the nation’s children from proven sex criminals. Most people would support such a piece of legislation without a moment’s thought.
But any issue that prompts you to think with your heart rather than your head can have disastrous results. Botched legislation has enjoyed widespread gut-reaction support before, after all. And sex offender registries have not had a shining history.…
Yes, these are giddy and unnerving times, but it’s also time to bring out popcorn and balloons. It’s time to celebrate the end of the world!
You can hear it 24/7 on evangelical radio, (I’ve been listening to radio station KJSL, based in St. Louis). Each passing month, the voices of those radio preachers are getting faster and higher-pitched. It’s all intensely festive, in a macabre sort of way. All the signs are there, the preachers proclaim. This is really “it.”
Syndicated talk show host Paul McGuire is among the many radio preachers leading the cheers with their own gnashing teeth. McGuire just wrote a book entitled ARE YOU READY? WELCOME TO THE END OF THE WORLD. What’s his new book about? Check out McGuire’s website:
A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON AMERICA; THE COMING MEXICO, U.S. & CANADIAN MERGER; ISRAEL & THE PALESTINIAN STATE; GLOBAL GOVERNMENT; TERRORISM; HURRICANES, FREAK WEATHER & EPIDEMICS; PREDICTIONS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREW PROPHETS; SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Any time the radical Christ crowd gets this excited (excited enough to use the Caps Lock key so extensively), it’s worth checking out. Just because they’ve been wrong about the end of the world so often before doesn’t mean that they aren’t on target this time.
But there’s this other thing on my mind—why have those evangelicals gotten so enamored about protecting their very very very good friend, Israel? It turns out that these two things—the end of the world and the existence of Israel–are connected.
Remember Pat …
When the news this morning reported yet more staggering profits for big oil companies, I realized that I could think of only three groups of Americans who have benefitted in a big way -- i.e., with obscene profits -- since George Bush took office: big oil companies (Bush's former business…
What is it to be loyal? According to Merriam Webster, to be "loyal" is to be
1 : unswerving in allegiance: as a: faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government b: faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due c: faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product.I don't have a problem with this definition. I do object, however, that "loyalty" has been given a free pass in modern American culture, as though loyalty is always a good thing. In particular, the mass media has bought into this linguistic sleight-of-hand: according to the mainstream media, it is always a good thing to be "loyal." Loyalty is undoubtedly a virtue when we are dealing with pet dogs. We like our dogs to be loyal. We like our dogs to do what we tell them to do. The loyalty of a human being is not necessarily a good thing, however. Loyalty is a matter of committing oneself to a person, to a group of people or to a cause. But people and causes can be either praiseworthy or despicable (or something in between). If a social cause to which I am loyal is that all babies should have basic medical care, loyalty to such a cause would be a good thing. If my idea is that we should all give homage to Hitler, loyalty to this cause would be a horrible idea. Therefore, how can it be said that loyalty is per se a good thing unless one first examines the merit of the person(s) or clause(s) to which a person is being loyal? [More . . . ]