Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Some Megachurches Closing for Christmas

Yahoo! News reported This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day.

This is WRONG
Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown. It is almost unheard of for a Christian church to cancel services on a Sunday, and opponents of the closures are accusing these congregations of bowing to secular culture. "This is a consumer mentality at work: `Let's not impose the church on people. Let's not make church in any way inconvenient,'" said David Wells, professor of history and systematic theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Hamilton, Mass. "I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing."

The churches closing on Christmas plan multiple services in the days leading up to the holiday, including on Christmas Eve. Most normally do not hold Christmas Day services, preferring instead to mark the holiday in the days and night before. However, Sunday worship has been a Christian practice since ancient times. Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.
Most large Megachurches have smaller sanctuaries used for weddings, funerals, etc. They should at a minimum have one of them open, with a pastor prepared to receive any that do show up.
"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said.
Many C&E Christians only go on Christmas and Easter. You should at least be open for them. They might not show up at all next year.
Among the other megachurches closing on Christmas Day are Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky., near Lexington, and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside of Dallas. North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., outside of Atlanta, said on its Web site that no services will be held on Christmas Day or New Year's Day, which also falls on a Sunday. A spokesman for North Point did not respond to requests for comment.

The closures stand in stark contrast to Roman Catholic parishes, which will see some of their largest crowds of the year on Christmas, and mainline Protestant congregations such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran churches, where Sunday services are rarely if ever canceled.

Cindy Willison, a spokeswoman for the evangelical Southland Christian Church, said at least 500 volunteers are needed, along with staff, to run Sunday services for the estimated 8,000 people who usually attend. She said many of the volunteers appreciate the chance to spend Christmas with their families instead of working, although she said a few church members complained.
Christ will be attending a major birthday party in Heaven; what will He think if he looks down and sees your church closed? As indicated above, if you don't expect enough to show up to open the large sanctuary, at least have one of the smaller sanctuaries open for any that do show up.

Read More...

Redefining Christianity for Christmas

Danny Carlton blogged From the Washington State King County Journal...

Medina Elementary School officials took down a Christmas-themed "giving tree'' Monday after a parent complained about its religious connotations. Chris Metzger, office manager at Medina, said the spiral, lighted Christmas tree with a star on top was up for about a week before it was removed. The tree had mittens on it with a different gift idea attached to each. The idea was for students to take a mitten, get the gift listed, wrap it up and return it to school along with the mitten. Organized by students in the Community Kids program, presents from the giving tree are going to be given to students at Lake Hills Elementary School, Metzger said. After the tree was taken down, the mittens were taped to a counter in the main office so the gift-giving could continue. "Now we just have a giving counter,'' joked Metzger
Since the Christmas tree isn't Christian, the only religious act was removing it because of the religious views of the idiot who thought it was.
Technically the star at the top of the tree represents the Star of Bethlehem, but you are right, the tree itself is not a Christian symbol. But even if was, since it was organized by the students, and not by the school, it should still be permissable.

Read More...

Relaunch About.com

DMNews reports Nine months after New York Times Co. bought the service for $410 million, About.com is ready to explain to advertisers the virtues of sitting alongside 57,000 topics and a library of 1.2 million pieces of content.

I hope they are going to clean up some of their sites, which have multiple pages about the same subject, and where the majority of each page is just ads.
The site, a high flier in the dot-com heyday, is almost under the radar today. But market researcher Nielsen//NetRatings said About.com drew 29 million unique users nationally and 47 million worldwide in October. "We're probably the biggest site that is least known in terms of what we can deliver to advertisers," said Scott B. Meyer, president/CEO of New York-based About.com and a speaker at this week's Search Engine Strategies show.

Read More...

390m wide asteroid could hit Earth

Guardian reported In Egyptian myth, Apophis was the ancient spirit of evil and destruction, a demon that was determined to plunge the world into eternal darkness. A fitting name, astronomers reasoned, for a menace now hurtling towards Earth from outerspace. Scientists are monitoring the progress of a 390-metre wide asteroid discovered last year that is potentially on a collision course with the planet,

In 31 years
and are imploring governments to decide on a strategy for dealing with it. Nasa has estimated that an impact from Apophis, which has an outside chance of hitting the Earth in 2036, would release more than 100,000 times the energy released in the nuclear blast over Hiroshima. Thousands of square kilometres would be directly affected by the blast but the whole of the Earth would see the effects of the dust released into the atmosphere.

And, scientists insist, there is actually very little time left to decide. At a recent meeting of experts in near-Earth objects (NEOs) in London, scientists said it could take decades to design, test and build the required technology to deflect the asteroid. Monica Grady, an expert in meteorites at the Open University, said: "It's a question of when, not if, a near Earth object collides with Earth. Many of the smaller objects break up when they reach the Earth's atmosphere and have no impact. However, a NEO larger than 1km [wide] will collide with Earth every few hundred thousand years and a NEO larger than 6km, which could cause mass extinction, will collide with Earth every hundred million years. We are overdue for a big one."

Read More...

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

WaPo reported Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

I feel sure they will
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Read More...

Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture

MSNBC reported Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

And yet the bill that McCain is pushing is not to ban torture (which we have said we don't do), but cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Saddam did not show up for court today because he did not have clean underwear (I guess the earlier testamony caused him to soil his), and his co-defendents complained they had not been given cigarettes, coffee, or tea. I guess any of those could be called "degrading".
The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment. The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

Read More...

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Law schools vs. military recruiters

Pajamas Media blogged The Scotus blog examines the possible arguments in Rumsfeld et al. v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) over the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. The ACS Blog has a massive roundup of the summaries of briefs filed in connection with the case. The Law Dork takes note of the ironies in the amicus briefs regarding who is supporting which side of the argument. Virginia Law Democrats says "the WSJ op-ed page (which is itself reliably Orwelllian) has thrown its negligible credibility behind the government's efforts to blackmail law schools

Blackmail is when you threaten to reveal something about someone. All the Solomon ammendment says is that if they don't let Military Recruiters on campus, they don't get federal funds. Which seems quite reasonable to me.
(universities, really, but more on that later) into violating their anti-discrimination policies." Financial Methods simply says: "Law Schools Fight Clinton-era Law". Law Professor Peter Berkowitz argues that law schools which disapprove of military recruitment standards should have the principles to reject Federal funds.
And all the Solomon ammendment does is restrict the funds whether they have the principles to reject them or not.
Come Tuesday the Right Side of the Rainbow will have a link to the audio tapes of the arguments. Meanwhile, in action outside the courtroom the Counter Recruiter is announcing that Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn, Dahr Jamail
I don't know who the other two are, but hasn't Cindy's 15 minutes of fame expired a long time ago
and a host of others plan to protest at a military recruitment station as the case is being heard.

Read More...

Israel can't stop Iran nukes

WorldTribune reports Geopolitical limitations render Israel's air force militarily incapable of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program according to a new report published the by U.S. Army War College.

That is what Saddam thought too.
The report asserts Israel lacks the military capability to locate and destroy Iranian nuclear assets. The report said the Israel Air Force cannot operate at such long distances from its bases.
Who says they need to do it by air?
"The Israeli Air Force has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-à-vis the other Middle East air powers, but Israel has no aircraft carriers and it cannot use airbases in other Middle East states," the report entitled "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran," said. "Therefore its operational capabilities are reduced when the targets are located far from its territory."
Reduced, not non-existant.

Read More...

Whose Internet is It Anyway?

Pajamas Media held a BlogJam to discuss Whose Internet is It Anyway?. I urge you to read the whole thing, but I will hilight a few of the points made:

Peng Hwa Ang said One of the prime movers behind the governance debate is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). It's an open secret: the members of the ITU are worried about the loss in revenue

Precisely. The entire "control of the internet" thing has two basis
  1. Ability to make money from one's citizens wanting access to the net, and Controlling what those citizens can learn and what they can say
from such things as Skype and instant messaging and other substitutions of their traditional voice telephony.

Dan Gillmor said How to kill the open Internet: Give governance to the ITU.

Peng Hwa Ang said We are talking in the abstract here. We need to get down to brass tacks. The issue that WSIS talked about are threefold:
  1. who should have ultimate say of the root zone system--the ccTLD and existence in cyberspace? Currently, it is no longer entirely in the hands of the USA
    Each country should be in charge of its own domain name registration, and if a company thinks it is capable of doing it, it should have the right to the domain server for domains in its country code, because if they screw it up, it will just stop access to domains in that country.
  2. whether there should be one forum to discuss all internet law and policy issues (YES, so WSIS decided) or multiple fora (the original position endorsed by the USA and
  3. should there be a fund to help developing countries.
    There are already many of those funds, and I think funds to provide help in finding water, growing food to feed their citizens, medical support for things like AIDS and other diseases, etc are a lot more important than getting everyone a laptop or an email address.
On
  1. the USA has defused the tension by allowing all countries to have a say in their own respective ccTLD. The previous position was simply politically untenable: the USA actually had a say in the .IQ of Iraq even before the war.
  2. It makes sense to have one forum to coordinate on matters such as spam, consumer fraud, copyright, etc.
  3. It make sense to help developing countries.


Perry de Havilland said Dan is correct that authoritarian/totalitarian states really can control the internet within their nations but that requires both resources and will to implement. China can do that but other nations might lack the knowledge and determination to do so and so would like a cheaper 'political' solution rather than something like the Great Internet Wall of China.
Are you saying that a poor dictator should be able to use the UN to make sure his citizens don't learn what is going on in his country, rather than having to invest in the information control infrastructure himself?
Much of the talk you hear coming out of the UN is, once you decode the language, about preventing unrestricted free speech. The usual canards about racism, child abuse and fraud are trotted out (sure they happen but...) but those are the excuses, not the real reasons.

Inevitably we hear complaints about US 'control' of the internet whereas in reality "the US" does no such thing and what really annoys various members of the political class in many nations is the idea of an increasingly mass media system that, unlike newspapers or TV/radio channels, cannot not be easily controlled by either co-opting or intimidating a proprietor or board the way they are used to dealing with their existing old media outlets. In truth it is the underpinning American assumptions that spring for their First Amendment that really annoys so many people and they see the internet as a way that this ethos may get imported into their country and that is really what gives so many in the UN hives is the idea the prevailing culture in their neck of the woods may change in ways they cannot control.

Oh sure, all sorts of excuses are used why more control is needed to prevent "bad things" happening on-line, but it is really just about the rights of individuals to express themselves freely. Everything else is a smoke screen.


Dan Gillmor said We may not really need a huge Digital Solidarity Fund in any event. Moore's Law -- the exponential improvement of technology hardware -- pretty much assures that the gear will be affordable almost everywhere before too many more years go by.

How it's deployed is another question. So is whether the people in a given country are preoccupied with such things as having enough food to survive, as opposed to getting online.


Franklin Cudjoe said The UN mostly supervises white elephant projects.
Or anything else they can steal money from.
Whats the use for intance in getting nations to sign up to treaties to proved laptops for poor children in developing countries when they need energy and vitamins, the very things their governmnets most often deny them, before they can use the lap tops. I thought a radio was most imporatnt.

Peng Hwa Ang said I do not think it is a fair question to ask whether funds can be better allocated for water vs internet connectivity. Life is a matter of priorities, not a question of all-or-nothing. It's a difficult situation and I think that while water is essential for the short-run internet connectivity is essential for the long run.
You need water to live. You don't need internet connectivity to live (although when I was off the internet for several days while in the hospital I might have had a different opinion then)
That such a debate even exists shows the desperate situation of the African continent.

Peng Hwa Ang said I've had some people email me that they would (a) not trust the UN to watch over $5 much less my/our internet and (b) if they want their internet go build "their own damn internet".

I happened to meet Bob Kahn walking about the resort town of Sidi Bou Said near Tunis and he said that it is quite easy to set up a parallel internet universe aka "their own damn internet".

My replies have been that (a) the UN is made up of governments and forced to make a choice most people trust their own governments--and therefore the UN--than the USA and (b) building "their own damn internet" is the worst possible outcome for everyone because everyone loses, with the USA being the biggest loser should that happen.
I disagree. I think it is a very good idea. They can control what is on it as much as they want, and then ther will pop up routers to connect their controlled internet to the free internet we have.

Read More...

An interesting read on the Christmas Season

Danny Carlton blogged From Tidings Online...

We need more Advent and Christmas, not less --- but we need them at the proper time, which is the Church's time, not Macy's time or Wal-Mart's time. Taking Advent seriously would be a good beginning.
Go read the rest of the piece, it's really good.

Personally I've always liked the idea of Christmas being celebrated on Christmas day, and not for the three months prior
I know I really don't like seeing Christmas decorations appearing before Thanksgiving. It sort of buries that holiday.
(which leads to, IMO, a terribly anti-climatic Christmas morning with five minutes of wrapping paper flying through the air, followed by a half an hour of "Is that all I got?!?") The first year I talked my wife into doing it my way it turned out really great. We had someone watch the kids (who were asleep anyway) while we went out to get a Christmas tree (Did you know many places let you have them for free after midnight Christmas Eve?) We brought it back, trimmed it, and to our children's amazement a large fully decorated tree appeared in our living room, Christmas morning, complete with presents beneath.
An interesting idea
But my wife likes the "tradition" of celebrating Christmas for as long as possible, so we've gone back to that. Some of our kids, though, have said they like the idea of putting up the Christmas tree the night before Christmas.

One tradition I have been adamant about is that of taking turns opening presents, one by one, on Christmas morning. It makes the event much more pleasurable, and last longer, and reduces the complaint, "Is that all I got?!?" Simply opening a present is a joy, and few people realize that once they're all opened, that's it; you can't open any, anymore. That's where the disappointment comes in. It's better to do it slowly so both the giving and receiving can be relished.
I fully support that process.
I'm not that much into Advent
I believe that Advent is mainly a Catholic holiday.
, (my wife has always tried to do some of it with the kids) but as a defense against the commercialization, I see how useful it could be.

Read More...

A fellow torture victim splits with Sen. McCain

The Hill reports Two highly decorated veterans who were held captive together in a Vietnamese prison camp more than three decades ago find themselves nose to nose today over U.S. policy on torture. In a draft letter circulated to some rank-and-file Republican colleagues but not sent, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) asks the top House defense appropriators to exclude from a defense-spending conference report the anti-torture provision added to the Senate version of the bill by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Glad someone is speaking against McCain

The McCain amendment would limit American interrogators to techniques prescribed by the Army Field Manual and prohibit “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of prisoners in U.S. custody, regardless of nationality or physical location. “This provision could have devastating effects and is entirely unwarranted,” Johnson wrote in an unsigned and undated draft of the letter obtained by The Hill.
That is absolutely right. We don't torture, but to limit us from anything someone might think is degrading is unrealistic, considering the people being interrogated.
The McCain anti-torture language will likely be dropped from the spending bill but included, in some form, in the defense authorization bill, according to Republican aides. Committee staff worked over the weekend to iron out remaining trouble spots in the authorization measure.
McCain wants to be President. How the heck does he think his administration could interrogate Islamoterrorists if this restriction is passed?
Despite 90 votes supporting the McCain amendment in the Senate, the administration has threatened to veto either bill if it contains the amendment’s language. White House officials, most notably Vice President Cheney, have long sought to thwart McCain’s effort.

Betsy blogged Apparently, Johnson eschews the limelight as much as McCain claims it. I'd like to hear more of his views or at least see a debate between him and McCain instead of just seeing McCain on every other show every time you turn on the TV.

Read More...

Weicker May Challenge Lieberman

NYT reported Former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. on Monday criticized Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's continued support of the war in Iraq and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on the issue in the 2006 election, he would consider running.

Democrats are committing suicide by their extreme opposition to the war in a time when Islamoterrorists are attacking not just in Iraq, but many different places in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
"When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party," Mr. Weicker, 74, said in a phone interview from his home in Essex, Conn. "I'm going to do everything I can to see that Joe Lieberman does not get a free pass."

California Yankee blogged Senator Lieberman remains popular in opinion polls, but there is a small faction of the antiwar Democrats that strongly object to Lieberman's support for the war. There was talk of a primary challenge being mounted against Lieberman earlier in the year but because of his popularity, fundraising and support among the Democratic hierarchy it hasn't and wont amount to much.

Read More...

Top Al Qaeda Figures Held in Secret CIA Prisons

ABC News reports Two CIA secret prisons were operating in Eastern Europe until last month when they were shut down following Human Rights Watch reports of their existence in Poland and Romania. Current and former CIA officers speaking to ABC News on the condition of confidentiality

A grand jury needs to be conviened, and Brian Ross and Richard Esposito need to be called to identify the current and former CIA officers who betrayed their country by revealing this information, and if they will not identify them, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito need to be jailed until they agree to reveal their sources. If they can do it to compel journalists to reveal who told them what as a part of a CIA Coup attempt against the Bush Administration, surely it can be done to ferret out traitors who reveal where top al Qaeda suspects are being held.
say the United States scrambled to get all the suspects off European soil before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived there today. The officers say 11 top al Qaeda suspects have now been moved to a new CIA facility in the North African desert.

Sister Toldjah blogged Now just when will those who are supposedly ‘concerned’ about our national security (the Plamegate pushers) call for an investigation into this?

Moderate Voice blogged So, how long do you think it'll take before we find out where these North African prisons are? I give it a month.

Echidne blogged Is it that the European interrogation centers were just chosen because they had excellent food and beer?

Read More...

Tagged by The Anchoress

The Anchoress tagged me with a challenge to publicly post some confessions about myself. It is a high honor to be tagged by a blogger who is up for The Weblog Awards 2005 Best Conservative Blog category. (Please vote for her).

I guess I will tag the other bloggers that I endorsed for other categories in the Weblog Awards:


I confess.... that I frequent get frustrated at my medical problems, until I read the problems that Job had.

I confess.... I sometimes still get frustrated. After all, Job is Old Testament, and though the secular left will be upset at me for mentioning it, doesn't the Happy Holiday that we are about to celebrate have something to do with the birth of a baby that heraled the start of a New Testament.

I confess.... that my health problems stem from having eaten too much for much of my life, and not getting enough exercise.

I confess.... while I love refurbishing computers and giving them to others (HelpingTulsa) I sometimes get frustrated when some recipients seem too greedy. If someone says they want the best I have, I find I just give them whatever is handy, while when someone says they are so desperate for a computer that the will take anything I have, I give them the best that I can find. That seems right, yet should I be the one to make that choice?

I confess.... being homebound I sometimes take undue advantage of the volunteers that come over to help me with HelpingTulsa by asking them to do other things for me. Without their help, HelpingTulsa would not be able to turn out any refurbished computers, because by myself I cannot lift anything.

I confess.... I spend more time blogging than I do talking to God, or reading His Book

I confess.... I have some very good friends that I really love, and I don't tell them how much I appreciate them as often as I should.

Read More...

Monday, December 05, 2005

The Weblog Awards 2005

The Weblog Awards are now available for voting (or at least they should be soon). Voting begins December 5, 2005 and ends December 15, 2005. You may vote once per category every 24 hours.

My blog did not make the finals. You may vote for any blog you wish, but if you want to know how I plan to vote, I endorse

Read More...

NASA ditches IE in favor of Firefox

TCG reports A little birdie told me today that NASA has given up entirely on Internet Explorer. Now, if you are an employee of NASA, every time you go to a page using IE, you get up to three prompts telling you how risky it is to run scripts. The official line is that the newest IE vulnerability was the proverbial straw, and now NASA's standard internal browser is Firefox.

Why did they wait this long? Firefox is clearly better.
That NASA has taken this step isn't all that surprising - NASA has been odd man out for many years, encouraging innovation instead of pushing for standardization in their IT systems. But this is interesting because I don't know of another government agency that has recently standardized (internally) on any browser besides IE for...well, it's been a long time. Years. Time was Mozilla (Netscape) was standard at NCI, but even that holdout has given up the ghost. Maybe this will give them precedent so they can move to a good browser.

Read More...

Angry BellSouth Withdrew Donation

WaPo reported Hours after New Orleans officials announced Tuesday that they would deploy a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters, city officials said yesterday.

According to the officials, the head of BellSouth's Louisiana operations, Bill Oliver, angrily rescinded the offer of the building in a conversation with New Orleans homeland security director Terry Ebbert, who oversees the roughly 1,650-member police force. City officials said BellSouth was upset about the plan to bring high-speed Internet access for free to homes and businesses to help stimulate resettlement and relocation to the devastated city.

I imagine they were upset at the loss of potential business. Telephone companies have opposed similar free wireless plans in a number of other cities.
Around the country, large telephone companies have aggressively lobbied against localities launching their own Internet networks, arguing that they amount to taxpayer-funded competition. Some states have laws prohibiting them..... Greg Meffert, the city's chief technology officer and a deputy mayor, said he is saddened that BellSouth finds the city's network so objectionable.
I am sad too, but is he surprised?
"It's a once-in-a-century opportunity to truly show the entire world what can be, instead of just what is, and help write future history in the process," Meffert said. "It's a damn shame they don't see that."
They do see it, they just want the money. If you had been buying your internet connectivity through them, they probably would have supported it.
The wireless network covers the central business district and the French Quarter, and the city plans to expand it as the people return.

Read More...

On Climate Change

NYT reported In December 1997, representatives of most of the world's nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a binding agreement to cut emissions of "greenhouse" gases. They succeeded. The Kyoto Protocol was ultimately ratified by 156 countries. It was the first agreement of its kind. But it may also prove to be the last.

Good.
Today, in the middle of new global warming talks in Montreal, there is a sense that the whole idea of global agreements to cut greenhouse gases won't work.
That is why Clinton never submitted it to the Congress, and why Bush pulled us out of Kyoto.
A major reason the optimism over Kyoto has eroded so rapidly is that its major requirement - that 38 participating industrialized countries cut their greenhouse emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 - was seen as just a first step toward increasingly aggressive cuts. But in the years after the protocol was announced, developing countries, including the fast-growing giants China and India, have held firm on their insistence that they would accept no emissions cuts, even though they are likely to be the world's dominant source of greenhouse gases in coming years.
That is exactly the problem. No matter how much the Western countries cut, and how much they hurt their economies doing it, China and India would add more than was cut.
Their refusal helped fuel strong opposition to the treaty in the United States Senate and its eventual rejection by President Bush.
It was not just Bush. Clinton knew it would not be confirmed so he did not even submit it.
But the current stalemate is not just because of the inadequacies of the protocol. It is also a response to the world's ballooning energy appetite, which, largely because of economic growth in China, has exceeded almost everyone's expectations. And there are still no viable alternatives to fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gases. Then, too, there is a growing recognition of the economic costs incurred by signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.
Countries that signed re not following it, because they knew it was hurting their economies.
As Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a proponent of emissions targets, said in a statement on Nov. 1: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge."
That is what Bush said all along.
This is as true, in different ways, in developed nations with high unemployment, like Germany and France, as it is in Russia, which said last week that it may have spot energy shortages this winter. Some veterans of climate diplomacy and science now say that perhaps the entire architecture of the climate treaty process might be flawed.

Read More...

McCain Won't Compromise on Torture Ban

Yahoo! News reports Sen. John McCain, a prisoner of war who was tortured in Vietnam, said Sunday he will refuse to yield on his demands that the White House agree with his proposed ban on the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.

McCain hopes to be President in 2008. If he is successful in tieing the administration's hands it will be interesting to see how he deals with terrorists when he is in the White House
"I won't," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked whether he would compromise with the Bush administration. He is insisting on his language that no person in U.S. custody should be subject to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." The Arizona Republican said he had met several times with the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, on the issue, and both McCain and Hadley said Sunday they were working toward an agreement. Hadley, on ABC's "This Week," repeated President Bush's assertion that the United States does not torture and follows international conventions on the treatment of prisoners. He added, "We're trying to find a way ... where we can strike the balance between being aggressive to protect the country against the terrorists, and, at the same time, comply with the law."

Read More...

Why are Republican leaders governing like Democrats?

Dick Armey wrote in OpinionJournal In all my years in politics, I've never sensed such anger and frustration from our volunteers--those who do the hard work of door-to-door mobilization that Republican candidates depend on to get elected. Across the nation, wherever I go to speak with them, their refrain is the same: "I can't tell a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Our base rightly expects Republicans to govern by the principles--lower taxes, less government and more freedom--that got them elected. Today, with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, there is a widening credibility gap between their political rhetoric and their public policies.

I completely agree.
What will happen to Republicans if these freedom-loving, grassroots activists don't show up for work next fall?
They need to show up, because electing Dems would be even worse, but some of those freedom-loving grassoots activists need to run in the primaries against the overspending spineless RINOs.
The elections earlier this month may be an indication of the answer. Colorado's Gov. Bill Owens, once the future presidential nominee of choice among smaller-government conservatives, teamed up with liberal Democrats in the Legislature to expand the state budget by billions of dollars and grab taxpayers' refunds for years to come. The Democratic big spenders got what they wanted, but it has left the Republican Party fractured and effectively ended Gov. Owens's future as a Republican leader. Here is one of Armey's Axioms: Make a deal with the devil and you're the junior partner.
Good point.
At the national level, where President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are presiding over the largest expansion of government since LBJ's Great Society, things are no better. Our political base expects elected leaders to cut both tax rates and spending, because they know that the real tax burden is reflected in the overall size of government.

Instead, we have embarrassing spectacles like the 2005 highway bill. Costing $295 billion, it is 35% larger than the last transportation bill, fueled by 6,371 earmarks doled out to favored political constituencies. By comparison, the 1987 highway bill was vetoed by Ronald Reagan for containing relatively few (152) earmarks. Overall, even excluding defense and homeland security spending, the growth rate of discretionary spending adjusted for inflation is at a 40-year high.
George Bush has done a very good job, but he needs to learn how to veto these bills.
All of our leaders are complicit in this spending spree. President Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. The House leadership refuses to rein in appropriators, claiming, as one of them preposterously put it, that "there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget."

I have always believed that good policy is good politics for Republicans. Reagan won against an incumbent president in 1980, declaring in his first inaugural address that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." I beat an incumbent Democrat in 1984, against the dire predications of my party's political experts, on an aggressive agenda of smaller government and Social Security reform based on large personal retirement accounts. In 1994, Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, running on the Contract with America, a clearly articulated public policy agenda based on smaller, smarter government.

Conversely, when we let politics define our agenda, we get in trouble. The highway bill is one example in which the criterion of choice was politics. An even better example was 2003's expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs. This was an explicitly political effort to take health care "off the table" for the 2004 elections. I said at that time that the proposed legislation was "a case where bad politics has produced a bad policy proposal." I predicted that the deal was "bad news for senior citizens and possibly even worse political news for the Republican Party." Here is another one of Armey's Axioms: You can't get your finger on the problem if you've got it in the wind. Bad policy is bad politics. The 2003 expansion of Medicare enacted by Republicans has dramatically increased the financial pressures on an already broken program, and it has become a political albatross around the necks of Republicans who voted for it.
I agree. I wish they had not passed it, and I am in a position to take advantage of it. But now that it has been inacted, it will be very easy for Democrats to expand it.
As the party of smaller government, Republicans will always have a more difficult job governing than Democrats do. Government naturally wants to expand. It is always easier for politicians when both you and your political base truly believe that there is a new government program to solve any problem, real or imagined. We will always have to work harder and be more entrepreneurial than our political opponents when it comes to implementing reforms.

To succeed in the future, the Republican Party must get back to basics. We need, in effect, another Republican takeover of Congress, reaffirming a commitment to less government, lower taxes and more freedom. As in 1994, this revolution will be driven by the Young Turks of the party--the brave backbenchers more inspired by Reagan than the possibility of a glowing editorial on the pages of the New York Times. Indeed, this is already happening.
I agree. We need to take over Congress from the big spending RINOs.
A serious effort to slow the growth of the federal budget is being driven by a small group of House Republicans led by Reps. Mike Pence, Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling. Against their own leadership's wishes, this brave group and others from the Republican Study Committee gathered outside the Cannon House office building in September to kick off "Operation Offset," a modest proposal to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with Hurricane Katrina with savings from other parts of the budget. Top on the list: cuts in highway pork and a suspension of the soon-to-be-implemented expansion of Medicare. It would have been easier not to have overspent in the first place, but the Republican Congress must reestablish its credibility as the party of spending restraint and fiscal responsibility.

Likewise, the Republican Congress must make the most important elements of the Bush tax cuts permanent, particularly repeal of the death tax, lower income tax rates and dividend tax relief. These proposals deserve substantial credit for the current strength of the American economy. Success would represent real steps toward our ultimate goal of tax reform and a simple, fair and flat income tax.
I agree.
While prospects for retirement security seem unlikely before 2006, I'm counting on able legislative entrepreneurs like Sen. Jim DeMint to drag his colleagues, kicking and screaming, into a serious, adult debate about the most important policy challenge facing our generation. Personally, I've never quite understood the bed-wetters' fears when it comes to personal retirement accounts. How could you possibly lose by saving future retirees--our children and grandchildren--from another broken government promise?

None of this will be easy. The good news for Republicans willing to do this heavy lifting is that the "ideas" of the left are bankrupt. Notice that the brightest liberal politicians, like Hillary Clinton, always move toward our policy ground as they prepare to run for national office. Why would Republicans want to act like them when they act like us in order to win?

One final Armey Axiom: When we act like us, we win. When we act like them, we lose.

Read More...