Author: Papa Giorgio

Chris Matthews Admits Educational Bias~this president has done what we were all taught in graduate school to do

Published by Papa Giorgio

Newsbusters catalogs an admission by Chris “Saul Alinsky fan” Matthews knows about higher educational bias:

A frustrated Chris Matthews, on Tuesday’s Hardball, chided the left for being disappointed in Barack Obama as he essentially told them, he’s the best they’ve got and are going to get. During a segment in which the Salon’s Joan Walsh and Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall wondered why Obama and Joe Biden were admonishing their base to stop whining, Matthews took up for Team Obama as he tried to calm down the lefties: “This president has done what we were all taught in graduate school to do, what progressives have believed in from years and years, decades ago…You compensate for the loss of consumer spending and business investment with government spending…No one has had a better idea since the 1930s. Number two, The Wall Street crowd needed governing. They didn’t have any, now they’ve got some. Number three, he’s pushed for progressive taxation, he’s going after the rich. He’s not giving them their tax cut.” [audio available here]

[….]

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, here’s my view, in response to what you both said and I think it’s smart, both of you have said, I respect those views from everybody, anybody who’s passionate about politics I believe in. But I know this, this president has done what we were all taught in graduate school to do, what progressives have believed in from years and years, decades ago. One, you deal with an economic downfall with Keynesian economics. You compensate for the loss of consumer spending and business investment with government spending. That’s what you do. That’s what you’re supposed to. No one has had a better idea since the 1930s. Number two, The Wall Street crowd needed governing. They didn’t have any, now they’ve got some. Number three, he’s pushed for progressive taxation, he’s going after the rich. He’s not giving them their tax cut. I think on all three – he’s put people like Eric Holder in at Justice. He’s done a lot of things on the environment, he’s tried to do. He has done what a progressive should have tried to do. And we can argue about tone and degree of successful politics and personality, but I don’t know how a liberal or progressive can turn their back on this guy and say they’ve got something better waiting in the closet, ’cause I don’t know who that person is!

WALSH: I couldn’t agree with you more, Chris.

MATTHEWS: And nobody talking does. Anyway, there ain’t nobody out there but this guy, and certainly nobody no more progressive who can win election for sheriff. Anyway, thank you, Josh Marshall — maybe I’m getting mad — Josh Marshall and Joan Walsh.

…(read more)…


Big Pro-Life News!

Published by Papa Giorgio

La Shawn Barber has this story which she says rightly is under reported. Missouri now requires abortion clinics to put this phrase on their brochures:

  • The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.

That is huge news! La Shawn continues on with a woman’s story:

Read this woman’s comment on Planned Parenthood’s lies about fetal development:

“I had an abortion in 1975. It seemed like the only option for me at the time. In response to my first question, the nurse at Planned Parenthood assured me that it wasn’t a baby. It was ‘only a blob of tissue.’ I wasn’t informed about or offered any of the information the new Missouri law provides for the benefit of the mothers and fathers of these tiny, pre-born babies. If I had seen an ultrasound of my baby, heard its heartbeat, or knew that it would feel pain while being burned alive or dismembered I wouldn’t have had the abortion. Since then, my uninformed ‘choice’ negatively affected my life in countless ways. When I found out the truth I was furious at Planned Parenthood for deceiving me. It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that I found out my depression, self-hatred, sorrow, and more were all directly related to that choice I made decades ago. I am so grateful to hear that Missouri is taking big strides in favor of women’s rights. Women have the right to be informed, know exactly what their choice entails, and the consequences to them and all who will be impacted by their choice (including the father and the grandparents of their pre-born son or daughter). I live in Southern California. In terms of women’s rights, it is obvious we are way behind Missouri. I am proud of you, Missouri.”

The original story comes from First Things, and they make the point that the following must be included in the passing of information to the perspective patiant:

A new law has gone into effect in Missouri that requires women contemplating abortion to be told some medical facts. From the story:

But in the meantime, the process of getting an abortion in Missouri has changed. Starting this week women seeking an abortion in Missouri will:

  • Be asked if they want to hear the fetus’s heartbeat.
  • Be told that fetuses may feel pain, and they will be offered anesthesia for the fetus.
  • Receive a pamphlet with the words, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

All of the above is required by a new law that took effect Saturday. The new law also requires clinics to ask if women want to see an ultrasound, something Brownlie said Planned Parenthood already does.


News From Christians Abroad

Published by Papa Giorgio

Religion News blog has a couple of interesting stories that should tilt the head of the missions minded person. This first one is out of Chittagong, Bangladesh:

Buddhist extremists held eight Chakma Christians for four days to force them to return to Buddhism

The Buddhists held a pastor, a church secretary, a village leader and five members from a Baptist church in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, said Caroline Anderson , a well-informed writer in Asia for the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, a major mission group.

The captives were all forced to wear Buddhist robes, shave their heads, bow down before a statue of Buddha and clean the temple; they were also threatened with beatings and even death if they tried to escape, she reported.

TEMPLE CONFINED

Detained August 23, they were initially told they would be confined to the temple for one to two weeks, but after four days the Christian captives were released provided they remained Buddhist, missionaries said.

“They are not allowed to pray to Jesus, nor read Bibles, but they say they are still Christian in their hearts,” added a missionary who did not want to use her real name amid security concerns. Despite the difficulties, 10 new Chakma churches have been established with about 300 Chakmas professing their faith in Jesus, Christians said….

…(read more)…

Here is the other story coming from New Delhi, India:

A legislative panel in Nepal has proposed retaining a ban on converting others in the country’s new constitution.

Parliament has yet to decide on the proposal, but Christian leaders said they fear it is likely to be approved given that Nepal’s largest political party, led by former Maoist rebels, sympathizes with the deposed king’s wishes for such a ban. The country is forging a new constitution as part of its transition from a Hindu monarchy to a democracy.

[….]

Asked if the proposal violated international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Nepal is a signatory, Pandey said the committee looked at “all relevant conventions” as well as “Nepal’s own unique socio-political context” before reaching the consensus.

Pandey is from the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist).

Bishop Anthony Sharma, the first ethnic Nepalese to be ordained as a Jesuit priest, said the panel’s proposal will not alter his congregation’s Christian activities.

“We do not have any fear, and we will continue to do what we are doing, whether it’s a Hindu constitution or a secular one,” he said. “Conversion is by God; people simply respond to Him. Our philosophy is, ‘We propose and not impose.’ The growth of the church in Nepal is due to the Christian witness, and not just by preaching.”

The Rev. Dr. Mangalam Mahajan, president of Koinonia Church Fellowship, said he was hopeful that the new constitution would carry the same provisions as in the Indian Constitution, which allows for free profession, practice and propagation of religion – though some Indian states have “anti-conversion” laws outlawing forced or fraudulent conversion.

“The restriction will affect the Christian work in Nepal,” Mahajan said.

Though the ban on encouraging conversions has been in force for more than five decades, it is unclear how it would be interpreted and implemented in the new constitution. Christians fear that Hindu nationalist groups would misuse the ban to restrict public meetings and social work that could be suspected of being aimed at conversions.

Proselytizing was outlawed in the Himalayan nation in its 1959 Constitution, which replaced the country’s first interim constitution of 1951. Since then, all consecutive constitutions have retained the ban, including the 2007 interim constitution issued a year after the abolition of the world’s only Hindu monarchy.

[….]

The bishop of the Believers Church, Narayan Sharma, said he was not surprised at the proposed continuation of the ban.

“We know that the new constitution will restrict conversions to ‘protect’ the country’s demography and thereby its culture,” Sharma said. “But Nepalese Christians live as per the country’s culture. I myself never wear a tie, which is seen as Western.”

He added that the only upside of such a ban would be that restrictions could filter out conversions that are less than genuine.

“Only those who are willing to pay the price will remain,” Sharma said. “It is surprising, though, that socially Nepal is very progressive – homosexual marriages are legal – but when it comes to religion, it becomes conservative.”

…(read more)…

Fox News Does Better Even Among Democrats

Published by Papa Giorgio


News Busters posted something that goes well with an old graph I post often… sort of like a “rub in your face fact” I like to put on the screen to irk passerbys. Here is the NB post followed by the graph:

According to a recent poll, likely voters get their political news primarily from cable television. Among cable channels, 42 percent, a plurality, watch Fox News for its political coverage. Only 12 percent said they watched MSNBC. What’s more, most likely voters don’t like or have never heard of MSNBC’s prime time talent.

The poll, conducted by Politico and George Washington University, used a sample split evenly between political parties – even slightly favoring Democrats in some areas: 41 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, while 42 percent said they were Democrats. Forty-four percent said they usually vote for Republicans, while 46 percent answered Democrats. Forty-eight percent voted for Obama, while only 45 percent voted for McCain.

Even among this group, Fox News is by far the most popular cable outlet. CNN comes in at second, with 30 percent. A sorry MSNBC brings up the rear.

MEDIAite goes further with the stats:

Also not surprising: Fox News hosts wield a great deal of influence over the political discourse in this country:

Bill O’Reilly was rated as having, by far, the greatest positive impact, with 49 percent of respondents rating him positively, and 32 percent negatively. Glenn Beck was the second most-positively rated personality, with 38 percent of respondents saying he had a positive impact, and 32 percent saying he had a negative impact.

Rush Limbaugh meanwhile is losing steam and far more people dislike him than like him (36%-52%). Here’s the surprising part however: Very few people polled had heard of Rachel Maddow.

MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann…

…(read more)…

Three-year-olds being labelled as bigots

Published by Papa Giorgio

This comes from Sweetness and Light:

Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language, it was claimed last night.

Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000.

More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said.

Writing in Prospect magazine, she said: ‘The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow.

For the record, Prospect is described as a left of center magazine. In 2005 its readers selected Noam Chomsky as the world’s foremost intellectual.

‘Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave.

‘Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety.’

The Act compelled 43,000 public authorities, including schools and churches, ‘to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups’. Details of the incidents are logged on databases.

Teachers are allowed to report racism even if the alleged ‘victim’ was not offended or if the child does not understand what they were saying.

Freedom of Information replies obtained by civil liberties group the Manifesto Club show that between 2002 and 2009, 280,000 incidents have been reported.

Being three years old is no excuse for committing a hate crime.