Kebebasan Bicara di AS

Seorang insinyur keturunan Arab siap naik pesawat di AS. Para petugas keamanan datang kepadanya dan minta dia membuka kaosnya. Dia boleh naik pesawat tetapi tidak boleh memakai kaos tersebut.

Kenapa?

Karena di depan kaos itu ada tulisan bahasaArab (lengkap dengan terjemahan bahasa Inggris).

Satu kalimat saja. Satu kailmat yang singkat. Apa artinya?

“We will not be silent” (Kita tidak akan diam).

Kalimat ini menjadi slogan di Amerika bagi orang yang menentang perang AS terhadap Iraq, dan serangan-serangan yang lain di Timur Tengah. Ada kaos, stiker, dsb. yang dijual dengan slogan ini bagi orang yang mau berprotes terhadap perang.

Para penumpang melihat ada orang Arab mau naik pesawat dan ada tulisan di kaosnya dalam bahasa Arab. Mereka menjadi takut dan memanggil para petugas.

Si insinyur Arab itu berprotes dengan menyebutkan hak pribadinya untuk “bicara bebas”. Para petugas bersikeras bahwa dia tetap tidak boleh naik pesawat dengan memakai kaos tersebut.

Ternayta dia boleh bicara dengan bebas, seperti semua warga AS yang lain, hanya saja tidak boleh bicara bebas dalam BAHASA ARAB! Karena membuat orang lain ketakutan!!

Ini sungguh merupakan hasil dari “War on Terror”nya George Bush dan para pendukungnya (alias, para kroni) di media massa di AS. Setiap hari ada berita baru yang membuat warga ketakutan. Takut terhadap “terror”. Dan “terror” itu hanya datang dari orang berbangsa Arab yang menggunakan bahasa Arab.

Hasilnya, warga melihat orang Arab memakai koas dengan tulisan Arab, mereka mulai berfikir: “Apakah dia seorang teroris? Apakah dia mau ledakan bom di pesawat? Apa artinya tulisan itu? Mati semua orang AS, misalanya? [padahal juga ada terjemahan bahasa Inggris di kaos itu]. Wah, takut deh. Panggil petugas aja. Suruh mereka menangkap dia dulu dan mengirimkannya ke Guantanamo sebelum dia bisa membunuh kita!”

Selamat kepada George Bush! Sebagai pemimpin negara dia telah berhasil membuat rakyatnya ketakutan 24/7 (=24 jam sehari, 7 hari per minggu).

Sekarang hak “bicara bebas” di AS ada batasannya: boleh bicara bebas, asal tidak memakai BAHASA ARAB!!!

Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row

An architect of Iraqi descent has said he was forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York.

Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.

Mr Jarrar said he was shocked such an action could be taken in the US.

US transport officials are conducting an inquiry after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Mr Jarrar's black cotton T-shirt bore the slogan in both Arabic and English.

He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.

Mr Jarrar said he was told a number of passengers had complained about his T-shirt - apparently concerned at what the Arabic phrase meant - and asked him to remove it.

He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression.

"We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan adopted by opponents of the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East.

It is said to derive from the White Rose dissident group which opposed Nazi rule in Germany.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm

Published: 2006/08/30 10:36:21 GMT

© BBC MMVI

WHO’S ON FIRST

Hi. Thought you might get a laugh out of this. If you have never heard it, I highly recommend the audio file (be patient while it downloads.) The first link seems to be the best, with Audio and transcript.
My students have always loved it. Hope you enjoy it. Please pass on to others.

Audio & Transcript

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/abbott&costellowhosonfirst.htm

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirst.html

Audio MP3 recordings:

http://www.abbottandcostello.net/

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhosOnFirstAudio.mp3

WHO’S ON FIRST

(by Abbott and Costello)

The following text contains references to “baseball.”

Some baseball positions: first base/ second base/ third base/ in-field/ out-field/ center field.

Note: People’s names are in capital letters.

A: Well COSTELLO, I’m going to New York with you. You know BUCKY HARRIS, the Yank’s manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you’re on the team.

C: Look, ABBOT, if you’re the coach, you must know all the players.

A: I certainly do.

C: Well, you know, I never met the guys so you’ll have to tell me their names and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team.

A: Oh, I’ll tell you their names. But you know strange as it may seem, they give these ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

C: You mean funny names?

A: Strange names, pet names, like DIZZY DEAN.

C: SMALL ADAFIUS.

A: DAFFY DEAN

C: I’ve got a French cousin.

A: French?

C: GOOFE?

A: GOOFE DEAN. Oh I see. Now let’s see, we have on the bags, we have WHO’s on first, WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW is on third.

C: That’s what I want to find out.

A: I said, WHO’s on first WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW’s on third.

C: Are you the manager?

A: Yes.

C: You gonna be the coach too?

A: Yes.

C: And you don’t know the fella’s names?

A: Well, I should.

C: Well then, who’s on first?

A: Yes

C: I mean the fella’s name.

A: WHO.

C: The guy on first.

A: WHO.

C: The first baseman

A: WHO!

C: The guy playing first.

A: WHO is on first!

C: I’m asking you who’s on first.

A: That’s the man’s name.

C: That’s whose name?

A: Yes.

C: Well go ahead and tell me.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s who?

A: Yes.

C: Have you got a first baseman?

A: Certainly.

C: Who’s playing first?

A: That’s right.

C: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

A: Every dollar of it.

C: All I’m trying to find out is the fella’s name on first base.

A: WHO.

C: The guy that gets…

A: That’s it!

C: Who gets the money on…?

A: He does. Every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

C: Whose wife?

A: Yes. What’s wrong with that.

C: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name to the contract?

A: WHO.

C: The guy.

A: WHO.

C: How does he sign his name?

A: That’s how he signs it!

C: Who?

A: Yes.

C: All I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base!

A: No! WHAT is on second base.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: One base at a time!

A: Well don’t change the players.

C: I’m not changing nobody!

A: Take it easy buddy.

C: I’m only asking ya, who’s the guy on first base?

A: That’s right.

C: OK.

A: Alright.

C: What’s the guy’s name on first base?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking ya who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno (=don’t know).

A: Oh, he’s on third. We’re not talking about him…

C: Now, how could I get on third base?

A: Why, you mentioned his name.

C: If I mentioned the third baseman’s name, who did I say is playing third?

A: No, WHO’s playing first.

C: What’s on first?

A: WHAT’s on second

C: I dunno.

A: He’s on third.

C: There I go, back on third again. Would you stay on third base and don’t go off it!

A: Alright. Now, what do you wanna know?

C: Now who’s playing third base?

A: Why do you insist on putting WHO on third base?

C: What am I putting on third?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: You don’t want who on second?

A: WHO is on first.

C: I don’t know.

C/A: Third base!

C: Look, you got a out-field?

A: Sure.

C: The left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY.

C: I just thought I’d ask you.

A: Well I just thought I’d tell you.

C: Then tell me who’s playing left-field.

A: WHO is playing first!

C: I’m not… stay out of the in-field! I wanna know what’s the guy’s name in left-field?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: And the left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY!

C: Because!

A: Oh, he’s center-field.

C: Look, look, look. You got a pitcher on the team?

A: Sure.

C: The pitcher’s name?

A: TOMORROW.

C: You don’t wanna tell me today?

A: I’m telling you man.

C: Well, go ahead.

A: TOMORROW.

C: What time?

A: What time what?

C: What time tomorrow you’re gonna tell me who’s pitching?

A: Now listen, WHO is not pitching!

C: I’ll break your arm you say who’s on first! I wanna know what’s the pitcher’s name?

A: WHAT’s on second.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: You got a catcher?

A: Certainly!

C: The catcher’s name?

A: TODAY.

C: Today? And tomorrow’s pitching?

A: Now you’ve got it!

C: All we’ve got is a couple of days of the week. You know I’m a catcher too.

A: So they tell me.

C: I get behind the players, do some fancy catching, tomorrow’s pitching on my team, and a heavy hitter gets up.

A: Yes.

C: Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me being a good catcher, I’m gonna throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

A: Now that’s the first thing you’ve said right!

C: I don’t even know what I’m talking about!

A: That’s all you have to do!

C: Is to throw the ball to first base?

A: Yes!

C: Now, who’s got it?

A: Naturally!

C: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody’s gottta get it. Now, who has it?

A: Naturally.

C: Who?

A: Naturally.

C: Naturally?

A: Naturally.

C: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to naturally?

A: No you don’t. You throw the ball to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said.

A: You’re not saying it right.

C: I throw the ball to naturally.

A: You throw it to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said!

A: Listen, you asked me.

C: I throw the ball to who?

A: Naturally.

C: Now you ask me.

A: You throw the ball to WHO?

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: Same as you! Same as you! I throw the ball to who! Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second.

A: Yes.

C: Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don’t’ know. I don’t know throws it back to tomorrow. Triple play.

A: Yes.

C: Another guy gets up and it’s a long fly ball to because. Why? I don’t know. He’s on third and I don’t give a darn.

A: Wha-what?

C: I said, I don’t give a darn!

A: Oh, that’s our short-stop.

Warren Buffett donates $37bn to charity

Mana orang Islam seperti ini?? Kenapa orang non-Muslim yang bisa sumbangkan begitu banyak uang? Bukannya banyak orang Islam yang kaya juga? $US 37 milyar untuk amal? Luar biasa. Sayangnya, orang Islam yang kaya lebih cenderung menyimpan hartanya supaya anaknya tambah kaya. Berapa banyak orang Saudi dsb. yang kaya raya yang tidak pernah befikir untuk menyumbangkan hartanya untuk kepentingan ummat? Sayang sekali.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said he was waiting for decades to make a huge charitable donation.

He said he was overjoyed as he spoke for the first time since revealing he would donate about $37bn (£20bn) to Bill Gates' charitable foundation.

The donation is thought to be the largest charitable gift ever in the US.

Mr Buffett will hand 10 million shares in his Berkshire Hathaway firm to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The man known as "the sage of Omaha" for his relentless success in investments said he always wanted to give the bulk of his fortune away. [dari dulu dia berencana untuk menyumbangkan sebagian besar dari hartanya – tidak ada rencana untuk menyimpannya]

"I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money," he said.

"It is a big challenge to make sure this money gets used in the right way," he said of the donation.

The foundation aims to fight disease and promote education around the world, particularly in developing countries. [tujuannya: membasmi penyakit dan menyebarkan pendidikan di seluruh dunia.]

"There is no reason why we can't cure the top 20 diseases," Mr Gates - who will give up his day-to-day role at Microsoft in 2008 to concentrate on the foundation's work - said.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the size of the foundation's cash pile dwarfed that of other organisations, and compared it with the $12bn annual budget of the United Nations.

As well as donating to the Gates foundation, he also pledged shares for his three children and a substantial gift for a foundation named for his late wife, Susan Thompson Buffett.

Despite his huge wealth, Mr Buffett has modest tastes, is called a "cola and hamburger kind of guy", plays the ukulele, and still lives in the same house he bought in his home town of Omaha, Nebraska, in 1957. [mana ada orang Islam yang akan tinggal di rumah yang sama kalau jadi kaya raya? Pasti beli rumah gede di pondok indah dsb.]

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2006/06/26 22:54:26 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Fund of $29.1bn $10.5bn in grants since 1994 Aims: reducing poverty and improving health and access to education Largest grant: $1bn to the United Negro College Fund 70% of aid spent outside US

TOP FIVE BILLIONAIRES Bill Gates (US, Microsoft) - $50bn Warren Buffett (US, investor) - $42bn Carlos Slim (Mexico, industrialist) - $30bn Ingvar Kamprad (Sweden, Ikea) - $28bn Lakshmi Mittal (UK, steel) $23.5bn

Hermann Goering and George Bush

Herman Goering was one of Adolf Hitlers generals. Here he explains that it is easy for leaders to make the people follow them - even in a democracy. Just tell them they are being attacked and they will follow their leaders. If anyone criticizes, just say they are a danger to the country (George Bush is now saying that about the New York Times because they leaked information about his domestic spying programs).

"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goering, Nazi General

"I'm the Commander - see, I don't need to explain. That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush, August 2002

"At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are Americans."

George W. Bush

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

George W. Bush

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

George W. Bush talking about the New York Times publishing reports about the government’s program to spy on people’s bank accounts. June 2006

Analysis of War in Iraq

This is a nice Analysis of the US War against Iraq for domination in the Middle East. I know it will be diffiucult for some people to read, if you are not very fluent in English. Try to read it. Just go past the words you dont know and try to understand the basic ideas. Its worthwhile. Good luck. - Gene.

The Empire Needs New Clothes

by Thom Hartmann

It's easy to vilify George W. Bush as a cynical warmonger, anxious to attack Iraq to repay the oil companies that funded his election campaigns. But to do so is to make a dangerous and fundamental error, and such a myopic view of the Bush administration's policies puts America's future at risk.

The reality is that the current administration has a clear and specific vision for the future of America and the world, and they believe it's a positive vision. In order to put forward an alternative vision, it's essential to first understand the vision of America held by the New Right.

The core of the neoconservative vision was first articulated on June 3, 1997, in the Statement of Principles put forth by the Project For The New American Century. Signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Steve Forbes and others from the Reagan/Bush administration, it clearly stated that "the history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Frankly acknowledging that America is a small portion of the world's population but uses a large percentage of the world's oil and other natural resources, Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."

McMansions for two-person families, a transportation infrastructure based on 6,000-pound SUVs carrying single individuals, cheap Chinese goods at Wal-Mart and cheap Mexican food in the supermarket - all of this is not anything America intends to give up. We're king of the hill, and we intend to stay that way, even if it means going to war to keep it.

At the core of this is oil. When the administration's people say American involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect. What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle, which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely on access to cheap oil.

The same year Cheney, et al, wrote their papers on The New American Century, I wrote a book about the coming end of American peace and prosperity because of our dependence on a dwindling supply of oil. "Since the discovery of oil in Titusville, PA, where the world's first oil well was drilled in 1859," I wrote in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, "humans have extracted 742 billion barrels of oil from the Earth. Currently, world oil reserves are estimated at about 1,000 billion barrels, which will last (according to the most optimistic estimates of the oil industry) 'for almost 45 years at current rates of consumption.'"

But that doesn't mean that we'll suck on the straw for 45 years and then it'll suddenly stop. When about half the oil has been removed from an underground oil field, it starts to get much harder (and thus more expensive) to extract the remaining half. The last third to quarter can be excruciatingly expensive to extract - so much so that wells these days that have hit that point are usually just capped because it costs more to extract the oil than it can be sold for, or it's more profitable to ship oil in from the Middle East, even after accounting for the cost of shipping.

The halfway point of an oil field is referred to as "The Hubbert Peak," after scientist M. King Hubbert, who first pointed this out in 1956 and projected 1970 as the year for the Hubbert Peak of US oil supplies. Hubbert was off by four years - 1974 saw the initial decline in US oil production and the consequent rise in price. In 1975, Hubbert, who is now deceased, projected 2000 for a worldwide Hubbert Peak. Once that point had been hit, he and other experts suggested, the world could expect economy-destabilizing spikes in the price of oil, and wars to begin over control of this vital resource.

Most of the world has now been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic data, and computers, in the process of locating 41,000 oil fields. Over 641,000 exploratory wells have been drilled, and virtually all fields which show any promise are well-known and factored into the one-trillion barrel estimate the oil industry uses for world oil reserves.

And of that 1 trillion barrels, Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels, although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable. This at a time when virtually all American oil fields (except the Alaska North Slope) have dwindled past the Hubbert Peak into $5 to $25 per barrel pumping costs.

Thus, we see that our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.

Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the American Empire.

Of course, there are a few cracks in this vision. In order to have such a new American century, we must be willing to foul our waters and air with the byproducts of oil combustion and oil-fired power plants, and tolerate the explosions in cancer they bring. We must be willing to gamble that raising CO2 levels won't destabilize the atmosphere and tip us into a new ice age by shutting down the Great Conveyor Belt warm-water currents in the Atlantic. We must be willing to hold the rest of the world off at the point of a bayonet, and to take on the England/Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine type of terrorism that inevitably comes when people decide to assert nationalism and confront empire.

And, perhaps most distressing, the third George to be President of the United States must be willing to clamp down on his own dissident citizens the same way that King George III of England did in 1776. These are the requirements of empire.

The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.

It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life. Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes, windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to petroleum.

Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality that Carter shared with us.

And so now we discover these oddities. Osama bin Laden, for example, explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists. And our troops are there to protect our access to Saudi oil, a dependence legacy we inherited from Reagan's rejection of Carter's initiatives.

If we are to hold a vision of America that doesn't depend on foreign sources of oil and doesn't require the enormous expenditures of money and blood to project and protect empire, simply saying "stop the war" isn't enough. We must clearly articulate a vision of what America could be in a world in balance, a world at peace, and a world where the planet's vital natural resources are protected and renewed. This is the ultimate family value, the highest patriotism, and the most desperately needed story to guide the next generation of Americans.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Source: CommonDreams.org

Some Comments from George Bush & Co.

US Says No to Talks With North Korea

By Burt Herman
The Associated Press

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton:

"You don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it's not a way to produce a conversation because if you acquiesce in aberrant behavior, you simply encourage the repetition of it, which we're obviously not going to do," Bolton told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.

[but if you are threatening to launch wars of aggression against them, its ok: Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran. Threats are fine as part of “conversations” as long as it’s the US doing the threatening.]

"It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles," Bush said at a meeting with European leaders in Vienna, Austria. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world."

[Bush giving lessons on how to behave as a responsible member of the global community?? No to Kyoto Protocols, No to ICC in the Hague, No to Geneva Conventions whenever its suits them, No to ban on Proliferation etc.]

BBC News:

President Bush said that he was "pleased" the Chinese government had also advised North Korea against testing the missile.

This is a "positive sign", he said, adding that Pyongyang must realise there are "certain international norms" to live by.

Here are some examples of the US living by “international norms”:

Source:

The International Criminal Court:

It is no small irony that the nation that championed the Nuremberg trials and helped bring about the indictment and capture of Slobodan Milosevic now stands as the single greatest opponent of the International Criminal Court.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child:

This historic document recognizing the inalienable rights of children has been ratified by every nation in the world with the exception of the U. S. and Somalia.

The World Arms Trade:

But despite the evidence demonstrating the deadly impact of the small arms trade in nations such as Rwanda and Bosnia, the Bush Administration refused to support a UN Conference seeking to ban small arms trafficking, alleging it interfered with the United States' constitutional guarantees on the right to bear arms.

The International Ban on Landmines:

Anti-personnel landmines kill or maim several thousand people each month. Some are soldiers. Most are civilians. Many are children. And to date some 139 governments have signed and 107 have ratified the historic treaty that establishes a comprehensive ban on the use of these mines in all circumstances.

The Clinton Administration refused to join the Mine Ban Treaty, claiming that anti-personnel mines were needed to protect the Republic of Korea from invasion by North Korea. But even some military commanders now consider these anti-personnel mines not only outmoded but a real and deadly liability to U. S. troops.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):

More than 160 nations have ratified CEDAW, yet the United States joins Iran and Sudan as one of those few nations who have not accepted this important treaty.

#######

The US 'wants to end Guantanamo'

BBC News

US President George W Bush has said he would like to close the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and send many detainees back to their home countries.

However, he said not all the inmates would be returned - some would need to be put on trial in the US because they were "cold-blooded killers".

[Thought Crime at its best. Nice that George is able to know if someone is a cold blooded killer before they have done any killing. I guess dropping bombs on other countries and killing countless civilians gives him the ability to spot other killers.]

Mr Bush said he understood European concerns over the US detention camp in Cuba.

"I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with," he said.

He said 200 detainees had been sent home, and most of those remaining were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan.

[Remember that Donald Rumsfeld called them “the worst of the worst” as justification for the prison camp. Now 200 have been released. Are we all in danger then??

> No comments from anyone in the media. Interesting]

But he added that there were some detainees "who need to be tried in US courts".

"They will murder somebody if they are let out on the street."

Buoyant Bush sees common ground

BBC News

President Bush addressed the issue in his trademark style, but with more subtlety when it came to content.

"Some people," he said, "say it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. And I'll try to do my best to explain to the Europeans that on the one hand we are tough on the war on terror, and on the other we are providing more money than ever before in the world's history for HIV and Aids on the continent of Africa.

"I'll do my best to explain our foreign policy. On the one hand it is tough when needs be, on the other hand it's compassionate."

[Funny comments from a guy who has invaded and occupied two countries recently. No one else has done that. So who is the tyrant??]

Where Is The Airplane That Crashed into Pentagon...?

(Pesawat Boeing 747 yang menabrak Pentagon langsung hilang dari lokasi tabrakan.)

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Don't miss this. Where are the airplane parts?
Go on this website and watch this film...do it quickly as it has been pulled off several websites already - and YOU'LL SEE WHY.

(Cepat menyaksikan film ini. Bagian2 dari Pesawat Boeing itu TIDAK ADA di lokasi. Cepat. Film ini sudah dicabut dari beberapa situs. Setelah melihatnya, anda akan tahu kenapa!!!)

Watching TV harms kids’ academic success

Source: New Scientist

• 21:00 04 July 2005
• NewScientist.com news service

Too much time in front of the TV reduces children’s learning abilities, academic achievement, and even the likelihood of their graduating from university, suggest three new studies. But it may be the quality, not quantity, of the programmes that really matters.

Decades of studies have linked childhood hours in front of the TV with aggressive behaviour, earlier sexual activity, smoking, obesity, and poor school performance. The research has lead the American Academy of Pediatrics to suggest children watch no more than 2 hours of TV per day and that children under 2 years old watch none at all.

But results from studies on cognitive abilities and TV watching have been mixed. Some researchers have found that high quality, educational TV programmes are a boon for learning. Others have shown that the negative effects of hours in front of the TV disappear when confounding factors - such as IQ or socioeconomic status - are included.

So Robert Hancox at the University of Otago in New Zealand and colleagues studied nearly 1000 children born in Dunedin, NZ, in 1972 and 1973. The researchers gathered data from both parents and children on how many hours a day were each spent watching TV at age 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15. The team then re-evaluated participants at the age of 26.

Drop outs

Kids who watched the least TV – especially between the ages of 5 and 11 – had the highest probability of graduating from university by the age of 26, regardless of IQ or socioeconomic status. While those who watched the most TV, more than 3 hours per day, had the highest chance of dropping out of school without qualifications.

Furthermore, the effects seemed to be strongest for those who had a median IQ level, probably because the outcomes for the children at either IQ extreme are less likely to be affected by TV watching.

Two other studies, also published in the July issue of Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found similar results. Dina Borzekowski at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and colleagues found that Northern Californian third-graders - aged about 8 - with a TV in their bedroom watched more TV and performed worse on standardised tests than classmates without a bedroom TV.

Sesame Street

Frederick Zimmerman and Dimitri Christakis at the University of Washington in Seattle, found that kids who watched the most TV before the age of 3 performed poorest on reading and mathematics tests at ages 6 and 7. But there did seem to be some benefit for TV watching in 3 to 5 year olds, possibly because of the large number of educational programs targeted at this age category, such as Sesame Street. For the duration of this study – 1990 to 1996 – very little educational programming for under-threes was available in the US.

In an accompanying editorial, Ariel Chernin and Deborah Linebarger at the University of Pennsylvania, US, points out that all three studies do not separate the effects of educational versus entertainment programming.

One proposed mechanism of how TV harms educational achievement is that TV takes time away from creative play, reading or doing homework. But, the editorial notes, research specifically examining this suggests "it is not the amount of viewing that matters but the content of what is viewed".

They suggest that parents should encourage kids to watch quality, educational programming. But Barry Milne, a co-author on the New Zealand study and now at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, points out this may be simpler said than done: “Content could well be a confounding factor. But what we did find is that the type of TV kids actually do watch is not good for them."

Journal reference: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (vol 159, p 607, p 614, p 619, p 687)

Examples of Errors in the Bible

Biblical Errancy Pamphlets
by
Dennis McKinsey

(Downloaded from: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/)

Questions on pamphlet #1 entitled:

THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?

Dear Believer:

I can't accept the Bible as God's Word because it contains hundreds of problems and contradictions that can't be solved, only rationalized. I ask only that you read what follows in line with James' teaching that Christians should be "open to reason" (James 3:17 RSV) and Isaiah's belief that we should "reason together" (Isa. 1:18) to see just a few of the Book's many shortcomings.

1. If you must accept Jesus as your Savior in order to be saved (John 14:6), what about the billions of beings that die as fetuses, infants, and mentally deficient, etc.? For them to accept Jesus would be impossible. So they are condemned to hell because of conditions over which they had no control. Deut. 32:4 says God is just, but where is the justice?

2. Why are we being punished for Adam's sin? After all, he ate the forbidden fruit, we didn't. It's his problem, not ours, especially in light of Deut. 24:16, which says children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.

3. God created Adam, so he must have been perfect. How then, could he have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin, he wasn't perfect.

4. How can Num. 23:19, which says God doesn't repent, be reconciled with Ex. 32:14, which clearly says he does?

5. How can 2 Kings 8:26, which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, be reconciled with 2 Chron. 22:2, which says he was 42?

6. How can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, be squared with Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God's face and his life was preserved?

7. Rom. 3:23 says "all have sinned." All means all. Yet, Gen. 6:9 says Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. Job 1:1 & 1:8 say Job was perfect. How could these men have been perfect if all have sinned?

8. How could Moses have written the first five books in the Bible (the Pentateuch) when his own death and burial are described in Deut. 34:5-6 ("So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab ... and he buried him in a valley. . . .")?

9. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (2 Chron. 9:25)? Did Solomon's house contain 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5)?

10. Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14,17). Yet, why would it be of any consequence since the Widow at Nain's son, Jairus's daughter, Lazarus, and many others rose before Jesus? By the time he rose this was a rather common occurrence. I would think it would have been met by a resounding yawn rather than surprise followed by: So what else can you do. Adam's act of coming into the world as a full grown adult is more spectacular.

11. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old when he began to reign in Jerusalem and did he reign 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), or was he 8 years old and reigned 3 months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36: 9). Did Nebuzaradan come to Jerusalem on the 7th (2 Kings 25:8) or 10th (Jer. 52:12) day of the 5^th month?

12. How could we follow the 6th Commandment, even if we wanted to, when the authors of the various versions of the Bible can't agree on whether the key word is "kill" or “murder”? Surely they recognize the difference?

13. We are told the Bible has no scientific errors, yet it says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13,19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs.

14. Matt. 27:9-10 quotes a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. Yet, no Bible believer has ever been able to show me where it lies in the Book of Jeremiah.

15. Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. Yet, it experienced a war (Rev. 12:7). How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn't it happen again? Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur? That's exactly what I'm trying to escape, aren't you?

16. Believers are told in Mark 16:17-18 that they can drink "any deadly thing" and "it shall not hurt” them. But I don't think you would be naive enough to drink any arsenic offered. Perhaps I'm wrong and you would be willing to test the Book's veracity-"lay it on the line" so to speak?

17. We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18,36) " yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matt. 19:16-18 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life.

18. According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32 (RSV). One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted. The total is 36.

19. Surely you don't believe Eccl. 1:9 RSV ("What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun")? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?

20. If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27)? Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?

21. If God created everything, (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John 1:3), then he did create the world's evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38). Thus, he is responsible.

22. In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is already here? And how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1: 12, 2:7)?

23. For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinitely greater. It’s eternal.

24. Last, in Acts 20:35 Paul told people “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn't Paul guilty of deception?

These examples expose only a few of the many reasons I can't accept the Bible as the word of a perfect being. A far greater number can be found in the monthly publication, BIBLICAL ERRANCY, which is “An international periodical focusing on biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists.”

A free copy is available at 2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, Ohio
43026 (614) 527-1703

Questions on pamphlet #2 entitled:

JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER?

Dear Believer:

You ask me to accept Jesus as my personal Savior; yet his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped, not sought. I ask only that you read what follows in the spirit of open-mindedness taught in Prov. 15:10 NIV ("he who hates correction will die") and Prov. 12:1 NASB ("he who hates reproof is stupid") because I seek to "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21).

1. While on the Cross Jesus said, "My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mark 15:34). How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn't even save himself? Those aren't the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred other places he would rather be.

2. Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matt. 23:17, 19 and Luke 11:40 and 12:20 show. Shouldn't he be in danger of hell too?

3. Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only one and a half days.

5. Jesus' prophecy in John 13:38 (“The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times”) is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock crowed after the first denial, not the third.

6. How could Jesus be our model of sinless perfection when he denies he is morally perfect in Matt. 19:17 ("And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God")?

7. In 1 Cor. 1: 1 7 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them....” So how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?

8. How could Jesus, whom the New Testament repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our savior when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help") and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm? And the son of man, which is a worm")?

9. How can Jesus be God when he repeatedly said he was not God's equal, wasn't God? Obvious examples are: John 14:28 (“...for my Father is greater than I”), John 20:17 ("I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God"), and John 7:16 ("My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me").

10. While on the Cross Jesus said, "Forgive them Father they know not what they do.” To whom was he speaking? They say, "God.” But I thought he was God. How can God speak to God if there is only one god? That's two gods.

11. Jesus told us to "honor thy father and mother” (Matt. 15:4), but contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 ("If any man comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... he cannot be my disciple").

12. In John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man...) Jesus erred because 2 Kings 2:11 (“. . . and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") shows Elijah went up earlier.

13. In Matt. 16:28 Jesus said, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Yet, they all died and he never came.

14. Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you,” but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 ('Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:27 (". . . hypocrites ... ye are like unto whited sepulchres...”) are excellent examples of hypocrisy.

15. Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matt. 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").

16. The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father (the Virgin Birth)?

17. Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." The obvious question is: What cross? He hadn't yet died on the cross. There was nothing to take up. That man would have had no idea what he was talking about.

18. In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments. Yet one of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not," which isn't even an Old Testament commandment.

19. In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." But Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, and Mark 1:45 show that he hid, escaped, and slunk around often.

20. In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb for three days?

21. For Jesus to be executed for our sins makes about as much sense as my son telling a judge that he would accept execution for my crimes. Although a nice gesture, it has nothing to do with justice. What judge worthy of the title would agree?

22. Lastly, in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but later told his followers to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matt 28:19). To whom, then, are they to go--only to the Jews, or everyone?

These examples expose only a few of the many reasons I can't accept Jesus as a Savior. A far greater number can be found in the monthly publication, BIBLICAL ERRANCY, which is “An international periodical focusing on biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists."