3136
3DHS / Re: Hastert: Anyone Who Hid Page Info Leaves
« on: October 11, 2006, 02:29:29 AM »
What if it is found that Hastert knew? Does he leave, too?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3137
3DHS / Republicans and evangelicals
« on: October 11, 2006, 01:36:33 AM »
Tucker Carlson was brutally honest on the Chris Matthews' Show about the dysfunction and hypocrisy at the core of the current GOP:
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/the_republican__1.html
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/the_republican__1.html
3138
3DHS / Union workers on strike: Goodyear
« on: October 10, 2006, 10:47:03 PM »
The Associated Press/AKRON, Ohio
By THOMAS J. SHEERAN
Associated Press Writer
Union workers strike against Goodyear
CT. 5 2:29 P.M. ET Workers at 16 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plants in 10 states and Canada went on strike Thursday after the world's third largest tire maker and the steelworkers union failed to agree on a new labor contract.
The union said the company's latest proposal would have included two plant closings.
"The company left us with no option," said Ron Hoover, executive vice president of the United Steelworkers of America, which represents the Goodyear workers. "We cannot allow additional plant closures after the sacrifices we made three years ago to help this company survive."
The old contract expired July 22 and both sides agreed to an indefinite day-to-day extension. The union issued a 72-hour notice on Monday and said they would terminate the contract at midday Thursday if an agreement wasn't reached.
The company said it was prepared to keep its plants open and take care of its customers but did not immediately say how it planned to do that.
Goodyear ranks No. 3 in the world in tire sales, based on revenues, behind top-ranked Bridgestone and No. 2 Michelin, according to the trade publication Tire Business.
Goodyear spokesman Ed Markey declined to comment on whether the company's offer involved plant closings.
"Our final offer to the union included a plan to secure retiree medical benefits and provide job security and investment guarantees for USW plants," Markey said. "The union rejected a comprehensive set of proposals that mirror the other industry agreements."
The union said it represents 15,000 employees at 12 Goodyear plants in the United States and four plants in Canada where its members have gone on strike. By the company's count, the U.S. plants have about 12,600 employees represented by the United Steelworkers.
In Akron, where the 108-year-old company is based, workers at Goodyear's research center streamed out of the building at 1 p.m. and joined union members holding signs on the picket line.
About 20 pickets showed up outside Goodyear's sprawling headquarters carrying placards that read "USW Local 2L on strike against Goodyear Tire & Rubber for unfair labor practices."
Within minutes, scores more arrived to join the picket line. Goodyear office workers coming out at lunch time walked past the pickets without stopping and motorists honked horns as they passed.
One union member led a chant, shouting, "What do you want?"
"Contract," the picketers chanted.
"When do you want it?" the man asked.
"Now."
In St. Mary's in western Ohio, where more than 400 workers make rubber for Goodyear, union members stopped working after getting a call from the bargaining unit in Cincinnati shortly after 1 p.m.
"We're on strike," said Rick Niekamp, vice president of the USWA Local 200. "We had no choice. We didn't want to do it."
The union also represents Goodyear employees at plants in Marysville, Ohio; Lincoln, Neb.; Topeka, Kan.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Union City, Tenn.; Danville, Va.; Sun Prairie, Wis.; and Fayetteville, N.C.
Workers also went on strike at Goodyear's four plants in Ontario, Canada, the union said.
Goodyear shares fell 19 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $14.10 in trading Thursday afternoon on the New York Stock Exchange. The 52-week range has been between $9.75 and $19.31.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KIKUAG0.htm
By THOMAS J. SHEERAN
Associated Press Writer
Union workers strike against Goodyear
CT. 5 2:29 P.M. ET Workers at 16 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plants in 10 states and Canada went on strike Thursday after the world's third largest tire maker and the steelworkers union failed to agree on a new labor contract.
The union said the company's latest proposal would have included two plant closings.
"The company left us with no option," said Ron Hoover, executive vice president of the United Steelworkers of America, which represents the Goodyear workers. "We cannot allow additional plant closures after the sacrifices we made three years ago to help this company survive."
The old contract expired July 22 and both sides agreed to an indefinite day-to-day extension. The union issued a 72-hour notice on Monday and said they would terminate the contract at midday Thursday if an agreement wasn't reached.
The company said it was prepared to keep its plants open and take care of its customers but did not immediately say how it planned to do that.
Goodyear ranks No. 3 in the world in tire sales, based on revenues, behind top-ranked Bridgestone and No. 2 Michelin, according to the trade publication Tire Business.
Goodyear spokesman Ed Markey declined to comment on whether the company's offer involved plant closings.
"Our final offer to the union included a plan to secure retiree medical benefits and provide job security and investment guarantees for USW plants," Markey said. "The union rejected a comprehensive set of proposals that mirror the other industry agreements."
The union said it represents 15,000 employees at 12 Goodyear plants in the United States and four plants in Canada where its members have gone on strike. By the company's count, the U.S. plants have about 12,600 employees represented by the United Steelworkers.
In Akron, where the 108-year-old company is based, workers at Goodyear's research center streamed out of the building at 1 p.m. and joined union members holding signs on the picket line.
About 20 pickets showed up outside Goodyear's sprawling headquarters carrying placards that read "USW Local 2L on strike against Goodyear Tire & Rubber for unfair labor practices."
Within minutes, scores more arrived to join the picket line. Goodyear office workers coming out at lunch time walked past the pickets without stopping and motorists honked horns as they passed.
One union member led a chant, shouting, "What do you want?"
"Contract," the picketers chanted.
"When do you want it?" the man asked.
"Now."
In St. Mary's in western Ohio, where more than 400 workers make rubber for Goodyear, union members stopped working after getting a call from the bargaining unit in Cincinnati shortly after 1 p.m.
"We're on strike," said Rick Niekamp, vice president of the USWA Local 200. "We had no choice. We didn't want to do it."
The union also represents Goodyear employees at plants in Marysville, Ohio; Lincoln, Neb.; Topeka, Kan.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Union City, Tenn.; Danville, Va.; Sun Prairie, Wis.; and Fayetteville, N.C.
Workers also went on strike at Goodyear's four plants in Ontario, Canada, the union said.
Goodyear shares fell 19 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $14.10 in trading Thursday afternoon on the New York Stock Exchange. The 52-week range has been between $9.75 and $19.31.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KIKUAG0.htm
3139
3DHS / Re: Right Wing Hypocrites
« on: October 10, 2006, 10:43:04 PM »
BT, I saw those IM's to pages. That's awful. I'll be happy to have "I was disgusted and upset about Foley preying on pages" on my resume'. Gay people are not by definition sexual predators of teens. Straight and bisexual people can be predators too. I know that, and you know that. Legislating while gay is fine with me.
3140
3DHS / Re: No more troops
« on: October 10, 2006, 10:37:19 PM »
Sirs,
It seems as if we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. And so are the Iraqis, both ways. If I knew which way would cause less deaths I'd tell you. I don't. My take is we need to move troops to Kuwait, at least. We aren't holding any roads there. We are simply dying there. If it were like WW2, we'd hold a road, then a neighborhood, etc. We aren't doing that.
Lots of things could have been different...if only. But it's not possible to go back. I'm not willing to send more troops.
It seems as if we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. And so are the Iraqis, both ways. If I knew which way would cause less deaths I'd tell you. I don't. My take is we need to move troops to Kuwait, at least. We aren't holding any roads there. We are simply dying there. If it were like WW2, we'd hold a road, then a neighborhood, etc. We aren't doing that.
Lots of things could have been different...if only. But it's not possible to go back. I'm not willing to send more troops.
3141
3DHS / No more troops
« on: October 10, 2006, 07:02:36 PM »
New York Post
NO MORE TROOPS
By RALPH PETERS
October 10, 2006 -- WITH 26 American troops dead in Iraq in the first nine days of October, the combination of bad news and pre-election politics has those on one bench arguing for bailing out immediately and those on the other bench frantic to pile on.
Neither position is realistic. We're not going to pull out of Iraq overnight - no matter what happens in November. The "bring the troops home now" voices always blended arch political cynicism with willful naiveté - it's always been about Bush, not Iraq.
But remaining in Baghdad requires a new sense of reality. "Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.
Our Army and Marine Corps urgently need increases in personnel strength. They've been stripped to the strategic and tactical bone. We need more boots. But not on the ground in Iraq.
Sending more troops wouldn't help and can't be done. It's too late. We've reached the point where Iraqis must fight for their own future. If they won't, nothing we can do will bring success.
As this column stressed months ago, the test for whether we should remain in Iraq is straightforward: Will Iraqis fight in decisive numbers for their own elected, constitutional government? The insurgents, militiamen and foreign terrorists are willing to die for their causes. If "our" Iraqis won't match that strength of will, Iraq will fail.
If Iraq's leaders stop squabbling and lead, and if Iraq's soldiers and police fight resolutely for their constitutional state, we should be willing to stay "as long as it takes." But if they continue to wallow in ethnic and religious partisanship while doing as little as possible for their own country, we need to leave and let them face the consequences.
Give them one more year. And that's it.
Meanwhile, the notion of sending more U.S. troops is strategic and practical nonsense. Had the same voices demanded another 100,000-plus troops in 2003 or even 2004, it would have made a profound, positive difference. Now it's too late.
By refusing to adequately increase active-duty numbers in the early phases of this struggle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ground down our Army and Marines - both the flesh-and-blood troops and their gear. We must not ask the understrength forces who've carried the burden of this fight to shoulder yet more weight.
Make no mistake: Were our nation directly threatened, our ground forces would surge to respond powerfully and effectively. But as far as Iraq goes, they've given their best. They're willing to die for our country. But we should never ask them to give their lives to postpone a political embarrassment.
This doesn't mean that we can't temporarily deploy additional brigades for specific missions. But it does mean that we've got to shoot dead any nonsense about adding tens of thousands more troops on a long-term basis. It won't help. All we can do now is hold open the door for the Iraqis to go through. It's their fight.
And we have to avoid letting Iraq develop a military-welfare dependency on us. While even a successful Iraqi force would need U.S. support for years to come, the issue is: Who will take the lead in combat? The Iraqis must do this themselves - and their moment of truth can no longer be delayed.
It's absurd to brag that Iraq now has 300,000 men in uniform if all most of them do is collect paychecks and duck responsibility - while backing their own ethnic and religious factions.
And, although it pains me to write it, we can't trust the judgment of our military officers as to whether Iraqi troops and police are making sufficient progress. Clientitis happens. Our trainers inevitably cling to the success stories, insisting, Yeah, those other guys poked the pooch - but Col. Mohammed's men are doing a great job.
Our advisers develop emotional bonds with their Iraqi charges and lose big-picture objectivity. When it comes to judging Iraqi progress, the only useful measure is the security situation. If the carnage continues unchallenged by the Iraqis, game over.
Iraq is not yet lost, but it's harder every day to be optimistic. It's still too soon to give up - we must have the fortitude to weather very dark days. But we also need the guts to recognize when it's time to cut our losses. In Iraq, the verdict must come in 2007.
It's up to the Iraqis to make their case.
For us, the tragic aspect isn't what would follow an American withdrawal. That would be yet another grotesque Arab tragedy. What's heartbreaking is that we did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein, but we did it unforgivably badly.
A Victorian-era cliché ran that the saddest words in the English language are "if only." Well, if only Secretary Rumsfeld had permitted detailed planning for an occupation, sent enough troops when it would've made a difference, allowed our commanders to enforce the rule of law when they reached Baghdad . . . and so on, for a hundred other pigheaded mistakes.
Well, you face the future with the Iraq you've got, not the Iraq you'd like to have. We owe the Iraqis one last chance, and it's up to them to take it.
But no more U.S. troops. Make the Iraqis fight for their own country. If they won't, we need to accept that a noble endeavor failed.
People get the government they earn. Those of us who believed that the situation in the Middle East required desperate measures may have to accept that the cynics were right when they insisted that Arabs can't govern themselves democratically. What if it doesn't take a village? What if it takes a Saddam?
If Iraq does fail, the cold truth is that the United States will do fine. We'll honor our dead, salve the wounds to our vanity and march on stronger than ever (with the world's most powerful and most experienced military). But the Middle East will have revealed itself as hopeless.
Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and author.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_more_troops_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
NO MORE TROOPS
By RALPH PETERS
October 10, 2006 -- WITH 26 American troops dead in Iraq in the first nine days of October, the combination of bad news and pre-election politics has those on one bench arguing for bailing out immediately and those on the other bench frantic to pile on.
Neither position is realistic. We're not going to pull out of Iraq overnight - no matter what happens in November. The "bring the troops home now" voices always blended arch political cynicism with willful naiveté - it's always been about Bush, not Iraq.
But remaining in Baghdad requires a new sense of reality. "Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.
Our Army and Marine Corps urgently need increases in personnel strength. They've been stripped to the strategic and tactical bone. We need more boots. But not on the ground in Iraq.
Sending more troops wouldn't help and can't be done. It's too late. We've reached the point where Iraqis must fight for their own future. If they won't, nothing we can do will bring success.
As this column stressed months ago, the test for whether we should remain in Iraq is straightforward: Will Iraqis fight in decisive numbers for their own elected, constitutional government? The insurgents, militiamen and foreign terrorists are willing to die for their causes. If "our" Iraqis won't match that strength of will, Iraq will fail.
If Iraq's leaders stop squabbling and lead, and if Iraq's soldiers and police fight resolutely for their constitutional state, we should be willing to stay "as long as it takes." But if they continue to wallow in ethnic and religious partisanship while doing as little as possible for their own country, we need to leave and let them face the consequences.
Give them one more year. And that's it.
Meanwhile, the notion of sending more U.S. troops is strategic and practical nonsense. Had the same voices demanded another 100,000-plus troops in 2003 or even 2004, it would have made a profound, positive difference. Now it's too late.
By refusing to adequately increase active-duty numbers in the early phases of this struggle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ground down our Army and Marines - both the flesh-and-blood troops and their gear. We must not ask the understrength forces who've carried the burden of this fight to shoulder yet more weight.
Make no mistake: Were our nation directly threatened, our ground forces would surge to respond powerfully and effectively. But as far as Iraq goes, they've given their best. They're willing to die for our country. But we should never ask them to give their lives to postpone a political embarrassment.
This doesn't mean that we can't temporarily deploy additional brigades for specific missions. But it does mean that we've got to shoot dead any nonsense about adding tens of thousands more troops on a long-term basis. It won't help. All we can do now is hold open the door for the Iraqis to go through. It's their fight.
And we have to avoid letting Iraq develop a military-welfare dependency on us. While even a successful Iraqi force would need U.S. support for years to come, the issue is: Who will take the lead in combat? The Iraqis must do this themselves - and their moment of truth can no longer be delayed.
It's absurd to brag that Iraq now has 300,000 men in uniform if all most of them do is collect paychecks and duck responsibility - while backing their own ethnic and religious factions.
And, although it pains me to write it, we can't trust the judgment of our military officers as to whether Iraqi troops and police are making sufficient progress. Clientitis happens. Our trainers inevitably cling to the success stories, insisting, Yeah, those other guys poked the pooch - but Col. Mohammed's men are doing a great job.
Our advisers develop emotional bonds with their Iraqi charges and lose big-picture objectivity. When it comes to judging Iraqi progress, the only useful measure is the security situation. If the carnage continues unchallenged by the Iraqis, game over.
Iraq is not yet lost, but it's harder every day to be optimistic. It's still too soon to give up - we must have the fortitude to weather very dark days. But we also need the guts to recognize when it's time to cut our losses. In Iraq, the verdict must come in 2007.
It's up to the Iraqis to make their case.
For us, the tragic aspect isn't what would follow an American withdrawal. That would be yet another grotesque Arab tragedy. What's heartbreaking is that we did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein, but we did it unforgivably badly.
A Victorian-era cliché ran that the saddest words in the English language are "if only." Well, if only Secretary Rumsfeld had permitted detailed planning for an occupation, sent enough troops when it would've made a difference, allowed our commanders to enforce the rule of law when they reached Baghdad . . . and so on, for a hundred other pigheaded mistakes.
Well, you face the future with the Iraq you've got, not the Iraq you'd like to have. We owe the Iraqis one last chance, and it's up to them to take it.
But no more U.S. troops. Make the Iraqis fight for their own country. If they won't, we need to accept that a noble endeavor failed.
People get the government they earn. Those of us who believed that the situation in the Middle East required desperate measures may have to accept that the cynics were right when they insisted that Arabs can't govern themselves democratically. What if it doesn't take a village? What if it takes a Saddam?
If Iraq does fail, the cold truth is that the United States will do fine. We'll honor our dead, salve the wounds to our vanity and march on stronger than ever (with the world's most powerful and most experienced military). But the Middle East will have revealed itself as hopeless.
Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and author.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_more_troops_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
3142
3DHS / Re: Dozens of Amish mourn schoolhouse killer
« on: October 10, 2006, 02:19:02 PM »
ANd an article from Townhall, where the author basically says the Amish are naive, or something, for forgiving this man.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=undeserved_forgiveness&ns=JeffJacoby&dt=10/09/2006&page=full&comments=true
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=undeserved_forgiveness&ns=JeffJacoby&dt=10/09/2006&page=full&comments=true
3144
3DHS / Ex-gay psychologist says Africans better off as slaves
« on: October 10, 2006, 01:51:45 PM »
I don't even know what to say to this. i've tried 3 times to write a comment about it and failed.
'Ex-gay' psychologist claims Africans 'better off' as slaves
by Brentin Mock
Oct. 6, 2006 -- A prominent member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is under fire for publishing an essay in which he argues that Africans were fortunate to have been sold into slavery, and the civil rights movement was "irrational."
"There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America," writes Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. "Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle... Life there was savage ... and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off."
NARTH is a coalition of psychologists who believe it's possible to "cure" homosexuality, a position rejected by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. The controversy over Schoenewolf's apology for slavery has battered the so-called "ex-gay" movement with accusations of racial bigotry for the first time. The movement's leaders and their close allies at Christian Right powerhouses like Focus on the Family have failed to condemn Schoenwolf's inflammatory arguments.
Titled "Gay Rights and Political Correctness: A Brief History," Schoenewolf's angry polemic was published on NARTH's website. In addition to his outrageous historical claims about the conditions of life in Africa, he writes that human rights proponents are intellectually stunted. (Schoenewolf draws upon Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget, who theorized four stages of intellectual development, with the most advanced stage consisting of abstract and complex thinking. "[F]ollowers in the Human Rights Movement," have not reached this stage, according to Schoenewolf.)
Schoenewolf, a psychotherapist who lives in New York City, is director of The Living Center, an online therapy center for people in the arts. He has authored 14 books, among them The Art of Hating, in which he writes, "Many people talk about hate, but few know how to hate well."
When interviewed last week for this article, Schoenewolf stood by his comments on the intellectual inferiority of civil rights movement supporters. "The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil," he said.
During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."
Schoenewolf's essay first appeared on NARTH's website in the fall of 2005, but apparently went unnoticed by critics until mid-September, around the time the executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay and lesbian advocacy organization, delivered to NARTH a formal letter of protest.
"In the name of propriety, respect, common decency and professional integrity, the National Black Justice Coalition strongly urges NARTH to issue a public apology on the front page of its website for publishing such an outrageous and offensive article," wrote H. Alexander Robinson. "We also hope that you reevaluate your relationship with Dr. Schoenewolf, whose peculiar views have no place in civilized discourse."
Then, in late September, the gay rights group Truth Wins Out called on Focus on the Family to cancel a speaking appearance by NARTH executive director Joseph Nicolosi scheduled for a Focus on the Family conference held September 23 in Palm Springs, Calif.
Nicolosi appeared as planned. But the Schoenewolf essay was erased from NARTH's website the same day as the Focus on the Family conference. Then, on October 6, NARTH posted this statement to its website: "NARTH regrets the comments made by Dr. Schoenwolf about slavery which have been misconstrued by some of our readers. It should go without saying that we do not wish to minimize the suffering of those who have been mistreated because of race, sex, religious beliefs or sexual orientation." The statement makes no mention of the civil rights movement.
Nicolosi has yet to publicly address the future of Schoenewolf's relationship with NARTH. He also did not respond to multiple voice mail messages and E-mails seeking comment for this article. Michael Haley, manager of Focus on the Family's homosexuality and gender department, likewise did not respond. Calls and E-mails to Focus on the Family press managers went unanswered.
For now, Schoenewolf remains a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. This committee has "the authority of opinion and the authority of their recommendations," over what is published by NARTH, according to former committee member David Blakeslee, who resigned in protest over the Schoenewolf essay Sept. 29.
"Whenever a scientific organization speaks inaccurately about science and conflates it with politics, the general public can be significantly misled and harmed," he wrote in his letter of resigation.
Interviewed by the Report, Blakeslee added: "Schoenewolf's article was so over the line that it justifiably outraged a number of people."
Even so, other NARTH members have leapt to Schoenewolf's defense on the organization's official blog, whose administrator, "Sojourneer," summed up the outcry over the essay as "lies and distortion, in an attempt to discredit Narth [sic] and Dr. Shoenewolf [sic]."
"Just because Schoenewolf said some good can come out of a bad situation [slavery] does not make him a racist," the NARTH administrator wrote. "It was just his opinion and does not reflect Narth's [sic] position on the topic."
So what exactly is NARTH's position on equal rights for non-whites? On the NARTH website, the section marked "NARTH and Civil Rights" states: "It is NARTH's position that science, not activism, should inform legal decisions and public policies," a position that could easily be read to support Schoenewolf's hostility towards the civil rights movement. NARTH's position statement is particularly ironic in light of the organization's close relationship with Focus on the Family, which clearly engages in political activism.
Blakeslee isn't the only NARTH supporter to sever ties with the organization over its failure to denounce Schoenewolf.
"This was a slam dunk. They should have said, 'These are not our views.' People have asked them to clarify what they meant by this and [instead] they've in fact defended it," says Warren Throckmorton, a professor of psychology at Grove City College and a former member of NARTH.
Before the Schoenewolf controversy, Throckmorton was slated to present at NARTH's annual conference in November in Orlando, Fla. Now, he's pulled out, and wants nothing to do with the group.
"This stuff about political correctness and slavery is very far outfield," he said. "I'm appalled by it, and a lot of people within NARTH are as well, but they don't have the authority to speak out on it. And those who do have the authority aren't."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=84&printable=1
'Ex-gay' psychologist claims Africans 'better off' as slaves
by Brentin Mock
Oct. 6, 2006 -- A prominent member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is under fire for publishing an essay in which he argues that Africans were fortunate to have been sold into slavery, and the civil rights movement was "irrational."
"There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America," writes Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. "Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle... Life there was savage ... and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off."
NARTH is a coalition of psychologists who believe it's possible to "cure" homosexuality, a position rejected by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. The controversy over Schoenewolf's apology for slavery has battered the so-called "ex-gay" movement with accusations of racial bigotry for the first time. The movement's leaders and their close allies at Christian Right powerhouses like Focus on the Family have failed to condemn Schoenwolf's inflammatory arguments.
Titled "Gay Rights and Political Correctness: A Brief History," Schoenewolf's angry polemic was published on NARTH's website. In addition to his outrageous historical claims about the conditions of life in Africa, he writes that human rights proponents are intellectually stunted. (Schoenewolf draws upon Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget, who theorized four stages of intellectual development, with the most advanced stage consisting of abstract and complex thinking. "[F]ollowers in the Human Rights Movement," have not reached this stage, according to Schoenewolf.)
Schoenewolf, a psychotherapist who lives in New York City, is director of The Living Center, an online therapy center for people in the arts. He has authored 14 books, among them The Art of Hating, in which he writes, "Many people talk about hate, but few know how to hate well."
When interviewed last week for this article, Schoenewolf stood by his comments on the intellectual inferiority of civil rights movement supporters. "The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil," he said.
During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."
Schoenewolf's essay first appeared on NARTH's website in the fall of 2005, but apparently went unnoticed by critics until mid-September, around the time the executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay and lesbian advocacy organization, delivered to NARTH a formal letter of protest.
"In the name of propriety, respect, common decency and professional integrity, the National Black Justice Coalition strongly urges NARTH to issue a public apology on the front page of its website for publishing such an outrageous and offensive article," wrote H. Alexander Robinson. "We also hope that you reevaluate your relationship with Dr. Schoenewolf, whose peculiar views have no place in civilized discourse."
Then, in late September, the gay rights group Truth Wins Out called on Focus on the Family to cancel a speaking appearance by NARTH executive director Joseph Nicolosi scheduled for a Focus on the Family conference held September 23 in Palm Springs, Calif.
Nicolosi appeared as planned. But the Schoenewolf essay was erased from NARTH's website the same day as the Focus on the Family conference. Then, on October 6, NARTH posted this statement to its website: "NARTH regrets the comments made by Dr. Schoenwolf about slavery which have been misconstrued by some of our readers. It should go without saying that we do not wish to minimize the suffering of those who have been mistreated because of race, sex, religious beliefs or sexual orientation." The statement makes no mention of the civil rights movement.
Nicolosi has yet to publicly address the future of Schoenewolf's relationship with NARTH. He also did not respond to multiple voice mail messages and E-mails seeking comment for this article. Michael Haley, manager of Focus on the Family's homosexuality and gender department, likewise did not respond. Calls and E-mails to Focus on the Family press managers went unanswered.
For now, Schoenewolf remains a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. This committee has "the authority of opinion and the authority of their recommendations," over what is published by NARTH, according to former committee member David Blakeslee, who resigned in protest over the Schoenewolf essay Sept. 29.
"Whenever a scientific organization speaks inaccurately about science and conflates it with politics, the general public can be significantly misled and harmed," he wrote in his letter of resigation.
Interviewed by the Report, Blakeslee added: "Schoenewolf's article was so over the line that it justifiably outraged a number of people."
Even so, other NARTH members have leapt to Schoenewolf's defense on the organization's official blog, whose administrator, "Sojourneer," summed up the outcry over the essay as "lies and distortion, in an attempt to discredit Narth [sic] and Dr. Shoenewolf [sic]."
"Just because Schoenewolf said some good can come out of a bad situation [slavery] does not make him a racist," the NARTH administrator wrote. "It was just his opinion and does not reflect Narth's [sic] position on the topic."
So what exactly is NARTH's position on equal rights for non-whites? On the NARTH website, the section marked "NARTH and Civil Rights" states: "It is NARTH's position that science, not activism, should inform legal decisions and public policies," a position that could easily be read to support Schoenewolf's hostility towards the civil rights movement. NARTH's position statement is particularly ironic in light of the organization's close relationship with Focus on the Family, which clearly engages in political activism.
Blakeslee isn't the only NARTH supporter to sever ties with the organization over its failure to denounce Schoenewolf.
"This was a slam dunk. They should have said, 'These are not our views.' People have asked them to clarify what they meant by this and [instead] they've in fact defended it," says Warren Throckmorton, a professor of psychology at Grove City College and a former member of NARTH.
Before the Schoenewolf controversy, Throckmorton was slated to present at NARTH's annual conference in November in Orlando, Fla. Now, he's pulled out, and wants nothing to do with the group.
"This stuff about political correctness and slavery is very far outfield," he said. "I'm appalled by it, and a lot of people within NARTH are as well, but they don't have the authority to speak out on it. And those who do have the authority aren't."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=84&printable=1
3145
3DHS / Re: happy columbus day
« on: October 10, 2006, 01:46:46 PM »
I read that in Berkely, there was a sign on some office that was closed : "Happy Indigenous People's Day." 
3147
3DHS / Re: Right Wing Hypocrites
« on: October 10, 2006, 01:33:41 AM »
A couple of polls for you:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/opinion/polls/main2074116.shtml
CBS Poll shows:GOP Put Politics Over Safety
Most Respondents Think GOP Leaders Knew About Foley's Sexually Explicit E-Mails To Teens
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/us/politics/10pollcnd.html?_r=5&hp&ex=1160452800&en=ee2a28bd80e049d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slog&oref=login
Seventy-nine percent of respondents said House Republican leaders were more concerned about their political standing than about the safety of teenage Congressional pages. About half of respondents said that the House Republican leadership had handled the Foley case improperly, compared with 27 percent who said they approved of how it was handled; 46 percent of respondents said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert should step down. And Americans — including women and suburbanites — are more likely to say that Democrats, and not Republicans, share their moral values.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/opinion/polls/main2074116.shtml
CBS Poll shows:GOP Put Politics Over Safety
Most Respondents Think GOP Leaders Knew About Foley's Sexually Explicit E-Mails To Teens
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/us/politics/10pollcnd.html?_r=5&hp&ex=1160452800&en=ee2a28bd80e049d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slog&oref=login
Seventy-nine percent of respondents said House Republican leaders were more concerned about their political standing than about the safety of teenage Congressional pages. About half of respondents said that the House Republican leadership had handled the Foley case improperly, compared with 27 percent who said they approved of how it was handled; 46 percent of respondents said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert should step down. And Americans — including women and suburbanites — are more likely to say that Democrats, and not Republicans, share their moral values.
3148
3DHS / Re: How Low can you Go ?
« on: October 10, 2006, 12:38:07 AM »
Well, we're going to see who thinks voting for Democrats is worse than voting for a party whose leaders let child predators keep on preying. Some people are very fearful, or angry, or something, and do not want a change in the party in power for any reason. SOmetimes I think a Hitler/Lucifer combo could be the president, and people would say, "Oh, they're ALL bad....better the devil you know."
Sometimes I feel like a little ant walking up a blade of grass and thinking, "Ooh, what a nice bit of shade!" And it's someone's foot about to stomp me, lol...
Sometimes I feel like a little ant walking up a blade of grass and thinking, "Ooh, what a nice bit of shade!" And it's someone's foot about to stomp me, lol...
3149
3DHS / Re: Evangelicals are Disenchanted: Oh oh!
« on: October 09, 2006, 01:22:48 PM »
I see a few aren't all that disenchanted.
"Echoing Drudge and Savage, Dobson and Henninger claimed Foley scandal is "sort of a joke" and a "prank[ ]" by pages"
" Summary: James Dobson and Daniel Henninger both echoed a claim previously made by Matt Drudge and Michael Savage that the sexually explicit communications that Rep. Mark Foley allegedly engaged in with former congressional pages were "sort of a joke" or a "prank[]" on the part of the former pages." ..................
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060004
"Echoing Drudge and Savage, Dobson and Henninger claimed Foley scandal is "sort of a joke" and a "prank[ ]" by pages"
" Summary: James Dobson and Daniel Henninger both echoed a claim previously made by Matt Drudge and Michael Savage that the sexually explicit communications that Rep. Mark Foley allegedly engaged in with former congressional pages were "sort of a joke" or a "prank[]" on the part of the former pages." ..................
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060004
3150
3DHS / Re: North Korea Says Nuclear Test Successful
« on: October 09, 2006, 12:17:35 PM »We knew this was a possibility. Then why on earth did Bush do this:
"In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.stm