Saturday, November 26, 2005

Daily Kos: University of Kansas faculty has "had enough"

University of Kansas faculty has "had enough"
by terryamil [Subscribe]
Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 03:56:56 PM CST

The University of Kansas will be offering a course next spring through its religion department titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." Paul Mirecki, chairman of the school's religious studies department says, "The KU faculty has had enough." More below

* terryamil's diary :: ::
*

Specifically, the KU faculty has had enough of the ridiculous "science" standards put in place in the state by the current state Board of Education.

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory -- defying the view of national science groups.
Though local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was viewed as big win for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mirecki will go down in history as one of the greatest laughingstocks of the century.

What planet has Calvert been living on?

Mirecki was untroubled. Limited to 120 students, his course would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. He said several faculty already have volunteered to be guest lecturers.
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. 'Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Daily Kos: University of Kansas faculty has "had enough"

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Daily Kos: Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera, the story grows

Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera, the story grows
by kos
Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:46:22 AM CST

If the story has no merit, why would the Brittish government threaten newspapers with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?

Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate.

An international journalists group today demanded "complete disclosure" from the British and American governments over reports that the US considered attacking the al-Jazeera HQ in the Qatar capital, Doha.

The International Federation of Journalists claimed that 16 journalists and other media staff have died at the hands of US forces in Iraq, adding that the deaths had not been properly investigated.

Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub was killed when the station's Baghdad office was bombed during a US air raid on April 8 2003. On the same day a US tank shelled the Palestine hotel in the Iraqi capital, killing two other journalists.

"Reports that George Bush and Tony Blair discussed a plan to bomb al-Jazeera reinforce concerns that the US attack in Baghdad on April 8 [2003] was deliberate targeting of the media," said Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ [...]

A Downing Street spokesman added: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Mr Blair and Mr Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

Suddenly, Eason Jordan doesn't seem like such a crackpot, does he? (Not that he ever did, despite the rightwing swarm against him.)

And incidentally, the two Brits who leaked the memo detailing the argument between Bush and Blair over bombing Al Jazeera are already being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It's real.

Daily Kos: Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera, the story grows

Sunday, November 20, 2005

1999- Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan

Yankee Go Home
Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM ET

Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.

Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said.

1. The atrocities are America's fault.
On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.

2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault.
Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

3. Congress should not support the war.
When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles said they wouldn't.

4. We can't win.
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay

5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda.
Nickles .. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated ...' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered.. The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." .. DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed."

6. Give peace a chance.
Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic i.. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" ..resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."

7. We have no choice but to compromise.
Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end..

8. We're eager to compromise.
NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians.. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott..

9. We'll back off first.
Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing .. Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops.. And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ...

Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

Yankee Go Home - Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan