Joseph Farah argues that Giuliani isn’t a true Christian because he has dressed in drag as part of comedy skits. He even writes:
Excuse me, shouldn’t a man with Giuliani’s record be kicked out of the church?
Perhaps such a hateful column shows that Giuliani has people believing that he could take the Republican Nomination.
In 1998, Ned O’Gorman converted a Harlem brownstone into a free private school for poor kids. Operating on a shoestring budget, he has educated 75 kids in the past 8 years, some who have earned scholarships to upscale Manhattan private schools. But the Health Department has just shut him down, claiming that O’Gorman has been operating illegally all along, the NY Daily News reports today.
What a shame. The government has failed to produce an acceptable school system for children, and when one man defies the odds and offers poor kids a way out, the city slaps him in the face.
For those interested in learning more about the school, you can read a profile my friend Heather Robinson wrote just a few weeks ago, which includes this quote from O’Gorman:
“It’s connected with no church, no political party – a politician has never crossed our threshold,” O’Gorman says. “We get no money from the government. Basically, we’re a little liberation camp in the middle of a city of failed schools.”
According to today’s Daily News article, O’Gorman plans to defy the city and remain open instead of leaving children in the lurch in the middle of a school year. Stay tuned.
One of the things that makes blogs different is that readers get to know the writers on a more personal level. But Andrew Sullivan is taking things too far when he gives us the details of his wart treatment.
What’s next? Is he going to update readers on his bowel movements?
James Taranto writes:
Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid “are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security,” reports the Associated Press from Washington:
“We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer,” . . . Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday. . . .
Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy–”one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security.”
Me: I don’t see how this is anything new for the Democrats.
In New York in Sept. 2004, Kerry gave a speech that was supposed to lay out his Iraq plan. It included the following line:
To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.
I analyze the Israeli election results in my latest column for The American Spectator.
I’m writing a column on this so I’ll hold back for now. The bottom line is that disengagement seems like a sensible strategy to me, but we’ll have to wait and see whether newly-elected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can pull it off properly.
One reason Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize is that he was a master at making overtures of peace to the rest of the world while remaining a warrior among his own people. The Palestinian Authority’s new prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, is proving he may have what it takes.
Via Al Jazeera:
In presenting the cabinet for parliamentary approval on Monday, Haniya sought to reach out to the West by saying his government was ready for talks with the “Quartet” of Middle East mediators on bringing a “just peace” to the region.
In contrast, on Tuesday, Haniya said: “We were born from the womb of resistance, we will protect resistance and the arm of resistance will not be touched.”
While on the subject of Hamas, it’s worth pointing out this statement by one of its newest members of parliment:
Holding high a copy of the Koran, legislator Hamed Bitawi shouted: “The Koran is our constitution, Mohammed is our prophet, jihad [holy war] is our path and dying for the sake of Allah is our biggest wish.” His remark drew a thunderous applause from all his Hamas colleagues.
Read more at the Jerusalem Post.
It’s good news that the worst possible outcome was avoided and Abdul Rahman’s life will be spared, but damage was still done. That anybody would face the prospect of death in the 21st century for converting to Christianity is sickening. It just stings even more that this happened in a country where American soldiers and their allies spilled blood to topple an Islamist regime just a few years ago and give freedom a chance. Even though Rahman was freed, he will be seeking asylum in another country to avoid the angry mobs that are threatening to kill him in the name of Allah.
I go back and forth on the question of whether democracy is achievable in the Islamic world. When I’m being optimistic, I convince myself that deep within every person is a desire to be free. But just because somebody wants to be free, it doesn’t mean that they want others to enjoy freedom. Sure, Muslims want to be free to practice their own religion, they just don’t seem to want other people to be free to practice other religions. They want to be free to print anti-Semitic literature in their own countries, but yet they don’t think people in other nations should be permitted to criticize Islam.
Democracy hinges not only on a personal desire for freedom, but also on a tolerance for the views of others. The only way to make changes in a free society is to persuade others without resorting to violence. The system can only thrive if people understand that sometimes they won’t get what they want.
After the last presidential election, there were plenty of liberals who were hopping mad that President Bush was reelected. But this is about as crazy as it got. Angry liberals did not start burning down evangelical Christian churches because they contributed to Bush’s victory.
Perhaps, in time, the Muslim world will understand the concept of tolerance. And I’m not willing to give up hope yet. But if I were keeping a ledger of progress in the Islamic world, the Rahman story would certainly bolster the case of the pessimists.
This post will only make sense to those who have been watching the Sopranos this season, and there are SPOILERS below.
The last two episodes of The Sopranos have left me hopeful that the show can return to its old form. I think the episodes recaptured some of the psychological depth and originality that were missing in the past two seasons. The dream sequences creatively explored the issue of identity, and If you interpret them from a Freudian perspective (i.e. wish fulfillment) they reveal that somewhere deep within Tony Soprano there really is a desire to live the life of a typical guy. As he regains his physical and mental capacities over the course of the season, I think he’ll come back to having a lot of the identity issues that were revealed in the dream sequences. This gives him an inner conflict on top of the outside threats he faces. No matter what was going on in the last few seasons, I never really felt a sense that Tony was vulnerable, but now I do, and I look forward to seeing how he’ll confront his enemies and placate his underlings while struggling with his inner demons.