Senate Votes to Prevent CIA Using Waterboarding

The Senate this afternoon voted to join the House and prevent the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The Senate bill requires the CIA to stick with the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual.

Republican Sen. Kit Bond, vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the CIA has used enhanced interrogation techniques on "maybe three dozen" detainees, but if the Senate voted to stop the procedure, it would dry up the most valuable source of information available to the intelligence community. But Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller said that in all the briefings he had attended in his role as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence to back up the intelligence community's need for the enhanced techniques. He also said that by preventing these techniques it would increase America's security.

Sen. John McCain, who has been an outspoken opponent of waterboarding, voted against the Senate's measure to restrict the CIA from using it.

CIA Director Michael Hayden has said waterboarding may not be legal under current law. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that limits CIA interrogation techniques.

Meanwhile, NPR's Ari Shapiro talked to U.S. Attorney General Mike Mukasey about this first three months in office, including the controversy over waterboarding.

7:03 PM ET | 02-13-2008 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Huckabee to Romney: Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?

The Republican campaign for president is starting to look like a holy war. Baptist Mike Huckabee enlisted Jesus and Satan in an apparent attempt to discredit Mormon Mitt Romney.

That's right. Jesus and Satan.

Huckabee asks this question in a story appearing this Sunday in The New York Times magazine: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

"Putting it that way makes it sound like they are equivalent and that perhaps Mormons are devil worshippers," complains Richard Bushman, a Mormon and historian at Columbia University. "Nothing could be further from the truth. Christ is goodness personified; Satan is all evil."

Continue reading "Huckabee to Romney: Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?" »

9:37 PM ET | 12-12-2007 | permalink | comments (47) | e-mail post

Border Residents Have Different View of Fences

"Strengthen the borders" has become as popular a slogan for politicians as "no new taxes," "support the troops" and "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family."

While some welcome the increased security measures, many of the millions who live along the U.S.-Mexican border feel they have no voice in decisions that affect them: new fences, new crackdowns, closed borders ... before Washington discusses any other options.

NPR's Ted Robbins reports for All Things Considered that some of these border residents (known as the Texas Border Coalition), who believe the "racially heated national media" are distorting the situation along the border, gathered recently in El Paso, Texas. They want to convince the nation that border security does not mean the issues of human rights and trade are no longer important.

Brownsville, Texas Mayor Pat Ahumada, for instance, calls the border fence the government wants to build in his town "wasteful and inefficient." He also doesn't think it will work. "Somebody wants to get into your house, they are going to get into your house," he says. Ahumada believes a wider Rio Grande will keep out more illegal immigrants than a high fence.

Coalition members plan to issue a report to argue their case that will include, among other things, these two statistics from a recent report: that the border town of El Paso was recently ranked as the second-safest city in America, while Washington D.C. was ranked the second-most dangerous.

8:27 PM ET | 12- 6-2007 | permalink | comments (15) | e-mail post

Tutu Criticizes His Church Over Stance Toward Gays

Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu was in London earlier this month to receive an Honorary Fellowship of the Guild of Church Musicians in Westminster Cathedral.

Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

For someone who won the Nobel Prize for peacemaking, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa doesn't seem opposed to stirring up some controversy.

For instance, he's been heavily critical of the Bush administration's foreign policy — a subject he addressed in front of hundreds last week at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

But it was his comments during the weekend about the Anglican Church's position on gays that drew the most notice. In an interview with the BBC, he said the Anglican Church is "almost obsessed" with gay issues and said the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has failed to demonstrate that God is "welcoming."

"God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another," he said in the interview.

He said he felt "saddened" and "ashamed" at the way the church handled the issue of openly gay New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson. "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God," he said.

Robinson, who was elected bishop in 2003, has become a lightning rod for issues of homosexuality in the Anglican Church (known as the Episcopal Church in the United States). Since Robinson's election, several conservative congregations have separated from the main U.S. church, and others are considering it.

Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph reports that Williams "is preparing to target individual bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism." In what the paper calls a "high-risk" strategy, he might even withdraw the bishops' invitations to attend the Lambeth Conference, a highly influential periodic meeting.

5:30 PM ET | 11-19-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Censorship at the Smithsonian?

Some scientists say that officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History watered down sections of an exhibit on the Arctic before its launch in 2006 to avoid criticism from global-warming skeptics.

The Washington Post reports that it has obtained documents that show the museum's director, Cristian Samper, ordered changes to the exhibit to include "scientific uncertainty."

Scientists at other agencies collaborating on the project expressed in e-mails their belief that Smithsonian officials acted to avoid criticism from congressional appropriators and global-warming skeptics in the Bush administration. But Samper said in an interview last week that "there was no political pressure -- not from me, not from anyone."

The Post provides some examples of the changes made. Originally the exhibit's introductory panel said, "Over the past 50 years, the average temperatures across the Arctic have risen by nearly twice as much as the global average." After Samper asked for changes, the entrance panel read, "The Earth's climate is changing -- and it always has."

In the interview with the Post, Samper said he felt the exhibit indicated a degree of certainty beyond the contemporary science. He also acknowledged that he took a cautious approach because the exhibit had the words "climate change," which are "politically sensitive."

4:11 PM ET | 11-16-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Board Approves Birth Control at Middle School

This story from Portland, Maine, makes me remember that middle schoolers have a lot more to deal with than finding a way to get tickets for a Miley Cyrus concert.

On Wednesday, school board members approved a plan to make prescription birth control available to students as young as 11 at King Middle School's health center starting either this year or next. The move comes after a number of pregnancies in the city's middle schools.

Under state law, treatment is confidential. Students need their parents' permission to use the center, but they don't have to reveal why.

Portland School Committee member Lori Gramlich, who supported the measure, told Day to Day's Madeleine Brand that while she believes parents need to talk to their children about sex and that abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100 percent effective, the reality is that not all children will follow that advice. So she says the board needs to "give them what they need to protect themselves."

Parents in Portland are split on the issue, but the debate seems to be raging even hotter on the national level.

6:18 PM ET | 10-18-2007 | permalink | comments (20) | e-mail post

Maternal Death Rate Changes Little in 15 Years

An analysis of maternal deaths around the world shows that nearly 536,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth each year, with about half of the deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. It's a number little changed from the 576,000 who died in 1990. Maternal deaths fell by less than 1 percent a year between then and 2005.

The analysis was done by Harvard professor Ken Hill and published in the British medical journal the Lancet. Dr. Richard Horton, the Lancet's editor, says women are too often seen as just "containers" for babies, the BBC reports.

In a separate study published in the Lancet, Dr. Iqbal Shah of the World Health Organization found rates of abortion fell globally by 17 percent between 1995 and 2003 — from 46 million per year to 42 million. But the number of abortions carried out in unsafe conditions remained the same at approximately 20 million, just below 50 percent of the total.

The lowest global abortion rate — 12 abortions per 1,000 women — was found in Western Europe, where abortion is legal. (The U.S. had 21 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies in 2003.) In contrast, the estimated rate in 2003 was 54 per 1,000 in Uganda, where abortions are illegal.

The study suggests that outlawing abortion does little to deter women from seeking it, The New York Times reports. And researchers "found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely."

Groups that oppose abortion criticized the study. Randall O'Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington, said the scientists made judgments from imperfect figures. "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data," he said.

12:16 PM ET | 10-12-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Teacher Wants to Bring Gun to High School

There's been a lot of discussion about whether guns should be allowed in schools and colleges, particularly after the shooting at Virginia Tech that killed more than 30 people earlier this year. Now, a high school teacher from Oregon wants to bring her pistol with her to work because she's afraid her ex-husband may come to attack her. She's concerned as well about "a Columbine-style attack."

The Associated Press reports that English teacher Shirley Katz has a concealed-weapons permit and believes that should allow her to take her weapon to her school, which bans teachers from carrying guns. "This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun," Katz said.

Oregon allows people with permits to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.

The district's superintendent says everyone is safer at school without guns. Katz's ex-husband, Gerry Katz, argues that her fight to bring a gun to school is a tactic in reopening their divorce to get sole custody of their daughter. "She's just scamming everybody," he said. "As soon as this thing started ... I called the principal at her high school and told her ... I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her."

The Mail Tribune of Medford reports that as of Friday, a few students had already transferred out of Katz's class.

A judge will hear the case Thursday. The Oregonian notes that if Katz wins, the verdict would apply only in her county.

4:15 PM ET | 10- 9-2007 | permalink | comments (11) | e-mail post

Is America a Christian Nation?

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain stirred up controversy when he commented in an interview with Beliefnet that he would feel more comfortable with a president who was a Christian rather than a Muslim. But what caught my attention was that he also said the Constitution established a "Christian nation."

The question is fascinating for me because in my home country of Canada, religion and politics are seldom mentioned in the same breath. Over the summer, I read American Gospel, in which Newsweek editor Jon Meacham argues that religion in general, but not Christianity in particular, has played an integral role in American politics.

So I wasn't surprised to see Meacham weigh in on McCain's comments.

In an editorial Sunday in The New York Times, Meacham points to several historical examples in which American leaders have specifically said that America is not a "Christian nation," including a treaty signed in the 1790s with Tripoli. The treaty says "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

"The treaty passed the Senate unanimously," Meacham writes. "Mr. McCain is not the only American who would find it useful reading."

But others agree with McCain. Michael Medved, blogging at Townhall.org, writes that McCain's comments show he "understood that the same leaders who drafted a secular constitution prohibiting a single established religion wanted society at large to remain [religious]." Medved said that McCain's comments deserve "respect, not condemnation."

2:51 PM ET | 10- 9-2007 | permalink | comments (37) | e-mail post

Israel Orders Land Seized from Arab Villages for Road

Agence-France Presse reports that Israel has ordered the seizure of 272 acres of land from four Palestinian villages between East Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim in the West Bank. The land is slated to be used for a new Palestinian road that would connect East Jerusalem with Jericho.

Ha'aretz reports that this would allow the construction of a Jewish development of 3,500 apartments and an industrial park (known as the E-1 plan) between Jerusalem and the settlement.

The Palestinians and the international community, including the United States, have long objected to the E-1 plan on the grounds that it would cut the West Bank in two and sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Israel claims that the new road will solve this latter problem.

Due mainly to American objections, the E-1 plan has been frozen since 2004, other than construction of a thus-far empty police station in the area. Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Haaretz last week that police would move into the station by the end of this year. However, Israel promised the U.S. at the time that the station would not serve as an initial stage of the full housing project.

The news comes the day after Israel's vice prime minister, Haim Ramon, ignited a debate when he proposed that Jerusalem be shared with the Palestinians as part of any peace agreement. Ramon, who is responsible for the region where the road would be built, told Ha'aretz that he didn't know about the land seizure order.

The army said the road is being built "to improve the quality of life for Palestinians," according to AFP. But Akiva Eldar writes in Ha'aretz,"This order is synonymous with putting an end to working on an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of the principle of two states with territorial contiguity."

11:54 AM ET | 10- 9-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

California Church Wants Apology from IRS

It seems that the clergy and parishioners of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., are not interested in turning the other cheek when it comes to the Internal Revenue Service.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon Jr. said Sunday that the IRS had notified him that it had ended its lengthy investigation into what it considered an anti-war sermon given in the days before the 2004 election. The IRS said the church continues to qualify for tax-exempt status, but the agency still considers the sermon illegal.

Instead of accepting the decision, the church has decided to "seek clarification, a corrected record and an apology from the IRS." It also wants the Treasury Department, which overseas the IRS, to investigate reports of inappropriate conversations between the agency and the Justice Department.

Those conversations, documented in e-mails obtained by the church through Freedom of Information Act requests, appear to show that Justice Department officials were involved in the All Saints case before the IRS made any formal referral of it for possible prosecution, an attorney for the church said. The discussions raise concerns that the IRS' investigation was politically motivated, church officials said.

5:37 PM ET | 09-24-2007 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post

Is the U.S. Relationship with Israel Too Close?

John Mearsheimer is in the house, so get ready for the firestorm.

Mearsheimer and his colleague, Stephen Walt, generated a lot of debate last year with a controversial article about U.S.-Israeli relations in the London Review of Books. They argued that the United States should not have a special relationship with Israel and should instead treat it just like any other nation that does business with the United States.

Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, and Walt, of Harvard, also claim that the objectives pursued on behalf of the U.S. and Israel by the organizations that make up what they call "the Israel lobby" are actually harming both countries.

The two went on to publish a book on the subject, and Mearsheimer is a guest on Talk of the Nation today to talk about The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

The book has received several negative reviews (although some have been positive), and the authors have been labeled everything from "politically naive" to "anti-Semitic." However, Scott McLemee, who reviewed the book for New York's Newsday, writes, "The real problem with their argument is not that it is anti-Semitic, or even overly polemical. (You can find harsher criticisms of both Israel and its American supporters in Israeli newspapers.) It's that the term 'Israel lobby' is both too diffuse and too narrow."

1:25 PM ET | 09-20-2007 | permalink | comments (65) | e-mail post

Iraqis Questioned After Speaking Arabic on Plane

African-Americans have a term for it: DWB ("Driving While Black"). It basically means that they were stopped by police for no other reason than the color of their skin.

Arab-Americans also have a version: FWM ("Flying While Muslim"). And its variation, FWA ("Flying While Arab"). If you look Muslim or Arab, and you fly, you can be immediately suspect.

Tuesday's American Airlines Flight 590 from San Diego to Chicago was delayed after passengers heard people on board speaking Arabic. The Associated Press reports that it turned out "six Iraqi men on board work for a defense contractor and were reportedly taking the overnight flight home after a job at Camp Pendleton training Marines headed for Iraq."

The men were quickly questioned and released, but by then it was too late for the plane to leave, which meant everyone had to wait until the next morning.

"We were hired for this government. We can prove ourselves. We are good people, not a bad people," Dave Alwatan, an Iraqi and a U.S. citizen, told the media. "How can we be bad if we are helping our people here — American people? Why are we getting treated like that?"

Good question. Now, I understand that people are nervous these days, but would terrorists trying to take down a plane really begin speaking Arabic to each other when others could hear?

Then again, as Rhonda Roumani wrote for Beliefnet, the fear of FWA can make even Arabs suspicious of each other.

2:26 PM ET | 08-31-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Iowa Judge Strikes Down Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Judging from the reaction, an Iowa county judge's decision to strike down the state's decade-old ban on same-sex marriage seems to have caught most conservatives in the state by surprise.

Only Polk County, Iowa, is affected by Judge Robert Hanson's ruling. But couples from across the state can come to the county and apply to get married. One gay couple has already applied for a marriage license and five more have made inquiries. There is a three-day approval process after the application is made.

The Associated Press reports that Hanson ruled that "the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection."

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone says he will appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court and ask for an immediate stay of Hanson's order so no gay couples can get a marriage license.

State Republican lawmakers have vowed to take action and pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. They want Gov. Chet Culver to add the gay marriage debate to a special legislative session he has said he might convene to deal with the date of the Iowa caucuses. Otherwise, the lawmakers say they will take it up when the regular session starts in January.

(Update: Two men were married in Des Moines this morning after a judge waived the three-day waiting period for them. However, Hanson stayed his ruling about two hours later.)

10:07 AM ET | 08-31-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

Helping Students Deal with On-Campus Drinking

During much of the '90s, I lived in university housing at a big school on the East Coast. My wife was finishing her degree and was an "assistant senior tutor" assigned to monitor students in the residence where we lived. That made me a tutor by default. And one of my jobs became what I called "the alcohol patrol."

Many freshmen come to college unprepared to deal with the pressure of campus drinking. And I mean, there is a lot of pressure — almost every "unofficial" student event seems to involve alcohol. Universities try to deal with it in a variety of ways, but kids tend to find ways around the rules. Because beer is too hard to hide, the underage kids I encountered tended to slip pints of liquor under their coats, meaning they often drank way more than they could handle.

Several times I found over-intoxicated freshmen who I had to take the campus infirmary.

That's why I was interested in Karen Grigsby Bates' piece on Day to Day about Choose Responsibility, a program headed by a former college president that advocates "a legal drinking age of 18 years old, administered through a graduated, licensed-to-drink program." Through my personal experience, I have seen how having a drinking age of 21 can encourage binge drinking in college.

Another option schools are using is "drinking education." While it would be incredibly difficult to stop college students from drinking altogether, programs like AlcoholEdu can help them understand the consequences of alcohol both personally and academically ... before a tutor has to scrape them off the bathroom floor.

4:52 PM ET | 08-30-2007 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post

The New Republic Stands By Its Baghdad Diarist

The Army says he's a liar. The conservative magazine The Weekly Standard calls him reckless. But The New Republic is still supporting Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

In three articles in the magazine, Beauchamp detailed the petty cruelties of the U.S. Army in Baghdad. In one anecdote, he talks about a soldier playing with the skull of an Iraqi child. In another, he writes about making fun of a woman whose face was disfigured.

On today's All Things Considered, NPR's Media Correspondent David Folkenflik tries to sort out who's telling the truth and concludes the story is at an impasse. The New Republic claims to have verified almost all of the details in Beauchamp's writing, except for one. The story about mocking the injured woman happened in Kuwait, not Baghdad. Folkenflik writes:

Leaving aside how one mistakes a base in one country for a base in another, that would mean, if true, Beauchamp's agonizing self-analysis occurred BEFORE his time in combat areas, not during or after, which would seem to undermine the validity of the origins of his cruelty. TNR Editor Franklin Foer stands behind the veracity of the event for now, however, saying he spoke to the other soldier.

The Weekly Standard claims that Beauchamp admitted that the stories were lies. The New Republic denies it. And the man in the middle says nothing: Beauchamp has been stripped of his laptop and cell phone, and no one has heard his side of the story.

- Robert Smith

4:36 PM ET | 08- 8-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Blogging May Be Hazardous to My Career

(Tom Regan is away this week. NPR's New York correspondent, Robert Smith, is filling in.)

This is my first post, and if I'm not careful it might be my last. It makes a public radio blogger a little nervous to hear that the CBC (the Canadian version of NPR) is cracking down on its employees' personal blogs. Along with the standard boilerplate about not blogging on company time and computers, the CBC's new editorial guidelines go further.

The blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.

This applies not just to journalists, but to all employees at the network who identify the CBC in their blogs. Receptionists. Janitors. Librarians. Over on the official Inside the CBC blog, employees and others are arguing over whether the network has gone too far. Gillian writes, "God forbid that people find out that CBC employees have opinions! What, you mean they're real people?"

The real sin of the CBC is not that it wants to appear impartial. That's normal. But the network doesn't seem to understand how touchy the blogosphere gets when Daddy tells it what to do. Here's a much more constructive approach. A year ago, some CBC bloggers made their own rules, such as:

Use common sense and don't do anything stupid. Blog to make the CBC better, not to kill it.

See, it's basically the same rule the CBC made, but much more chill. As for NPR, our ethics guide doesn't specifically mention blogs. Still, I hope my bosses don't discover my personal blog, where I share my deepest and most heartfelt secrets.

(Update: Looks like I should have been a little more careful with the link to my "personal blog." Although it was a just a joke, it turns out that blogs are indeed mentioned in the updated NPR ethics guide. Here's the language:

"NPR journalists must get written permission for all outside freelance and journalistic work, including written articles and self-publishing in blogs or other electronic media, whether or not compensated. Requests should be submitted in writing to the employee's immediate supervisor. Approval will not be unreasonably denied if the proposed work will not discredit NPR, conflict with NPR's interests, create a conflict of interest for the employee or interfere with the employee's ability to perform NPR duties."

So, technically, my link was blogging without permission. Now, you will note that NPR's rules only apply to journalists with the organization and not all employees. In that way, we are different than the CBC.)

- Robert Smith

10:39 AM ET | 08- 6-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

'Truth' Cartoon Wins Scientists Group's Contest

Truth will out! Depictions of it also help win editorial cartooning contests.

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists announced the winner of its 2007 Science Idol: Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest. The winner, Jesse Springer of Eugene, Ore., won with a cartoon that "depicts politicians shoveling dirt onto the word 'Truth' as scientists work to uncover it."

Springer received nearly 4,300 of the 20,000 votes cast. Here's a collection of all 12 cartoons that made it to the finals. They're funny, irreverent and quite blunt, so you might want to avoid them if you're a Bush appointee in a science- or health-related government agency.

The winning cartoon.

Jesse Springer/Courtesy Union of Concerned Scientists

 

4:16 PM ET | 07-31-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Global Warming Worries Baseball Bat Makers

While people seem to argue daily about the existence of global warming, some people are actually preparing for the worst. The New York Times reports on one such group: baseball bat makers in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Bat makers are worried about the combined effects of a warming climate and a killer beetle on the white ash trees used to make their product. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that 80 percent of the 850,000 bats that youth and adult leagues use every year under the brand name Louisville Slugger are ash, and 70 percent of that wood comes from Pennsylvania. Operators at one plant have already created a three-to-five-year emergency plan to use if the situation grows worse.

The Times reports that the beetles are the more immediate threat -- they can destroy a tree in two to three years. Perhaps as early as this summer, federal officials will release an Asian wasp that feeds on the beetle in an effort to stop it.

But the warming climate is also a concern because, as the growing season lengthens, the white ash gets softer and cannot be used for bats. In a worst-case scenario, the white ash could be greatly diminished as the climate grows warmer.

Baseball players -- men and women, boys and girls -- can get kinda weird about their bats, especially wooden ones. There is something magical about finding "the right bat." (Remember Wonder Boy in The Natural?)

Kirk Walsh speculates on his blog that Americans' love for baseball could be used to make people do something about global warming -- "[Forget] Live Earth and Al Gore. Get Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols together to explain the perils of global warming to bat production. Now, that will get action."

11:45 AM ET | 07-11-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Gun Control Advocate Erects Huge Anti-NRA Sign

John Rosenthal has a message for people driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike -- and it's one the National Rifle Association won't like.

For years now, the Newton, Mass., resident has placed pro-gun control messages on a huge sign that he owns on the turnpike, just behind Boston's Fenway Park. It's one of the most visible locations in Boston. (One of his past signs read, "Welcome to Massachusetts -- You're More Likely to Live Here," because Massachusetts has "the most effective gun laws.")

His new 252-foot sign, however, is sure to stir up more than the usual controversy. The Boston Globe reports that the sign features what looks like a ransom note -- huge letters that appear to be ripped from a newspaper or magazine. The note reads, "We have your president and Congress - NRA."

Rosenthal, the co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, has drawn support from Massachusetts' lieutenant governor, public safety secretary and state police colonel, as well as Boston's police commissioner. They will attend a news conference to unveil the billboard today.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, needless to say, is not amused. "The NRA works with members from both sides of the aisle, and we have supporters on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side," Arulanandam said. "The simple fact is that gun control has been proven to be a political liability."

Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, supports the billboard's message. "I'm sure it's going to generate a certain amount of controversy because of the nature of it, but that's good old John. He gets people's attention."

11:26 AM ET | 07-10-2007 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post

Former Leaders of 'Ex-Gay' Ministry Apologize

There are few more controversial issues in America than gay rights. And wrapped up in that larger debate is the question of whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or determined at birth. Many religious groups tend to accentuate the former, while scientific research seems to be increasingly pointing to the latter.

In an example of how complicated the debate has become, the Los Angeles Times reports three former leaders of the ministry Exodus International apologized Wednesday for their efforts to convince homosexuals that their sexual orientation could be changed through prayer. They said those actions have led to a "wrenching human toll" for gays and lesbians the ministry worked to convert.

The Associated Press reports that the former leaders -- co-founder Michael Bussee, who left the group in 1979; Jeremy Marks, former president of Exodus International Europe; and Darlene Bogle, the founder of Paraklete Ministries, an Exodus referral agency -- said that, although they had acted sincerely in their years with the Christian group, they had become disillusioned with promoting gay conversion.

"Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families," the three said in a statement.

Their message was timed to coincide with the opening of Exodus International's annual meeting in Irvine, Calif.

The Times reports that Exodus President Alan Chambers disagreed with the organization's critics and said his group has helped many people who want an alternative to living as a homosexual. The Orlando, Fla.-based group includes more than 120 ministries in the United States and Canada and more than 150 ministries overseas.

2:55 PM ET | 06-28-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Canadian Anglicans to Vote on Blessing Gay Couples

It's a move that could reignite the debate in the global Anglican community about whether the church should marry homosexuals.

On Saturday, the Canadian church's general synod will vote on whether to allow same-sex blessings. The Associated Press reports that bestowing a blessing is one step away from performing gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for four years.

The Victoria News reports that many Anglican ministers are split on the issue -- some say they may even leave the church if the blessing measure is approved.

CanWest reports that African bishops have threatened to throw the Canadians out of the Anglican communion if they approve the measure. However, a top Anglican official in Britain says, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Canada will not be expelled.

(Tom Update: After the discussion of blessing same-sex marriages went into the late hours of the evening, debate was suspended until Sunday. The gathering did defeat a resolution that would have required 60 percent of those voting to approve a same-sex blessing measure in order for it to pass. Any measure will now only require 50 percent of the delegates' vote for approval.)

(Tom Update II: The motion to allow Canadian Anglican dioceses to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex unions was defeated Sunday. Although the lay delegates voted 78-59 in favor and the clergy voted 63-53 in favor, the bishops voted 21-19 against. As a result the motion was defeated, since it required approval by each of the three orders to pass.)

4:23 PM ET | 06-22-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Some Conservatives Fear Return of Fairness Doctrine

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! ... OK, maybe not. But a day after a report by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and the Free Press organization said that talk radio features programming that is 91 percent conservative, fears of a return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine are rampant among some on the right.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy that said broadcasters had to allow opposing views equal time on the air, was originally conceived in the '40s. When Congress tried to turn it into law in 1987, President Reagan vetoed it. It was after this veto that talk radio as we now know it was really born.

A spokesman for New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey tells The Washington Times that the Democrat is planning to reintroduce a bill that calls for a return to the doctrine, saying "The American people should have a wide array of news sources available to them." (Hinchey's proposal didn't make it out of committee last time.) In January, presidential candidate and Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich also said it was time to bring back the doctrine.

Libertarian Leanings writes that the failure of Air America shows that liberal talk radio is an oxymoron and that "audience reluctance to listen to the liberal drivel coming out of Air America is being translated to 'little free speech or free choice.' It smacks of desperation."

Bill Blocher, who comes down in the middle in the doctrine debate, concludes at The Ledger.com that liberals should forget about it and "get a life and find their audience where they live" -- on the Internet and Comedy Central.

Writing about the report on the Yahoo! opinion page, Blake Dvorak says that "behind this silliness is a very serious attempt to use the government to censor the airwaves."

Well, there's no Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, but we at the News Blog do like to give opposing views. So we turn to Tom Tomorrow at This Modern World, who notes that he's not holding his breath for the return of the doctrine, "but it's fun to listen to [Sean] Hannity and [Rush] Limbaugh desperately try to explain why 'equal time' = 'censorship.'"

2:02 PM ET | 06-22-2007 | permalink | comments (34) | e-mail post

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran...Version 2.0

Norman Podhoretz, considered by many to be a key thinker in the neoconservative movement, is praying that the U.S. will bomb Iran. He makes an appeal in the current issue of the magazine Commentary in a cover story entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran." As Think Progress writes:

Podhoretz's article appeals to President Bush, "a man who knows evil when he sees it" and who has been "battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory," to carry out military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. U.S. diplomats are now pointing to the essay to pressure foreign diplomats to increase pressure on Iran.

In an interview, Podhoretz does admit that such an attack could unleash a tidal wave of anti-Americanism across the globe that would make present day sentiments look like a "lovefest." But he says it would be worth it to slow down Iran's nuclear program for five to 10 years.

But some folks disagree with this thesis. American Progress senior fellow Joseph Cirincione has argued that it would not slow down the Iranians' progress but speed it up, just as the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor sped up that program in the '80s.

4:08 PM ET | 06-21-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

Tight Vote Looms on Mass. Gay Marriage Amendment

Back to the legal theme, an important vote could happen today in my old home state of Massachusetts.

A proposal to allow residents to vote on an amendment that would decide the future of gay marriage in the state is hanging by one, maybe two votes, according to The Boston Globe.

If pro-gay marriage forces are able to find the two votes to defeat the amendment that would put the issue to voters in 2008, it would mean that gay marriage is here to stay in the Bay State. And with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray and Gov. Deval Patrick -- all strong supporters of gay marriage -- pushing very hard, gay marriage proponents are feeling pretty good about their chances.

The Globe also says, however, that if it looks like they can't get those votes today, the legislative leaders will delay a vote on the amendment until later this term. The amendment has to be approved by 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in consecutive legislative terms before it can go on the ballot. Anti-gay marriage forces won the first round last year, getting 62 votes. But the November election saw several anti-gay marriage proponents defeated, and pressure from the leadership has shifted several other votes.

The decision could have national ramifications. If the amendment goes on the 2008 ballot, it would likely mean the return of gay marriage as a hot potato in the presidential election. If the amendment is defeated, it means that gay marriage supporters can try to build on their success.

The state's Constitutional Convention starts at 1 p.m. EDT. We'll keep an eye on what happens.

(Tom's Update: The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage was defeated by a vote of 151-45 today. This means that the amendment will not be on the 2008 ballot in the state. "In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters after the vote.)

9:40 AM ET | 06-14-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Reports Slam Actions of U.S., Israel and Palestinians

A newly leaked report by the former UN envoy to the Middle East criticizes many of the main actors in the region, including Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and the United Nations itself.

The "End of Mission Report" by former UN envoy Alvaro de Soto, a Peruvian diplomat, is a condemnation of the actions of the United States and Israel in particular. The Guardian, which received a copy of the confidential document, reports that de Soto warns that U.S. pressure has "pummeled into submission" the United Nations' role as an impartial negotiator in the region.

Reuters, which also saw the document, reports that while de Soto sharply criticized the Islamist Hamas movement for its charter advocating the destruction of Israel and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for ineffectual leadership, he said Israeli policies seemed "perversely designed to encourage the continued action by Palestinian militants."

But de Soto also took aim at his bosses at the UN for their attitudes towards the U.S. and Israel: "... a premium is been put on good relations with the U.S. and improving the UN's relationship with Israel ... I don't honestly think the UN does Israel any favors at all by not speaking frankly to it about its failings regarding the peace process ..."

Meanwhile, Ha'aretz reports that a new Human Rights Watch report condemns the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, accusing them of committing "serious violations of international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes" in the violence that has spread in Gaza in the past week.

The group also criticized Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades for using a jeep bearing the letters "TV" to attack an Israeli outpost, calling it a "serious violation of the laws of war."

(Note from Tom: OK, folks, I'm signing off for a while. I have to go to court today. (I didn't do anything wrong -- I'm a witness). JJ Sutherland will be guest blogging today.)

9:56 AM ET | 06-13-2007 | permalink | comments (0) | e-mail post

Evangelicals Battle Publicly over Abortion

In another sign that conservatives might have a hard time rowing together in the next general election, Christian evangelicals appear to be airing their disagreements with each other in a public manner not seen in more than a decade.

The Washington Post reports that, "in a highly visible rift in the anti-abortion movement," a coalition of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups recently launched newspaper ads and Internet postings attacking Focus on the Family's James Dobson, one of America's leading evangelicals.

Using rhetoric that they have reserved in the past for abortion clinics, some of the coalition's leaders accuse Dobson and other national antiabortion leaders of building an "industry" around relentless fundraising and misleading information.

The ads accuse Dobson of misrepresenting the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which had appeared to be a victory for anti-abortion supporters. But the ruling has reopened a schism between those who want to put limits on abortion incrementally and those who want to see it gone all at once. (It also seems to have galvanized abortion-rights supporters.)

The disagreement has caught many supporters and bloggers by surprise. Jill Stanek at the Pro-Life Pulse blog writes that the two camps can't afford to "launch a war against one another." Bruce Tomaso writes in the DallasNews Religion blog that if the groups attacking Dobson find someone who is more "staunchly anti-abortion," he hopes they take out another ad to let us know who.

1:44 PM ET | 06- 4-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming

It seems that NASA's chief doesn't think global warming is necessarily a problem that humanity needs to focus on.

Wednesday, NPR interviewed writer Gregg Easterbrook about his column in Wired that charged NASA with blowing its budget on what he considers ridiculous space exploration projects (like building a station on the moon) at the expense of dealing with problems like global warming here on Earth.

This morning, Steve Inskeep of Morning Edition interviewed NASA administrator Michael Griffin to get the other side of the story. During that interview, Griffin said global warming is not necessarily a problem that demands mankind's action.

I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

NASA issued a news release to respond to the attention generated by Griffin's comments. But the influential NASA Watch blog says in the press release Griffin only expands on the uncontroversial parts of the NPR interview and doesn't deal with the controversial global warming remarks.

Griffin's remarks, of course, have quickly become fodder for the blogosphere. "Stupid in Space" is how Daily Kos describes them. Libertas, on the other hand, calls them "Surprisingly Wise Words from NASA Administrator." DeSmogBlog calls Griffin "the White House 'denier-of-the-day.'"

9:47 AM ET | 05-31-2007 | permalink | comments (22) | e-mail post

Israeli Human Rights Groups Accuse Shin Bet of Torture

An Israeli human rights group has released a report accusing the Israeli counterintelligence and anti-terrorism agency Shin Bet of regularly torturing Palestinian security suspects, The Jerusalem Post reports.

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel's report, "Ticking Bombs," draws its name from a 1999 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that declared routine abuse of Palestinian suspects illegal and banned the use of torture in interrogations. The ruling, however, allowed for physical force to be used if authorities believed the suspect would reveal the location of a "ticking bomb." Human rights groups argue that Israel's security forces use the "ticking bomb" exemption when it shouldn't apply to justify using physical force in interrogations.

The report contains the testimony of nine Palestinians arrested in 2004 and 2005, including one who accused police investigators of committing severe sexual abuse. The Post adds that the report also alleges that "prison wardens, policemen and even doctors take part in torture, as well as lawyers, military judges and senior officials in the Justice Ministry."

Haaretz reports that Shin Bet says its methods were legal and in accordance with the 1999 ruling.

Israel says that, acting on information from arrested militants, in the past six months alone it managed to [track] down 11 explosive belts in the West Bank, of the kind used in deadly suicide bombings in Israeli cities.

This latest report follows one released May 6 by Israeli human rights groups B'Tselem and HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual that also accuses Shin Bet of acting in violation of the 1999 ruling and "international law which outlaws 'special' methods of torture."

The B'Tselem-HaMoked report noted 500 complaints have been made against Shin Bet since 2001 and not a single criminal probe was instigated, even in cases where preliminary investigations showed evidence of abuse existed.

5:46 PM ET | 05-30-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Two Leading Anti-War Protesters Blame Both Parties

Two people who have become known as leading anti-war advocates now believe their work was just a waste of time.

Andrew Bacevich and Cindy Sheehan wrote in separate pieces published during the holiday weekend that their efforts have changed basically nothing about the war in Iraq. And both of them blasted Democrats as much as they did Republicans when it came to responsibility for the war.

In an intense, moving column in Sunday's Washington Post, Bacevich wrote about the death of his only son two weeks ago in Iraq. As his son had served his country as a soldier, Bacevich had tried to serve it as a citizen, he wrote, giving voice to what he considered an ill-begotten adventure. He now believes the idea that the American people could end the war by saying no to it was just "an illusion."

President Bush, he wrote, "has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as 'the will of the people.'" But Bacevich said he also feels the Democrats are now just as responsible for the war's continuation, joining hand-in-hand with Bush and "big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies."

Today, in a chat on the Post's site, Bacevich said America remains a democratic nation in a superficial sense, "But peer beneath the surface and the reality is something else again."

On Monday, Sheehan, who had protested the war since her son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, announced that she would protest no longer. She wrote on the Daily Kos blog that things became worse after she renounced all ties to the Democratic Party and started criticizing it, along with Republicans, for its stance on the war. The same people on the left who had first supported her activities turned on her with a vengeance, she wrote. "Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on," she wrote.

But the final realization that Sheehan said ended her days as an active war protester was that her son died "for nothing."

3:42 PM ET | 05-29-2007 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post

New Poll Slams War, But Some Ask for Closer Look

Laura Bush was probably tempted to hide this morning's copy of The New York Times from the president. It includes a new opinion poll that shows that ratings for the Iraq war and for President Bush are lower than, as I once heard a comedian put it, a snake's belly in a wagon rut.

According to the New York Times/CBS News poll, Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than ever before: "Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found." President Bush's approval rating (30 percent) looks more like the temperature on a cold day in December.

But two other statistics have Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters questioning whether we should throw out the entire poll. If Americans are so opposed to the war in Iraq, Morrissey wonders, then why are 69 percent still open to the idea of continued funding for it if the Iraqi government meets certain goals and deadlines? He also questions why Congress, which in two other recent polls scored lower than Bush on the approval meter, is suddenly six points in front.

Morrissey says he knows the president and the war are unpopular, but he would like to get a look at the poll's sample to see if that provides any answers. It's not included in the Times or CBS news stories about the poll online. Morrissey refers to the comments of a panel of professional analysts at a recent Online News Association conference, who said that if people aren't willing to show you the methodology behind their work, you should reject it.

It's a good principle, but after a little digging, I did find the sample information on the CBS News site. (It would have been nice if the Times Web site also had included a link to it.) Morrissey has a point about who was sampled (there are quite a few more Democrats than Republicans), but I think this means the poll gets to stay.

9:39 AM ET | 05-25-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Abstinence-Only Education Facing Funding Cut

Get ready for another cultural battle.

Last week, Democratic Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made it clear that Democrats do not intend to re-fund a $50 million grant program for abstinence-only sex education. Dingell says he considers the funded programs "a colossal failure."

Dingell and other Democrats were given fresh ammunition when Mathematica Policy Research Inc. released a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs. It found that "the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth." (