Christ

Latest news on christ

Games Without Frontiers: Games Give Free Rein to the Douchebag Within

I really want to nuke Athens. I know it's possible. Hell, I've watched and rewatched the YouTube videos of the 14-year-olds who've done it in Sid Meier's new game, Civilization Revolution. The guttural roar of the ICBM taking off, the flare of the missile as it arcs slowly across the sky, the terrifying rumble in your Xbox 360 controller as the nuke pulverizes the target: It's awesome. I can't sleep until I've rained that sort of death on the world. What the hell is wrong with me? There are a lot of ways to win at Civilization Revolution that do not involve taking a happy, peaceful city and reducing it to a smoldering gravesite filled with radioactive trinitite. I could, for example, train my country in brilliant artistry, building Wonders of the World -- a "cultural victory," as it's called. Or I could win by becoming a great economic power, enriching my citizens and the global community. But no. Every time I plunge into a game, I inevitably choose the most Cro-Magnon, "Hulk smash, Hulk destroy" strategy possible. Or maybe I geek out and try to discover spaceflight before anyone else, so I can outfit my hermetically sealed, glassed-in astronaut city with interstellar warp drives, blur the stars into hyperspace, arrive at Alpha Centauri, encounter alien worlds ... and then try to kill them. Ooooh, you guys back home wanna spend your time carefully building the Hanging Gardens, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Alexandrian Library? Fine. Go for it. Hippies. Me, I'm gonna reach for the goddamn stars, built some kickass mechs, flatten anybody in my way with a molten avalanche of plasma. I repeat: What's wrong with me? One of the classic highbrow defenses of videogames is that they allow you to experience new personalities -- to, in the words of Sherry Turkle, create a "second self." This is considered supremely healthy, because self-exploration is generally a good thing. But what happens if the second self you create inside videogames turns out to be a total dick? Sometimes I think the best way to get a grip on my true inner self would be just to list all the people I choose to be inside games. For example: In racing games, I never want gearhead realism that replicates the precise feel of a Porsche 911. No, I want cartoon, Tex Avery physics and fishtailing insanity -- pedestrians screaming and diving out of the way and not quite making it. In first-person shooters, I hate, hate, hate any complexity or nuance -- like protecting innocents, avoiding friendly fire or figuring out which stupid door to open. I don't even like games that don't give me unlimited ammo. In MMOs, I inevitably play as a class that can work solo -- like a Paladin, balanced between skull-crushing might and self-healing magic. "OK, so, deep inside you're a frustrated geek with serious masculinity issues who doesn't like authority," said a gamer friend of mine when we talked about this over drinks. "And you're a loner who can't handle complexity." Except, except ... wait a minute, that's not even vaguely what I'm like in real life. In meatspace, I'm a total people-pleaser who avoids all conflict (to the point where I often get completely doormatted in my professional life). And I have a superhighly tuned, sensitive-boi EQ. Christ, I cry at weddings. What's going on? Nothing weird, said Ian Bogost, a friend of mine who's one of the smartest game academics and game designers around. The whole reason my in-game choices are so divergent from my wussy-ass actual self is because I'm using games to see life from a different perspective; the Walter Mitty effect, as it were. Nothing wrong with that. And, he added, I'm imprisoned by a lack of options. Too many mainstream games are predicated on loony macho conflict because it's easy to model, and because the industry is focused on the power fantasies of 14-year-olds. I shouldn't blame myself for getting sucked into their poor choices. Fair enough. Except ... there's been a huge growth in alternative forms of gaming in recent years, and the sad truth is that I rarely get as excited by them. All those "click management" games, like Diner Dash or Cooking Mama -- the ones that model the chaos of real life in a charming, witty way, and let you deal with it? That stuff puts me to sleep. Hell, I don't even have the patience for computer golf. When offered a choice inside games like Civilization, given the option of picking amongst different types of personalities, I choose to play as a complete douchebag. (In Halo 3, as you may recall, I wound up embracing suicide-bomber tactics.) Now, I'll issue my usual caveats here. I don't mean to suggest that I, or anyone else, should police their fantasy lives. Games are -- at least partly -- an exercise of the imagination, and it's always a perspective-broadening experiment to visit the dark or creepy places of the mind. But interestingly, the rest of the world is beginning to realize that one's game preferences can be regarded as a Myers-Briggs personality type for the digital age. Plenty of college kids list their most-played games on their Facebook pages, under the presumption that this speaks as clearly about their inner lives as their religion or political stances. And in the last few years, Silicon Valley companies have begun actively recruiting the leaders of major World of Warcraft guilds, under the assumption that people who choose those roles are good at being leaders, motivating teams and defusing interpersonal drama. Just imagine what things will look like 10 years from now. "Hmmm, this job applicant has a kind of cool Alliance-Mage thing going on, so she'd be good in the legal support department, eh? Yeah, but her team-killing stats in Gears of War 4 are really troubling." Or in the world of dating: "I just don't know if I can go out with someone who never plays any of the side missions in Grand Theft Auto!" Maybe, for the sake of my social reputation, I should start playing some Diner Dash. Who knows: If I play it enough, I might get really into it. Yeah, I think I'll head out to the GameStop and get a copy. Right after I nuke Athens. - - - Clive Thompson is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and a regular contributor to Wired and New York magazines. Look for more of Clive's observations on his blog, collision detection.

Myths and falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on "born alive" bills

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill. Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following: MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal. In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part: On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution. [...] While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time. From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post: As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker. Why? "Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously." Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone." Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations. In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time. Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek. MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law. In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it." Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired." But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said: Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant. The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed: On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session. Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected." From Fund's column: It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0. But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it. From Freddoso's article: Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born. But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported. MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no" In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present. In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote: Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"] Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy. MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place" In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions." Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.

CHRIST Appoints New Management Board

The Supervisory Board of Christ Water Technology AG took the resolution today to change the Management Board with immediate effect.

Misrepresenting Obama's audiobook, Hannity claimed Obama said, "White folks' greed runs a world in need"

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama had "openly complained about 'white folks' greed.' " To illustrate the claim, Hannity then played audio in which Obama says, "White folks' greed runs a world in need." However, Hannity did not note that the sound bite came from the audiobook version of Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father (Crown, 1995), in a passage in which Obama recites lines from a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So, those words, which Hannity asserted "Obama himself has said," are a quote from Wright, a fact that Hannity has previously acknowledged. Hannity brought up the quote in a discussion of the Obama campaign's refutation of the claims in Jerome Corsi's debunked and discredited book The Obama Nation. The response includes evidence contradicting several "factual inaccuracies" in Corsi's book and outlines Corsi's connections to conspiracy theorists who claim, among other things, that the U.S. government is covering up the "true" cause of the World Trade Center collapse on 9-11. The response also details Corsi's anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic statements and describes him as a "discredited, fringe bigot." Hannity asserted: "[I]f I were Obama, I don't know if I'd be hurling around the word 'bigot,' given some of the things that Obama himself has said in the past. For example, if Corsi, the fringe bigot -- you know, what would you call a guy who openly complained about 'white folks' greed'?" Hannity then aired an audio clip of Obama saying, "White folks greed runs a world in need." Later in the broadcast, Hannity again commented that "I don't think [Obama] ought to be hurling around words like 'bigot,' given the things that he's said himself," and again aired the same audio clip. In neither instance did Hannity say that the audio clip is, in fact, Obama's quotation of Wright in his audiobook. From Page 292 of Dreams From My Father: The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel -- the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope. "The painting depicts a harpist," Reverend Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation. "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ...That's the world! On which hope sits!" Hannity falsely characterized these words as Obama's despite having previously noted that they were Wright's. On the March 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity specifically referenced the quoted passage from Wright's "Audacity of Hope" sermon, noting that it was Wright's: "Now, there is some examination [of Obama's ties to Trinity United Church of Christ] going on, but there will be a full examination. What dates was he at the church? What sermons did he hear? Even the 'Audacity of Hope' speech or sermon had, you know, 'white greed' in there." From the March 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Let me go to these numbers here, because they're pretty astounding here. DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Sure. HANNITY: Rasmussen had a poll. SCHOEN: Yup. HANNITY: Fifty-six percent of Americans, now, as a result of this controversy are less likely to want to vote for Barack Obama. Pew poll, nearly 40 percent of people -- SCHOEN: Right. HANNITY: -- in that particular poll. Among Democrats, 17 percent of Democrats, Fox News poll -- SCHOEN: Right. HANNITY: -- think that he shares the views of his pastor, think that all those incendiary remarks. That's hemorrhaging and beyond. SCHOEN: Well, I made it clear to Alan that it is. Here's the real problem that the numbers underscore. Obama's running a campaign of unity, yet he has not distanced himself completely from a minister who is divisive. He said that Reverend Wright has apologized. The Reverend Wright has in no way apologized. HANNITY: That's right. SCHOEN: And until Obama makes it clear that he will have nothing to do with the Reverend Wright and completely repudiates him, these numbers will be a problem for him. HANNITY: And Michael Steele [GOPAC chairman], there's more to this, too, as I pointed out. Now, there is some examination going on, but there will be a full examination. What dates was he at the church? What sermons did he hear? Even the "Audacity of Hope" speech or sermon had, you know, "white greed" in there. STEELE: Right. From the August 15 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: Anyway, part of the Obama attack against Jerome Corsi includes the allegation he's a, quote, "fringed bigot," based on criticism of the Catholic Church that Corsi posted on some websites during the priest sex-abuse scandal. And by the way, I'm a Catholic. So, I understand that there were people that really went over the line. And I'm not doubting any of this. And I even heard Corsi's going on some radical talk shows. I think that's a mistake. But that doesn't take away from what is true or not true in the book. And if only the media would vet Obama the way they are Corsi, we might actually have a little knowledge about the candidate. But one has to wonder -- if I were Obama, I don't know if I'd be hurling around the word "bigot," given some of the things that Obama himself has said in the past. For example, if Corsi, the fringe bigot -- you know, what would you call a guy who openly complained about "white folks' greed"? OBAMA [audio clip]: White folks' greed runs a world in need. HANNITY: You know, what would you call somebody who declared that his grandmother, who raised him, was prejudiced just like a, quote, "typical white person"? [...] HANNITY: And then we got Jerome Corsi. I'm -- this is hilarious. I mean, they're all -- Kerry and all the Obama people are doing -- his book's number one on Amazon right now. Go check it out. And, you know -- and they're saying, "Oh, he's a fringe bigot." OK, but then we just went through a whole list of examples where Barack Obama I don't think ought to be hurling around words like "bigot," given the things that he's said himself. OBAMA [audio clip]: White folks' greed runs a world in need. HANNITY: Yeah. Or "the typical white person," talking about his own grandmother who raised him.

Freddoso misrepresents IL government findings to accuse Obama of lying about "born alive" legislation

In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was "not true." Claiming that Obama's assertion -- that "measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies" were "already the law" in Illinois -- was false, Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and a July 2000 letter from Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan's office refute Obama's statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by IDPH supports it. The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan's office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part: On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution. [...] While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time. From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims -- IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word "indicate" is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word "include" for the word "indicate.") In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post: As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker. Why? "Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously." Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone." Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations. In other words, contrary to Freddoso's claim, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's assertion: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original].But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time. Echoing his book, Freddoso made similar statements in writing in an August 13 National Review article: "Hospital officials dismissed Stanek's concerns. She then approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies. They had passed the bright line of birth that had effectively limited the right to life since the Roe v. Wade decision, but under the law they were non-persons." The letter from Ryan's office did not say that "[d]octors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies"; IDPH, tasked by Ryan with investigating the allegations, reportedly said the opposite -- if what Stanek was alleging were true, the hospital would have violated existing law. From Pages 192-199 of The Case Against Barack Obama: A nurse, Stanek's friend, had helped in the abortion. She had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. (The hospital would later deny that such things happened, stating that they had already set up "comfort rooms" in which to leave the babies to die.2) [...] Could it even be legal to take a living person of any size, already outside his mother's womb, and leave him to die -- to die amid medial waste? Stanek began talking to hospital officials, who were dismissive of her concerns. She then sought out help from a pro-life group, the Concerned Women for America, and approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan. Ryan made inquiries with the state Department of Public health, to determine whether this practice was legal. [...] On July 17, 2000, Attorney General Ryan reported back on the investigation of Christ Hospital by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH): On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not include [sic] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution ... While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.5 In leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical obligation to treat them. Under the law, they were non-persons. Stanek had found a cause -- a real injustice she wanted to right. [...] [In 2006], he [Obama] would offer this explanation for his opposition to the Illinois legislation in The Audacity of Hope: It mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn't mention that such measures were already the law) -- but also extended "personhood" to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe. v. Wade.14 This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan. They had said Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal. [emphasis in original]

SAVE GAS WITH THIS AMAZING LOCATION sf bay area $1

"Till We Have Built Jerusalem" is the seventh episode of season four of the science fiction television series The . The episode originally aired on July , on the USA Network.Shawn Farrell's political ambitions are threatened by a woman who claims he healed her mother in return for sex. At the same time, Jordan Collier annexes part of Seattle itself and calls it "Promise City", threatening to retaliate if opposed.Jordan Collier and his followers seize control of the undesirable South side docks of Seattle, renaming it "Promise City". A square mile of the city is cordoned off with glowing devices that cause intense pain when approached.Shawn Farrell is in a casual relationship with a woman whose mother he healed. However, Senator Lenhoff berates Shawn for his indiscretion as the media claim he exchanged his abilities for sexual favors.The government sends a squad of enhanced soldiers to kill Collier Maia Skouris has a vision of Collier's death, but her vision "continues" in utter darkness. Terrified this could mean the end of everything, Maia pleads with her mother, Diana Skouris and Tom Baldwin to save Collier from the soldiers. Before they can act, however, Maia sneaks into Promise City to stop Collier from being killed.The soldiers are stopped, and Collier uses his ability to remove the promicin from the enhanced soldiers.Maia gives Collier a fake predictionif Collier causes any deaths it will result in eventual Armageddon.In retaliation for the government incursion, Collier has the devices moved, doubling the size of Promise City."Till we have built Jerusalem" is a line from the William Blake poem And did those feet in ancient time. It describes England as paradise, and the speaker expresses a desire to fight for Christ until Heaven the New Jerusalem appears. It was also adapted as a patriotic British song during World War I. The song was previously used in the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode "Explorers", which was written by René Echevarria, cocreator of The .t

Wash. Post ignored McCain flip-flop on Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," McCain's pastor problems

In an August 17 Washington Post article reporting on the August 16 appearances by Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr. wrote, "[Sen. John] McCain and his campaign advisers have been eager to put their struggles with Christian conservatives behind them. Some conservatives remain angry over his role in a 2005 compromise that allowed Democrats to block some conservative judges Bush was attempting to appoint; others still recall his criticisms of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as 'agents of intolerance' during the 2000 Republican primaries." But the Post did not note that, in April 2006, McCain said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance," and delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University a month later, as Media Matters for America documented. Moreover, while claiming that Sen. Barack Obama "endured a storm of controversy over comments made by the former pastor of the Chicago church he attended until recently," and noting "the high-profile controversy stirred up by Obama's former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." the Post article ignored the controversy over comments by religious figures who endorsed McCain. Indeed, while Murray and Bacon noted that the McCain campaign was "eager" to put its "struggles with Christian conservatives behind them," they did not mention that McCain actively sought the endorsement of controversial pastor John Hagee, despite Hagee's numerous controversial comments about gays, the Catholic Church, Islam, and women. Nor did Murray and Bacon note that even after Hagee's controversial comments came to light, McCain still said, "I'm glad to have his endorsement," before eventually rejecting it. Murray and Bacon also did not mention McCain's connection to Rod Parsley, a senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, whom McCain had reportedly called "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide," and who had been widely criticized for comments about Islam before he endorsed McCain. McCain accepted Parsley's endorsement on February 26, but then rejected it on May 22. From the August 17 Washington Post article: Barack Obama and John McCain made their first joint appearance of the general election Saturday night, breaking away from the debates over national security and the economy that have dominated the campaign in recent weeks to court evangelical voters at an Orange County megachurch. The forum at Saddleback Church presented a rare opportunity for Christian voters to contrast candidates who do not conform neatly to party stereotypes. While Obama has spoken often about his faith -- and endured a storm of controversy over comments made by the former pastor of the Chicago church he attended until recently -- McCain has largely avoided public discussions of faith and values during his career, which has contributed to a sometimes rocky relationship with evangelical leaders. The event was hosted by Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life" and one of the country's most prominent evangelical preachers. Warren, a Southern Baptist, referred to both McCain and Obama as friends in his introductions. "They both care deeply about America," Warren said. "They're both patriots." Each candidate was interviewed individually by Warren for an hour. The two met only briefly, embracing on the stage midway through the event as Obama exited and McCain entered. [...] Christian conservatives gave Bush 78 percent of their votes in 2004, and they remain a vital part of the Republican Party's electoral strategy. But although Democrat Obama has taken stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights that many Christians disagree with, his campaign hopes that he can cut into that showing by keeping his faith in the spotlight and by discussing topics such as poverty and global warming. McCain and his campaign advisers have been eager to put their struggles with Christian conservatives behind them. Some conservatives remain angry over his role in a 2005 compromise that allowed Democrats to block some conservative judges Bush was attempting to appoint; others still recall his criticisms of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" during the 2000 Republican primaries. Many of these activists pointedly refused to back McCain during the GOP primaries, favoring former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Tony Perkins, head of the socially conservative Family Research Council, criticized McCain this summer for making faith and values less of a priority on his Web site and in other campaign materials than Obama had. McCain has publicly suggested in recent days that even though he opposes abortion, he might select a running mate who supports abortion rights. That drew warnings from Perkins and other religious conservatives that they might not show up at the polls in November if McCain picked an abortion-rights supporter such as former governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. But McCain's campaign has also sought to highlight stances such as his opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions. The Republican nominee also has spoken about his faith more often in recent months, frequently focusing on how it sustained him as a prisoner of war after he was shot down over Vietnam. Saturday night, he cited the role of faith in his decision to stay in a Vietnamese prison camp after he was offered release because his father was a high-ranking naval officer. He said it was the toughest choice he had ever made, adding that "it took a lot of prayer, it took a lot of prayer." The Obama campaign made an aggressive sales pitch at the event, distributing a 12-page booklet to the 2,200 people who streamed through Saddleback's doors that chronicled the candidate's "Christian journey" and his long relationship with Warren. The campaign also announced Saturday that the upcoming Democratic National Convention would have a strong religious flavor, with "faith caucus meetings" to discuss religious voters' concerns and daily invocations and benedictions from national faith leaders. The list includes Joel Hunter, a prominent Republican pastor from an evangelical Florida church; a Greek Orthodox archbishop; a Roman Catholic nun from Cleveland; and a Colorado couple who are both Methodist ministers. Topics of the faith caucus meetings include "How an Obama Administration Will Engage People of Faith"; "Moral Values Issues Abroad"; and "Getting Out the Faith Vote." For Obama, the Saddleback event allowed him to reinforce that he is a Christian before an audience that doubtless included many familiar with Internet and talk-radio-driven rumors that he is a Muslim. That particular falsehood has proven maddeningly difficult to dispel for Obama's campaign, continuing to dog his candidacy even after the high-profile controversy stirred up by Obama's former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. On Saturday night, Obama's appearance was his second at Saddleback. In December 2006, he and conservative Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) addressed Warren's annual conference on HIV-AIDS.

Kurtz and Mason falsely suggested it was "new information" that McCain "acknowledged" his responsibility for failed first marriage

On the August 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Houston Chronicle White House correspondent Julie Mason characterized as "extraordinary" the response Sen. John McCain gave during the August 16 Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency to a question about his "greatest moral failure." Commenting on McCain's response that his "greatest moral failing" was "the failure of my first marriage," Mason said: "I think McCain really did something extraordinary when -- the way he answered that question. ... He addressed an issue that the campaign has been having a hard time figuring out how to deal with. They've wanted to confront it, it's out there on the Internet, it's something that Democrats are trying to use against McCain. So he put it out there, he acknowledged it. And he sort of inoculated himself against it. I think that's really going to help him." Host Howard Kurtz similarly said: "McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, but not necessarily before a national television audience." But contrary to Mason's and Kurtz's suggestion, there was little new in McCain's assertion regarding his first marriage: McCain has repeatedly "acknowledged" his responsibility for the breakup of his first marriage in his memoir, in interviews, and "before a national television audience." Mason contrasted McCain's response with Sen. Barack Obama's, in which Obama named his past drug use and said, "What I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people." Mason said: "Obama's answer, you know, that was not new information. For a 47-year-old man to claim that his worst moral failing happened when he was a teenager -- I don't know, it's a little disingenuous." Indeed, during his first presidential run and in his 2002 memoir, McCain mentioned the breakup of his first marriage numerous times. For example: On the February 2, 1999, edition of a CNN special event titled First in the Nation: The New Hampshire Primary, co-host Bernard Shaw asked McCain: "You had an affair your first marriage. The sitting president is been impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician's private acts be part of public discourse?" McCain replied: "Let me say that I am responsible for the break-up of my first marriage. I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that's fine. I believe that the standards of morality of conduct will be determined, not by the politician themselves, but by the media and the American people. I will leave that judgment to them." On the March 2, 1999, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed McCain and asked of McCain's "background": "Is there anything out there that you want to talk about rather than wait until this campaign goes on and on and on that's going to cause surprises in the press, once again will focus on scandals as opposed to policy issues?" McCain replied: "I certainly hope not. I have made it clear that I am responsible for the break-up of my first marriage. But I've also made it clear that I'm not going to discuss that." During the April 18, 1999, broadcast of CBS News Sunday Morning, correspondent Rita Braver aired an interview she conducted with McCain, in which she said to McCain: "You admitted to infidelity in your first marriage. Are you worried about the scrutiny that you and your family will have to undergo in this campaign?" McCain responded: "I have said that I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage. I have then and now refused to discuss that further." An August 20, 1999, San Francisco Chronicle article reported that McCain told San Francisco talk-radio host Ronn Owens: "I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage ... but I don't want to go into the details." On the September 8, 1999, broadcast of ABC's 20/20, then co-host Sam Donaldson reported that "[w]hen he [McCain] came back from the war to a wife who had waited for him -- not only that, but had been badly injured in an auto accident while waiting -- he divorced her for the daughter of a wealthy Arizona beer distributor." Donaldson asked McCain, "What do you say about that?" To which, McCain replied: "I say I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage, and I will always bear that responsibility. And I am not proud of it." In his memoir Worth the Fighting For (Random House, 2002), McCain wrote that in the years following his return from Vietnam he did "not show[] the same determination to rebuild my personal life" as he did his professional life. McCain wrote: "My marriage to Carol McCain was falling apart. Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite. But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." From the August 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources: KURTZ: Let me turn now to last night's presidential forum. This was the pastor Rick Warren at California's Saddleback Church. He had Obama and McCain on separately, asked them a lot of questions that you don't usually get asked at these things, including -- well, I'll let you hear the question, but in a response, Obama talked about his teenage drug use, and John McCain talked about his past infidelity years ago. Let's watch. [begin video clip] WARREN: What would be, looking over your life -- everybody's got weaknesses, nobody's perfect -- would be the greatest moral failure in your life? OBAMA: What I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. McCAIN: My greatest moral failing -- and I have been a very imperfect person -- is the failure of my first marriage. WARREN: And everybody has some kind -- [end video clip] KURTZ: Julie Mason, this was on Saturday night, up against the Olympics, Michael Phelps winning his record-shattering eighth gold medal. Is this going to be a blip in terms of the campaign coverage? MASON: I don't know. I mean, I think McCain really did something extraordinary when -- the way he answered that question, Howie. He addressed an issue that the campaign has been having a hard time figuring out how to deal with. They've wanted to confront it, it's out there on the Internet, it's something that Democrats are trying to use against McCain. So he put it out there, he acknowledged it. And he sort of inoculated himself against it. I think that's really going to help him. Obama's answer, you know, that was not new information. For a 47-year-old man to claim that his worst moral failing happened when he was a teenager -- I don't know, it's a little disingenuous. So I think it does get some traction going forward. There was a lot of news coverage, even if people weren't necessarily watching the forum. KURTZ: Right. McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, but not necessarily before a national television audience. Rick Warren, he asked questions about the nature of evil, Christ, abortion. Did he elicit more interesting answers than a network anchor might have? JOSHUA GREEN (senior editor of The Atlantic): I think he intended to. I mean, it seemed to be more of a conversational setting. You know, we were told ahead of the time there weren't going to be any "gotcha" questions. He certainly managed to slip in a couple on the Supreme Court and other things. From the September 8, 1999, edition of ABC's 20/20: SAM DONALDSON: (voice-over) But no story ends so perfectly, nor does this one for John McCain. When he came back from the war to a wife who had waited for him -- not only that, but had been badly injured in an auto accident while waiting -- he divorced her for the daughter of a wealthy Arizona beer distributor. (on camera) What do you say about that? JOHN MCCAIN: I say I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage, and I will always bear that responsibility. And I am not proud of it. From the August 20, 1999, San Francisco Chronicle: For his part, McCain admitted to being "very uncomfortable" with the continual questions of Bush. "The media and the American people have the right to make a judgment about him ... (but) the governor is entitled to privacy." "I've done things in my life I'm not proud of. ... I'm a believer in redemption, and my life has been less than exemplary in many respects," he said. "I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage ... but I don't want to go into the details," he told KGO's Ronn Owens. But asked at The Chronicle editorial board meeting if the cocaine question was a fair one for a presidential candidate, McCain, 63, said he had never used cocaine. From the April 18, 1999, edition of CBS News Sunday Morning: BRAVER: (Voiceover) McCain has, indeed, re-established his reputation for integrity. He considers himself a family man, but in the wake of President Clinton's indiscretions, everything about every candidate's past will be scrutinized. You admitted to infidelity in your first marriage. Are you worried about the scrutiny that you and your family will have to undergo in this campaign? Sen. McCAIN: I have said that I'm responsible for the breakup of my first marriage. I have then and now refused to discuss that further. I have done a number of things in my life that are pretty colorful, that--that we referred to earlier. But I don't intend to discuss my private life in this campaign, and that is my response. BRAVER: Do you think there are episodes that will be revealed that will be embarrassing to you? Sen. McCAIN: There's nothing in my life that I know of that will disqualify me from being president of the United States. From the March 2, 1999, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer: BLITZER: Your background. Is there anything out there that you want to talk about rather than wait until this campaign goes on and on and on that's going to cause surprises in the press, once again will focus on scandals as opposed to policy issues? MCCAIN: I certainly hope not. I have made it clear that I am responsible for the break-up of my first marriage. But I've also made it clear that I'm not going to discuss that. It's -- the American people, the media and anybody else who wants to, can discuss it, I just don't choose to. BLITZER: Is it fair game to go after candidates' personal backgrounds like that, or should we, the media, just stay out of it? MCCAIN: Well, obviously all candidates would like to see the media stay completely out of it, but the fact is the media will be in it, and to what degree will be decided by the media and the American people; the candidates will not decide. So I have to say I have no position on that because I have no control over it. From the February 2, 1999, edition of CNN's First in the Nation: The New Hampshire Primary: BERNARD SHAW: You had an affair your first marriage. The sitting president is been impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician's private acts be part of public discourse? MCCAIN: Let me say that I am responsible for the break-up of my first marriage. I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that's fine. I believe that the standards of morality of conduct will be determined, not by the politician themselves, but by the media and the American people. I will leave that judgment to them. SHAW: How will you handle people trying to pry into your personal life? People who are just outright nosy? MCCAIN: It happens, it goes with the territory, it's part of a political campaign, I'm not equipped to change it; only the American people and the media are. I realize that this is a very, very tough business. It's not a contact sport, it's a collision sport. From Pages 13-14 of Worth the Fighting For: I had used my professional advantages well since I had come home from war and was building a decent reputation for myself in the navy. But I had not shown the same determination to rebuild my personal life. My marriage to Carol McCain was falling apart. Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite. But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.