Wednesday, April 27, 2005 

UN's indifference toward Christian Persecution

Maybe the UN can lead on an issue here...
Shaaaa right... fat chance

You must read this:
The Torturers’ Friends in Geneva
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights doesn’t want to hear about China’s abuses.

By Jason Lee Steorts

Tens of millions of Chinese Christians practice their religion in secret. Members of churches that have refused to accept state control, they have gone underground and live in constant risk of detection. Tens of thousands of them have been arrested or worse — tortured, sent to labor camps, even killed for their beliefs.

Facing such a bleak plight, Chinese Christians may at least take heart in knowing that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, that fine embodiment of our highest ideals, can always be counted upon to help the helpless, to champion the cause of the oppressed, to light a candle of hope in the world's darkest corners . . .

Ahem, my mistake. I must have been thinking of Jane Fonda. The UNCHR actually won't be doing anything for Chinese Christians anytime soon, as it's too busy attacking their defenders.

That's what Bob Fu discovered last month. Fu is president of the China Aid Association, an advocacy group for persecuted Christians in China. He was invited by an NGO to lead a group of human-rights activists, Christian ministers, and Chinese victims of religious persecution in an appearance before the 61st session of the UNCHR in Geneva.

On April 5, Fu testified before the commission about, among other things, the imprisonment of Cai Zhuohua. Cai is a Chinese pastor who, in September 2004, was arrested for printing Bibles without permission from the Chinese government. (I reported on his arrest in the January 31 issue of NR.) According to Fu, Cai has been tortured in prison, and the judge presiding over his case has just sent him back to the police for another round of "interrogation." The idea is to make him confess to a crime that carries a long prison sentence.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

There is a kind of dramatic perfection in Fu's being expelled from the commission for exposing outrages committed by one of its members. The incident is a concrete symbol of the way in which the commission is dominated by the very nations it should be censuring. (It did not pass any resolutions condemning China's human-rights abuses, by the way, although we may console ourselves knowing that it passed no less than four resolutions against Israel.) To capture the repugnant irony in what the UNCHR has become, I can do no better than quote Fu's own words before the U.S. House's committee on international relations, before which he testified last week:

[A]bout nine years ago, I was forced into a police car and taken from my home to prison by the Chinese Public Security Bureau in Beijing for alleged 'illegal religious activities.' Sadly, this is the second time I have been put into a police car and it was done by U.N. security guards.

Bob Fu is on Cai Zhuohua's side. How much longer will the U.N. back Cai's torturers?

— Jason Lee Steorts is an associate editor of National Review.

Sunday, April 24, 2005 

Frankenstein Foods

GM industry puts human gene into rice
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
24 April 2005

Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating "Frankenstein foods" and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights.

Even before this development, many people, including Prince Charles, have opposed the technology on the grounds that it is playing God by creating unnatural combinations of living things.

Environmentalists say that no one will want to eat the partially human-derived food because it will smack of cannibalism.

But supporters say that the controversial new departure presents no ethical problems and could bring environmental benefits.

In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body.

Present GM crops are modified with genes from bacteria to make them tolerate herbicides, so that they are not harmed when fields are sprayed to kill weeds. But most of them are only able to deal with a single herbicide, which means that it has to be used over and over again, allowing weeds to build up resistance to it.

Expect the demonization of any progress that may develop from all that we are figguring out from the research performed by those involved in the Human Genome Project and other genetic research.

I believe that we are on the threshold of a whole new age of medicine. Considering DNA makes up pretty much everything that's alive and is one of the mysterious building blocks of all that's biological, as our depth of knowledge continues to expand on those things that make biology tick, tremendous advancements are there to be found. Allowing our manipulation of DNA to create proteins (or enzymes) that can benefit and/or harm our existence here on Earth is going to be an inevitable consequence of this new found knowledge.

Naturally there will be consequences but since the development of these technologies is going to occur like it or not, much like the development of nuclear capabilities earlier in this century, I sure hope that those friendly to humanity and particularly Western Civilization are the ones on the cutting edge of this new found knowledge.

Environmentalist goofballs who want to cast the shadow of 'cannibalism' on these technologies prove they have no idea what they're talking about by virtue of the emptiness of the rhetoric employed to attack such developments and they should probably go back to smoking their brains into obscurity. If only they knew the DNA mutations they were unwittingly performing on themselves!!

Anyway, I personally welcome these advancements provided they're ethically monitored and done in the spirit of goodwill. Considering the time I've spent in biological labs in college and personal studies of biology I believe that this is the case with those currently involved in these recent developments. There has always been obstruction based on well meaning fears, especially throughout the last couple centuries where most of these advancements have taken place. I am confident that the better conscience of man prevails in the long run; all that's needed to prove this is to look around at the lives we currently lead and live and quit taking for granted all that surrounds us.


One Nation Under Your Belief System

The Pledge of Allegiance has had a few changes made throughout its history;
Versions of the Pledge:

1892 to 1923: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1923 to 1954: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1954 to Present: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Thanks to some schmuck over the Everitt Middle School intercom (near Denver) we can now add this gem:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation,under your belief system, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Hmmm, anyone see a bit o'irony in the joining of the adjacent phrases of, "one nation", "under your belief system" and "indivisible"?

Sounds like the ole kindergarten game, which of these phrases does not belong... Or for that matter, even make sense?

Is it more important now to cater to indecisive and oversensitive people rather than honor that which has preserved and united this great nation? Or are we really going to believe those who say that the use of the word (or *gulp* concept of GOD) is what is currently seperating us from some athesistic utopia where no body has hurt feelings.

C'mon people, you're not that much of a sucker are you?

Saturday, April 23, 2005 

Enemy of the State

Now that's what I'm talkin about, how do I get me one of those??
The shirt dummy...


Nation of Immigrants? Or Racists?

I always thought that America was considered a nation of Immigrants...
Apparently in the UK this is a racial slur! If only we could have their dental hygiene then maybe we'll be as good as them... Check this out:

Calling someone an immigrant can be a racial slur, court rules
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 23/04/2005)

Using the word "immigrant" can justify treating an assault as racially aggravated, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

The court decided that a judge should not have thrown out a charge of racially aggravated assault against a woman who attacked a GP after referring to him as "an immigrant doctor".

Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, an offence is racially aggravated if the offender demonstrates hostility based on the victim's membership of a racial group. Judge Breen decided at Luton Crown Court in January that the word "immigrant" did not meet this definition. But three appeal judges said yesterday he should have left the matter to the jury. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal on a point of law by the Attorney General.

The court heard that the defendant, Mrs D, took her three-year-old son to a surgery because he had a rash. Dr Hair Newal said she should come back if the symptoms developed. When Mrs D demanded a diagnosis, he suggested she find another doctor.

She replied: "I can't find another doctor. All the good doctors are taken up by asylum seekers and I am left with an immigrant doctor."

She then tried to grab her son's medical records. In the struggle, Dr Newal received scratches to his head.

Doesn't someone sound a bit frustrated about the rampant illegal immigration to the UK and the effect on their hospitals? I can only imagine how the schools are being affected!

But what I don't get, the story says; "Mrs D, took her three year old son to a surgery because he had a rash."

Ok, putting aside the apparent grammatical mistake, unless that's some weird British euphemism, why is she taking her son to a surgeon (or surgery) for a rash?? Put some lotion on the kid for crying out loud! Then share some of that lotion for the Doc's head after you scratched it up! Yikes...

Whatever you do, do not mention the immigration problems lady!
"I immigrant, you racist... I sue, ACLU"

Monday, April 18, 2005 

Indonesian thankfulness

To those who gave their money for Tsunami Aid,

That's the thanks we deserve eh?



After getting my sitemeter email that tells me that there were 33 people who actually looked at my page over the last week (thirty more than I thought that there would be) I know that those few people are wondering where I went!

Just working my butt off in the good ole real world...
Working full time at Prudential, moonlighting for National Career Fairs, and spending the rest of my precious time with my beautiful and lovely wife and rambunctious 5 kids.

I never knew coaching T-Ball could be so entertaining!

Nevertheless, soon I'll be shedding the day job only to dive full time into National Career Fairs allowing myself more opportunities to rant and rave at the current political looniness going on each and every day and dropping bombs on the current events shaping our "reality".

To those few genius souls who still check in now and then, thanks, hang in there... I'll be back and better than ever. I appreciate you still seeing what I have to say about things. That's truly satisfying and encouraging.

Please do not hesitate to stop by and say Hi in the comment section regardless. Blogging is definitely a fun and intimate hobby that I hope to develop as time rolls on. Have a nice week y'all!


Sunday, April 03, 2005 

What would Reagan Say

Echoes of the Gipper
What would Reagan say about Iraq, Ukraine and President Bush?

Saturday, April 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

What would Ronald Reagan say? Democracy movements rising to power in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; elections in Afghanistan and Iraq; a new Palestinian leader who appears genuinely committed to establishing a democratic state; pro-democracy demonstrations in Beirut. What would the man Margaret Thatcher called the Great Liberator make of it all?

Pondering this the other day, I decided that if William Safire could commune from time to time with his old boss, Richard Nixon, in the New York Times, then I ought to be able to commune with my old boss in this publication.

The rest of the story...

About me

  • I'm Peakah
  • From White Mountains, Arizona, United States
  • ...this isn't who it would be, if it wasn't who it is...
Check Me Out
Listed on BlogShares
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates