Brutally Honest

Oh well... it's not what you do...

... but whether or not you had good intentions:

Wristbands sold to raise money for a campaign against world poverty are made in mainland sweatshops in "slave labor'' conditions.

The "shocking'' conditions are disclosed in "ethical audits'' of factories that make the ultra-fashionable white wristbands for the Make Poverty History campaign, started by a coalition of more than 400 charities.

Bob Geldof, who recently confirmed a follow-up to the 1985 Live Aid concert - to coincide with the G8 summit in July - called for action.

``The charities should pull out of deals with those companies immediately or set a firm deadline for improvements,'' he said.

One senior official with a British charity accused Oxfam, Christian Aid and others of ``rank hypocrisy.''

``This is appalling. It goes against everything we stand for. If we are criticizing big companies for trading unethically, then we have to be whiter than white,'' he said.

Hundreds of thousands of wristbands, made in fabric or silicon, have been sold in Britain, with pop stars, footballers and politicians such as Tony Blair seen wearing them. They cost HK$14.22,, of which 70 pence goes to charities. The audits show factories making the silicon versions fall woefully short of the ``ethical standards.''

A report on Tat Shing Rubber Manufacturing in Shenzhen, dated April 12, accuses it of using ``forced labor'' by taking ``financial deposits'' from new employees in violation of the law and the Ethical Trading Initiative set up to promote international standards for working conditions.

I've seen a number of folks touting the MakePovertyHistory banners on their blogs and pitching the purchase of the white bands...  I wonder what they have to say about this story?  Probably not too much...

But I think the whole campaign makes little practical sense...  and thankfully, for you my readers, there are those more articulate than I who have the same kinds of questions.

Like the Anchoress:

The poor are not a “trendy” concern to be flashed on a bracelet so you can show how much you care, and how compassionate you are. And no one is going to “Make Poverty History,” because the poor will always be among us, for many reasons. This silly idea that poverty, everywhere, can possibly be forever eliminated is dishonest and dishonesty never serves anything constructively. You can’t make it go away by buying a bracelet, or even by writing a check. You can’t make it go away by “raising awareness” by attending a dinner wherein straws are drawn and the short straws are served beans and rice while the long ones get lobster. Its SOUNDS noble and enlightening, but it’s just posturing, in the end.

Or like Jeff Doolittle:

I'd like to see organizations like Make Poverty History take a harder line against autocratic, despotic governments that are a major culprit in keeping much of the world under the thumb of extreme poverty. Ending poverty is the noblest of humanitarian causes and we should take whatever measures are within our power to reach this goal. My hope is for organizations such as this one to see the missing link in their logic chain. The discussion must include calls for personal freedom and free markets within developing nations.

So get involved in the fight to eradicate poverty, but let's have a complete picture of what the process will involve. Poverty cannot be permanently eradicated unless people are protected by the rule of law and the provisions of a free society.

Or my personal favorite, The PunditGuy, who is more than brutally honest in this missive addressed to Bob Geldof:

Dear Mr. Geldof,

I hate to break it to you, but the people (teenagers) who attend your free concert will be there to see whomever shows up. They will not attend the show as a sign of solidarity to end world hunger. They will not leave the show and change their consumption habits either. In fact, 24 hours after the concert, I bet 99% of them won’t remember any of the overtly political messages blurted from the stage. All the pontificating that will go on between acts and between songs will go in one ear and out the other. Oh, you’ll hear cheers and applause alright…but don’t make more out of it than it is. Crowds like these will cheer the breaking of wind.

Bottom line I think is that we can all do more to help the poor, and we all should, but much of what I see in the attempt is merely another vehicle by which liberals make political statements that do more to make themselves feel good than it does to help eradicate poverty.

And I think they ought to be a tad more honest about it.

You?

Memorial Day 2005

Day Is Done,
Gone the Sun,
From the Earth,
From the Hill,
From the Sky,
All Is Well,
Safely Rest,
God Is Nigh

Nice.

Dave Kettering, of The Telegraph Herald in Dubuque, Iowa captures sun and rain in this rather awesome pic. 

Something spiritual about it.

Belief? Trust? Faith?

Real Live Preacher differentiates, describes, delineates and delights in this must read piece:

The ancient Greek of the New Testament uses the same word for believe and for trust, though English breaks the concept into a pair of more specific ideas. Belief is the more joyous of the two, the more mystical, the more childlike, and the one that is least in our control. A person believes in something or she does not. There’s really not much you can do about it one way or the other.

Trust is the element that is more or less up to us. Trusting involves the will and the willingness to give oneself to the possibility that something wonderful might be true.

Trust comes as easily to me as belief comes to some of my friends. There is a wild element in my soul that longs to trust and to make myself vulnerable to a higher power. I want so badly for God to be real that I am willing to wager the wounds of disappointment against the possibility of God’s existence. Trust is the gift that I am able to offer to God—trust in a spiritual path and a spiritual community. It is trust that calls me to bow my head with pilgrims across the ages and to submit myself to their ancient wisdom and timeless ways.

Believing, on the other hand, is something I cannot control. I cannot drive away the fleshly and agnostic presence that lives in the basement of my soul. It comes up the stairs every once in a while to rattle cupboards and slam doors like a philosophical poltergeist. The only thing I can do is cling to my cross and Bible, squeezing my eyes shut like a child while my lips move with whispered prayers and I wait for it to go back to its home down below.

I have no desire to claim doubt as some sort of virtue, a sign of depth or intelligence. I think of doubt not as something you have, but as something you have not. Doubt is an absence, just as cold is the absence of heat. Yet I am not ashamed of my doubts, for they are only an empty place wanting to be filled, a reminder that grace must be sufficient for me.

Sometimes I gaze with longing upon the people for whom belief is natural and easy. They seem to walk the earth in the very presence of the Divine, as certain of God’s existence as of their own. I look at them like a puppy watching his master, my head cocked to one side and my tail thumping with pleasure.

God has never demanded constant belief from me, which would be cruel, like punishing a dyslexic child for reading slowly or scorning a clumsy boy for not being able to dribble a basketball. Instead God has accepted my trust and the giving of my life. And these two together might rightly be called faith.

The whole thing should be slowly chewed, savored, swallowed and digested. 

My moments of belief of late have been rare, too rare for comfort.  I've felt alone, in the spiritual sense, for too long now. It's frankly a rather scary thing.

But I'm comforted by RLP's description of trust.

There is a wild element in my soul that longs to trust and to make myself vulnerable to a higher power. I want so badly for God to be real that I am willing to wager the wounds of disappointment against the possibility of God’s existence.

My desire for God to be tangible has never been stronger.  But my faith, measured in units of  belief, has never been weaker.

A few years ago, God's presence became so real in moments that belief was easy, so easy, too easy. 

Today I cling to trusting that sooner or later, belief will return prodigally and with it a stronger faith. 

Until then I hope and pray that my weakness in the faith, as observed by those loved ones who saw me at one point as a tower of strength in that area, becomes not a stumbling block for their own faith but a testament in some way to persevering, and flawed, trust in God.

Lord, let it be so.

ScrappleFace: U.S. Blamed for Koran Harm in WTC Collapse

Scott Ott knocks one out of the park:

U.S. Blamed for Koran Harm in WTC Collapse

(2005-05-27) -- Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan rioted today in response to new reports that copies of the Koran were desecrated when two American buildings collapsed after being struck by American airplanes in September of 2001.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed that fragments of the burned and soiled Korans were discovered in the ruins of the World Trade Center towers in New York City.

A spokesman for the ACLU said the Bush administration did little to prevent the damage to the Islamic holy books, that apparently belonged to Muslims who worked in the office towers until their "unjustified termination" during the morning of September 11, 2001.

"This is just another example of U.S. insensitivity to cultural diversity," said the unnamed ACLU spokesman. "To add insult to injury, anonymous sources say that some of the Koran fragments may have been unceremoniously dumped in a landfill."

Sums it up for me.

You?

Newsweek looking for a publicist...

... and La Shawn is trying to help:

The ability and desire to incite Muslim riots and harm the U.S. cause abroad is a must. You should be willing and able to engage in pass-the-buck parlor games on a weekly basis, embrace moral equivalency, particularly important in this present age of terrorism, while maintaining just enough moral ambiguity so as to render yourself unable to denounce the horrors of decapitation, especially when done in the name of Allah.

Photos of suspected terrorists wearing panties as head gear should be grievously galling to you and a violation of your sensibilities as a proud American who expects better of our military even as you publicize stories that undermine the same military at every turn.

Newsweek is an Equal Opportunity Employer. People of various hues are encouraged to apply. While we can’t promise diversity of viewpoint, we try to make sure we have just enough black faces around to keep the professional civil rights industry off our backs. Hiring the best candidate for the job is an idealistic but unattainable goal in these litigious times. Besides, we get enough bad press as it is. Which is why we want to hire YOU.

Dahamn...  just call La Shawn "The Hammer"... 

Heh.

Voinovich cries on Senate floor, terrorists gleeful

UPDATE:  Welcome InstaPundit readers... do have a look around and if inclined, please be sure to frequent the BlogAds on the left and the Google Ads on the right. If you're in an especially charitable mood and can spare some change, hit one of the Tip Jars (on the right) to help offset the inevitable bandwidth charges incurred by this InstaLaunch (there's always a dark cloud in the silver lining).  Now, on to the original post.

I watched this last night on the network news just as I returned home from the gym.  I was stunned at what I saw and more importantly, heard:

Washington - Ohio Sen. George Voinovich choked back tears on the Senate floor Wednesday as he pleaded with colleagues to vote against John Bolton's nomination for United Nations ambassador.

After delaying Bolton's passage through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month and sending the entire Senate a letter on Tuesday to explain his objections, Voinovich delivered a 45-minute speech that argued Bolton's abusive personality make him an inappropriate diplomat.

"This appointment is very, very important to our country," Voinovich concluded as his voice cracked with emotion. "At a strategic time when we need friends all over the world, we need somebody up there that's going to be able to get the job done."

"I know, some of my friends say, 'Let it go, George. It's going to work out,' " said Voinovich, currently the sole Republican to publicly oppose President Bush's appointment. "I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren. And I just hope my colleagues will take the time and . . . do some serious thinking about whether or not we should send John Bolton to the United Nations."

With that, Voinovich returned to his seat and fidgeted with a yellow highlighting pen until he regained his composure.

Voinovich exemplifies the kind of weakness the terrorists take advantage of.  It's this mentality that encourages fanatics to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, to bomb hotel lobby rooms and sidewalk cafes, to kill, maim and otherwise injure innocent men, women and children.

Voinovich has disgraced himself and disgraced this country.

Who do we want representing us as we engage the terrorists worldwide?

Voinovich and other metrosexuals in touch with their feminine sides or a tough guy like Bolton who has a take no prisoners outlook?

The answer is clear.  And it becomes clearer the more one watches Voinovich's weakness displayed for all on the Senate floor.

Freakin' incredible.

More on filibuster deal

My local paper has joined the ranks of those nearly orgasmic over the filibuster deal, and are embarrasingly effusive in their praise for John Warner:

About the preferred headline of the day - "The Center Holds" - we'll see.

What is certain is that U.S. Sen. John Warner has again demonstrated the finer arts and loyalties that constitute statesmanship. But maybe he couldn't help himself. Warner has been putting his country first for so long that it may be impossible to break the habit.

In this instance, it was a matter of standing up for workable government - as opposed to chaotic, dysfunctional, polarized government.

Warner helped get seven Republicans into a compromise with seven Democrats to overcome a stalemate over federal judge confirmations. It was a victory for reasonableness, for keeping things going and not allowing the Senate to become institutionally unglued.

...

Pragmatism is a good and necessary thing.

Which is precisely what the 78-year-old Warner understands. He's been around. He's fought in shooting wars and political wars. And he knows that in either case, fundamental disputes never really end, but get played out on different battlefields, in different arenas, with different strategies and personalities.

What's vital, then, is to preserve the institutional structures of American government - i.e. the U.S. Senate - that permit perilous divisions to be examined, debated and sorted out. The alternative to the processes of representative government, it's often overlooked, is duking it out in the streets.

...

[The Senate] honors and respects its entire membership, allows all to participate, encourages debate (even to the extremes) and does not forget that who's in the minority today may well be in the majority tomorrow.

It is that distinction - comity among its members and the suppression of partisanship - that makes the Senate so essential to running the Republic.

And it was the threat of losing that distinction that mobilized John Warner, the gentleman from Virginia who has become so valuable to his nation.

I'm truly trying to understand how it is that my local paper, a liberal rag if ever there was one, can see this compromise as such a great thing.

Neither can I understand why this is such a great victory for moderates when liberals are so happy about it.

"The essence is clear. A majority of this body does not want to break its rules. Break its traditions and those rules and traditions will be preserved."  - Ted Kennedy (Not a moderate)

"Wonderful"... "Big victory" for Democrats  - Barbara Boxer (Not a moderate)

"Very pleased"  -  Tom Harkin (Not a moderate)

"a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans."  -  Harry Reid  (Not a moderate).

“I hope the White House will heed this message from the Senate and consult with us in a meaningful way on judicial nominations, If the White House will consult with us on important vacancies we can make significant progress, and I hope we can achieve that.”  -  Pat Leahy (Not a moderate)

Do these people sound upset by the compromise?  Of course they don't, and the media's attempt to portray this whole thing as moderates defeating extremists is a joke... a very bad joke.

Republicans cave, John McCain, leading caveman

John McCain has done what John McCain does best... 

WASHINGTON: In what is seen as a blow to the right wing Conservatives and even to the White House, seven Republican Senators abandoned the Grand Old Party on judicial filibusters [a tactic to delay or prevent a vote on a nominee's confirmation] and joined hands with seven Democrats to come up with a "deal" that would send some of the President's nominees for up-down votes in the Senate.

"This is really good news for every American tonight," said Minority Leader Harry Reid while Majority leader Bill Frist complained of the agreement falling short of the principle of a vote on "all" judicial nominees. `It falls short. It has some good news and it has some disappointing news," said Mr. Frist.

Prominent among the Senators who took this critical step forward included the Arizona Republican John McCain and the veteran Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

When Harry Reid thinks this compromise is good news for every American, chances are it's far from good news.  And the fact that McCain is out there once again teaming with leading liberals in the Senate, is further proof that this is anything but good news.

LaShawn is all over this with lots of links.

The Anchoress sees Republican spines of jelly.

And Steven Den Beste sums it up for me:

By far the biggest complaint about this is that it clearly demonstrates that the Republicans can't be relied on to maintain party discipline, and regarding that I'm utterly disgusted. When they have a 55-45 majority, why in hell are they bending knee to the minority party? And why aren't they letting their leaders lead?

The voters gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate because the voters wanted the Republicans to implement their program. Clearly they don't have the balls to actually do so -- or at least, clearly there are seven of them who don't.

And leading that charge is that gelding from Arizona, John McCain. Sickens me.  And so, by the way, does my own Senator, John Warner.

I'm beginning to believe that there really isn't a dime's worth a difference between the parties.

MORE:  ScrappleFace:

Deal Preserves Constitutional Superduper Majority
by Scott Ott

(2005-05-24) -- A bipartisan group of 14 moderate Senators last night struck a deal to preserve the Constitutional requirement of a 'superduper majority' for confirmation of judicial appointees by ensuring that any future nominee must meet the approval of 87 percent of the Senate.

As part of the deal, three of President Bush's nominees will receive prompt votes on confirmation and two others will be "cast into the yawning mouth of an active volcano."

"We're delighted to return to the intent of the framers of the Constitution," said Sen. John McCain, M-AZ, who led the compromise coalition. "The purpose of the Senate is to ensure the right of the minority to prevent any decision. This deal eliminates the unfair advantage of so-called 'majority rule'."

Seven Republicans and seven Democrats bucked their party leadership to forge the compromise, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, called "disappointing" and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, called "a significant victory for our country."

"Of course, I'm as outraged as Sen. Frist that these mavericks have gone behind our backs and cut a deal," said Sen. Reid. "I'm only consoled by the knowledge that we've protected the Constitutional requirement for a superduper majority. Let no one think that I approve of what these renegades have done to undermine my leadership."

Mr. Reid called it a 'lucky coincidence' that the compromise still allows Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees in 'extraordinary' circumstances.

Asked to give an example of such a circumstance, Mr. Reid said, "If President Bush violates the spirit of bipartisanship by nominating a conservative to the bench, that would be deal buster leading to a filibuster."

Keith Thompson is leaving the left...

... and his San Francisco Chronicle commentary is rather compelling:

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.

Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before.

...

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.

Powerful, powerful stuff...  how many liberals will heed his advice?

Let's hope, together, that there will be more than a few...