Why I LOVE Molly Ivins!

Sigh is right, Molly. I write that all of the time. Here is Molly's bio. This is why I revere her.

Molly Ivins

Political Columnist

Molly Ivins, best-selling author and widely syndicated political columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, says politics, particularly in Texas, is great entertainment -- "better than the zoo, better than the circus, rougher than football, and even more aesthetically satisfying than baseball."

One of the nation's wittiest and best-known political pundits, Mary Tyler Ivins, better known as Molly, was born August 30, 1944 in Monterey, Calif., but grew up in Houston.

Ivins, the author of the best-selling book, Molly Ivins Can't Say That Can She?, is the former co-editor of the liberal monthly Texas Observer and former Rocky Mountain bureau chief for the New York Times. She has also worked for the Houston Chronicle, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the Dallas Times Herald.

Ivins' freelance work has appeared in Esquire, Atlantic, The Nation, Harper's, the Progressive, Mother Jones, TV Guide and numerous other publications. She is a frequent guest on network radio and television shows.

Ivins has a B.A. from Smith College, a master's in journalism from Columbia University and studied for a year at the Institute of Political Science in Paris.

She served for three years on the board of the National News Council, is active in the Amnesty International's Journalism Network and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. She writes about press issues for the American Civil Liberties Union and several journalism reviews.

She has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist three times, and has won numerous journalism awards, including a 1991 Headliner's Award for best Texas column. She was named Outstanding Alumna by Columbia University's School of Journalism in 1976, and was a member of the 1992 Pulitzer Prize jury.

She speaks both French and Spanish and has a love of the outdoors.

Her column appears in 113 newspaper besides the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

I am in good company here. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

Trying to be useful

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas — Sigh. You write an article advocating what you think would be useful, constructive suggestions about Iraq, and you get an avalanche of right-wing reaction about failuremongers and nattering nabobs of negativism.

Bill Safire is back at the same old stand after all these years, denouncing merchants of dismay trying to justify their decade of appeasement.

Great, anybody who opposed this war in the first place was accused of lack of patriotism, and now anybody who points out that it’s not going well is guilty of defeatism. If you raise your hand and ask where the weapons of mass destruction we were told were the reason for this war are, you’re instructed to just Get Over It.

Well, I ain’t gonna take it anymore. I am not shutting up for Bill O’Reilly or anyone else. I opposed our unprovoked, unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it would be a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell. I predicted every terrorist in the Middle East would be drawn to Iraq like a magnet. I was right, and I’m not going to apologize for it.

I also realize the future in Iraq is a lot more important than any petty I was right vindication. I don’t know if the glass in Iraq is half-empty or half-full, but what is clear is that the situation is deteriorating. That’s why the Bush administration has changed course 180 degrees and is now asking for help from the United Nations.

But naturally, we’re not supposed to mention that the administration has reversed itself — no, no. As Paul Wolfowitz, who now has all the credibility of Ken Lay, explained, the new U.N. resolution didn’t sort of emerge out of nowhere a few days ago. It’s been on our agenda ever since the fall of Baghdad.

He said the bombing of U.N. headquarters was a breakthrough — a sad one. The bombing, I think, changed the atmosphere in New York, and it looks like we can move forward in that area.

Right. The United Nations changed its position, we didn’t change ours. How dumb do they think we are? I am tired of being asked to swallow lies by this administration. For $87 billion bucks, the least we deserve is some candor. I want to know who was responsible for the whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco, and I want to see some accountability for it — resignations and firings. In May of this year, President Bush said, We found the weapons of mass destruction. No, we didn’t. We have yet to find any evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

President Bush’s entire speech Sunday night was devoted to Iraq as the central front of the war on terrorism. The biggest bait-and-switch move of this whole administration has been to substitute Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Ladin. Iraq had nothing to do with the acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States. The real villains, both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, are now regrouping in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, while we’re stuck in the quicksand in Iraq.

I am trying hard to be a responsible citizen here: I don’t think the choice is between staying the course or cut and run. I think we need to change course and be honest enough to admit it to ourselves and everybody else. The security situation in Iraq is deteriorating because we had a poorly planned and badly botched postwar strategy. We need help, and we need to ask for it nicely.

The eeriest part about Bush’s $87 billion request is that it may not be enough. Sixty-six billion will go to the military and intelligence, leaving a relative pittance for actually rebuilding Iraq. According to most experts, getting the lights and water back up, not to mention the oil industry, is critical to the security situation.

Meanwhile, indications are that homeland security is still pretty much a pathetic shambles. With Al Qaeda stirring around again, we might do some rethinking in that area, as well. I’ve been taking off my shoes at the airport to make us all safer, but don’t you think we need to work on the ports, start screening container shipping, and take a look at our chemical and nuke plants?

Speaking of people trying to be constructive, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley had a piece in Sunday’s Washington Post pointing out that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are once again in the toilet and suggesting that it’s time to start at the other end. Instead of a step-by-step approach, work out a two-state map with international backing and present it with an international force to back it up. Since everybody knows that’s the only way it can end, why not start there?

Pretty good idea, I thought.

Copyright © 2003 Creators Syndicate

Quick, W! What's the difference between Islam and Islamism?

I bet that W can tell the difference between Islam and Islamism in a heartbeat. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

[x HNN]
What Is the Difference Between Islam and Islamism?
By Melvin E. Matthews, Jr.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, one commentator noted that the attacks climaxed almost two decades of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam--a bloody, violent era that began with the suicide bombings against American and French peacekeeping forces in Beirut in 1983. The commentator, Martin Kramer, noted:

Islam is no more inclined to terrorism than any other monotheistic faith. Like its sisters, Christianity and Judaism, it can be both merciful and stern in practice; like them, it also teaches the love of God and the humanity of all mankind, believers and unbelievers alike. In times past, Islam has served as the bedrock of flourishing, tolerant, and peaceful orders.

Having said that, Kramer went on to say:

But sociologists will say that a religion, at any point in time, is whatever its adherents understand it to be. If that is so, then Islam, as understood by too many Muslims, is in danger of deteriorating into a manifesto for terror. The reason: Too many Muslims have been silent in the face of horrific deeds committed by an extremist minority.

The real "War on Terror," says Middle Eastern expert Jonathan Schanzer, is the "War on Militant Islam"--the latter "a minority outgrowth of the faith" bitterly antagonistic to such Western concepts as capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. Spurning the West and much it offers--save for weapons, medicines, and additional "useful technologies"--militant Islam's goal is "to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran (Islam's holy book) and shari'a (Islamic law)." The major hindrance to the realization of this objective, in the radical Muslims' view, is the United States.

Given all this, what is the difference between Islam and Islamism?
Fundamentally, it comes down to a pair of concepts: faith (Islam) and ideology (Islamism).

Islam was born in the year A.D. 610, when the prophet Muhammed received both his divine mission and Allah's commands for a new religion which primarily stressed belief in one God. One of the appeals of Islam, say its followers, is its emphasis on inner strength. "Any Westerner who really understands Islam," asserts a leading Iranian figure, "will envy the lives of Muslims." Muslims believe their faith is far superior to Judaism and Christianity; the latter two, to their minds, are merely "defective variants" of God's best religion--Islam. This supreme confidence is bolstered by Islam's glorious early history. Then, Islamic culture was the world's most advanced. Muslims had the best of everything: good health, long life spans, high literacy, scientific and technical achievements After fleeing Mecca as a refugee in A.D. 622, Muhammed returned there a mere eight years later as its ruler. As early as the year 715, Muslim conquerors had erected a vast empire, whose borders reached from Span in the west to India in the east. Naturally, Muslims concluded that all this meant they were God's chosen people, spiritually and materially.

Yet Islam's "golden age" wouldn't last forever. As early as the 13th century, Islam's weakness and the Christian world's successes were already becoming apparent. Nonetheless, for some five hundred years to come, Muslims were mainly unaware of what was happening in the Christian world. The words of the Muslim intellectual Ibn Khaldun regarding Europe, penned roughly the year 1400, summed up Muslim attitudes about that continent: "I hear that many developments are taking place in the land of the Rum, but God only knows what happens there!"

Such an attitude blinded Muslims to changing circumstances. In July 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte landed in the center of the Muslim world, Egypt, easily subduing it. This was merely the beginning of other assaults that ultimately left the majority of Muslims under European domination, and Muslims wondering why God had apparently forsaken them.

In response to modern setbacks, some Muslims empbraced a radical ideology known as Islamism. Islamism, according to critics, is akin to fascism and Marxism-Leninism. Like those systems, Islamism opposes capitalism and liberalism and seeks their overthrow.

Islamists are hostile to numerous countries. They feel that local Muslim rulers in such states as Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, and Malaysia are doing the West's bidding in crushing their movement. In Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Sudan, they see the West "actively suppressing noble Islamist efforts to create a just society." Islamists feel themselves encircled and frustrated by the West. High on their enemies list is the United States, which, Islamists believe, intends to steal Muslims' resources, take advantage of their labor, and subvert their religion. It is widely held that Washington and Hollywood have united to install the "new world order."

Why is Islamism so appealing? "Rather than a reaction against the modernization of Muslim societies," notes a French scholar, "Islamism is a product of it." As anothert author put it: "Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century."
Islamism is not a reaction against poverty. Quite the contrary: its leaders are often quite modern people, and Islamism appeals mainly to modern people. Daniel Pipes noted in 1998 that many Islamist leaders in Turkey and Jordan were engineers.

Pipes further notes that traditional Islam's goal is to show humans how to live in harmony with God's will, whereas Islamism aims to create a new order. Moreover, where traditionalists study Islam at great length, Islamist leaders know more about the sciences than Islam and use the latter as it suits their purposes. In the same way, Islamists embrace the modern world to achieve their goals whereas traditionalists are repelled by the modern world. Traditionalists look with apprehension at the West. Islamists want to challenge it, and take it over. More moderate Islamists intend to convert the non-Islamic countries they live in through non-violence to their cause.

When the term Islamism first appeared in French in the mid-18th century, it served as a synonym for the Muslim religion, then known in French as mahometisme, the religion Muhammed proclaimed and taught. This signified a new willingness, emerging from the Renaissance, to acknowledge Islam as a religious system with a founder, like Christianity. This view, however, was incorrect in viewing Muhammed as occupying the same position in Islam as Christ did in Christianity.

Still the usage gained wide acceptance across Europe. The French philosopher Voltaire was greatly interested in Islam and occasionally compared it favorably to other faiths. Moreover, he appreciated Muhammed's role in Islam. "This religion," he wrote, "is called islamisme." Voltaire decided that islamisme achieved its dominance "over more than half of our hemisphere" through "enthusiasm and persuasion." Like mahometisme before it, islamisme also received acceptance as a term in Europe.

Still, as Martin Kramer has noted concerning the use of Islamism and islamisme in the 19th century, "First while it reflected a more accurate understanding of Islam's doctrine, it did not exclude critical interpretations of Islam's character. . . . The second point is that Islamism and islamisme did not completely displace Mohammedanism and mahometisme, even in scholarship. . . .

Only at mid-century did this usage expire, primarily because Western writers realized that they also had Muslim readers, who resented it." Islamism also began fading from use as the 20th century dawned, as numerous scholars favored the shorter, purely Arabic term, Islam.

The term Islamism was coined to differentiate Islam as modern ideology from Islam as a faith. It became necessary to make this distinction after the Iranian revolution of 1979, which gave rise to the popular use of the term: "Islamic fundamentalism." The use of fundamentalism to describe Islam spread so fast that by 1990, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined fundamentalism as "the strict maintenance of traditional Protestant beliefs" and "the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam."

Ironically the more the media embraced Islamic fundamentalism as a term, the more scholars of Islam looked askance at it. Some felt that fundamentalism didn't capture the methodology and style of Iran's revolution and similar Muslim movements. Others, especially those sympathetic to the new Muslin movements, felt the term fundamentalist was unfair to progressive Muslims. Still, there were those academics who defended the use of the term fundamentalism.

France would once again lead in the invention of new terminology. Seeking a word to describe the new Islamic movements emerging in the 1970s, French scholars chose islamisme, first, because it traced its origins to Voltaire, while the American-derived term fundamentalisme, lacked French roots; second, there was some hesitation to using the only French alternative, integrisme, as it retained its initial Catholic framework and was part of continuing controversies concerning authority in the church.

In 1985 islamisme made its English debut. That year Gilles Kepel's 1984 book, subtitled Les Mouvements Islamistes dans I'Egypte Contemporaine, was published in English as Muslim Extremism in Egypt. The English translator had trouble with islamiste, and translated it as "Islamicist." According to a footnote in the translation: "The term 'Islamicist' is used throughout to render the French 'islamiste.' The loan word 'Islamist' did not gain currency until after this translation had been completed."
Islamism received official definition from Robert Pelletreau, Jr., assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in 1994.

Cautioning that "Islamic fundamentalism" had to be employed "with requisite caution," and solely in regard to the wide resurgence of Islam, Pelletreau declared there existed subdivisions in the reawakening:

In the foreign affairs community, we often use the term "Political Islam" to refer to the movements and groups within the broader fundamentalist revival with a specific political agenda. "Islamists" are Muslims with political goals. We view these terms as analytical, not normative. They do not refer to phenomena that are necessarily sinister: there are many legitimate, socially responsible Muslim groups with political goals. However, there are also Islamists who operate outside the law. Groups or individuals who operate outside the law--espouse violence to achieve their aims--are properly called extremists.

The violent acts of militant Muslims stigmatized whatever term was applied. Islamism became another dangerous 20th century "ism" that had to be crushed by the liberal West. Like their Western sympathizers, the leaders of the new Islamic movements spurned the use of "fundamentalism." Initially, Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual mentor of Hizbullah, chose the term "Muslim," then opted for "Islamist movement."

Just the same, Muslims' future actions will undoubtedly give rise to new descriptions of themselves. "The pressures," writes Martin Kramer, "will come from two directions": first, "the theory mills of France," where Islamism twice emerged, in the 18th, then the 20th centuries. A new term, postislamisme, also occasionally known as neofondamentalisme, is gaining popularity now. The speculative intent of followers of postislamisme is not the acquisition of power but converting society to Islam. Secondly, other terms--"jihadism," militant Islam and militant Muslims--have emerged since 9/11.

"Debate over terminology has always surrounded the West's relations with Islam," Kramer notes, "and its outcome has been as much a barometer of the West's needs as a description of the actual state of Islam. . . .

At various times, Westerners have needed Muslims to be infidels or believers, threatening or peaceable, foreign or familiar. It is impossible to predict which terms will prevail in the West's own struggle to come to terms with change in contemporary Islam. It will depend on what Muslims do--and on what the West desires."

Mr. Matthews is a free-lance writer.

Copyright © 2003 History News Network

Kudos To The Baylor Faculty Senate!

What courage! I wish that I could have voted. Sloan Must Go! I'm not even a Baptist (Thank God, say the Baptists!) and I salute the integrity and courage of the Baylor Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate at Amarillo College is made up of anti-intellectuals or bootlickers. No votes of confidence out of that craven crowd. If this be (fair & balanced) uncollegiality, make the most of it.

[x CHE]

Baylor Faculty Senate Votes No Confidence in University's President

By KATHERINE S. MANGAN

Baylor University's Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday that it lacked confidence in the institution's embattled president, Robert B. Sloan Jr.

The senate recommended that the university's Board of Regents take steps to remove the president when it meets on Thursday and Friday.

The motion, which the senators approved by a vote of 26 to 6, cited "an avalanche of faculty grievances."

"The reality remains that Dr. Sloan's presidency has produced a chilling work environment, a climate characterized by distrust, anxiety, intimidation, favoritism, as well as profound concerns about the sanctity of academic freedom and professional standards," the motion stated. Above all, it
said, "this climate is marked by fear."

The senate's vote came just days after 5 of Baylor's 36 regents signed a letter demanding that Mr. Sloan step down.

"Baylor has been given a black eye that will require a long time to heal," the regents' letter stated. "We feel a major step in the process of healing would be a change of leadership at the top." The letter was signed by John G. Wilkerson,
Jaclanel M. McFarland, Toby Druin, Mary Chavanne-Martin, and Carl Bell.

Mr. Sloan, a Baptist pastor who has headed Baylor for eight years, said that he has no intention of resigning. "You don't solve problems by running away," he said after Tuesday's vote. He added that he didn't think the senate vote represented the views of most professors. Even while he insisted that his supporters outnumber his critics, the chorus of calls for his ouster has continued to grow.

Last week, three board chairmen from the 1990s -- Glenn Biggs, Randall H. Fields, and Gale Galloway -- also demanded that the president resign or be fired, saying that they no longer believed he could "lead, inspire, and unite Baylor's stakeholders."

Tuesday's faculty vote followed a long, hot summer that brought unwelcome scrutiny to the 14,000-student institution, the world's largest Baptist university.

The trouble began in June, when the basketball player Patrick J. Dennehy disappeared, and it intensified over the next several weeks as Mr. Dennehy's body was recovered and a teammate, Carlton E. Dotson, was charged with his murder (The Chronicle, August 1).

Swarms of reporters descended on the campus as sordid details of illegal drug use, cover-ups, and illicit payments within Baylor's athletics department emerged -- a scandal that resulted in the resignations of Baylor's head basketball coach and athletics director.

Faculty senators stressed, however, that their vote "is about academics, not basketball."

Many faculty members are also upset about the president's 10-year plan for turning Baylor into a nationally recognized research university, while strengthening its Christian mission.

They worry that research will be valued more than teaching and that the hefty tuition increases approved over the past few years to help pay for the changes will price many students out of a Baylor education.

Earlier in the day, as Mr. Sloan awaited the outcome of the Faculty Senate meeting, he said he was committed to working toward a more collegial relationship among faculty members and administrators.

"Sometimes you have to go through hard and dark and difficult experiences to be reminded of the importance of community," he said. "I intend to serve here with a listening ear and a commitment to the future for a very long time."

Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

One, Two, Three, Four — W, We Don't Want Your F,***in' War

William Safire — the Trickster's speechwriter — has begun demonizing those who oppose the Iraq policy: merchants of dismay. It won't be long before Safire resurrects Love it or Leave it. In the meantime, fine young people are dying in Iraq. Let W walk the streets of Bahdad in his flight suit. Let W put his life where his mouth is: Bring 'em on! Even LBJ went to 'Nam. I wish Rummy had walked the streets of Baghdad. All hat, no cattle. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

[x HNN]

Column: The U.S. Must Leave Iraq Now

By P.M. Carpenter

With hat in hand, the Bush administration now wants -- or, rather, needs -- a United Nations peacekeeping force in Iraq. As all the world knows by now, only a wretched combination of lies and gross miscalculations put beleaguered American troops there to begin with, and of course that folly was compounded by the administration's postwar insistence on exclusive occupational rights. To the Bushies, Iraq was a sandbox in more than one sense, and it was all theirs to control -- at least, that is, till everything under the blistering Iraqi sun started unraveling.

Virtually all major editorial pages have applauded the administration's new-found spirit of global cooperation and recognition of reality. The ruling neocons finally get it, say these observers. The United States cannot go it alone, and, however belated, their appeal for international teamwork is the right step in a much better direction.

Hogwash.

The famously corrupt rationalizations for military intervention made a productive U.S. presence in postwar Iraq not just untenable, but impossible. And that, precisely, is what the United Nations Security Council should tell the hapless Bushies as they commence begging. For everyone's security -- and that includes ours -- U.S. troops should be sent packing, replaced by a true coalition of peacekeeping forces. Each added day of American occupation assures only snowballing violence and perpetual disruption.

George W. Bush and his principal handlers have reveled in needless hardball tactics since day one, thumbing their go-it-alone noses at every difference of sensible world opinion. Their Ramboism has brought even greater turmoil to the Middle East; heightened Islamic hatred and distrust of the United States; turned a non-terrorist state into a leading manufacturer of terrorism; and converted an economically abysmal nation into an absolute basket case.

With or without U.N. assistance there is no way the United States can now turn things around for the better. Our presence is beyond redemption. Continuing it at any force level will just make things worse. The U.S. must go.

Naturally, the Security Council won't reciprocate the administration's maximum hardball tactics. It won't say what needs to be said and it won't unveil the obvious. It won't, in short, tell the now-supplicant Rambos to stuff it -- for their own good, if nothing else -- and let adults take over. Instead, the Security Council will tinker with and bicker over the administration's submitted resolution, assume as fact a continuing presence of American troops, and thereby prolong the misery.

Yet, just as naturally, the Rambos wouldn't listen anyway. After all, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, his boss's radical reversal of postwar philosophy isn't even a mild departure from what previously stood. How does one get through to distorted, deceptive minds like that?

The consequences of this self-imposed mess are staggering. The worst, of course, is that of lost lives. As hard-liners in their comfortable domestic settings persist in a doomed policy abroad, America's youth will continue dying daily -- and in vain. There is no greater cost, no greater waste.

And the financial fallout? It plunges off the radioactive scale. Forty-five billion dollars for the official war and a projected $300 billion for a 5-year occupation. A few billion for immediate humanitarian aid, a few billion more for Iraqi salaries, $3 billion for refugee resettlement and about $7 billion to restore the public utilities we blew up -- all of which is peanuts compared to a lowballed 10-year miscellaneous tab of another $200 billion (roads, communications, hospitals and so on). Keep in mind that Treasury doesn't have any of this money, so it will borrow and dun us for the interest as well.

To editorially applaud the Bush administration for reaching out to others at last is as wrong-headed as the war was itself. Such approbation only encourages more of the same: the drip-drip torture of an ill-fated occupation. The U.S. must go. That's the message.

Mr. Carpenter holds a Ph.D. in American History and is a syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2003 P. M. Carpenter

In God We Trust — All Others Pay Cash

Groan, I sat through a post-breakfast Q&A with my geezer brethren at Westminster Presbyterian Church. The conversation moved from the persecution of early Christians in pagan Rome to the persecution of Christians today. One geezer bemoaned the lack of response to the Gideons at a local high school. These geezers hand out free New Testaments. Evidently, a lot of the students didn't want to be bothered by geezers. Ergo: We're going to Hell in a handbasket. This led to groans about the loss of prayer in the schools. The attack on the under God phrase added to the Declaration of Independence was additional proof that the Apocalypse was upon us. One geezer said, When they strip "In God We Trust" off the national currency, I'm gonna write it back in. And on and on. Roy Moore — the Ten Commandments Judge — used religious symbolism to further his elective judicial career. The Pledge of Allegiance was underwritten by flag manufacturers as a way to sell more flags. Under God and In God We Trust were Cold War declarations to remind the public that we opposed Godless Communism. To hear these geezers talk, we all prayed at the beginning of the school day. Wrong! That was the Bible Belt, not the entire country. To hear these geezers talk, we always used the Cold War additions to the Pledge and our currency. Wrong! All of it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It was all I could do to sit there. Then, one of the geezers attacked the ACLU (synonymous with Communist). I just joined the ACLU. I should have leaped up and showed one and all my membership card. The ACLU has a window sticker that reads: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU! That is where things stand in 2003. Al Quaeda hates the Protestant Right for its pro-Israel position. Al Quaeda hates the secular culture of the United States as depraved and decadent. The Protestant Right is foolish to attack those who are targets of Al Quaeda. There aren't enough friends to go around. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

[x History News Service]

The Bible as a Political Tool

By Nathan Abrams

The 5,280-pound monument of the Ten Commandments installed by the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore may have been removed from the rotunda of the Montgomery, Ala., judicial building by federal court order, but the issue he raised of the proper place of religion in American public life will not go away.

Unless an un-breachable wall between religion and public life is properly and fully erected, the problems raised by Moore's original act will keep recurring.

Why? Because the United States is an extraordinarily religious country with a long tradition of using the Bible for non-religious, particularly political, ends. Indeed, English may be America's unofficial first language but, to all intents and purposes, Hebrew (in translation of course) comes a close second.

Moore's claim that the Ten Commandments form the basis of American law will not stand up to legal scrutiny, but his actions fit squarely within American tradition. American public life has long been permeated with the use of biblical language and symbols.

Over the centuries, the Bible has been overused in the United States to such an extent that it has become merely a device of political spin -- a set of empty and banal cliches, divorced from context and meaning, ready to be deployed at will.

Moore is simply the latest in a long line of descendants of the first Puritan settlers in America who felt a keen affinity with the Children of Israel. Puritans called their new land "Canaan" and built their institutions on their covenant with God. If we keep this covenant, said John Winthrop, the founding governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, "we shall find that the God of Israel is among us."

The Puritans firmly set their stamp upon American culture. In denouncing the Tea Act of 1773, Pennsylvania's Benjamin Rush turned to the Bible. "What shining examples of Patriotism," he wrote, "do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, Maccabeus and all the illustrious princes, captains and prophets among the Jews."

Like Moore, Thomas Jefferson and the other revolutionary leaders called themselves "Israelites" who were throwing off the yoke of the "Pharaoh" in their "Promised Land" during the American Revolution. On the very day that American independence was declared, a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson selected an official seal for the new Republic. Their design represented the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea as Moses was leading the Israelites to freedom.

Franklin, who had studied Hebrew, suggested that the inscription on the seal be in Hebrew. It read in that language "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." In addition, the Liberty Bell was inscribed in English with the words of Moses: "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof." It's no coincidence that "The Ten Commandments," one is watched by millions of Americans every Easter.

What's more, the decision to locate the capital of the United States outside the territory of the individual states was influenced by the precedent of Jerusalem, which was not situated within the land of the individual twelve Jewish tribes. As a testament to this influence, a marble relief of Moses is in the House of Representatives.

When Judge Moore and his Alabama supporters use the Bible to justify his actions, they are no different from American leaders of the past. Americans have long incorporated religious imagery into public life. The Abolitionist crusade against slavery, which inspired the Union's forces during the Civil War, drew upon the Hebrew Bible, and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" derived from biblical prophets.

During the early Cold War, the Pledge of Allegiance was enlarged to incorporate the words "under God." In 1957, the words "In God We Trust" were added to dollar bills. Four decades later, at the verge of the Gulf War in 1991, using a phrase from Ecclesiastes, George H. W. Bush announced there's "a time for peace, a time for war". His son, President George W. Bush, probably knows his Bible better than any other book.

The excessive use of the seemingly simple and emotional language that the Bible can supply has cheapened it into a set of political slogans to be used whenever politicians see fit. Over the course of two centuries, American leaders have steadily blurred (if it indeed ever really existed) the boundaries between religious discourse and public life. Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments is simply the latest, physical embodiment of this old tendency. The time has come to put a stop to it.

Displaying the Ten Commandments or using Biblical precedents and language sends out a message of discord in a multicultural society. It privileges a Judeo-Christian ethic to the exclusion of other religions. If the United States is to be an all-inclusive society, then every recognized religion must have a right equal to Christianity to display its symbols in a public space. There are really two unpalatable alternatives: filling public space with all sorts of religious symbols, or excluding them and keeping the existing ones intact (ones, such as the Sabbath, which, in today's society, many people may no longer recognize as being religiously derived to begin with).

The court order to remove Alabama's Ten Commandments monument was the correct one. If we can now build on this foundation to erect an impermeable wall between the use of religion in public life, similar crises may be forestalled. Religion is too personal to treat as a political football, and our public space too important for it to become the preserve of one group.

^{Nathan Abrams teaches U.S. History at the University of Southampton (Great Britain) and is a writer for the History News Service.}

Copyright © 2003 History News Service

Computer Freeze Up: What To Do

[x AARP]
Surviving Computer Freezes
by Sandy Berger

Unfortunately, a computer is not yet as consistently reliable as a refrigerator or a toaster. A computer can and will misbehave on occasion. I've heard all the laments. My computer just crashed. My computer is frozen. My computer is hung up. No matter what you call it, there is never a good time for a computer to act improperly. Unfortunately, this is a normal part of computing in today's world. You may or may not know what has caused the problem. But in the end, it is the way that you handle the problem that will make all the difference.

Look for the obvious

First be patient. If your computer fails to respond to your keystrokes, it may have a problem. However, the computer could also be busy performing some function which you may not be aware. For instance, your computer may seem to stop when automatically saving a file or when printing something in the background. So give it a minute or two. If it still doesn't respond, look for an obvious problem first. It may sound simplistic, but sometimes the problem is easily found. If your screen is blank, check the power cable. Check to make sure that the power to the house has not gone off. Also, many newer computers have a suspend feature that blanks out the screen in order to save electricity. Press a few keys to see if the computer will come back to life on its own.

If your screen is still on, but your mouse clicks and keystrokes don't elicit any response, try a couple of simple checks first. Make sure that everything is still connected. Perhaps your dog just ran out from under your desk and he or she loosened the keyboard or mouse cable. In many programs, the Escape key, which is marked Esc, will take you back one step. So always try hitting the Escape key a few times before you concede that the computer is truly locked up. If you still get no response and the connections check out okay, it's time to go on to the next step.

The magic key combination

The next step is the magic key combination. Find the keys marked Ctrl, Alt and Del. Press these three keys all at once. This key combination is a remnant of the DOS days of computing. In DOS, pressing these three keys caused the computer to restart or "warm" boot. The Windows operating system uses these three keys in a similar, but slightly different way. If you are using Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows Me, when you hit the magic key combination you will be presented with a Close Programs box that shows a list of the programs that are currently running. If Windows has found the offending program, it will list the words "not responding" next to the programs name. You can then highlight the name of the errant program, press End Task and return to your computing. (You will lose any data in that program that you have not yet saved.) You also have the option of pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del again to restart your computer. This should be used only after you have tried the other options unsuccessfully.

Windows XP handles the Ctrl+Alt_Del key combination slightly differently. Pressing these keys in Windows XP will bring up a "Windows Task Manager" screen. Click on the Applications tab to see the list of currently running programs as described in the last paragraph. Most average users will not have to be concerned with the information on the other tabs on this screen. Luckily, Windows XP doesn't freeze as much as previous versions of Windows.

Occasionally, even the Close Program Box and/or Windows Task Manager Box freezes or is inoperative. If this happens, your last resort is to restart the computer. If your computer has a restart button, you can press it to restart the computer. If you don't have a reset button, turn off the computer. Wait several minutes then turn it on again. It is important to wait a few minutes to let the hard drive and other components come to a complete stop before restarting the computer. Unfortunately, turning the computer off in this manner will result in your losing the changes that you made to any documents that you were working on since you last saved them.

Losing data

It seems that most computer users learn this lesson the hard way. You must save your work often just in case something goes wrong. You will find that some programs have an AutoSave feature. For instance, if you were working in Word when you were forced to restart your computer, when you turn your computer back on you may see that Word has restarted your document with the label "Recovered". If this happens, you should express your gratitude and immediately name and save the rescued document. While the AutoSave feature can come in handy, don't rely on it. It is always best to save each document yourself as often as you can.

Repairing your hard disk

If you use Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart your computer or you turn the computer off without exiting Windows properly, certain files on your hard disk can be left open or can be damaged. Most versions of Windows when restarted after an improper shut down, will automatically run through a process called Scandisk, which will repair any damaged files. If your computer does not do this automatically, you can initiate this process yourself. See the online help and type in the word Scandisk (one word) for instructions.

If your computer freezes more than a few times a day, you may have a wayward program or a hardware complication that needs troubleshooting. If, however, your computer freezes only on occasion, don't worry about it. It really does happen to everyone.

Copyright © 2003 AARP