WikiLeaks Kicked Off Amazon Server
WikiLeaks has gone back to Sweden, AP reports.
Amazon.com Inc. forced WikiLeaks to stop using the U.S. company’s computers to distribute embarrassing State Department communications and other documents, WikiLeaks said Wednesday.
The ouster came after congressional staff had questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks, said Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.
WikiLeaks confirmed it hours after The Associated Press reported that Amazon’s servers had stopped hosting WikiLeaks’ site. The site was unavailable for several hours before it moved back to its previous Swedish host, Bahnhof.
It left Bahnhof because it was unable to sustain uptime during the massive traffic surge that followed the most recent document dump. But one can hardly blame Amazon for not wanting to put up with the fallout.
How Jesus Kicked Ass On The Cross, Ctd
A reader writes:
Your recent posts have made me think about a billboard here in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina that depicts a Rambo-like Christ ripping himself from the cross. I just had to search the Internet for an image to send to you … and here it is. Enjoy!
Close-up of roided Jesus after the jump:
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
How Jesus Kicked Ass On The Cross, Ctd
A reader writes:
The view of Christ catching the Devil with a baited hook described by your reader is often referred to as the Ransom view of the Atonement. More recently, it's been called the Christus Victor view. It's the one I personally prefer. And it's the one depicted in C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe." If you're interested, Greg Boyd has a great essay on Christus Victor.
Boyd also delivers a riveting history lesson above.
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
How Jesus Kicked Ass On The Cross, Ctd
A reader writes:
I agree with everything you say about Bryan Fischer, but there is one thing you have left out: His premise is false. He alludes to a secondary source, and then builds his crass, immoral argument on his interpretation of an incidental comment there. He didn't bother to look at the record to see if, in fact, "every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one." Checking the facts would have ruined his rant; several Medals of Honor were awarded for actions that included strong offensive elements.
For example, here is the official citation for the first Medal of Honor awarded for action in Iraq, from the official U.S. Army website:
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the
construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith's extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division 'Rock of the Marne,' and the United States Army.
And here is the official citation for the first Afghanistan recipient, Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy, from the official Navy site (I changed it from all capital letters):
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life and above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare task unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader,
Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy's team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 100 and 160 enemy fighters besieged his four member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.
It is rewarding to read a sampling of Medal of Honor citations from this and other eras, something Wikipedia makes easy. Our nation has always awarded this medal to honor both self-sacrifice and offensive zeal. Sergeant Smith and Lieutenant Murphy each fought aggressively against the enemy and strove also to save the lives of their comrades. Apparently, to Mr. Fischer, their lifesaving negates the killing, "feminizing" the medal.
Another:
I am an active duty Army officer, so I usually refrain from commenting on blogs or to bloggers, but I have been reading your blog for several years and know you protect your reader’s anonymity. This Bryan Fischer has crossed a line and I cannot be quiet anymore. Only those who are not combat survivors could trivialize SSG Salvatore Giunta’s heroics.
Part of his citation reads “As he crested the top of a hill…” That sounds like a small thing, but it was huge. That young man ran, he did not creep, he ran into the unknown. He had no idea what was beyond that hilltop, all he knew is that at least two Afghanis had another Soldier and he was going forward. This is after he had already been hit in his body armor and his pistol (the “secondary weapon’ in the citation). Depending on the range of weapon, that’s like being hit by a a baseball bat on an unprotected body. He was shot while he was giving first aid to a wounded Soldier. That means there was a lot of blood. Lots of dust, gravel, and confusion. And enough bullets he was hit twice. And he went forward.
I cannot imagine the hate that must lie in Mr. Fischer’s brain to deride SSG Giunta’s actions or any other of our recent recipients. It’s bad enough when we in the military are used in the politics of division, but I have learned to not take it personally since we are used in the aggregate. But to attack individuals who displayed unbelievable valor is despicable.
Also, this administration should be commended for taking a risk the Bush administration never had the stomach to do - awarding the Medal to a survivor who could speak out in opposition to policy. Finally, “killing people and breaking things” has been around forever. A Colonel used it when I was training as an armor officer in 1986 and the group of 30 or so Second Lieutenants responded with enthusiasm. He dressed us down with something like, "Those are not things we should ever be excited about." I did not really understand until five years later.
Another:
The discussion puts me in mind of this batshit crazy comic where Jesus pulls himself off the cross to give the Roman pantheon a superheroic beatdown. No, seriously!
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
How Jesus Kicked Ass On The Cross, Ctd
A reader writes:
As a reformed Dittohead (hey, it was the '90s, I was young), the line "kill people and break things" used by Bryan Fisher struck a familiar chord. It was one of Limbaugh's stock phrases, used to explain that the proper role of the armed forces was just that - not any mamby-pampby humanitarian nonsense. Another example of epistemic closure, no?
Another writes:
As a medieval art historian, I was struck by Fischer's account of the theological meaning of Christ's death.
One of the transitions we study in medieval art is that between the living triumphant Christ on the cross found in Early Christian Art (like this one - an ivory from c. 400 now in the British Museum) and the dead suffering Christ, which enters European art in 10th century works (such as this life-size Gero Cross in Cologne). The earlier type is thought to relate to one explanation for why Christ had to die, which stresses his death as a trick that traps the Devil and leads to his defeat. Here, Christ is like the bait on a a fish-hook that catches the Devil (as in this image, from the Garden of Delights by Herrad of Hohenbourg).
In the latter type of the suffering, Christ emphasizes his humanity - one that God had to share with sinners in order for his sacrifice to be efficacious. Writing around 1100, Saint Anselm was instrumental in the shift. In Cur Deus Homo, he writes that the earlier explanation no longer had any force for him: "MOREOVER, I do not see the force of that argument… that God, in order to save men, was bound… to try a contest with the devil in justice, — so that, when the devil should put to death that being in whom there was nothing worthy of death… he should justly lose his power over sinners. " The classic discussion of this is in Chapter 5 of R. W. Southern's Making of the Middle Ages, "From Epic to Romance."
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
How Jesus Kicked Ass On The Cross
Bryan Fischer's rant about the need to "award the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely" is really worth reading if you want to understand the violence and aggression embedded in Christianism. This is what happens when you work for the American Family Association for too long:
We have feminized the Medal of Honor. According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.
It gets better. He defends "honoring those who kill bad guys" by citing Jesus:
Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless - yes, meaningless - if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.
The significance of the cross is not just that Jesus laid down his life for us, but that he defeated the enemy of our souls in the process. It was on the cross that he crushed the head of the serpent. It was on the cross that “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15).
The cross represented a cosmic showdown between the forces of light and the forces of darkness, and our commanding general claimed the ultimate prize by defeating our unseen enemy and liberating an entire planet from his bondage.
We rightly honor those who give up their lives to save their comrades. It’s about time we started also honoring those who kill bad guys.
(Hat tip: Mark Thompson)
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Aides to Rep. Waters kicked out of Pelosi event
Pelosi attempts to distance herself from growing scandal.
American Thinker Blog
Crickets Chirp at Palm Beach Post Over Student Conservative Club Kicked Out of Local College Event
EEK!
There is a conservative student group at our sacred campus club rush. Remove them immediately!
Such was the attitude of Palm Beach State College administrator Olivia Ford-Morris at the sight of a Young Americans for Freedom table. You can see and hear the extreme urgency in the attitude and voice of Ms Ford-Morris accompanied by campus security guards in this video as she demands the students at the YAF table "Pull it up!" Although Ford-Morris claimed she didn’t remember receiving either an e-mail or a phone call from YAF about getting a table for club rush, evidence is now contradicting that claim (below the fold).
So this is obviously a great story of campus censorship that the Palm Beach Post would love to cover since it happened locally? Wrong. The only comment from the Palm Beach Post on this incident is the sound of crickets chirping. To get information on what happened at Palm Beach State College you would need to check sites on the blogosphere such as Orlando Political Press:
(Lake Worth, FL) On Tuesday September 7, 2010 at around 11:00am one Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student and two Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the College. The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on campus via telephone and email communication.
On the day of club rush, officials approached the group and after seeing information about the organization and its ideals criticizing Barack Obama’s economic policy. Ms. Ford-Morris was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the Heritage Foundation, criticizing President Obama’s administration. College officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus. Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush.
“I was shocked and offended by her dishonesty. She outright denied giving me permission to table at Club Rush simply because she disagreed with my beliefs! The fact is, she was using her administrative power to silence the conservative opposition.” said Christina Beattie.
And as the Palm Beach Post continues sleeping, more evidence has been revealed that college administrator Morris-Ford was somewhat less than honest (to put it politely) in her claim about receiving no communications from the YAF concerning attendance at campus rush. Here is the Heritage Foundation presenting the evidence contradicting Morris-Ford in this story which the snoozing Palm Beach Post neglects to cover in its own backyard:
A conservative student in Florida says he has the evidence that implicates a public college administrator who last week ordered members of Young Americans for Freedom to leave a campus event after they displayed Heritage Foundation research papers.
Palm Beach State College activities director Olivia Morris-Ford, a Facebook fan of President Barack Obama and filmmaker Michael Moore, booted the conservative students from a rush event. Morris-Ford claimed they didn’t have permission to be on campus.
Her assertion stands in conflict with evidence YAF state chairman Daniel Diaz shared with Heritage. Diaz presented both a June 21 e-mail from student Christina Beattie to Morris-Ford requesting permission to be at the event and Beattie’s phone log from June 23, which shows a call from Morris-Ford. Beattie said Morris-Ford approved the request on that call.
Meanwhile, as this story unfolds, the crickets continue to serenade the Palm Beach Post.
Chirp! Chirp! Chirp
NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Colonel: I Got Kicked Out of Afghanistan for Speaking the Truth
U.K.: 19-year-old Muslim woman “punched, kicked and assualted with a broomstick” by parents over Facebook relationship
Qur’an 4:34 states:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
The relevant aspects here are in bold above: good women are obedient. Wives, daughters, sisters, and so forth. If a Muslim man even fears disobedience (opening the door for divinely enabled paranoia), Allah provides beatings as an option.
And that’s the bottom line. Allah says you can hit disobedient or potentially disobedient women. Stories like the ones below are the consequence of Allah’s compassion and mercy in the Qur’an upon the basest instincts of humankind: Lash out in violence when you don’t get the respect and submission you feel entitled to.
“Muslim parents charged with beating Bordesley Green daughter over Facebook fling,” by Jeanette Oldham for the Sunday Mercury, August 15:
Parents of a Muslim girl have been charged with beating and imprisoning their daughter after they discovered she had been in an alleged secret relationship with a man she met on Facebook.
Husband and wife Abdul Aziz and Parveen Akhtar, of Bordesley Green, Birmingham, are in police custody after they were arrested by West Midlands Police.
Mr Aziz, 47, has been charged with false imprisonment, two counts of making threats to kill, and assault. Mrs Akhtar, 44, is charged with false imprisonment and two assault charges.
The couple are due to appear at Birmingham Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing on August 23.
It is understood the case relates to claims that the parents held their 19-year-old daughter prisoner at the family home on Fourth Avenue, Bordesley Green, for 11 days between April 24 and May 5.
The alleged victim is understood to have claimed that she was not allowed to leave the property during that time, and was kept under constant supervision, while the doors and windows of the house were kept locked.
The assault charges relate to claims that the parents allegedly assaulted their daughter. It is understood the victim claims she was punched, kicked and assualted with a broomstick.
It is understood the alleged events occurred after the parents, said to be traditional Muslims, learned of their daughter’s relationship with a man she had apparently met through Facebook, the online social networking site.
Sources close to the case claim the parents had wanted an arranged marriage for their daughter.
The young woman is understood to have at one stage left her family home to stay with her boyfriend in London, although she later returned to live with her parents….
Bad idea.
