Free Republic

I think the judge should have based his decision on the fact that the ex-wife was trying to take the kid to live that far away from the father, without invoking the supposed "dangers" of living in Israel.

The father (and the court) may have valid reasons to suspect his wife's motives and plans. From the news story, it seems that the last time the ex-wife took the kid out of the country she was only supposed to go for a month, but then kept the child away from the father for 14 months. Plenty of American parents have completely lost contact with their kids when the other parent took them off to some foreign country and the American courts lost jurisdiction. Maybe Mr. Korn has good reason to fear that will happen with his daughter.

A two year old needs regular contact with BOTH parents. I don't know why the ex-wife in this case feels she has to move to Israel, but I think that for the child's welfare she should probably defer her move, at least until the child is a lot older.

Boy, I just don't understand why some of those union types in the pictures in #4 don't look absolutely thrilled to be so near our great President! Don't they realize what an HONOR it is that this great man is actually visiting with every day WORKERS, even in the middle of all his concerns about Terror and the international situation... showing that he is TRULY a "Man of the People"!!!! They look so glum. ... especially the guys in the second and fifth pictures in this series. The black guy in the yellow hard hat looks especially un-enthusiastic. The other tall younger black guy in the blue jacket and the big black guy in the white hard hat don't look very happy either. What's with these guys!!!! Wouldn't you or I just love to be that close to Dubya!!!!

Somebody ought to clue all these union guys into what a wonderful President we have, so generous and compassionate and always wanting to help working people!

"Those Roman Catholics are wrong. I don't think it is true, however. My mother and father are both very devout RC's and I know that they don't believe that devout Muslims are saved. Muslims do not believe in salvation through Jesus Christ (who by His death paid the penalty for our sins that we could never pay) so to believe that they are saved by being devout Muslims is wrong doctrine."

I guess this is an area where "devout RC's" aren't always in agreement! I imagine most of us would accept Mother Teresa as a devout Roman Catholic. Here's what she says about the conversion experience:

"What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one's conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept." [Desmond Doig, "Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work."]

"Those Roman Catholics are wrong. I don't think it is true, however. My mother and father are both very devout RC's and I know that they don't believe that devout Muslims are saved. Muslims do not believe in salvation through Jesus Christ (who by His death paid the penalty for our sins that we could never pay) so to believe that they are saved by being devout Muslims is wrong doctrine."

I guess this is an area where "devout RC's" aren't always in agreement! I imagine most of us would accept Mother Teresa as a devout Roman Catholic. Here's what she says about the conversion experience:

"What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one's conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept." [Desmond Doig, "Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work."]

Thanks for posting the article.

Pope John Paul II, writes, at p. 198 of his book, "Crossing the Threshold":

"In fact, those who through no fault of their own are not aware of the Gospel of Christ and the Church, but who nonetheless search sincerely for God, and with the help of grace attempt to carry out His will, known through the dictates of their conscience – they too can attain eternal salvation.

"Nor will Divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who have not yet arrived at a clear knowledge and recognition of God, and who attempt, not without divine grace, to conduct a good life."

Addendum to my previous post.

I read another news story on the incident since posting.

There apparently is a procedure whenever armed federal law enforcement personnel are due to fly. The procedure provides for advance notification -- as I suggested should have been done to avoid this sort of thing. As far as I can tell this was done. Also pre-boarding credential and identification checks. And the LEO's seat location is noted on the flight manifest for the crew's information. The AA spokesman said that "inconsistencies" in the agent's paperwork prompted the removal, based on the pilot's decision that a more thorough check was needed to confirm his identity.

That sounds plausible -- and I don't think anyone claims that it wasn't proper to make the additional checks -- but that, in an hour and a half of additional checking, they couldn't verify who he was, is a little strange. I still think that even if there were "inconsistencies" that needed to be checked out, the likelihood is that he would have been allowed back on if he hadn't belonged to a suspect group. Maybe that's to be expected in today's climate.

Well, all I know is if I knew there was a Secret Service guy on board with a weapon, trained to react in emergency situations, I'd be thrilled to have him on board the same flight with me and wouldn't care about his ethnic origin. As good, or better, than a Federal Marshal any day.

One way the Secret Service could have avoided this might have been to call ahead and contact airport and airline security & tell them the man was coming on this flight. Time constraints may have prevented doing this -- the fact the agent was on a commercial flight at all was apparently due to a last minute schedule change by the President. There may not have been time for prior notification. Or maybe it is that it simply did not occur to the Secret Service because Secret Service agents fly quite regularly and there had not been any previous problem. Probably would not have been a problem this time either, except this particular agent is Arab-American. This may not have occurred to the Secret Service as a problem -- they are probably used to dealing with him as just another fellow-agent.

"Idea! Put the money over the top of the bucket. Then ask them to say Merry Christmas. If they refuse and say Happy Holidays Don't deposit money into the can. Fight Fire with Fire."

Good grief! This is even worse than the churlish bell ringer who wouldn't just let "Merry Christmas" go without a comment.

I thought the general idea was to raise money for the poor and needy, not conduct a curb-side inquisition into the bell ringer's (or the organization's) theological convictions.

Jesus told us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc., etc. I don't remember him saying anything about them having to have political (or religious) beliefs that agree with ours. (Or anything about requiring a particular greeting before we give.)

I'll buy into the theory that the bell ringer was possibly a non Christian or a person of no faith who was just participating in the charity event. The Sallies don't do a faith check on the bell ringers. I know a Jewish guy who volunteers as a bell ringer every year. If the bell ringer wasn't Christian, it was perfectly appropriate for him to say "Happy Holidays." But when the contributor replied, "Merry Christmas," it was churlish and rude of the bell ringer not to just accept the greeting without the comment.

Sorry ... once again .... hit button twice & posted on same subject twice. Is there a delete function on Free Republic? Thanks for your indulgence and understanding.

"Cassius Clay changed his name and religion TO EVADE THE DRAFT!"

How does changing your name help you to avoid the draft?

And if his sole objective was to avoid military service, Cassius could have picked an easier out than becoming a Muslim. Islam isn't one of the religions that normally gets you out of military service. If that was his aim, looks like he would have become a Quaker, or a Mennonite, or some other group that is historically pacifist . Cassius Clay did eventually succeed in getting his conscientious objector status, but it took a long time and a protracted court fight, including a trial and conviction, before the Supreme Court finally allowed his claim. During this time he was stripped of his heavyweight boxing title and his boxing license was suspended.

I'm not particularly a fan of Cassius Clay, but I think he must have doing this from some sincere belief, however misguided and empty headed.

If he had gone into the army, after all, as heavyweight champion he probably wouldn't have had to do more than appear at public events and do boxing exhibitions anyway.

"Cassius Clay changed his name and religion TO EVADE THE DRAFT!"

How does changing your name help you to avoid the draft?

And if his sole objective was to avoid military service, Cassius could have picked an easier out than becoming a Muslim. Islam isn't one of the religions that normally gets you out of military service. If that was his aim, looks like he would have become a Quaker, or a Mennonite, or some other group that is historically pacifist . Cassius Clay did eventually succeed in getting his conscientious objector status, but it took a long time and a protracted court fight, including a trial and conviction, before the Supreme Court finally allowed his claim. During this time he was stripped of his heavyweight boxing title and his boxing license was suspended. I'm not particularly a fan of Cassius Clay but I think he had to be doing this from some sincere belief, however misguided. If he had gone into the army, after all, as heavyweight champion he probably wouldn't have had to do more than do boxing exhibitions anyway.

Here's a possible difference between Walker and those other people ... Didn't all those people whom you mentioned change their names LEGALLY? (I'm assuming they did .... maybe I am wrong. Correct me if so.) Under the law in most states you can go to court and change your name to just about anything. But as far as I know, this Walker character never did change his name legally in court -- in the U.S. at least. So legally he is still John Walker. Although I've seen some references to him as John Walker Lindh, Lindh being, I think, his mother's name.)

Sorry I posted about "Ernie" the cat twice -- hit button too quickly. (Won't try to blame it on my cat!!!!)

The second post includes the cite to the article about Ernie.

Will try to be more careful!

Is there a delete function?

"Does anyone remember "Socks" the cat? I understand after the Clintons acquired their dog, they tossed poor old Socks out - gave him to someone. Only really shabby people do this. Poor Socks and poor America for putting up with them. President Bush took in a stray cat and still has him. God Bless him - I don't think Laura and he will ever abandon him"

Well, actually -- just to set the record straight (and to be completely FAIR -- even to the Clintons, as I'm sure -- well sorta sure -- all good conservatives at least want to try to be) ....

The Bushes also gave a cat away, just before moving to the White House. This cat was the stray -- they found him in a tree on the grounds of the governor's mansion in Austin, adopted him, and named him Ernie, after Ernest Hemingway. (Because Ernie had six toes, and Hemingway also had a six toed cat.) Mr. Bush often talked about Ernie during the campaign.

After the election, Mrs. Bush said they did not take Ernie to the White House because they were afraid he might claw the antique furniture. They gave Ernie to one of the President's friends, Brad Freeman, who lives in Beverly Hills. Ernie then disappeared from the friends' house. It was feared Ernie was a goner. Ernie (or a cat thought to be Ernie) was found after about two weeks by a security man at Century City (some distance from Beverly Hills) and returned to Freeman's house. Ernie's saga is related at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_cat010410.html

I am sure that the home selected by the Bushes for Ernie was a good one, and that they had good reason for giving up the cat. As I understand it, the Clintons gave Socks (who was, I believe, originally Chelsea's cat) to Clinton's secretary, Betty (can't remember last name) who was especially fond of the cat. The cat had apparently spent a lot of its time at the White House in her office, and Socks didn't like the Clinton dog very much, so it doesn't seem to me to be a really heinous thing to do, or much different from the Bushes giving their cat to their friend. As long as both cats are in good homes .... that's all this cat-lover cares about.

"Does anyone remember "Socks" the cat? I understand after the Clintons acquired their dog, they tossed poor old Socks out - gave him to someone. Only really shabby people do this. Poor Socks and poor America for putting up with them. President Bush took in a stray cat and still has him. God Bless him - I don't think Laura and he will ever abandon him"

Well, actually -- just to set the record straight .... the Bushes had another cat, Ernie, before the present one, India. Actually, I'm not sure whether they had Ernie at the same time as the current one or whether India, was acquired after they gave Ernie away, but I remember when they gave Ernie away. (Mrs. Bush said they did not take Ernie to the White House because they were afraid of damage to the furniture.) They gave Ernie to some friends in Beverly Hills. There was some concern when Ernie disappeared from the friends' house. It was feared Ernie was a goner. Ernie (or a cat thought to be Ernie) was found by a security man at Century City (some distance from Beverly Hills) and returned to the people to whom the Bushes gave him.

I am sure that the home selected by the Bushes for Ernie was a good one, and that they had good reason for giving up the cat. As I understand it, the Clintons gave Socks (who was, I believe, originally Chelsea's cat) to Clinton's secretary, Betty (can't remember last name) who was especially fond of the cat. The cat had apparently spent a lot of its time at the White House in her office, so it didn't seem like a really horrible thing to do. I don't hold any brief for the Clintons, but their giving the cat to Betty Whats-her-name doesn't seem a lot different from the Bushes giving Ernie to their friend.

Freeeee writes:

"There might be feel-good privacy rules implemented at first, to placate skeptics. Once a national ID system is in place, the rules will change in the middle of the game - just watch. I predict that eventually, not presenting national ID upon demand will be an arrestable offense. ..... "Incrementalism."

The argument that ANY safeguards included in a national ID legislation could possibly be undercut at a later date, is, basically, the "slippery slope" argument -- which of course can be made about almost any legislation.

As a matter of fact, it's currently being made -- by Dems and liberals -- about the administration's anti-terrorist legislation. They are constantly nattering on about how the wiretap, search, evidence, etc. provisions could be extended beyond the war against terrorism and used against dissidents of all kinds.

Narby posted:

"If we don't let them have an ID card requirement, they'll just get a face ID system instead.Then, since the face ID system isn't quite 100% accurate, you might be jerked into a dark room and interrogated because you came up as a match for some mass murderer. A proper ID card would be much harder to mis-ID someone.

Geaux replied:

"The difference between the things you've identified and a national id is that you are not required to carry any of those things with you at all times. I have a friend who does not have any credit cards, a drivers license or a bank account. I wouldn't want to live like he does, but he has managed to eke out a living without all of these things".

I'm kind of with Narby on this one, Geaux. I don't think I have any real objection to the idea of a national ID, instead of the scattershot ID's (passports, state drivers' licenses, state ID cards for non-drivers in some states, and other types of photo ID) that we have now. (A recognizable form of national ID would sure simplify air travel, for example. I recently flew -- and one of the things that made the lines even longer than they had to be was the security personnel checking a variety of forms of ID that they weren't familiar with.)

I think what we have to be very much on our guard for in any national ID card legislation is not so much the ID card itself as what is it to be used for. Under what circumstances would the authorities be entitled to request to see such ID? The perameters of when you would have to show it would have to be very strictly defined in the legislation itself. Ideally, a person who lives in the way Geaux' friend does would never, or very rarely, have to show his ID.

"I wouldn't eat a rare hamburger on a bet, unless I'd personally raised & butchered the animal."

I'm with you there; I now order them "medium."

But the point is that the FIRST poster in this thread, (hopefully aware of the possibility of infection from under-done beef), unlike us, nevertheless wanted his burger medium rare. I think he should have been able to get it that way without the government telling him he couldn't.

Now, I also understand that the restaurant might not want to serve rare meat and risk customers getting sick (for whatever reasons -- lawsuits, or simply out concern for their customers, or for the restaurant's own reputation). I assume the poster who wanted his burger medium rare would grant the restaurant the freedom of choice to serve it rare, or not to.

His beef (no pun intended), as I understood it, was with the apparent existence of an actual law mandating that the restaurant had no choice. There I have sympathy for his position. If an adult customer, knowing the possible risk, is willing to take the risk, and the restaurant owner is willing to serve the item he wants, then he should be able to get it without government intervention. (I would probably feel differently if we were talking about a child customer.)

The only thing I'm wondering about is, how far should this principle extend? Would it be logical to extend our anti-nanny-government principles to other areas in which government similarly intervenes for our own good, "to protect us against ourselves"?

How about drugs, for instance? What if the customer wanted marijuana brownies for dessert after the medium rare burger? Should the "watering hole" in question be able to dish up the brownies (assuming it was willing to do so) without having to look over its shoulder for the DEA or the local cops? And if not, why not?

I wrote: "In 1998 there was a historic lighting ceremony, at which President Weizmann also appeared."

Don Q responded: "That would have to be real historic, considering that Weizmann died in 1952."

Hi, Don!

We're talking about two different Weizmans. The Weizman who was at the 1998 White House ceremony was Ezer Weizman. Ezer Weizman was the seventh president of the State of Israel, He served in that capacity from 1993 to 2000. He was the nephew of Chaim Weizman. Chaim Weizman died in 1952. Ezer Weizman is still alive.