| February 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | |||
Last Thursday I discussed a dramatic example of the LA Times hiding news that made GWB look good - specifically, the story headlined in publications such as USA Today as, "N. KOREA AGREES IN PRINCIPLE TO TAKE INITIAL STEPS TO DISMANTLE NUKE PROGRAM" - a story which didn't even appear on the front page of the LA Times.
Today the story about the deal with North Korea on nuclear disarmament has gotten so big that even the LA Times has it as a major page one story, in its print version.
So let's check the LA Times web site to see if they're also giving the story its due prominence on the web.
And let's also check, for comparison, the web sites of the NY Times and the Washington Post. Here's a screen shot from the NY Times web site:
The NY Times web site has the story featured in its top, most prominent spot.
Same with the Washington Post web site:
How about the LA Times?
The LA Times web site buried the story -- again!
In this time, when terrorists are trying to acquire nukes in order to use them on America, the potential importance of this story is hard to overestimate. Yet - in keeping with its usual policy of hiding good news that reflects well on GWB - the LA Times buries it on its web site.
USInfo.State.Gov quotes Representative Keith Ellison:
[Ellison's] values derive from his Christian upbringing and Islam, which he has practiced for nearly 25 years. "The values that underlie Islam are not unique to Islam. They are shared by all faith traditions. Belief in charity, in giving to others in need and facing adversity, the belief in equality and justice -- there is no religion, including Islam, that has a monopoly on these ideas," he said.
That sounds good, doesn't it? He's saying Islam is all about equality and justice. But wait a minute -- what's this he says next?
Ellison said true Islamic values harmonize with the democratic process. "These are universal ideas. In fact, they're not just compatible with democracy; they drive us toward a society in which there is consultation, in which there is input and approval from the populace."
What's that? Something in Islamic values is going to "drive us toward a society in which there is consultation..." I guess that's okay. But why do we need to be "driven"? And -- consultation with whom? Let's see what he's next quoted as saying:
He asks, "How can you have a just society where one person or only a limited set of people make the laws for their benefit and yet other people who had no role in making the law have to abide by it? That's fundamentally unjust."
What other people is he talking about here, who, according to him, have had no role in making the laws of the nation, and yet are forced to abide by those laws? He doesn't say -- he's carefully oblique -- but given the subject of discussion, i.e "Islamic values," there is little room to doubt that he's referring to Muslims.
Keith Ellison appears to be saying that Muslims aren't going to accept our laws, but are going to demand that we change our laws to accommodate them. And if it doesn't happen, then Muslims are going to try to "drive us" there. There is cause for concern in this language at a time when Muslims worldwide are blowing up public places in the name of their religion, with the explicitly stated intention to force Islamic restrictions on freedom, onto Western nations.
Is Ellison on the side of those who want people of all cultures to assimilate successfully into U.S. life? Or is he on the side of those who want to impose Islamic loss of freedoms onto Western nations?
