Zimbabwe Today is reporting that a run-off in the presidential race there is likely:
Two different sources of information have agreed this afternoon that the contest for the next President of Zimbabwe, known already to be a two-horse-race between Tsvangirai and Mugabe, is so close that unless the figures are changed by Zanu-PF's vote riggers, there will be a run-off vote.
Both the independent organisation Crisis In Zimbabwe Coalition and my source within the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) agree with the following figures:
Tsvangirai 48 per cent
Mugabe 44 per cent
Under the constitution, this means there will have to be a two-man run-off vote.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Zimbabwe “On a Precipice”
It is difficult to tell just exactly what is going on in Zimbabwe. There are encouraging signs the Opposition has won as they claim. For one thing, Mugabe’s “Justice” Minister has lost his seat. And there is even a BBC report that officials are deciding how to break the news to Mugabe that he has lost.
But winning the election is one thing. Winning the count is another. And results are slow to come out, fueling speculation that Mugabe is stealing this election.
I fear for Zimbabwe if Mugabe is declared the winner. Mugabe is a monster who has destroyed his country. Further, the reaction to another stolen election may make Kenya look like a day in the park.
Please keep praying.
UPDATE: Here’s an interesting report with some speculation thrown in. I have no way to tell how accurate it is, however.
But winning the election is one thing. Winning the count is another. And results are slow to come out, fueling speculation that Mugabe is stealing this election.
I fear for Zimbabwe if Mugabe is declared the winner. Mugabe is a monster who has destroyed his country. Further, the reaction to another stolen election may make Kenya look like a day in the park.
Please keep praying.
UPDATE: Here’s an interesting report with some speculation thrown in. I have no way to tell how accurate it is, however.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Pray for Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe holds elections tomorrow. And that monster Mugube is not one to give up power easily. Already there are signs he will attempt to steal the election. And he has already threatened those who may protest that theft in ominous terms:
The President had delivered earlier an angry statement via State media, warning Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, and his faction of the divided Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) against staging demonstrations if they lost the election. “If they make a disturbance like in Kenya, you will see,” he said. “We are not joking. We warn the MDC, if they want to put a rope around their necks, that is OK.”
Please pray.
The President had delivered earlier an angry statement via State media, warning Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, and his faction of the divided Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) against staging demonstrations if they lost the election. “If they make a disturbance like in Kenya, you will see,” he said. “We are not joking. We warn the MDC, if they want to put a rope around their necks, that is OK.”
Please pray.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Obama, Wright, and the Double Standard in the Room
So far I’ve restrained myself from commenting on the controversy surrounding Barack Obama and his long-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But the discussion continues as it should.
Yesterday’s entry was a column by Martin Peretz of the New Republic. (Hat tip to titusonenine.) I think well of the New Republic though they are considerably to my left on the political spectrum. I find their offerings usually well reasoned. But this column falls short. Peretz distracts more from the real issues here rather than addressing them (e. g. What the hey does Zbigniew Brzezinski have to do with this?).
As for me, I could point out that Obama’s attempts to distance himself from Wright don’t hold water in light of their past close ties and the influence Wright has been on Obama. From Rolling Stone, yes, a very friendly source, over a year ago:
Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."
I could point out that Obama wasn’t born in this church, he chose it.
I could point out that Obama’s recent claims not to be aware of the *ahem* tenor of certain of Wright’s sermons are slightly specious given that any number of those sermons are anti-American, anti-White rants (not to mention a bit loony).
But instead I’ll merely ask a simple but clarifying question.
Would it be acceptable for a Republican presidential candidate to attend and support a church that preaches hate against Blacks?
Yesterday’s entry was a column by Martin Peretz of the New Republic. (Hat tip to titusonenine.) I think well of the New Republic though they are considerably to my left on the political spectrum. I find their offerings usually well reasoned. But this column falls short. Peretz distracts more from the real issues here rather than addressing them (e. g. What the hey does Zbigniew Brzezinski have to do with this?).
As for me, I could point out that Obama’s attempts to distance himself from Wright don’t hold water in light of their past close ties and the influence Wright has been on Obama. From Rolling Stone, yes, a very friendly source, over a year ago:
Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."
I could point out that Obama wasn’t born in this church, he chose it.
I could point out that Obama’s recent claims not to be aware of the *ahem* tenor of certain of Wright’s sermons are slightly specious given that any number of those sermons are anti-American, anti-White rants (not to mention a bit loony).
But instead I’ll merely ask a simple but clarifying question.
Would it be acceptable for a Republican presidential candidate to attend and support a church that preaches hate against Blacks?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Gorbachev Still an Atheist
I reported here, citing a Telegraph story, that it “appears” Mikhail Gorbachev has become a Christian. Well, it now appears that appearances were mistaken, that he’s still an atheist.
I’m sorry about that . . . in more ways than one.
I will now write on the blackboard a hundred times, “I will not trust the Telegraph’s religion reporting.”
I’m sorry about that . . . in more ways than one.
I will now write on the blackboard a hundred times, “I will not trust the Telegraph’s religion reporting.”
Bullying
This story about a bullied Arkansas high school student has touched a chord with me and with a number of others over at titusonenine.
I don’t think I’ve mentioned here I was persistently bullied up until 8th grade (when distance running success for my school gained respect). Of course, the school* did nothing, except discipline me when I took up for myself. Now, it wasn’t nearly as bad as what the student in the story has endured. And, thankfully, it did end in 8th grade. (Thank God for my past distance running abilities!)
But the damage was done. My interaction with other kids had been so negative for years that it taught me to be a loner. In my teen years and onward, I did grow socially. But in hindsight, I got a real late start on that due in large part to the bullying. I was always a few steps behind. In a word, I was a bit clueless socially for too many years afterward. And in various ways, my life still bears the marks of that.
Of course, we all have our difficulties in life. And God does turn bad into good. I’ve always hated injustice with a passion due to my experiences. I have a great deal of empathy for the struggles kids go through. And, though I haven’t thought about it, perhaps my experience is one reason I’m so opposed – and provoked – by the actions of bullies in vestments.
But I know all too well that bullying is not harmless or some rite of passage all kids should go through. No boy or girl should have to endure it, at least not for months and years on end. And parents and school authorities who don’t lift a finger to stop it are negligent, to say the least.
As I posted over at titusonenine, if I ever have a child who is frequently bullied and the school does nothing to stop it, I will become that school district’s worse nightmare.
Yes, I’m ranting. Bullying and those in charge who do nothing about it really ticks me off.
-------
*namely Bradfield Elementary in Highland Park, Texas. Lord have mercy, my elementary school years were miserable. My school from 7th grade onward, Greenhill School, handled such things much more responsibly.
I don’t think I’ve mentioned here I was persistently bullied up until 8th grade (when distance running success for my school gained respect). Of course, the school* did nothing, except discipline me when I took up for myself. Now, it wasn’t nearly as bad as what the student in the story has endured. And, thankfully, it did end in 8th grade. (Thank God for my past distance running abilities!)
But the damage was done. My interaction with other kids had been so negative for years that it taught me to be a loner. In my teen years and onward, I did grow socially. But in hindsight, I got a real late start on that due in large part to the bullying. I was always a few steps behind. In a word, I was a bit clueless socially for too many years afterward. And in various ways, my life still bears the marks of that.
Of course, we all have our difficulties in life. And God does turn bad into good. I’ve always hated injustice with a passion due to my experiences. I have a great deal of empathy for the struggles kids go through. And, though I haven’t thought about it, perhaps my experience is one reason I’m so opposed – and provoked – by the actions of bullies in vestments.
But I know all too well that bullying is not harmless or some rite of passage all kids should go through. No boy or girl should have to endure it, at least not for months and years on end. And parents and school authorities who don’t lift a finger to stop it are negligent, to say the least.
As I posted over at titusonenine, if I ever have a child who is frequently bullied and the school does nothing to stop it, I will become that school district’s worse nightmare.
Yes, I’m ranting. Bullying and those in charge who do nothing about it really ticks me off.
-------
*namely Bradfield Elementary in Highland Park, Texas. Lord have mercy, my elementary school years were miserable. My school from 7th grade onward, Greenhill School, handled such things much more responsibly.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Strong Words about Rowan from the Global South
After their recent meeting in London, the Global South Steering Committee has issued a statement. Most notable are the strong words about Dr. Rowan Williams’ leadership. By Anglican standards, they are practically calling him out. For starters they clearly criticize his “undifferentiated invitations to the Lambeth Conference (July 2008) of the un-repenting Bishops who have clearly flouted the bonds of trust and 'torn the fabric at the deepest level' of the Communion . . . .”
Then they take on his whitewash, via the Joint Standing Committee, of the Episcopal Church’s defiance, saying it “has further weakened the remaining fragile threads of trust in the Communion and severely affected hope for any genuine resolution.”
They are not optimistic at all about the Anglican Communion:
These have caused various deepening negative assessments and cast further doubts on the state, will and ability, of the Communion to continue as a recognizable living and witnessing expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Consequently, initiatives and challenges have emerged which could lead to further fragmentation and disintegration in the Communion, which is already in the nadir of collegial trust and confidence.
It’s hard to miss the inference that it’s Williams’ leadership especially that has eroded trust and confidence among Communion bishops. They all but say, “Rowan, we don’t trust you.”
They once again criticize Williams for not inviting to Lambeth missionary bishops from the Global South while freely inviting apostates:
. . . we deeply regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not consider it appropriate to invite those bishops consecrated by outside Provinces to address pastoral exigencies in USA. The temporal pastoral responses to needs on the ground should not be treated on the same level as the crisis-creating theological and ethical innovation of those involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson. Furthermore, these responses would not have continued if the requirements of the unanimously agreed Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting at Tanzania of TEC had been adequately complied with.
They leave unsaid that Our Lord of Canterbury himself undercut the Tanzania Communiqué. But given the rest of the Primates' statement, I think that can be read between the lines.
One thing about Anglicanism I don’t like is the propensity to be entirely too polite in addressing sorry bishops and their leadership. So it’s refreshing to see these Primates engage in such straight talk about Rowan Williams’ leadership.
Then they take on his whitewash, via the Joint Standing Committee, of the Episcopal Church’s defiance, saying it “has further weakened the remaining fragile threads of trust in the Communion and severely affected hope for any genuine resolution.”
They are not optimistic at all about the Anglican Communion:
These have caused various deepening negative assessments and cast further doubts on the state, will and ability, of the Communion to continue as a recognizable living and witnessing expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Consequently, initiatives and challenges have emerged which could lead to further fragmentation and disintegration in the Communion, which is already in the nadir of collegial trust and confidence.
It’s hard to miss the inference that it’s Williams’ leadership especially that has eroded trust and confidence among Communion bishops. They all but say, “Rowan, we don’t trust you.”
They once again criticize Williams for not inviting to Lambeth missionary bishops from the Global South while freely inviting apostates:
. . . we deeply regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not consider it appropriate to invite those bishops consecrated by outside Provinces to address pastoral exigencies in USA. The temporal pastoral responses to needs on the ground should not be treated on the same level as the crisis-creating theological and ethical innovation of those involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson. Furthermore, these responses would not have continued if the requirements of the unanimously agreed Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting at Tanzania of TEC had been adequately complied with.
They leave unsaid that Our Lord of Canterbury himself undercut the Tanzania Communiqué. But given the rest of the Primates' statement, I think that can be read between the lines.
One thing about Anglicanism I don’t like is the propensity to be entirely too polite in addressing sorry bishops and their leadership. So it’s refreshing to see these Primates engage in such straight talk about Rowan Williams’ leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)