Christian death squads

Bodies burnt in open after Nigeria riots kill 138
23 Feb 2006 13:56:06 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Adds Maiduguri tension, paras 10-13)


By George Esiri

ONITSHA, Nigeria, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Christian youths burned the corpses of Muslims on Thursday on the streets of Onitsha in southeastern Nigeria, the city worst hit by religious riots that have killed at least 138 people across the country in five days.

Christian mobs, seeking revenge for the killings of Christians in the north, attacked Muslims with cutlasses, destroyed their houses and torched mosques in two days of violence in Onitsha, where at least 85 people have died.

"We are very happy that this thing is happening so that the north will learn their lesson," said Anthony Umai, a motorcycle taxi rider, standing close to where Christian youths had piled up the corpses of 10 Muslims and were burning them.

Dozens more corpses had been thrown into the back of pick-up trucks by security services overnight, residents said.

Uncertainty over the political future is aggravating regional, ethnic and religious rivalries in Africa's most populous nation. Militants in the oil-producing south have waged a three-month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry, which has cut exports and driven up oil prices.

There was no fighting in Onitsha on Thursday but Emeka Umeh, of human rights group the Civil Liberties Organisation, called it "the peace of the graveyard".

Some corpses were still lying on the streets and hundreds of Muslim men, women and children fled the city crammed into open-top trucks for fear of more killings. Thousands more were hiding in army barracks and police stations.

Umeh said most of the 85 bodies his group counted were Hausa, but some Ibo were killed too. The Hausa are the main ethnic group in northern Nigeria and most are Muslim, while the Ibo are dominant in the southeast and almost all are Christian.

FUNERALS

In northern Maiduguri, where the Christian Association of Nigeria says 50 Christians were killed in a weekend riot that began as a protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, tensions were high during several Christian funeral masses.

The Red Cross said at least 21 people died in Maiduguri.

A crowd of Christian youths broke away from the burial of one of the victims, a Catholic priest, and ran shouting through the streets before police dispersed them.

At the funeral of 13 children from two families who were burnt in their houses, mourners wailed as police stood by.

News of the Maiduguri murders set off the bloodletting in Onitsha, and tit-for-tat violence spread on Wednesday to Enugu, another southeastern city, where seven people were killed.

Nigeria's 140 million people are divided about equally between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south, but sizeable religious minorities live in both regions.

Thousands of people have been killed in religious violence in Africa's top oil exporter since the restoration of democracy in 1999. Killings in one part of the country often spark reprisals elsewhere.

The triggers for riots that killed at least at least 46 people, mostly Christians, in northern Maiduguri, Bauchi and Katsina, were different, but religious and secular leaders have linked them to political tensions.

Elections are due in 2007 and many Nigerians believe President Olusegun Obasanjo will try to stay on after eight years in power. The prospect angers those who feel the time has come for their ethnic or regional group to get the top job.

In Bauchi, an alleged blasphemy started the trouble, while in Katsina it was a constitutional review that many see as an attempt to keep Obasanjo in power.

The constitution bars Obasanjo, a Christian from the southwest, from seeking a third term in 2007 and he says he will uphold the charter. But he has declined to comment on a powerful movement to amend the constitution to allow him to stay.

Maiduguri and Katsina are both hosting public hearings on constitutional reform this week which many Nigerians believe are geared towards furthering the so-called third term agenda. (Additional reporting by Estelle Shirbon in Abuja and Ibrahim Mshelizza in Maiduguri)


This article is a disturbing reality. People use religion to do bad things. There is no better or worse religion, only better or worse morality. This will not be a big news story in the U.S. due to it putting Christianity in a bad light. I hate hearing about riots anywhere, because the victims are usually innocent bystanders. Noone deserves a death like that, with the exeption of Pedophiles and rapists. Well, let's include rioters in this.

The shame of it is that the U.S. will stay in Iraq, trying to force it's will on the middle east, and not try and help the Nigerians, unless there are commodities at risk.

Snappy

Acronyms

Acronyms

Ifyouare like me, you work in an industry that is increasingly inundatedwithacronyms. This begins to seem like a second language, and thepeople wespeak too find it hard to keep up with any conversation thatwe use toomany acronyms in. For example, I am in the graphiccommunications field,and a typical conversation could go like this;

Person 1: I need this TIFF in CMYK not RGB please.

Person 2: Have you already Ripped the Tiff?

Person 1: No the DPI is too low RES, you could try a PDFX1A, but up the RES.

Person 2: Did you Rip the PDF ROOM or NORM?

Icouldgo on, but the average person would just be lost. I knowfromexperience, that many other fields have this problem. The problemisnot the acronyms themselves, but the lack of understanding thepersonusing them has that not everyone knows when the appropriate timeto usethem is.

As a member of the communications field, I seethis,and experience it often. Rather than using the "alien" acronyms,spellthings out for your customer. Don’t be afraid to ask if you aretalkingover their head, and most importantly, be more concernedaboutconveying the message, rather than rattling off information.Theimportant thing is that you are on the same page with your client.

Well, I will keep it short for now, as they say "KISS" (keep it simple stupid)

Snappy

Alabama House turns down bill to teach Bible course

2/7/2006, 6:30 p.m. CT

By BOB JOHNSON
The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama House on Tuesday turned down a bill that would have allowed public high schools to offer a course teaching the literary and historical significance of the Bible.

The bill was sponsored by House Majority Leader Rep. Ken Guin, D-Carbon Hill, and supported by Speaker Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, but Republicans objected to the bill naming a specific textbook to be used in teaching the class.

A procedural vote to bring the bill up for debate failed on a 49-42 vote, with 60 percent or 56 votes needed. The vote fell mostly along party lines with 49 Democrats voting "yes" and 39 Republicans and three Democrats voting "no."

Guin said he is going to continue to talk to lawmakers about the bill and could attempt to bring it up again later in the session.


Guin said the bill would encourage schools to teach the Bible's influence on literature, art and other subjects, which he said is already legal. He said the proposed textbook "The Bible and Its Influence" does not teach students what to believe but helps them understand references to the Bible in literature, art and other subjects. The book was developed by the Bible Literacy Project.

"We need to give children an understanding of how the Bible has influenced the society around them," Guin said.

But opponents said naming a textbook would bypass the textbook selection process established by the Alabama Board of Education and by local school boards.

Rep. Jeremy Oden, R-Vinemont, said the Legislature has never passed legislation that named a specific textbook to be used in schools.

Some Republicans also questioned the content of the book.

"You've been told if you're against teaching this book, you're against the Bible, that's not the case," said Rep. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale. Beason questioned the appropriateness of some of the questions the textbook asks students, such as: "Did Adam and Eve receive a bad deal?" and "If God is good, why does he allow bad things to happen?"

Speaker Pro Tem Demetrius Newton, D-Birmingham, spoke in favor of the Bible course, saying it would be a great opportunity to expose students to the "amazing" stories in the Bible.

"When I think of what this book (The Bible) can do, I think about Corinthians as being one of the greatest love stories ever told," Newton said.

After the vote, some Democrats accused Republicans of voting against the bill for political reasons.

"They didn't think of it first. They didn't want the Democrats to get credit for it," said Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery.

But House Minority Leader Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said most Republicans would have supported the bill if it had not named the textbook. He said he doesn't think the vote will hurt GOP lawmakers who face re-election this year.

"I don't think people are going to believe that Republicans are against religion and don't want the Bible taught in schools," Hubbard said.

End Article,
Start Opinion here;

O.k. so the Republicans say it's not political, the Democrats say the Republican's are just mad because they didn't submit the bill first. So I have two questions, if it isn't political, why comment that you don't think this will effect the upcoming election, and two if the Republicans are "mad" that the Democrats beat them to the punch, they have had many opportunities to do this.

Let's face it, religion and politics should not be mixed, in any capacity. Should you allow an elective in school to study a religion, you should NOT dictate, mandate, recomend nor require any book or materials. I belive the republicans were in the right for voting down the bill, but for the wrong reasons, as well as I think the Democrats were on the right track with the idea for the bill, but the wrong wording, and possibly agenda. Another thing to consider, if they require a certain book for the christians, do the muslims, buddhists, shintoists and hindus get to choose their materials, or have free selection.

The main problem here is government is trying to dictate christianity, rather than promote freedom of religion. Should they promote freedom of religion, there would not even be a hint of controversy in passing a bill allowing religion to be studied in school, though it should be an elective. Think of this, if the school systems were to teach a theocratic christian ideal in the educational system, to educate and create christian followers and believers, as is trying to be done by the fundamentalists, then our education system would not be much unlike the education systems in the middle east, where the Muslim religion is dominate.

So, just because a majority believes an ideal is right does that make it so? Years ago the world as a whole thought and agreed the world was flat, then you had the many Greek Gods, later Egyption Gods, and even Roman Gods. All of those citizens believed in those ideas, though later all have been proven wrong.

My point is should we as a united democracy, be so myopic that we are not objective, nor open minded to the ideals and opinions of others, we will never move forward, but fall behind not only as a civilization, but as a people. The truth is out there, we just have to be willing to receive it, and with objectivity, and a willing rationalization we can take these varying opinions and beliefs, and construct the whole picture with all of the pieces. We just have to be humble enough to realize that we do not have all of the answers, and are willing to admit that.

Snappy

Well, it looks like GM's Board of Directors voted today in Germany that it will halve its $2 per share dividends as another way to try and save money.

I feel no pity for this corporation for they have made their own bed. You have these overpaid executives, who buy the supplies for their product from over seas. I'm not sure when the majority will see this, but if you don't pay Americans for labor or American companies for supplies, then Americans won't have the money to support your product. It's the whole circle of life thing here.

Do these top executives really bring the value to the companies to justify the compensation? Then on top of that you have the "Golden Parachutes" that the get after a limited time in service. Honestly, I can't see anyone bringing over a million dollars worth of value to a company, just on their own fruition. I can see a sales position, but that is based on comission. I just can't see someone who contributes no labor, no sales, and is not the founder of the company to bring that kind of value. Maybe I am missing something in the big picture, but it is hard for me to believe that those companies are getting a return on that investment that is worthy of the hefty investment.

I see with the local company HealthSouth, there was a scandal of which the founder CEO was acquitted of fraud, though that is questionable in my mind. He made millions off of this company and his minions got pinned. There is no way a CEO doesn't know what is happening when there is financial mismanagement. Should he truly be ignorant of what is going on, is he worth his pay? This man did not, and still doesn't live a meager humble lifestyle. He had a cigar boat that cost $120,000, then spent over $200,00 for the rights to paint it with the Monopoly theme. You don't spend money you earn in this fashion. This is how you spend "free" money.

I feel no pity for these people, nor should you, for failing due to greed, deceit and lies. But we need to pay attention to these trends, because even when we see these companies hurt and fail, so will we, the American public. I just wonder how much more sound a company will be when it supports not only its employees, but support its consumers also.

I know I rambled a lot, but there is an idea in there somewhere.

Snappy

Why America will soon hurt worse….


Imports are killing us, and consumerism will be our downfall. Big business and politicians want us to ignore the trade deficits and open all forms of trade, and all borders. This would be good for big business, but bad for the average middle-class and below American citizen. Let’s look at some numbers:

Chart of Trade Deficit

Now having read this I would like to illustrate what is actually happening. We, as Americans, are shopping at Wal-Mart, Old Navy, etc. and those establishments are getting their products they offer from countries other than the United States. The money for these products leaves the country to pay their producers. I know this seems basic and too spelled out, but stay with me here. Most other countries aren’t buying as much of our goods and services that we offer. Now think of each country as a person, one individual. If this individual is spending more than they make, what happens is massive debt. When this person isn’t earning enough money to payoff this debt, more debt is incurred. Now this guy stands here just buying, and not selling enough to keep up with his purchases, he will be financially ruined soon.

My point is that the U.S. needs to keep its money here. At least on the labor side, if not on the good side also. Though it is more expensive, when you buy American, you keep the money here. This needs to be taken seriously. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, and you cannot have a superior economy, if you wholly include inferior economies. A one-world economy will average out eventually, which means the U.S. economy and Britains economy will only go down.

All businessmen and politicians should look this at hard. This has been my two cents.

Snappy

Apple sued over iPod earphones
Fri Feb 3, 2006 6:34 PM GMT

By Susan Butler

NEW YORK (Billboard) - A Louisiana man has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Computer for allegedly putting consumers at risk of suffering noise-induced hearing loss.

The complaint, filed January 31 in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif. by John Kiel Patterson, alleges that iPods fail to contain adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss. Patterson claims that the iPods and the accompanying "ear bud" earphones are defectively designed.

The suit notes that in 2002, France required Apple to limit personal listening device output to 100dB. In response, Apple pulled its players from store shelves and upgraded the software in European models to limit output to 100dB. It did not change U.S. models, the complaint alleges.

Apple provides a general warning in its user's manual regarding the risk of permanent hearing loss if earphones or headphones are used at high volume. The complaint alleges that the warning is insufficient because it does not advise the listener of what is a high volume or a safe level.

Patterson claims in the complaint that he would not have purchased his iPod priced at that level had he known he would need to buy different earphones to reduce the risk.

Attorneys in the Seattle and Los Angeles offices of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the suit for Patterson.

Apple could not be immediately reached for comment.

Reuters/Billboard

Holy crap! I knew the first time I used my ipod, that that little jewel can get noisy quick. So I don't turn it up that loud. This is the same type of person that would sue a bridge construction company, because if you rammed into it a over one hundred miles per hour, you could sustain life-threatening trauma.

What a jack ass! Don't get me wrong, I believe we should have the freedom to litigate in the court system, but for events that haven't occurred? Come on, had this guy lost his hearing, or even were it damaged due to the thing turning on at full blast and he could not turn it down, the earbuds sprouting claws and embedding themselves into his ear canal, not allowing him to take them out, then yes, sue the hell out of Apple.

Come to think of it, I might sue ford because my car will exceed the speed limit, therefore might cause financial damage to my household due to impending penalties enforced by the traffic officer.

Get a life, and something to do.