quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Islam is a religion which over a billion human beings find to be deeply meaningful. Over its history, Islam has had no greater tendency to violence and intolerance than Christianity.
Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
1) If memory serves, the Hutu are predominantly Christian. Or do you mean genocide in the name of a religion?
2)I assume your remarks stem from the recent history of Israel and the Middle East etc. and remarks such as those made by Ahmadinejad. I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that this conflict is fundamentally religious in nature: it is fundamentally about territory. It is convenient for leaders to occasionally frame it as a religious conflict to gain popular support, hence the rhetoric. Had the Jewish state been set up in Germany, do you think there would be tension between Islam and Judaism?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:One's word should be valid regardless of where ones hand is when one makes it.
This I promise to you: when the people of this great country finally elect me to lead them into a new and altogether shinier future, I will take my oath of office with one hand down my pants.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
I can't think of a kinder way to respond to this other than to say it is bigoted statement, pure and simple. Both religions still have their share of bloodiness, and those elements are pretty obviously divided by geo-political climate.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The first executive order requires the closure of the Guantanamo facility within one year, but the new administration still doesn't know what to do with the roughly 245 detainees there, nor with suspected terrorists detained in the future. Those are questions that will be "reviewed."
A second order establishes a special task force co-chaired by the attorney general and the secretary of defense to come up with some options. Some House Republicans were quick to weigh in, introducing legislation Thursday that would bar Guantanamo detainees from coming into the United States.
The third order would put an end to the "coercive" interrogation techniques used by the CIA in recent years to get information from high-value detainees. One of those techniques, waterboarding, has already been categorized as torture by Obama's pick for attorney general, Eric Holder. That and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques will be off-limits, though Obama had some trouble making himself clear on this point.
I don't think Obama had any trouble making himself clear as the next paragraph states
quote: "Anybody detained by the Untied States, for now, is going to be ... any interrogations taking place are going to have to abide by the Army Field Manual," he said.
The key words here may be "for now."
Obama is apparently leaving the door open to some techniques not outlined in the Army manual. The interrogation order sets up a task force to evaluate whether the interrogation "practices and techniques" in the Army manual provide an "appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the nation."
I can't find the transcript of it yet but I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, that's not a convincing reading you've given. The "for now" could be in reference to the detainees being detained "for now." The "for now" is ambiguous, and probably not some sort of slick-willy out that gives Obama permission to do whatever. He doesn't want people to be tortured. Simple.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
O, If you listen to the audio of the program it certainly did sound more convincing. I don't know if it is up yet or not but it is worth listening to and would be very consistent with Obama's words vs his actions.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons.
Well, they were never open in the first place. :waves hand: These aren't the prisons you're looking for.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons.
Um, we would know the same way we knew we had secret prisons in the first place....unless you are suggesting that the media is going to coverup all the illegal moves President Obama makes? Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, would you mind waiting a little more than 48 hours before you start talking about Obama's illegal moves? Please? I mean, for the sake of your own credibility, give the guy 100 days to start to resolve some of these issues. He's inherited a government in crisis, with a thousand skeletons in the closet, and a lot of people still at their posts with guilty looks on their faces. He has to do things the best way possible for all of us, and that won't be easy. No matter how he plays it, the dominoes are in place, and people are going to get hurt.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Fair enough; so do you accept ''most of Christianity and most of Islam have grown out of the pogroms and the urge to genocide''?
And you didn't address my second point.
No, I do not accept that. I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Your second point is wrong. It's not about territory. It's about the very existence of a Jewish political entity in the middle east. The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this."
So your solution is genocide then? Since they will "never" accept you? So much faith you have in people. So righteous is your cause.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Fair enough; so do you accept ''most of Christianity and most of Islam have grown out of the pogroms and the urge to genocide''?
And you didn't address my second point.
No, I do not accept that. I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Your second point is wrong. It's not about territory. It's about the very existence of a Jewish political entity in the middle east. The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this.
On the first point we might have to agree to disagree. I do, however, think that when a person makes that sort of claim the onus is on that person to provide an argument or evidence in support of that claim. In particular, justifying the 'most'.
For the second point, you acknowledge the relevance of 'in the Middle East'. Do you think that there would have been no conflict if a 'Native American homeland' had been set up in Israel instead of a Jewish state?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of Islam isn't interested in pogrom and genocide.
This is a rather crude measure, but...
I took the top 38 countries by Muslim population (source:Demographics of Islam wiki) - all countries with a population of Muslims higher than 5 million. Total Muslim count: 1.386 billion out of an estimated 1.46 billion total world-wide Muslim population.
I then added together the Muslim population of all of the countries where a U.S. Department of State Travel Warning is in existence - where travel warnings serve as a proxy for countries where large-scale violence is a possible thing. These countries (from the 38 countries list) are Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Ivory Coast, Somalia, and Kenya. Their total Muslim population is roughly 530,300,000.
Dividing the two gives us a number of roughly 38.3% - which could be considered the percentage of Muslims living in countries where wide-spread violence is a possibility.
Two points: While this is obviously a really crude measure, I think, if anything, it grossly overstates the number of Muslims who support genocide & the like, since there's no evidence that most Muslims in a country with a travel warning actually support the violence that's occurring (or potentially occurring) in their country.
There's also a possibility that the proxy under reports the problem, since you could have places like Russia & France where the Muslim population is not high enough to cause a dangerous situation (and thus no travel warning) although they may (or may not) support the idea of genocide, etc. However I'd be incredibly surprised if this factor was large enough to overwhelm the first problem of counting too many Muslims. And the countries where you have these low percentages of Muslims don't have large total populations of Muslims, except for China at 39 million. The next possible candidate is the US, actually.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't suppose I could prevail on those participating in the Israel/Palestine vein of discussion in this thread to relocate their discussion to a lovely and very adjacent thread that is specifically tasked for just such a conversation. Please.
DK -
Do you have a link that talks about the closing of the secret CIA prisons? And I have to ask, you said something about it being consistent with Obama's words versus his actions. To what are you referring? He's been president less than a week. What campaign promises and vows has he already violated that give him a reputation on words versus actions, or are you referring to his Senate record, and if so, what specifically?
Don't get me wrong, there are things in his Senate voting record that I have problems with as well, but, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single senator, or even politician, that didn't either change his mind or back off a campaign promise or once stated position.
Obama's predecessor is a shining example of just such an action.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: ... Do you think that there would have been no conflict if a 'Native American homeland' had been set up in Israel instead of a Jewish state?
Well, no.
Because I think that native Americans would have the good sense to leave.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn - About the secret CIA prisons, I heard it on NPR today about 730ish, Fresh Air I believe. I don't have a link for it yet, I think it goes up around 3? For words vs actions, using public money, Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, gays in the military, death penalty, gun control, no lobbyists in his White House to name a few. There is a long time between now and July 1st when I think the pay raises would happen so I wonder if the freeze will be lifted by then too.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Leadership: Will now scale properly to national crises. Intelligence was not being properly applied.
A bug has been fixed that allowed the President to ignore the effects of debuffs applied by the Legislative classes.
Drain Treasury: There appears to be a bug that allowed loot to be transferred from the treasury to anyone on the President’s friends list, or in the President’s party. We are investigating.
Messages to and from the President will now be correctly saved to the chat log.
Messages originating from the President were being misclassified as originating from The American People.
A rendering error that frequently caused the President to appear wrapped in the American Flag texture has been addressed.
Vice President
The Vice President has been correctly reclassified as a pet.
No longer immune to damage from the Legislative and Judicial classes.
The Vice President will no longer aggro on friendly targets. This bug was identified with Ranged Attacks and the Head Shot ability.
Reveal Identity: this debuff will no longer be able to target Covert Operatives.
Messages to and from the Vice President will now be correctly saved to the chat log.
A rendering bug was affecting the Vice President’s visibility, making him virtually invisible to the rest of the server. This has been addressed.
Cabinet
There was a bug in the last release that prevented the Cabinet from disagreeing with the President, which was the cause of a number of serious balance issues. This bug has been addressed, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Judiciary
Many concerns have been raised regarding balance issues in the Supreme Court. This system is maintained on a different patch schedule, and will require longer to address.
A large number of NPCs in the Judiciary were incorrectly flagged "ideological." We are trying to identify these cases and rectify this situation.
Homeland Security
Homeland Security Advisory System: We have identified a bug in this system that prevents the threat level from dropping below Elevated (Yellow). The code for Guarded (Blue) and Low (Green) has been commented out. We are testing the fix and hope to have it in by the next patch.
Torture: This debuff is being removed after a record number of complaints.
Item: Large Bottle of Water is incorrectly generating threat with TSA Agents when held in inventory. We are looking into the issue.
Asking questions about Homeland Security was incorrectly triggering the Chain-Jingoism debuff.
Economy
Serious on-going issues with server economy are still being addressed. We expect further roll-backs, and appreciate your help identifying and fixing bugs. We can’t make these fixes without your help.
PVP
Reputation with various factions are being rebalanced. The gradated reputation scale was erroneously being overwritten by the binary For Us/ Against Us flag.
Quests
The” Desert Storm” quest chain was displaying an erroneous "Mission Accomplished" message near the beginning of the chain.
The quest chain that begins with “There’s no Cake like Yellow Cake” and terminates with “W-M-Denied” has been identified as uncompletable, and has been removed.
Reagents
Many recipes that currently call for Crude Oil can now be made with Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Ethanol reagents. We hope to roll out even more sweeping changes in the next patch.
Events
The “Axis of Evil” event is drawing to a close. Look forward to the “Rebuilding Bridges” event starting in January.
posted
Samprimary, are you the original author of that? If so, do you mind if I spread it around in appropriate channels?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
- Geithner's "strong dollar" commitment and his calling China out (and using Obama's name to do so) for artificially manipulating the value of the yuan. I wonder what Jhai or fugu's take on it is, but to me it seems to signal a significantly more antagonistic approach to China. While I think China's economic policy has been pretty cut-throat, I don't know what impact calling them out this way will have.
- Obama maintaining the status quo with relation to Hamas and Palestine. All aid to Gaza must go through Abbas, and Hamas will not be recognized until they meet the three preconditions set back in 2006. This article has a lot of (negative) reaction from Palestinian supporters. One professor called it "sprinkling sulphuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza."
posted
China's pegging of the yuan has naturally meant that it's manipulating its currency. I don't have a lot of time today, and I haven't yet seen Geithner's remarks, but this Economist article has a pretty good overview on the matter.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Geithner's "strong dollar" commitment and his calling China out (and using Obama's name to do so) for artificially manipulating the value of the yuan. ...
Haven't seen any reaction on the China-focused news sites and blogs that I normally visit. I'll update if I see any.
However, theoretically shouldn't that be a "weak dollar" commitment since Chinese manipulation of the CNY actually makes the USD look stronger than it should be? (i.e. the removal of that manipulation should make the dollar weaker rather than stronger)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: However, theoretically shouldn't that be a "weak dollar" commitment since Chinese manipulation of the CNY actually makes the USD look stronger than it should be? (i.e. the removal of that manipulation should make the dollar weaker rather than stronger)
I can give my impression, but I don't understand the underlying economic principles very well at all.
I believe that the point is that, starting in 2002, Bush let the dollar weaken to compensate for the artificially weakened yuan, and thus counterbalance the trade deficit. By saying we believe in a "strong dollar," Geithner implies that we will no longer do that. This would then be bad for our trade deficit (but good for the consumer buying cheap Chinese products) unless we can get China to stop their pegging of the yuan. Which, as far as I can tell, is not in their self-interest. So Geithner, by calling attention to the manipulation, seems to be attempting to pressure China to "do the right thing" (quotes intended to convey an imprecise colloquialism, and not a quote from Geithner's testimony) even though it doesn't seem to be in their self-interest.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep : Hmmm, in what sense did Bush let the dollar weaken and in what sense would Geithner stop letting it?
I seriously don't know the American POV on this but I don't understand how the US could interfere with relative exchange rates between countries, either letting the US dollar weaken or strengthen.
In fact, as a non-economist, I'd like to ask, with floating currencies in general what options do countries have aside from engaging in currency manipulation (i.e. buying and selling currency in return) or playing with interest rates (raising them sharply to encourage deflation or dropping them to encourage inflation)?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Deosn't China let its currency float now for the last 4 years or so by a small amount each year?
IP: Logged |
AFAIK the Chinese Yuan has a floating exchange rate based on a basket of currencies including the USD and Euro, but also including currencies like the Canadian dollar. There is a cap on maximum movement per year but in effect this has meant that the RMB has appreciated 21% since 2005. As so http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266930430108055.html
On the other hand, the Hong Kong dollar has always been pegged to the USD and I haven't heard of any planned changes to that policy which was put in place by the British.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The mix really should have rung more alarm bells for me than it did- but this is pretty standard practice for such a large scale performance.
You actually *can* play in tune at a low temperature, but doing so requires a lot of preparation, and even then it is really not worth risking the damage to your instrument. The instruments they were playing were probably not their finest.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Well, since you quoted the definition of most to others, then you know that to prove your thesis, you are going to need numbers. Would you like to quote any to support this claim? I would certainly listen to the numbers you quote Lisa, and so I eagerly await that proof.
In lieu of numbers, whether it be most or less I'm not really interested, I just wanted to posit just how I think Islam works in the Middle East. In the Presidency thread, I argued that the most important divide in the Middle East is the divide between extremist and moderate Islam, it is a divide that spans the entirety of the Middle East and reaches all corners of the globe, and it is a more important divide than even, I believe, Shia and Sunni. Iran would be the perfect example to employ here because Iran is run by both the extremist elements in the Shah's and the moderate forces in the country that yearn for modernization and freedom. In some sense, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents the divide as well, for he is a politician that was much more moderate than he is today because he has been forced to the extreme by the extreme elements in Iran (though there is question whether he was driven there or whether that is his true self). The thing that is clear about the Middle East, I believe, is that the regimes of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Yemen, and Kuwait, for instance, are starkly different governments than the regime in Iran. In these countries, modern and moderate voices are much more powerful than the extremism of their own country, though there are clearly extreme elements those countries must deal with in the political sphere.
The divide between extremism and modernism is one that we see in the histories and evolution of most, if not all, modern religions. The battle in Islam today consists of those extreme voices who advocate the destruction of Israel and the return of all Muslims to fundamental Islam and of those moderate voices who advocate some kind of relationship both with the west (including Israel) and with the modern world. Of course, there are other voices in the Middle East but I believe those are the most important for the situation we speak of now. What I find most interesting is the common ground that Islam in the Middle East shares with parts of Christianity and the religious right in the United States. If we think about what divides us, the culture wars or the debates between the status quo and the fundamentals of religion, then I think a parallel exists between the extremists in our country and the extremists in Islam. Now obviously the tools each employ are much different and the argument is clear that one does not kill innocent people while the other does, but when we think about the terrorism of extreme Islam and the politics of the extreme religious right, one can see a definite parallel. Essentially, both seek the same thing, power and the ability to either keep the status quo or return to the fundamentals of their chosen religion, and while one uses politics and the other terrorism, they both seek to use fear-mongering to achieve their goals.
I do feel like it's important to re-state that I'm not saying that the religious right or some in Christianity or those in extreme American politics (both liberal and conservative) are as audacious as to kill innocent people, in fact I guarantee that most would speak out strongly against violence and have even done so in the past, but I am saying that the divides in our country have something in common with the divides that the Middle East faces. For instance, the culture wars in America can be seen as a battle between liberal and conservative, Christian and not, and the battles of Islam can be summed the same way. Furthermore, that analogy provides important insight about Islam and the divides they face, for they aren't as ancient or stuck in the dark ages as we would believe. In fact, we have more in common with them than either of us seem to realize, and thus, I think Islam's problems are part of a grander problem that the world faces. Islam faces a fight between the status quo and modernity, it faces a fight between dogmatism and moderate views of both religion and politics, between the cultures of the west and their own culture, but more than anything else, it faces a fight for it's own soul, so to speak. As does the rest of the world.
And the best thing that we can do, as people, is to understand that we cannot define Christianity or Islam or the Middle East or the rest of the world by it's worst or most extreme elements. These are modern problems that need modern solutions, the conflict between Israel and the rest of the Middle East rests on the idea that we should accept that the worst of Islam is *not* Islam, the worst of the Middle East is *not* the Middle East, and the worst of Israel is *not* Israel. I think we have become so jaded and so skeptical of the human condition that the failure of the Middle East is not with Israel or Palestine, but with those who seek to mediate the crisis. We accept that Israel consists of barbaric killers who murder and subjugate innocent Palestinians, and we accept that Islam and the Arabs of The Middle East will never accept the existence of Israel and that they must be stuck in Dark Age thinking. And we accept the same things about ourselves, as if the worst of America or Christianity or the rest of the world could truly define who we are as human beings. In all actuality, their fight is our fight and they are no more stuck in the dark ages than you or I.
posted
Whenever I try to recall the four of them playing for the inauguration I think of Final Countdown done by cellos. I would have enjoyed that much more than the odd rendition of Simple Gifts that they did.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
It DOES look a little strange. The day after he signs an XO for tough new rules on lobbyists in government he asks for a waiver for a top lobbyist at a major defense contractor for an important post in the Defense Department?
I'm sometimes willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to lobbyists, because I think a lot of them know their stuff very, very well. Gates pushed hard to get him, and I think Secretaries should have some meaningful say in the names of their deputies. That's why I didn't bat an eye at the provision in the XO that allowed for a waiver if it was in the public's interest. Lobbyists aren't generally acting in the best interests of the public when they are lobbyists, but they DO know their material, as such, a lot of them could be considered a corps of professionals in specific fields.
The timing is awkward, and if he has to recuse himself from any issue dealing with Raytheon, that's going to be a major hindrance to the performance of his duties. And if he doesn't recuse himself, than any decision he makes with regards to them will be suspect, especially if he goes right back to working for them when he gets out of the Defense Department.
Republicans, like John McCain already, are going to rail against it as Obama betraying both his campaign rhetoric and the ideals of his recently signed XO, and they'll call it hypocritical. Democrats will hem and haw because they don't have any particular loyalty to Obama at the moment and they love self destruction. Carl Levin (D-MI) is already saying that he has a lot of questions he wants answered before he okays the nomination moving up to the full senate. He's Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where this appointment will have to pass first.
So, is this troubling, or overblown?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Obama could have first appointed William Lynn III and then established lobbyist restrictions. I understand that few if any laws are perfect, and so I hope that if Obama is allowed the benefit of the doubt this time, that exceptions will remain few and far between.
It's potentially troubling, but I really think it's just a case of poor timing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been wondering: does anyone know if there's an official "Obama Watch" website that intends to keep track of his various promises and how well he keeps them?
That's something I felt would have been particularly awesome for the new whitehouse.gov to have on its own. They list a bunch of agendas he intends to pursue. Having a checkoff list, so you could sit down and look at how much the president has accomplished at the end would be a neat tradition to start. (Yeah, given the range of the definition of "successful" ["Mission Accomplished!"] I know it wouldn't ACTUALLY be practical, but I can dream)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, for Obama's words of "No Lobbyists" vs his actions of hiring lobbyists is an easy one to side step. Obama changed his campaign rhetoric to be lobbyists won't 'run' his White House, not that he wouldn't have any on his staff. Plus he wrote a waiver into the Ethics reform so he can do anything he wants and not violate it.
quote: Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
quote: The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.
quote: The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."
"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.
"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.
"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."
In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."
"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."
The president added that he looked forward to "working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
