|
Previous Posts
Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety.
But mostly deep, deep gratitude.
How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create
posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o
posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 |
read full post
»
My Big News
Dear Readers,
This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999.
In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the
posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009
BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE
New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re
posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 |
read full post
»
Secularizing the Cross (Christian Activists: Be Careful What You Wish For)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week, in Buono v. Salazar, about whether a white 6 1/2 foot cross can be displayed in a national park as a tribute to World War I soldiers. Though it's depicted as a classic clash of the secular and the religious, it actually illustrates why Christian act
posted 1:15:51pm Oct. 08, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
posted November 21, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Steve, please ask Jill why she didn’t expose Bush for coming out publicly against the South Dakota Ban in 2006. That ban had no exceptions, Bush has quite a handful of them. Bush’s opposition was like him saying, “If I can’t kill these few kids, I’d rather it be legal to kill them all.” They gave Bush his exceptions and he still didn’t support it.
Maybe you could put this on your site. McCain was no different. He didn’t support the SD Ban, and neither Bush or McCain would ever support a Personhood amendment, like Colorado had. They don’t believe an unborn baby is a person. If you don’t believe a Jew is a person, you’re not pro-Jew. If you don’t believe a black man is a person, you’re not pro-blacks. If you don’t believe an unborn baby is a person, you can’t be pro-life.
posted November 21, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Thank you, Mr. Waldman, for this illuminating link/post regarding infighting in the pro-life movement. Definitely seems as though the enemy has sown seeds of discord, paralleling the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Mat 13; 18-30)
Never new it was sound strategy to deliberately lose battles in the hope that the war would eminently be won.
posted November 21, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I don’t believe a peacock is a person either, Will. Can I be pro-peacock?
posted November 22, 2008 at 12:05 am
Jill Stanek has wrongly claimed that Obama supported infanticide.
Clarifying the record on the born-alive bill September 5, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5cgcb6
The above link is an article in the Chicago Tribune by Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the bill in the state Senate. He said, “none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide,” despite his disagreement with them. “Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Jill Stanek, the former Illinois nurse, whose claims about a supposed rash of abortions of “born alive” babies at a Chicago hospital snowballed into the election-season charge that Obama supported “infanticide. FactCheck and PolitiFact have also debunked her accusations.
Winkel said, “I introduced Senate Bill 1082 because of a nurse’s claims that abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn resulted in living infants whom hospital personnel then allowed to die without medical or comfort care.”
Winkel said, “In 2005, I joined 116 state representatives and 54 senators in voting for HB-984, which contained the same born-alive definition and neutrality language as Senate Bill 1082, plus some extra language to satisfy the most zealous pro-choice legislators, yet harmless to the bill’s purpose.”
“Born alive” votes fuel abortion fight
October 9th, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/3v6a7c
FactCheck:
‘Born Alive’ Baloney September 24, 2008
An abortion survivor claims she would have died if Obama had his way. She’s wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/4bhb7n
posted February 12, 2009 at 12:54 am
It truly sadens me that some people defend ‘abortion rights’ on the rational of denial. “a SUPPOSED rash of abortions of “born alive” babies at a Chicago hospital” (emphasis mine) Please, at least admit the reality behind these events. The recently released film 22 Weeks accounts a TRUE story of infanticide in Florida.