She Is A Women

If you kiss her, you are not a gentleman
If you don't, you are not a man



If you praise her, she thinks you are lying
If you don't, you are good for nothing


If you agree to all her likes, you are a wimp
If you don't, you are not understanding



If you visit her often, she thinks it is boring
If you don't, she accuses you of double-crossing



If you are well dressed, she says you are a playboy
If you don't, you are a dull boy


If you are jealous, she says it's bad
If you don't, she thinks you do not love her



If you attempt a romance, she says you didn't respect her
If you don't, she thinks you do not like her



If you are a minute late, she complains it's hard to wait
If she is late, she says that's a girl's way



If you visit another man, you're not putting in "quality time"
If she is visited by another woman, "oh it's natural, we are girls"



If you kiss her once in a while, she professes you are cold
If you kiss her often, she yells that you are taking advantage



If you fail to help her in crossing the street, you lack ethics
If you do, she thinks it's just one of men's tactics for seduction



She is a woman If you stare at another woman, she accuses you of flirting
If she is stared by other men, she says that they are just admiring


If you talk, she wants you to listen
If you listen, she wants you to talk



In short:
So simple, yet so complex
So weak, yet so powerful
So damning, yet so wonderful
So confusing, yet so desirable.

Rasul Di Tanah Minahasa



Nederlandsch Zendeling Genootscahp (NZG) adalah sebuah organisasi misi kebangunan rohani yang berkedudukan di Rotterdam, Belanda. Schwarz yang lahir di Jerman tanggal 21 April 1800 ini tergabung di dalamnya atas permintaan pembimbingnya di sekolah misi Berlin. Tempat ia belajar berbagai hal selama 5 tahun mulai dari ilmu eksakta, bahasa Inggris, Latin, Yunani, Ibrani, dogmatika, homilitika, musik, melukis, pastoral praktis bahkan memasak.



Bulan November 1829, ketika Schwarz berusia hampir 30 tahun, ia berangkat berlayar menuju Tanah Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Oleh NZG ia diminta untuk mengupayakan pendidikan bagi tenaga-tenaga pribumi untuk memberitakan Injil. Bukan dengan cara menyebarluaskan perbedaan konvensi, melainkan ‘kekristenan dalam hati’. Salah satu hal pokok yang ditekankan NZG adalah mengenai pembaptisan. Ketulusan dan keyakinan seorang calon baptisan harus menjadi kriteria utama dalam pembaptisan yang akan dilaksanakan oleh Schwarz.

Bulan Juni 1831, Schwarz bersama rekannya JF. Reidel tiba di Manado. Di sini era pembangunan jemaat Kristen telah dimulai. Residen penguasa setempat mengantarkan Schwarz ke tempat yang dipilihnya yaitu Kakas dan kemudian menetap di Langoan. Dalam melaksanakan tugas memberitakan Injil, Schwarz memakai metode yang sangat sederhana. Ia menggunakan kata-kata yang hidup dalam masyarakat tanpa bentuk-bentuk tertentu, tanpa catatan dan tanpa buku-buku. Ia mengajarkan Injil melalui bahasa yang bisa dipahami masyarakat setempat, dan karena pembawaannya yang ramah ia mampu mengadakan pendekatan pada mereka.

Setelah beberapa tahun di ladang misi, Schwarz mulai melirik pembangunan sekolah. Untuk mewujudkan hal ini, ia mengajak jemaat untuk membangun sekolah Kristen dan sekolah Alifuru khusus bagi yang belum menerima Injil. Rencana ini terwujud dengan baik berkat kerja sama dengan pemerintah waktu itu. Di kemudian hari sekolah Alifuru berubah menjadi sekolah zending. Dari situlah cahaya penginjilan bersinar sehingga para orangtua turut mengikutinya.

Pada tahun 1839, Schwarz menikah dengan Constans yang belakangan banyak membantunya dalam mempelajari bahasa Minahasa. Selain melayani di daerah tempat tinggalnya di Langoan, ia juga sering memberitakan Injil ke daerah-daerah lain, mendirikan sekolah, mengajar keterampilan dan kesehatan. Selain ke Manado, Kema dan Likupang bagian Utara, ia juga sampai ke pesisir Selatan seperti Belang Ratahan. Di mana-mana ia berusaha mendirikan sekolah. Walau ia tidak terlalu pandai mengatur organisasi, tetapi ia memiliki jiwa yang besar dalam misi pelayanannya. Ia mengembara tidak henti-hentinya. Schwarz begitu sibuk dan selalu memikirkan pembentukan jemaat serta kebutuhannya termasuk gedung sekolah dan gereja, penataan dan penyusunan peraturan jemaat.

Schwarz banyak mendirikan jemaat dan ia adalah penginjil pertama yang mengangkat jabatan Penatua dan Diaken. Hal ini dilakukan Schwarz demi untuk kemandirian jemaat. Cara tersebut lalu ditiru oleh misionaris lain dan sampai sekarang pun jabatan gerejawi itu masih berlaku di Tanah Minahasa. Di samping itu untuk mempermudah penilikan jemaat, ia mengangkat pembantu penginjil untuk masing-masing daerah. Tugas yang diberikannya adalah berkeliling mengunjungi jemaat, memberikan pendidikan, berkhotbah serta memonitor perkembangan keadaan jemaat.


Schwarz dan Reidel adalah dua orang pelopor yang meletakkan dasar yang cukup kuat bagi jemaat-jemaat di Minahasa. Dalam 10 tahun pertama pelayanan mereka, sekalipun Reidel lebih berhasil dalam jumlah membaptis orang, namun dalam mendirikan jemaat dan sekolah termasuk luasnya wilayah pelayanan Schwarz jauh melebihi pelayanan Reidel. Inilah hal yang paling menonjol dalam pelayanan Schwarz di samping keberhasilannya mengajarkan keterampilan teknik pertukangan, pertanian, kesehatan, dan membangun peradaban yang baik di Tanah Minahasa.

Emanuel's Elbows


Republicans are howling about Barack Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff, claiming the Illinois Congressman is a rough partisan who belies Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric about comity and bipartisanship.

For our part, we like the choice. Mr. Emanuel is likely to be a restraining influence on the wackier Members of Congress. There's no doubt he's a liberal and a fierce partisan, an architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. A tribute to his talents is that Democrats gave him the job of leading that campaign though he'd only been elected in 2002. And one of the keys to Democratic success is that Mr. Emanuel made a point of recruiting candidates who fit their districts -- even if they disagreed with liberal orthodoxy on abortion or gun rights.

As a veteran of the Clinton White House, Mr. Emanuel will also want to avoid the chaos of its first year. He helped to negotiate the 1997 balanced budget deal that cut the capital gains tax even as it created the children's health-care entitlement. He supports expanded trade and will not want Mr. Obama to govern as a protectionist. The Chicagoan also has experience with financial markets, so he is likely to be a voice against the long-term nationalization of the U.S. banking system.

As for Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights -- and the ones that really matter -- will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill. Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.


-----

Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake


The liberal pundits who embraced the candidacy of Barack Obama are also eager to issue a death certificate for free market capitalism. They're wrong, and they remind me of what the great Willie Nelson once said: "I'm ragged but I'm right."

To be sure, the American people have handed power over to the Democrats. But today there is a categorical difference between what Republicans stand for and the principles of individual freedom. Parties are all about getting people elected to political office; and the practice of politics too often takes the form of professional juvenile delinquency: short-sighted and self-centered.

This was certainly true of the Bush presidency. Too often the policy agenda was determined by short-sighted political considerations and an abiding fear that the public simply would not understand limited government and expanded individual freedoms. How else do we explain "compassionate conservatism," No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit and the most dramatic growth in federal spending since LBJ's Great Society?

John McCain has long suffered from philosophical confusions about free markets, and his presidential campaign reflected as much. Most striking was his inability to explain his own health-care proposal, or to defend his tax cuts and tax reform. Ultimately, it took a plumber from Ohio to identify the real nature of Barack Obama's plan to "spread the wealth."

Mr. McCain did find his message on taxes in the last few weeks, but it was too late. A Rasmussen poll of Oct. 30 reported that 31% of likely voters believed that "taxes will go down" under an Obama administration versus just 11% under a McCain administration. Shockingly, 19% of self-described conservatives believed Mr. Obama would cut taxes; only 12% thought Mr. McCain would.

The response by Mr. McCain to the financial crisis on Wall Street was the defining moment of the campaign. In what looked like a tailor-made opportunity to "clean up Washington," the Republican nominee could have challenged the increasingly politicized nature of Federal Reserve policies, and the inherently corrupt relationships between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and various Democratic committee chairmen. Instead, his reaction was visceral and insecure: He "suspended" his campaign and promised "to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street."

In the process, he squandered his political standing with the investor class, a core Republican voting bloc. An October 26-30 Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll of likely voters showed Mr. McCain barely beating the Democratic nominee among self-identified "investors," 50.4% to 43.8% -- a dramatic drop from the 15-point lead he held in a similar poll a month earlier.

The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success. Ronald Reagan, for example, held an unshakably positive vision of American capitalism. He didn't feel a need to qualify the meaning of his conservatism. He understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate -- offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity.

Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity. But their failure to do so must not be misconstrued as a rejection of principles of individual liberty by the American people. The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business. The worrisome question is whether either political party understands this.


--

If Barack Obama ran for president by calling for a heavier hand of government, he also won by running one of the most entrepreneurial campaigns in history.

Will he now grasp the lesson his campaign offers as he crafts policies aimed at reigniting the national economy? Amid a recession, two wars, and a global financial crisis, will he come to see that unleashing the entrepreneur is the best way to raise the revenue he needs for his lofty priorities?

Like every entrepreneur, Mr. Obama's rise was improbable. An unusually-named, African-American first-term senator defeated two of the most powerful incumbent political brands, the Clintons and John McCain. Like many upstarts, he won by changing the rules of the game.

Mr. Obama, following FDR's mastery of radio and JFK's success on TV, is the first candidate to fully exploit the Web. The community organizer seemed to realize that new social networking and video technologies were perfect for politics. It didn't hurt that Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes worked for the campaign. "What ultimately transformed the presidential race," Joshua Green of The Atlantic wrote in June, "was not the money that poured in from Silicon Valley but the technology and the ethos."

The results of Mr. Obama's decentralized Web effort were staggering: 8,000 Web-based affinity groups, 50,000 local events, 1.5 million Web volunteers, and 3.1 million donors who contributed almost $700 million. Republicans, Charlie Cook reported on Nov. 3, believe their large but impersonal centralized databases could not match the tacit knowledge, individual initiative and agility of Mr. Obama's diffuse social networks.

Such creativity could bubble up because Mr. Obama was stable at the top. Not just anyone could recruit an army of volunteers and let them run free, establishing their own networks, offices and events. Because Mr. McCain lurched from one message and tactic to the next with dramatic frequency, his supporters froze. They spent more time defending or deciphering his shifting policies and tactics than they did organizing and persuading. Mr. Obama's even temper and relentlessly consistent message, on the other hand, encouraged supporters to take risks without the worry of being blindsided.

The key question now is how will Mr. Obama govern? Will he stick with the policies he ran on or adopt the approach that he won with?

The only way a president can maximize economic growth is to unleash diffuse networks of entrepreneurs. As economist Bob Litan of the Kauffman Foundation says, "Government can't compel growth." But Mr. Obama's plans -- "card check" legislation to allow workers to unionize a workplace without a secret ballot election; curbing free trade; a government-led "green economy"; and higher tax rates on capital and entrepreneurs -- do not reflect his campaign's deep trust in individuals.

A thought experiment, Mr. President-elect: What if as your campaign raised more and more money it was taxed away and given to Mr. McCain to level the field? Or think of this: What if you were not allowed to opt out of the public financing scheme that left Mr. McCain with a paltry $84 million, about a quarter of your autumn total?

Opting out of monopolistic, closed or centralized systems is often the path to innovation. Sometimes we opt out through the relaxation of regulations. More often, technology allows us to leap, obliterate or ignore the obstacles altogether.

So on education, why doesn't Mr. Obama take Charles Murray's advice? Instead of spending ever more billions to send ever more students to get often-meaningless, four-year college degrees, we should disaggregate the higher education market using the Web and skill-specific short courses and accreditation exams.

Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School makes a similar argument for K-12 education, where we mindlessly follow a century-old way of doing business. Get rid of this manufacturing era, "value chain" model -- where we take inputs (students), add value (sometimes), and spit them out the other end -- in favor of a "user network" model where unique students with distinct learning styles plug in to smart software and tutoring tools that deliver a customized education.

On health care, let's face facts. We are not going to "solve" the entitlements crisis by gouging American producers to pay for the current Medicare/Medicaid abomination. Much better to transcend the issue with medical innovations and an entrepreneurial, consumer-driven market where more physicians go into medical technology, more nurses replace doctors, more technologies replace doctor visits, and, with properly-aligned incentives and real prices, more citizens take better care of their own health and thus their pocket books. The only way to escape current predictions of scarcity is the unforeseen abundance that entrepreneurship can bring.

Finally, Mr. President-elect, here's a secret: Insist on a strong and stable dollar. It worked wonders for presidents Reagan and Clinton. A weak dollar killed Messrs. Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush 43. In the same way that Mr. Obama's millions of entrepreneurial volunteers took comfort in their leader's calm, steady, disciplined approach, entrepreneurs need the predictability and discipline of a stable currency to unleash their unpredictable innovations.

Mr. Obama should throw away his tax-regulate-and-centralize white papers. Instead, he should follow his campaign playbook and trust the networked masses. The best way to harness their power is to undo the reins.

Mr. Swanson is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Global Innovation at The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

*

From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003:

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses -- just so we're clear -- are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

The Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . .

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage -- similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example -- meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks. . . .

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.



Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
[Commentary] AP

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."
In Opinion Journal Today

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Intense and gripping, the 2008 election was also historic. The son of a Kenyan immigrant and an American mother has risen to the presidency of history's most powerful nation. Who was not moved by the sight of Jesse Jackson standing silently among strangers with tears streaming down his face as he thought of a long journey towards equality and acceptance?

So how did Barack Obama win? Some of it was fortune: He was a fresh, gifted, charismatic leader who emerged at just the moment that people yearned for something entirely new.

Some of it was circumstance: The October Surprise arrived a month early and framed the election in the best possible way for Mr. Obama (and the worst possible way for John McCain).

Some of it was thoughtful positioning: His themes of bipartisanship and a readiness to tackle the country's pressing challenges were enormously attractive, especially when delivered with hope and optimism.

And some of it was planning and execution: The Obama campaign, led by the two Davids -- Plouffe, the manager, and Axelrod, the strategist -- carefully built a powerful army of persuasion aimed at accomplishing two tasks.

A candidate can improve his party's performance by getting additional people out to vote and persuading people inclined to support the other party to cross over. The first yields an additional vote; the second is worth two, the one a candidate gets and the one he takes away from his opponent.
About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

So the two Davids registered millions of voters in states the Obama campaign picked as battlegrounds, especially where there were many heretofore-disinterested African Americans and younger Democrats. Messrs. Plouffe and Axelrod understood that over the last 28 years only 11 of 20 eligible Americans on average cast a presidential ballot. They focused on registering and motivating the other nine who don't usually vote. This decision, perhaps more than any other, allowed Mr. Obama to win such previously red states as Virginia, Indiana, Colorado and Nevada. It forced Mr. McCain to spend most of the fall on defense, unable to take once-reliably Republican states for granted.

Second, Messrs. Plouffe and Axelrod pried away from the GOP ranks small but decisive slices of the Republican presidential coalition. We can't be precise, because for the third election in a row the exit polls were trash. The raw numbers forecast an 18-point Obama win, news organizations who underwrote the poll arbitrarily dialed it down to a 10-point Obama edge, and the actual margin was six.

But we do know President-elect Obama ran better among frequent churchgoers (perhaps getting 10 points more than John Kerry did), independents (perhaps five points more than Kerry and eight points more than Al Gore), Hispanics and white men. He even made special appeals to gun owners and sent his wife to cultivate military families. This allowed him to carry previously red states like Florida, New Mexico and Iowa.

This combination helped Senator Obama run four points better nationally than John Kerry did in 2004 and 2.5 points better than Al Gore did in 2000. These small changes on the margin meant all the difference between winning and losing.

It is a tribute to his skills that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, won in a country that remains center-right. Most pre-election polls and the wiggly exits indicate America remains ideologically stable, with 34% of voters saying they are conservative -- unchanged from 2004. Moderates went to 44% from 45% of the electorate, while liberals went to 22% from 21%.

Mr. Obama understood this. He downplayed calls for retreat from Iraq, instead emphasizing toughness on Afghanistan, even threatening an ally, Pakistan, if it didn't help more to exterminate al Qaeda. Mr. Obama campaigned on "a tax cut for 95% of Americans," while attacking "government-run health care" as "extreme" and his opponent's proposals as hidden tax increases.
Today in Opinion Journal

Grup C dan D
Percik Kebintangan Izmailov

Rusia disebut tersingkir di semifinal Euro 2008 karena tak membawa seluruh pemain terbaiknya ke Austria-Swiss. Salah satu yang tidak dibawa serta menurut Novaya Gazeta adalah Marat Nailevich Izmailov, winger yang pekan ini terbukti menjadi arsitek kelolosan Sporting ke putaran 16 besar Liga Champion.

Marat Izmailov (kiri), alasan utama kelolosan Sporting. (Foto: AFP)

Percik kebintangan pemain berumur 26 tahun itu amat santer terlihat ketika mengoyak-ngoyak Shakhtar Donetsk dari sisi kanan pada Selasa (4/11) di Estadio Jose Alvalade. Sebuah umpan dari Izmailov lewat sisi itulah yang kemudian menjadi penentu kemenangan 1-0 tuan rumah.

Derlei, yang menerima bola di dalam kotak penalti, sempat mengontrol bola sebelum menghajar si kulit bundar ke sisi kanan kiper Andriy Pyatov pada menit ke-73.

Sporting lolos dari Grup C bersama dengan Barcelona, yang unggul satu poin atas rival Portugal-nya itu setelah tertahan imbang 1-1 di Camp Nou pada hari yang sama oleh Basel.

Berbeda dengan kondisi Sporting, yang membutuhkan kejeniusan Izmailov untuk keluar dari konsistensi tekanan Shakhtar, skuad Blaugrana justru kurang beruntung lantaran hanya berhasil meraih satu poin meski amat mendominasi Basel.

Gol tunggal Lionel Messi pada menit ke-62 adalah satu dari delapan tembakan akurat Barca dalam 22 kali upaya membobol tamunya. Balasan Eren Derdiyok hanya tujuh menit menjelang bubar praktis menodai rekor 100% Barcelona yang sebelumnya selalu menang di Liga Champion musim ini.

Debat Penalti Anfield

Laga yang bertempo tinggi ini disebut Marca Digital sebagai galeri para supersub lantaran Messi dan Derdiyok adalah sama-sama pemain pengganti yang menyusup ke lapangan pada periode 30 menit terakhir.

Sementara itu dari Grup D muncul fenomena hujan kartu kuning pada injury time di Anfield menyusul gol penalti Steven Gerrard ke gawang Atletico Madrid (1-1). Ini reaksi wajar karena andai gol Maxi Rodriguez pada menit ke-37 tak terbalas, sebenarnya Atletico memastikan lolos ke 16 besar.

Hukuman penalti yang mengundang protes dan terbitnya tiga kartu kuning akibat protes keras dari Mariano Pernia, Johnny Heitinga, dan Sergio Aguero itu layak diperdebatkan.

Benturan Pernia dengan Gerrard di udara sebenarnya cukup fair, tapi asisten wasit menilai Pernia tidak berniat menghalau bola dan sekadar menghalangi lawan. Atletico masih teratas di klasemen hingga matchday keempat dengan nilai 8, sama dengan perolehan poin The Reds.

Kelolosan mereka masih ditentukan pada 26 November ketika Atletico menjamu PSV dan Marseille menyambangi Anfield. (Darojatun)


Music :
http://www.videoku.tv/action/music/2323/Koes_Plus___Penyanyi_Tua/?ref=Belajar777