Dipping My Toes Into Politics

Charles Rust-Tierney, Former President of the VA-ACLU (currently a Youth Coach), Charged With Child Porn Possession

2007-02-24T14:55:00.000-08:00

Youth Coach Charged With Child Porn Possession

Feb 23rd 2007- 6:27pm

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A youth sports coach in Arlington County who is also a past president of Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was arrested Friday and charged with receiving and possessing child pornography.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, made an initial appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria and was detained pending a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

It was unclear Friday whether he had an attorney. A call to his home went unanswered.

A federal agent said in a sworn affidavit Friday that Rust-Tierney has subscribed to various child-pornography Web sites the past several years.

The affidavit states that Rust-Tierney also admitted to an agent Friday that he has downloaded videos and photos, which were found in a search of his home, from child porn sites.

Arlington police are continuing their investigation and seeking information from the public on the case.

Newsletters on the ACLU chapter's Web site indicate Rust-Tierney served as president from 2002 through 2005.

Liberals will not be at all outraged at this man's admission of buying and possessing child pornography and will most likely defend him, make excuses for him, or dismiss this arrest as "another one of those things."

Is this why The ACLU fights so diligently to protect the "rights" of pedophiles and pornographers? Is Rust-Tierney the reason? To protect him? And others in the ACLU like Rust-Tierney? Perhaps this is something to consider.

Prognostication: The liberal media will, in no way and at no time, depict this man as the monster he is and will downplay the arrest at every opportunity.

Because he is the former president of the VA-ACLU, this story will be relegated to the "lesser" pages of the printed media and will most likely be glossed over in a 15-second sound byte, if mentioned at all, on the television news.

Because his wife is someone of import, Diann Rust-Tierney of The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty from the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which she has directed since 1991, and as she is sympathetic to child predators, molesters, and rapists and assists them in avoiding the death penalty, it is even more important the liberal media "hide" this arrest from the public at large.

Mr. Rust-Tierney was found to have, and admitted having, pornographic videos of very underage girls that were tied up, crying and screaming, and being forcibly raped. The most heinous and hideous of acts.

Of course, the ACLU will creatively argue that buying pornographic videos of underage children is a matter of, and is protected by, free speech; on the part of the maker of the video and in Mr. Rust-Tierney's right to find his sexual gratification by repeatedly watching the brutal rape of screaming little girls that have been tied up.

ABC's Story:
Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2900174
Just the current facts, little background.

NBC's Story:
Youth Sport Coach Charged In Child Pornography Case
http://www.nbc4.com/news/11096703/detail.html
In which they are completely dishonest by not stating the fact that Mr. Rust-Tierney was a former president of the VA-ACLU. Why would they leave out that important fact? It's more than relevant in a story involving child pornography and abuse. Isn't the ACLU the champion of such victims in upholding their rights? The former Chapter President of the ACLU admits upon arrest he owns, subscribes to, and downloads to disc pornography of underage children. Interesting. NBC makes him out to be "a regular guy and sports coach from the suburbs." Bias? In this article?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The Washington Times Story:
ACLU ex-president charged in child-porn case http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070223-104642-1644r.htm
Straightforward and fact-driven, including background.

Let's go back and see how the press handled similar stories:

Ex-Boy Scout official faces child porn charges
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/scouts.charges/index.html
CNN, in its headline, says the offender is an Ex-Boy Scout leader.

Homeland Security official arrested in child sex sting
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/04/homeland.arrest/index.html

Again, CNN makes the man's profession the headline and the story goes into explicit detail about the allegations including quotes.

Keep an eye on this, if it even stays in the papers or on the net, and see for yourself the overt bias of the media when it comes to "one of their own".

Do you remember how the media handled the Mark Foley situation? Another something to ponder.

The Not-Too-Illuminated Left

2007-01-14T13:59:00.000-08:00

A post found on the political board I frequent from time-to-time, a perfect example of the Left's hypocrisy.

Okay, another funny from the new folks heading up your Congress.
As we all know, Pelosi recently had a watered down ethics bill passed in the House. Basically, it created some level of transparency for Congressmen adding earmarks to legislation and forced disclosure for any personal gain. What made it typical liberal window dressing was the bill made no mention of lobbyist contributions to PACs. So you’d think that a relatively benign bill like this would be an easy bill to pass, even for Liberals.
Not so fast. Over in the Senate, Harry Reid worked overtime to pull out all the provisions which dealt with earmark reform. So what did those sly dog Republicans do?? They amended the bill by adding the exact language Pelosi had in her bill. According to the WSJ, Senate Democrats immediately took to the floor and denounced such Republican trickery, apparently completely unaware the language was from their own beloved Madame Speaker. After stepping to the podium to one by one lambaste Republicans for such a draconian amendment, Senate Democrats, led by Durbin moved to table the amendment. Luckily, they lost, 51 to 46. Of the 46 Senators who voted against the secret Pelosi language, 38 were of course, Democrats.
As it stands now, Harry Reid continues to work tirelessly as promised….. to kill any accountability for federal spending.

ABC Attempts to Make Saddam Hussein a Martyr

2007-01-01T16:38:00.000-08:00

A very thinly veiled attempted by the liberal American media to make Saddam Hussein into a "hero", a "martyr", and a "sympathetic figure" in the minds of those that oppose the war in Iraq. Looks like the medias efforts have paid off based on the number of times I have seen this article posted on the intenet.

To counter those "lovey-dovey" thoughts the secular progressives have for Saddam Hussein, I posted the following:

http://shopngvideos.com/products/inside_saddam_s_reign_2
For 24 years, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party executed political rivals, Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dared disagree - or even tell a joke about the dictator. A chorus of testimonials, unearthed mass graves and discovered documents now reveal the extent to which Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. As he faces trial for his crimes, NGC goes inside his reign of terror - with rare videotape that shows Baath Party members carrying out Saddam's brutal laws.
This program presents disturbing images of graphic violence and executions under the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Viewer discretion is advised.
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced
Fact Sheet
Office of International Women's Issues
Washington, DC
March 20, 2003
Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced
Situation for Women in Saddam's Iraq
In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorized, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq's women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.
In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:
Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)
Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)
Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)
U.S. Support for Iraqi Women
All people deserve to live in freedom, including the men and women of Iraq. On March 6, 2003, a group of free Iraqi women met with Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, and Ambassador at Large for a Free Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. The women shared their experiences under Saddam's reign of terror. As this group made clear, Iraqi women are eager to participate in the process of building a peaceful, democratic post-Saddam society. They want their society to once again be based on progressive Iraqi traditions and values. They believe in the universal principles of human rights.
As in Afghanistan, the United States Government is prepared to help Iraqis with the priorities and projects that they identify as the best way to achieve their goals. We will continue to meet with Iraqi women and exchange ideas about their path forward. As Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky stated after her recent meeting with a group of free Iraqi women: "It is clear that the women of Iraq have a critical role to play in the future revival of their society. They bring skills and knowledge that will be vital to restoring Iraq to its rightful place in the region and in the world."

The Politically Skewed UPI

2006-12-30T00:34:00.000-08:00

On the political discussion board I visit, someone had posted this article (link is above) as FACT. Well, posted just this leading sentence:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

After reading this "headline", I knew something untoward was afoot and composed the following reply:

Article Editor
Correcting the misleading article of December 29th.
We had, with deliberate purpose and intent to mislead the reader, published the article using that leading sentence because we know that's all that's usually read when glancing through the paper.
We also know you rely on this first sentence as the whole story, when in fact, it usually is not.
We always use this deceitful tactic when printing news articles of political import because we know the reader usually will not investigate the article further for themselves. Twisting words to obfuscate the truth is very important to us. We can, and do, forward our political agenda, whatever that may be at any given time, every day. We readily admit we take advantage of our reader's lack of insight and willingness to be led.
In the interest of fair play, for just this one article (as there are hundreds of thousands in the archives), we now republish the first sentence, truthfully.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The poster of that article STILL didn't get it.

He responded with this:

But isn't it just amazazing that of the 2000 people they randomly interviewed, they just happened to pick the only 2000 in the entire country that felt the situation was better before the invasion? The odds against are just astounding!
I'd like to see a source for your UPI quote, if you have one.

To which I responded:

Are you that thick? That's the second paragraph of the article you posted.
2,000 people is not the entire nation of Iraq as the article twisted you to believe.

And, he couldn't let it go, so then he posted:

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll." is not the second paragraph in that article, and as far as I can tell, you made it up as some sort of lame joke. I'd love to be proven otherwise.
And to answer your first question, I guess I'm probably considered thick by some. It is a relative term after all.
I'm sure some would consider carrying on a conversion with a rude anon who makes up statistics to support his argument to be a sure sign of thickness. In any case, the article didn't twist me to believe anything, I only sited the statistic. I didn't offer any interpretation.

I finished up with:

If you're unable to see through the twisting of words used in that article, as 2,000 people interviewed does not represent the 15 million the article purports, I don't know what to say to you.
I think you're feeling insulted and silly because what you posted was proven to be a political tactic you bought into; hook, line, and sinker. Most will and do fall into the same journalistic trap.
But, now you know better and can, at least I hope you will, investigate an article and the sources it cites to get the whole picture instead of relying on skewed and slanted headlines used to inflame, incite, or promote a particular agenda. You will read more carefully, to a complete understanding of the matter, before using twisted truth as your banner.

He said:

where you seem to be mistaken is in your assumption that I didn't read and fully comprehend the content of the article.
In fact I did note where the poll was taken, and though I'm sure all those other peaceful, settled and content areas of Iraq (which are where, exactly?) would skew the data in your favor by a few percent, I don't think that invalidates the result of the poll, which is that many, perhaps the vast majority, of the recipients of these U.S. military efforts still aren't happy with the results of those efforts.
You can chalk me up as a victim of the leftist news media if you like, but those data cannot be very encouraging to anybody.

Me:

I made no mistake and no assumption.

He:

Certainly you did. You assumed that I fell into a "journalistic trap". The distribution of poll respondants were not to your liking, perhaps, but I would accept the poll results as indicative of the country's opinion within a reasonable margin. Anbar covers roughly a third of Iraq, Najaf is in the south, Baghdad in the north... where exactly would you like included in the poll to gain the other 40% approval needed to break even?

Me:

I think being shown the lack of journalistic integrity and blatant misleading in the article you posted as "truth" and "the way it is" has thrown you for a loop.
It has nothing to do with my liking or not liking the article.
It has to do with the truth.
Not a "version" or a "twsiting" of the truth. Only the truth.
I think you have a problem with math.
By posting a headline which stated 90 percent of Iraq believed something, you wanted, just as the misleading headline did, for everyone to believe that 90% of Iraqis contributed to the poll.
"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll."
90 percent of 15 million plus (the population of Iraq) is 13,500,000.
The headline would have you believe 13,500,000 of Iraqis believe something.
When investigating the article further, it is discovered 2,000 people were interviewed for the article's "poll" (100% of the participants). 2,000 people that live in terror-filled neighborhoods. Probably specifically targeted as fodder for this "poll" and the generation of the misleading headline.
2,000 is 0.013333333333333334% of 15,000,000 (Iraq's population).
There is a vast difference between 13,500,000 (90% of Iraq's population)
and
2,000 (0.01% of Iraq's population)
Yes, 90% of the 100% Iraqis interviewed for this article (2,000 people) feel this way, but 90% of all Iraqis (as the headline purports) may not. We only know the opinion of the 2,000 people that contributed their opinions to the poll cited as the basis for misleading headline.
I hope you understand how the math facts were twisted into something else for the purposes of this headline and the thousands of other articles published every day.
It is political gossip fodder and propaganda at the lowest level of social and journalistic irresponsibility. The intent with which it was originally published was wholly realized when you reposted the headline as "truth", when in fact, it is not.

He:

Yes, "about" 90% Iraqis feel that way. A reasonable inference from the results of the polled sample. I'm sure that you can appreciate that polling the entire population of Iraq tends to be logistically difficult.
Do you honestly believe that the 2000 interviewees were prescreened for political slant before the poll was taken? Or that those particular 2000 people come from three areas that are so divergent from the general opinion that the hidden, silent majority could carry the results into a favorable review of the invasion and occupation?
I think you have a problem with statistical representation, and I think you are feeling a little silly for suggesting that the general population feels anything but fear and anger at towards the occupation forces.
See there? We can both ascribe internal states to each other. Isn't that fun?
I think you have a problem with statistical analysis, too. Suggesting that the only way to gauge reality is a comprehensive survey of every citizen is ludicrous. The limited poll taken was a sample. A sample can be used to assess characteristics of a larger group. That's how polls work.

Me:

You're hopelessly misguided.
God help us all.

He:

Excellent retort, my friend.
Good night.

Me:

Projecting political propaganda, your personal feelings, or anything else onto the beliefs of the Iraqi people as a whole (of whom you know the personal feelings of how many?) by way of politically slanted news articles, which, proven here are wildly skewed, is irresponsible.
You've completely missed the point, I think purposefully, in order to perpetuate this often-(mis)read and believed misleading information.
What of the character and veracity of the author of this article for the UPI? Was it his/her intention to mislead people with broad and sweeping comments that are based, very loosely, on a journalistic twisting of facts? Yes, it was. Right in the headline.
Your insistence at perpetuating this misinformation leads me to believe you find nothing wrong with how the article (and hundreds of thousands more just like it) is maliciously misleading.
And, because of that, I must ask you to refrain from calling me "friend".
Good night.

He:

I'll be happy to refrain.
Do you have a registered handle that I might look for to avoid such an insult to your journalistically integral self?
I think the irresponsibility you seek is more easily found in those who led our nation to unprovoked war, or in your own statements ascribing motives and feelings to people (myself, the journalist, the Iraqi people outside the poll) based on your own politically slanted views.

Me:

Again, you've completely missed the point. Those blinders you have on must be HUGE.
I have stated no political views whatsoever. Not one. You, however, have projected on to me what you believe my political opinion is for me.
I merely pointed out to you the blatant lie of the headline which you believed and republished thereby perpetuating that lie. I believe you did so unknowingly and with good intention, but, I could not let such a blatant misrepresentation go by without comment. And perhaps a bit of instruction as to the "bad faith" of the media.
You've been caught off-guard and unawares. You've never been shown, in black and white, how the media lies. Your illusion is shattered. Your political beliefs now in question because you now know how the media manipulates with everything it publishes because of being agenda driven and a money-making machine for its advertisers.
Now understaning that you're one to believe the constant barrage of misinformation perpetuated by the media without question, one that is easily manipulated, I wouldn't seek your company for any reason. Good on you for thinking positive about that possiblity, though.

Another Juicy Obfuscation by "The Guardian"

2006-09-29T00:13:00.000-07:00

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended “to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam”.

But the Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this “blood libel” regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of “hypocrisy”, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur’an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s perceived “double standards” - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on “Islam”. But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

my comments:

verses from the Koran

"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)

"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

the verses above are the current verses, the ones which supersede any other "dictate" within the Koran. if there is a contradiction within the writings of the Koran, it is the most recent (by date) verse which is the bottom line, so to speak

in ancient times, the time of Mohammed's beginnings, Islam was, out of the necessity of physical survival, tolerant of non-believers in their quest to convert people to Islam. Islam was the minority back then. they had to "get along" to be accepted in society

as the faithful of Islam grew in number and power, the Allah of Mohammed changed his mind, too, so very conveniently. soon it became time to "call people by the sword", conversion of the infidel to Islam by violence, of any means, and in all situations

once Mohammed conquered Mecca, he was all set for the great Jihad against the non-Muslim world. the prior teachings in the Koran of peace and religious tolerance flew right out the window

modern-day Islam certainly does not interpret these verses literally, but the Islamic extremists do

therein lies the difference, to my way of thinking, between Islam and radical Islam; they cannot be lumped together as a single religion

for the author to lump all of Islam together is naïve, dangerous, and medieval, no matter her scholarly accolades, as is her assertion that separatism exists and is rampant in today's world

it's radical Islam which is frowned upon, shunned, and feared. the followers of the twisted version of Islam which encourages and demands hate for fellow human beings (infidels); their destruction and eradication the only goal of those hateful and vicious believers that hold the decapitating sword in their hands

i find this article completely dishonest

in today's societies, in all the larger cities of the West, communities of differing ethnicity and religion are stacked on top of one another for block after block

all living in peace and harmony, or, at the very least, tolerating well the people next door

here in the US, there are good-natured (but completely tasteless) jokes about how 7-11's are always managed by someone from the Middle East, some gas stations, and some taxi drivers, as well

i don't see anyone avoiding 7-11s, gas stations, or taxi rides because the person behind the counter, at the pump, or behind the wheel may be of Islamic origin

i don't see our schools or universities turning away those of Middle Eastern descent; as professors, teachers, faculty, or students

i don't see hospitals or social welfare organizations ignoring those of the Muslim religion; as doctors, patients, or those in need

ever since the 1960s when race relations were so strained and then civil rights were instituted and made law, don't you feel that ever since that time, that "awakening", each generation has made sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that races other than your own were inferior or less worthy? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you not to associate with those of other races or religions? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that it was very wrong to cast aspersions, on any one, regardless of race, color, or creed? yes! they did! and if they did not, you certainly know better...

i don't see this hate of Islam the author (whose article is rife with personal opinion and her own brand of hate for Christianity) speaks about at all

except, perhaps, in the minds of those that wish to keep things as an "us" vs "them" scenario, keeping the murky and distasteful soup of victimization and entitlement on a slow, rolling boil

i see this kind of mind-set alive and well for those that need to have a "cause"; something to keep their social and politically correct "compassionate" egos afloat... and thus, the separatism lives on in their minds where none exists in civilized society at large

why is it we do coexist, and quite well, and then someone like Ms Armstrong comes along and infers, persuasively yet incorrectly, that we do not? it's that word "hate" she chose to use to illustrate and sensationalize the article. it's the juicy "gossip" in which some relish and twist before passing it on to two friends, then they twist it some more and tell two friends, and so on. convoluted and misguided

do you, or the people you associate with on a daily basis, hate Islam or the people of Islam? i'm betting - "no". so, where are these masses of people that hate Islam? in the mind of Ms Armstrong?

radical Islam is a wholly different mosque

this is present day. we don't live and function in yesterday or medieval times or the times of the Crusades. the past is over and cannot be changed. we're a forward looking people, the sun will come up tomorrow kind of folks. the history of religions and the lessons well-learned from those histories remain with us, yes, and we live in much more harmonious times because of those lessons

there is no Western prejudice toward Islam and our peril is at the sword bearing hands of radical Islam; to which Ms Armstrong seems to have sympathy since she is unable to realistically differentiate between the two

About Karl Rove

2005-07-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

Up above I say something about conspiratorial fun abounding.

*grin* Fasten your seatbelts, as Bette Davis would say, here's what I'm thinking...

Karl Rove? Not guilty of anything but steering a reporter off a story containing false information created by Joseph Wilson 4 (with the complicity of his wife, Valerie Plame?).

Joseph Wilson 4, former ambassador to Iraq under Clinton. Did a good thing while there, but, later, unambassadorized, slipped into obscurity.

Enter Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph Wilson 4 and a specialist on WMD. An employee of the CIA (which gave incorrect information to President Bush leading up to the war in Iraq (deliberately?)), no longer a covert operative as her nine-to-five daily desk job at Langley would suggest. Her last overseas assignment/mission/job having happened nine years past.

Joseph Wilson 4, while applauded by GHWBush, later gave his political allegiance to the Democrats. He worked for and contributed to the campaign of John Kerry for President.

This all makes for fabulous B movie fodder. Plame and her husband, with the backing of John Kerry (and possibly George Soros money) may be responsible for the misinformation leading us into this war. Deliberately planting lies which effected decisions to be made by the Administration based on that disinformation which the Administration believed came from a credible source. That "credible" source being the CIA, and by the CIA, I mean: Plame, using her wimpy husband to debunk a "crazy report", backed by George Soros money, hand-in-hand with the Kerry campaign in an effort to discredit the President and have him look foolish in the eyes of the world to further Soros' personal political vision.

Soros, I believe, has insinuated himself into the minutia of the anti-Bush agenda.

Just my turn at playing Mel Gibson playing a conspiracy theorist.

Fitzgerald’s investigation will be finalized soon. Hopefully prior to October. This is one fascinating summer page-turner.

The Ten Commandments and The Supreme Court

2005-06-27T08:45:00.000-07:00

Well, this has been a very intersting morning.

Listening to the BTK killer (Dennis Rader), who plead guilty to everything, detail the murders he committed at the judge's request. The BTK killer began with dates, locations, and names; but the judge said that wasn't good enough and wanted details. The families of two of the BTK killer's victims are in the courthouse and they are the ones that wanted to know the details of their loved ones' deaths. Closure.

Segue into: Thou Shalt Not Kill

Segue into: The Supreme Court and the Two Rulings Made This Morning

Okay, this kind of ACLU hate propaganda irks the hell out of me. So, I'm listening to FoxNews (Bridget Quinn) and she's relaying the latest from the wires as the rulings come in from Kentucky and Texas. I'm thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah... same old stuff. But, wait a minute... Kentucky - No, but Texas - Yes? What's up with that?

So I Google for the webpage of the Kentucky Courthouse. I want to see what the "historical display" looks like. Being a former resident of Alabama, I was thinking it was along the lines of the granite statue which was in the courthouse in Montgomery. Something prominently displayed. Something massive. Something which called attention to itself. Bridget kept talking about the "addition of other documents on display" and I'm thinking, how can that be? Documents? With a granite statue? So, I find the webpage but it's not looking as though I'll find what I was looking for there, so, back to the Google page and, lo and behold, there's a link to exactly what I want.

Here it is: http://www.lc.org/misc/tencommandphotos.htm

That's it. ???? How in the HELL, if you'll please pardon the unheavenly use of language, is this or could this ever be considered an obtrusive display? I just don't get it. And the deciding vote on the Texas display was by a Liberal judge. It's been there for over forty years so it's okay. Something new, though? Mmmmmmmm, probably won't make it.

I don't understand why the ACLU has such a hard time with this. Who decided they are the ones to scour every nook and cranny for anything they deem prejudiced, biased, or contrary to civil rights? Isn't that self-appointed Big Brothership? I'll decided what is okay for me, thank you. If I disagree with something, and I doubt I'd ever go to the extreme the ACLU does, I'll just walk by. That's all that needs be done. Move along. Shake your head. Nothing else. Now, if it's something completely inappropriate, such as a giant billboard of a couple fornicating which would be easily viewed by children, well, that's gotta go. That's just common sense.

This display in Kentucky is so miniscule, so non-flashy, so quiet and unobtrusive, I doubt I'd even spend time reviewing what was framed. And, if I did, it's certainly not something that's going to get my hackles up.

The news article from FoxNews follows with the official details.

Supreme Court Bars Commandments From Courthouses
Monday, June 27, 2005
By Jane Roh
FoxNews

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses, but said a 6-foot granite replica on government land in Texas was acceptable.

In the first ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU , the court said that the Kentucky displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The Kentucky displays have been the target of litigation since they were first posted in 1999. With each lower court ruling against county officials, revisions were made to the displays. By the time the case landed on the Supreme Court's docket, the framed copies of the commandments were part of a larger, more neutral display about the history of American law.

Scalia wrote in his dissent that the changed displays had become constitutionally acceptable. However, during oral arguments in March, Scalia scolded the county for trying to convince the court the displays had been stripped of religious intent, saying it was "idiotic" to dress the commandments in historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas have all said that there is nothing wrong with government asserting God's supremacy, while the other justices on the court believe doing so would be to the exclusion of Americans of other faiths or no faiths, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Several justices were particularly disturbed by a resolution passed by county officials in reaction to a lower-court ruling, declaring that American law was derived from the Ten Commandments. While revisions were made to the displays, that resolution was left intact.

In the resolution, county officials declared: "The judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction."

Monday's rulings were perhaps the court's most highly anticipated of the 2004 session. The court has not visited the hotly contested issue since 1980, when religious displays in public schools were ruled unconstitutional.

Interest in the cases was boosted by former Alabama Justice Roy Moore's battle two years ago to keep a giant, 5,300-pound granite replica of the commandments in his courthouse. On Nov. 13, 2003, a judicial panel banished him from the bench because he defied a federal court order to remove the tablets.

The other Ten Commandments case, Van Orden v. Perry , involved a statue donated to the government and placed on grounds outside the state capitol. A Texas court had ruled that the replica, given by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 and placed among more than a dozen non-religious monuments, did not violate the Establishment clause.

The case was brought by Thomas Van Orden, a former lawyer who is now homeless. Last week, in an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Van Orden predicted the court would rule against him, but said winning or losing was almost beside the point.

"This was never a lawsuit at all," he told the News. "It was always a political question."

The justices, again split 5-4, determined the statue to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent that the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God."'

"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.

"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Racism is Alive and Well With the Left

2005-06-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

From the Leftist corkboard I visit:

Mon Jun 13 15:26 ~ III writes "Michael Jackson Not guilty........" - 67 reaction(s)
Mon Jun 13 21:25 ~ - Subject: * - 0 reaction(s)
XXX said:
"Over at jury selection"? Yeah, the jury was mostly white, with NO African-Americans on it. We know how much white people LUUVVVE MJ!

=================

My comments:

Wow. What a racist thing to say. All you have to do is look at pictures of MJ's concerts, the area outside the courthouse, any bluddy picture of his fans waving and screaming and there will be a very diverse group with a slightly higher concentration of Caucasians. Especially Caucasian females.

As far as the jury goes, the majority of them had something to do with MJ in the past, either directly or through children or grandchildren. This is the community in which he lives and it is mainly Caucasian. The area is one of ranches and vineyards. Rich to semi-rich people. Their ages were from 20-something to 80-something with a chunk of 35-60 in the middle. MJ is 46 years old. The vast majority of the jury grew up listening to MJ. That can't hurt, either. This jury was a pretty rural one, for Santa Maria/Santa Ynez, and being star struck isn't completely out of the picture, either.

And who has purchased MJ's music for the last 30 years? All kinds of people.

Which brings me to this...

When the hell are people going to stop referring to one another based on color? It is not relevant to conversation at all. Example: Which guy is it? The guy in the red shirt or the guy in the blue baseball cap? How easy was that? Pretty damn easy.

Are you a good person? An honest person? A trustworthy person? A compassionate person? A respectful person? A person that believes in treating others as they themselves would like to be treated? Fine! That's what it's all about.

Whatever happened to the mantra, "people are people"?

Making constant references to race and/or color, especially with so much hate behind it as XXX has done, just irks the hell out of me and perpetuates the yoke of a label that is scribbled every time a mouth opens and utters the words which are meant to separate and classify people. Even more so when there is such obvious hate behind them.

Speaking in those terms only prolongs feelings of victimization and hinders anyone and everyone hearing or reading the divisionist words from making any headway into a world free of racial bias and prejudice. I had hoped we'd be there by now, but this kind of thinking and speaking will keep it from happening.

Classify, classify, classify. Why? That's a pretty "Big Brother" way of thinking. Frightening.

We're long past this kind of thing, Lefties. You always fall back on putting “race” in its “place” and then denying it up and down every time you’re held responsible, or, finding yet another way to move the goal posts to what you believe is your advantage. Want forward thinking? Want to be progressive? Remember to think before perpetuating racial hate and discrimination in your everyday speech and internet comments.

XXX has unwittingly provided a public service, just by being his hateful self, in proving no one is completely useless; they can always serve as a bad example.

Jacko Found Not Guilty

2005-06-13T19:44:00.000-07:00

Jacko Found Not Guilty
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Michael Jackson has been acquitted of all of the charges against him, including molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor in 2003, conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging television documentary and administering alcohol to enable child molestation.

Jackson wiped tears from his eyes as the verdict was read. One of his lawyers, Susan Yu, burst into tears as the first verdicts were announced. Some of the women in the jury also wept and passed around a box of tissues.

When it was over, Jackson stood and was embraced by his chief lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr. , and Yu.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon sat with his head in his hands.

"Obviously we're disappointed in the verdict ... but we believe in the system of justice," Sneddon told reporters later. He said he had not yet spoken to the accuser's family about the outcome.

Asked whether this marks the end of his pursuit of Jackson, Sneddon relied: "No comment."

Outside the courthouse, the crowd erupted in cheers as the verdict was read. A woman in the throng released one white dove each time an acquittal was read.

However, while exiting the courthouse with his family, the former King of Pop moved very slowly, looking shaken and grim, and he didn't smile as supporters cheered him on.

Jackson's parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson, sisters LaToya and Rebbie, and brothers Randy and Jackie all looked on. His father helped guide him out of the courthouse.

He was escorted by his aides into a black SUV, and made no immediate public statement.

"Justice is done. The man's innocent. He always was," said Mesereau, on a Web site.

"I would never have married a pedophile. And the system works," Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe said in a statement given to "Entertainment Tonight."

One of Jackson's supporters told FOX News: "I've been with him all the way and I'm just so happy. Go touring again, Michael. We love you."

After the verdicts were read, the judge read a statement from the jury: "We the jury feel the weight of the world's eyes upon us." They said they followed the judge's instruction and asked the world let them return to "our private lives as anonymously as we came."

The jury, which listened to 14 weeks of testimony and arguments, sent word of a verdict on the 10-count indictment about 3:30 p.m. EDT.

The verdict -- reached after about 30 hours of deliberations over seven days -- ended a star-studded, four-month trial that offered a global audience a lurid look into Jackson's weird world and presented jurors with vastly different portraits of him: a creepy pervert who preyed on little boys, or the victim of a frame-up by a family of shakedown artists.

In a press conference later, jurors remained guarded about details of their deliberations but offered some insight. One said that at the outset they got beyond the fact that Jackson is a celebrity and treated him like anyone else.

Several jurors said they were irritated by the testimony of the accuser's mother, who stared at the jury and snapped her fingers at them.

"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman. She said she thought to herself, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady."

FOX News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano remarked that the jurors felt no animus toward Jackson even after all they heard about him, and said it could have something to do with Jackson's "aura." He also said the prosecution could have made a better case.

"They could have tailored the case to just molestation. They should never have put the mother on the witness stand -- she made Jackson seem normal by comparison," he said.

During the trial, prosecutors who had been pursuing Jackson for years branded him a deviant who used his playland as the ultimate pervert's lair, plying boys with booze and porn before molesting them.

Defense lawyers described Jackson as a humanitarian who wanted to protect kids and give them the life he never had while growing up as a child star. The boy had asked to meet the star when he thought he was dying of cancer.

The defense said the family exploited the boy's illness to shake down celebrities, then concocted the charges after realizing Jackson was cutting them off from a jet-set lifestyle that included limo rides and stays at luxurious resorts.

Jackson faced 10 charges in all, including four counts that he molested the boy in early 2003. Jackson also was charged with providing the boy with wine -- "Jesus juice," the pop star called it -- and conspiring with members of his inner circle to hold the accuser and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary.

In the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary made by a British journalist, Jackson held hands with the boy and acknowledged sharing his bed with children, a practice he described as sweet and not at all sexual.

Jackson agreed to take part in the documentary because he hoped it would help his image after years of eccentric behavior that included transforming his face through plastic surgery.

But the airing of the program in February 2003 triggered intense media scrutiny of Jackson's relationship with the boy, as well as calls for investigations. Authorities interviewed the boy and Jackson was charged before year's end. At trial, prosecutors would allege that Jackson molested the boy in the weeks after the family recorded a rebuttal video.

The boy, now 15, testified that Jackson twice masturbated him while they were under the covers in the singer's bedroom. The boy's brother testified he twice witnessed Jackson fondle the boy as he slept.

Prosecutors hauled out bag after bag of adult magazines found in Jackson's home and projected explicit images onto a large screen, saying Jackson showed boys the material to arouse them. Prosecution witnesses described other bizarre behavior by Jackson: They said he licked his accuser's head, simulated a sex act with a mannequin, kept dolls in bondage outfits on his desk.

Prosecutors said kids were allowed the run of Neverland -- a fantasy land of amusement park rides, golf carts and exotic animals about 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles -- before being molested in Jackson's bedroom.

"They rode rides, went to the zoo, ate whatever they wanted -- candy, ice cream, soda pop," prosecutor Ron Zonen said in closing arguments. "And at night they entered into the world of the forbidden."

Under an unusual California law, prosecutors were allowed to introduce evidence of other instances of molestation on Jackson's part that never resulted in any charges, to prove that the alleged crimes were part of a pattern of behavior.

A parade of servants and other Neverland staff members described seeing Jackson grope or otherwise molest boys, with a one-time security guard saying he saw the singer shower with and perform oral sex on a boy who later received a settlement with Jackson.

The defense systematically portrayed the household help as disgruntled employees who were angry about being fired and peddled gossip about the pop star to the supermarket tabloids.

The defense also relentlessly attacked the credibility of the accuser and his family, namely by focusing on a $152,000 settlement they received from J.C. Penney after the mother accused store security guards of roughing up the family and groping her.

Jackson's lawyers said it was a trumped-up lawsuit and suggested that the woman's injuries were actually caused by her abusive then-husband. The defense also portrayed the mother as a welfare cheat for obtaining benefits after winning the settlement.

Witnesses for the defense testified that during the weeks the boy and his family were supposedly being held against their will by Jackson's associates, they were taken on shopping sprees, the mother went to a spa for a body wax, and the children had an orthodontist appointment -- all paid for by Jackson.

In his closing argument, Mesereau called the family a pack of scam artists trying to pull off the "the biggest con of their careers."

Jackson never took the stand, but spoke on several videos played in court.

The case unfolded at times like a circus. After his arraignment, Jackson jumped atop an SUV and danced for cheering fans. He failed to show up for court one morning and was nearly jailed before he shuffled in wearing pajama bottoms, suffering from what aides said was a back injury. Often, he came to court in dark jackets and a rainbow of vests and matching arm bands.

The jury got a look at Jackson's strange world when the documentary was played in court. Jackson said he would often hug or play with his chimp Bubbles to relax after a hard day's work. He also said he once considered having a celebrity animal party for Bubbles.

Several celebrities testified for Jackson, including Macaulay Culkin (search ) and comedians Jay Leno and Chris Tucker. Tucker said he felt used by the family and warned Jackson to beware. Culkin said he slept in Jackson's bed as a child but nothing improper ever happened, contradicting testimony that Jackson put his hands up the "Home Alone" actor's shorts.

In jumbled and tearful testimony, the accuser's mother claimed that Jackson's associates held her against her will, warning her that killers were after the family and that they might somehow disappear from Neverland in a hot-air balloon.

"Please don't judge me!" the mother implored jurors, holding out her arms. "He's wrong!" she said, pointing at Mesereau, an aggressive defense attorney with a mane of pure white hair and the build of a prize fighter.

The prosecution was led by Sneddon, who displayed open hostility for Jackson and eagerly tried him -- an opportunity denied him in 1993 when the star settled another threatened molestation case with a boy for $15 million to $20 million. Later, Jackson derided Sneddon in song as "a cold man."

The trial seemed to wear Jackson down. He lost weight, and the artist known for his electric, moonwalking performances was rendered motionless, seemingly frozen in his courtroom chair as his private world became utterly public.

Prosecutors portrayed Jackson as being in dire financial straits because of heavy spending. Jackson's "Thriller" album from 1982 is one of the best-selling albums of all time, but his dominance of pop music eroded around the time molestation allegations began to arise in the 1990s.

Although Jackson did not take the stand, the defense used a powerful tape of him shot by his own video cameraman. The jury saw nearly three hours of introspection during which the star talked about his troubled childhood.

"I haven't been betrayed or deceived by children," he said. "Adults have let me down."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

* **** *** ******

Holy jumpin' hell. Can you believe this?

Well, Robert Shapiro made a good point late today (on FoxNews). Had the prosecution gone forward with only the charge of child molestation and left the conspiracy crap out of it, only the boy, the two earlier accusers, and MJ would have been allowed to testify. But, the prosecution had to add extra cheese to the taco to make his plate look intimidating. I gotta go with Shapiro on this one.

The jury was a pretty diverse group, only saw a couple of mouth breathers (hoping they were alternates).

What you have to remember is this: MJ was found not guilty but was not proven innocent.

Anyone that says MJ is innocent of the charges is deluding themselves when MJ himself publicly admits to sleeping with young boys and finds nothing wrong in that.

Will he continue this behavior? Most probably. He's one sick puppy and this kind of illness is insidious and all-consuming. Rumor is he's off to Europe and Asia soon and there's no shortage of adoring young fans overseas.

I SO Dislike The Guardian

2005-06-05T09:41:00.000-07:00

This is not an article; it is an opinion essay. "Journalists" employed by The Guardian are opinion writers.

"The Guardian is the only truly independent national newspaper in the UK. Ownership by the Scott Trust guarantees Guardian journalists are free to present the truth as they see it, with no proprietor, or shareholders dictating what can and cannot appear in our pages." - (Link)

All too often people confuse opinion pieces with actual hard news articles (probably because they're both in newspapers, so it must be fact, right?) and therein lies the daunting confusion for them in forming coherent, refutible arguments instead of prattling on and on with rife, misguided emotionalism and nonsense.

And isn't it the natural reaction of a man whose genitals are in danger of being mutilated to cover them? Why then do so many stand there, drooling, head tilted back, arms wide to the side, muttering, "You're right, Mr Porter. Emasculate me. Lop it off. It's useless. Chop away." I don't understand this revert-to-juvenile mentality of subjegating one's self to such a scathing and maligning view of one's Nation. Emasculated? How? Isn't Mr Porter's country involved up to the hip in this, too? I thought so.

"Mission to Explain Has Been Replaced by a Mission to Avoid"? What does that mean? No one is avoiding anything; except the extremist fringe, who refuse to accept reality. What allegation against the current administration has not been investigated? Because the conclusion of those investigations do not meet the expectations of some, the entire process is discounted as meaningless. There's rationality for you.

A Study in Emasculation
In the US Media, a Mission to Explain Has Been Replaced by a Mission to Avoid
Henry Porter
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

Our name for him was Wig. And for two years only a handful of people at Vanity Fair's office in New York knew what or who Wig was. It turned out to be another code name for Deep Throat, wittily, or perhaps tastelessly, given to Mark Felt by Bob Woodward during the Watergate investigations - undoubtedly the highest moment of journalistic inquiry ever on either side of the Atlantic.

Let's go with wittingly on this one. It was the 70s, afterall, and Deep Throat, the movie, was the talk of the town for quite some time. Sensationalism. A newspaper-seller.
"The highest moment of journalistic inquiry..." Not quite. What investigation? Woodward and Bernstein were spoon-fed the info; told where to go, what calls to make, what office was connected to what office. Hardly high moments of journalistic inquiry.

Woodward was gracious when he learned that Vanity Fair had scooped him with his own story, as indeed was Carl Bernstein when editor Graydon Carter called his friend to make a slightly rueful apology on Wednesday morning. Actually it's a testament to Woodward and Bernstein's integrity that Vanity Fair was able to capture the unicorn and reveal the identity of this mythic creature. This was a serious secret that still has the power to stir considerable passions in America, as we saw in the reaction of Pat Buchanan who instantly branded Felt a traitor. Woodward and Bernstein, together with the former Post editor Ben Bradlee, held true to the cardinal rule of journalism of never revealing a source. In a time of such looseness and compromise, this kind of rigid probity almost seems old-fashioned.

The Buchanan article is here.
"Actually it's a testament to Woodward and Bernstein's integrity..." Integrity. Hmmmm. Having a problem with this one. Was it integrity to accept a plethora of illegal information from the FBI's Number 2 man who knowingly had an axe to grind with the president on an on-going basis using the shield of "unnamed source" to cover-up your complicence? It sounds more like ensuring your promotion, to me. It was the waiving away of the countless opportunities to encourage the man without courage to "do the right thing" and resign his position within the FBI and give this same information to the grad jury.
The actual article from Vanity Fair is here, 9 pages, pdf file.
"This was a serious secret..." That's right. Was. John D. O'Connor, a wishy-washy California lawyer revealed that Felt, his client (maybe?) was Deep Throat.
Cardinal rule of journalism? A secret? "In 1999, a teenager broke the story of Deep Throat's identity as W. Mark Felt in a high school history term paper. He got a B on it. Or "something ridiculous like that. The teacher is...an idiot in my opinion," said Chase Culeman-Beckman to the Journal News of New York in 1999." (Link)
"PORT CHESTER — Yesterday's revelation of the identity of the secretive source known as Deep Throat — one of the country's most enduring mysteries — came as little surprise to one Port Chester resident who has been fingering W. Mark Felt since the ripe old age of 8." (Link)
Revenge of the camper: Did one of the world's most closely guarded secrets leak out through summer-camp pillow talk?
Chase Culeman-Beckman, a 19-year-old from Port Chester, N.Y., recently told the Hartford Courant that Carl Bernstein's son, Jacob, tipped him off to the identity of Deep Throat when they were at camp together in 1988. The Watergate source was, he said, W. Mark Felt, the former associate director of the FBI whose name has long been among those considered likely to have tipped off the Washington Post's Bernstein and Bob Woodward about Nixon's scandalous White House shenanigans.
Felt, now 86, denies the report. A snickering Bernstein denies it as well: "Bob and I have been wise enough never to tell our wives, and we've certainly never told our children." He reiterated that the once dynamic duo would identify Deep Throat only upon the source's death.
"Is Mark Felt still alive?" Bernstein asked." (Link)

In many other ways, recalling Watergate this week emphasises how times have changed, and I am afraid present values in the US media are not shown in an especially good light. Since 9/11, when the heroic fortitude of America was at its most visible, the Bush administration has gradually contrived to cast all criticism and investigation into its activities as unpatriotic and an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism. Few cross the line in the White House, where a wary and unforgiving regime - not unlike that run by Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman for Richard Nixon - ensures that leaks are very rare indeed. Much the same atmosphere of fear and obedience obtains in the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld and at the justice department, though less so at the state department and CIA.

"...present values in the US media are not shown in an especially good light." Mr Porter is obviously speaking of the instances where the Leftist media try to pull fast ones on the citizens of the United States by using false documents and intentionally incorrect information.
"Since 9/11...an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism." Again, there has not been one allegation levied against the administration or the military which has not gone uninvestigated. Transparancy has always been maintained.
Mr Porter seems to have an issue with national security. Leaks are not supposed to happen. That's why they're called leaks. Even a rare occurance is unacceptable. Atmosphere of fear? This is laughable. What measuring stick is Mr Porter using for this one?

Broadcasters have largely accepted that attacks on the White House can only harm America's interests, and when they don't they are bamboozled and vilified by the shrill voices of the right.

"Attacks (what a choice of words, huh?) on the White House" do harm America's interests. It's the "divided we fall" we've all heard and sung. It's as though the fringe extremists want there to be hard lines drawn between the political parties. Every opportunity is taken, within the media, to lambaste the administration and skew the facts with negative, anti-Bush rhetoric. Any number of media watchdog sites have recent reports and studies proving the anti-Bush bias in all forms of media.Mr Porter has his political parties confused on this one.

I visit the States three or four times a year, and watching the television news in hotel rooms in the last three years has been like witnessing a time-lapse study of emasculation. It's not just the unbearable lightness of purpose in most news shows; it's the sense that everyone is rather too mindful of the backstairs influence of the White House in companies such as Viacom and News Corporation that own the TV news. The anchorman Dan Rather, for example, was eased out by Viacom - CBS's owner - after he wrongly made allegations about the president's time in the Texas Air National Guard. It was not a mistake that required his head on a platter.

Three or four times a year, at a hotel, limited channels to watch, usually only local news and CNN; but that's a time-lapse study of the American emasculation. Lightness of purpose; well, it is only a local, thirty-minute news program Mr Porter is watching. And, Mr Porter is too soft on Dan Rather, who, by the way, is insisting to this day the documents are legitimate and accurate. What's the frequency, Dan; Mr Porter?

The result of this climate of fear and caution is that few Americans have any idea of the circumstances in which 1,600 of their countrymen have lost their lives in Iraq, the hideous injuries suffered by both Iraqi and American victims of suicide bombers, or even the profound responsibility that lies with Rumsfeld for mishandling practically every facet of the occupation. The mission to explain has been replaced by the mission to avoid. If today there was a whistleblower as well-placed, heroically brave and strategic as Mark Felt, one wonders whether he would now find the outlet that Felt did at the Washington Post between 1972 and 1974.

"...few Americans have any idea of the circumstances..." Is Mr Porter pulling words out of his ass along with the flying monkeys of doom? What rock is he living beneath? Has he seen any of the hundreds of weekly polls on the subject? Evidently not. Does Mr Porter actually believe Americans take the war in Iraq as an everyday occurance with no regard for the preciousness of life? Mr Porter, obviously, don'y know doodly-squat about we Yankee Doodles.
"If today there was a whistleblower as well-placed..." He's called the President. "...heroically brave and strategic as Mark Felt..." Already address this man's lack of courage in his inability to do the right thing instead of the illegal thing. "...find the outlet that Felt did at the Washington Post between 1972 and 1974." With the steady decline and almost collapse of the Democratic party since Watergate, and the public's wise perception of the press' erosion, the press has to do something to generate readership. The New York Times laying off over 200 people this past week is a clear indication people are not buying the Leftist spin they, or Mr Porter, are selling anymore. The press seeks out sensationalism. That which it cannot find, they fabricate or negatively spin to sensationalism. The press will make a parking ticket look like an indictment if it will sell more papers than the day before.

The Post's sister publication, Newsweek, has just had its nose rubbed in the dirt by the administration after what is still, I believe, a questionable scandal involving an item alleging that the Qur'an had been flushed down the toilet at Guantánamo.

Hold up, Mr Porter. You actually want us to believe a book can fit down the hole of a toilet? You're kidding me.

Questionable because Newsweek's erroneous report, which was based on an official source, palls in comparison to the illegality of the detention at Guantánamo and the outsourcing of torture by the administration all over the Middle East. And yet Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the humbled magazine should go further than mere apology by speaking out about the "values that the United States stands for ... the values that we hold so dearly".

Mr Porter makes a glaring omission of facts, here. From Newsweek's, Mark Whitaker, "Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited..." (Link)
"...the illegality of the detention at Guantánamo..." Time-honored rules of war and detaining prisoners, enemy combatants, and bona-fide prisoners of war are, and always have been, in place, Mr Porter. Because you don't understand the difference between a uniform and/or insignia and/or a flag and civilian clothing is casting serious doubt on your comprehension skills.
Outsorcing of torture...all over the Middle East." Sending enemy combatants back to their country of origin for detention is not outsourcing torture. You're spinning out of control, Mr Porter.
"...go further than mere apology by speaking out about the "values that the United States stands for ... the values that we hold so dearly". And Scott McClellan is correct in his insistence. Using a source that was "unsure" of where or how he gained the information is irresponsible and not a standard to which the reputable press adheres. Mistakes, happen, sure. But when it's something this serious, especially since the bad guys have been trained in alleging abuse where none exists.
"1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge. 2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison." (Link); (Link); also, (Link)

What is so worrying about the Newsweek story was the cowed reaction of the press. In some cases they scrambled to pay obeisance to the White House's tough line, quite forgetting that the kerfuffle distracted from the worsening situation in Iraq in which scores of lives are lost every day. Marty Peretz, the owner of the New Republic, took space in his own publication to attack the Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who by the way was once the hero of conservatives for his hounding of Bill Clinton.

What is this obssession Mr Porter has with the word "attack"? A little heavy on the adjectives, there, wouldn't you say? Here's the Peretz article.

'The Newsweek delinquency," he wrote, "broaches still another lesson that journalists will have to face, however reluctantly: that confidential sources - especially 'reliable' confidential sources, which may mean eager sources who are too willing to tell because they have their own personal agendas to serve - can be untrustworthy. The Newsweek scandal deserves to exacerbate the debate in the general culture about the legitimacy of anonymous sources that is now burgeoning in American journalism."

Now, what was that again about Newsweek's official source not being certain about what he said...? Oh, yeah. He wasn't sure where he saw it or heard about it. He wasn't sure. But, that's good enough for Newsweek and Mr Porter. It's "close enough". Sorry, doesn't cut it.

This is one of the most knuckleheaded utterances ever made by a proprietor of current affairs magazine. It is plain that, despite all his wealth and shrewdness, Peretz does not possess an elementary understanding of the sacred duty of the press, which, however dishonoured and ignored, is to watch government and make it answerable when the processes of democracy are corrupted by politics and the self-interest of politicians.

Mr Porter. This opinion of yours is one of the most knuckleheaded utterances ever made by an opinion writer. Peretz understands precisely the sacred duty of the press. It is not to watch the government. It is to report the news, factually and without bias. Your latent communism is showing, Mr Porter.

The motivated source that he describes perfectly delineates Deep Throat's position during Watergate. Felt probably did have an agenda influenced by the fact that Nixon had made Patrick Gray head of the FBI when Felt was clearly the better and more experienced candidate. That would have ruled Felt out as a source under a Peretz editorship, even though Felt was primarily motivated by a deep revulsion at what was going on around him. He knew that all investigations into the Watergate break-in and the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President (Creep) were being fed back to the White House by Nixon's man, Pat Gray. The CIA was also providing Felt's investigators with false leads at Nixon's behest.

As Felt remarked to Woodward long before Watergate, the Nixon White House was "corrupt" and "sinister". Eventually the Watergate cover-up compelled him to the lonely and dangerous role of Deep Throat, but one cannot imagine that this was something Felt - a career G-man who admired J Edgar Hoover - wanted for himself.

Felt was compelled to the lonely and coawrdly role of an "anon" who had an axe to grind. Felt's way of escaping persecution to do his illegal work with Woodward and Bernstein. It was only after Felt left the FBI that he "was indicted on charges of having authorized illegal F.B.I. break-ins earlier in the decade, in which agents without warrants entered the residences of associates and family members of suspected bombers believed to be involved with the Weather Underground." He was convicted in 1980. While his case was still on appeal, Ronald Reagan was elected president, and in 1981, Reagan granted Felt a full pardon.

We must remember that these were dark days. Nixon fought and won an election during the Watergate scandal and, had it not been for the persistence of the Post and the wary guidance provided by Deep Throat, he might well have survived to serve a full second term. Had Peretz been editor of the Post at the time, all that criminality and corruption might well have gone unpunished.

Correction. Had it not been for Mark Felt feeling snubbed because of not reaching the first chair of the FBI and wanting someone to pay for it, Felt's knowing Woodward was a hungry, I-don't-know-what-to-do-with-my-life reporter and supplying him with all the information he could possibly need for the "serial story" in the Post, no persistence by any stretch of the imagination on the part of the Post, and Felt being able to sit back and read his illegal whispers as front page headlines (even though he could have resigned and gone the legal route), Nixon may have made it to a second term.
Interesting that Mr Porter is able to transport himself through time and space and know the outcome of a situation had another person (Marty Peretz) been the editor of the paper. Simply amazing.

It is good that Deep Throat has at last come in from the cold at a time when his country needs many more men and women like him. Let us hope the media are still willing and able to help a great American hero like Mark Felt.

Our country needs no more people who feel "getting away with it" is justified. A great American hero like Mark Felt? He is as guilty of illegal activities as the ones making the break-in at the Watergate (he was convicted in 1980, remember?).

Don't Call Guantanamo a Gulag

2005-06-03T18:59:00.000-07:00

Don't Call Guantanamo a Gulag
By: Rachel Marsden

Some artist uses a crucifix as a swizzle stick in a vat full of urine, and Christians just roll their eyes. But suggest flushing the Koran -- or even dog-earing a copy of Fodor's Guide to the Islamic World -- and the folks who cheered in the Arab Street on 9/11 take it as a green light to riot and blow up more innocent women and children.

This is the crucial difference that Amnesty International doesn't grasp as it threatens to destroy its credibility by making itself a poster organization for anti-American terror apologists.

In its annual human-rights report, issued last week, Amnesty refers to the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law."

Reality check: Under normal wartime practices, these enemy combatants would already have been lined up against the nearest wall and shot. "International law" protects prisoners of war who belong to a legitimate national army, not terrorists.

But leftist organizations, such as Amnesty, the International Red Cross and the liberal media, are trying to redefine the centuries-old concept of warfare -- much as they've done with other institutions, like marriage. Now any punk sporting an "Allah is my homeboy" T-shirt and a backpack bomb apparently qualifies as a legitimate POW.

In whining about the "gulag" at GTMO, Amnesty has taken a page from al-Qaeda's own playbook, which advises that captured jihadis "must insist that torture was inflicted upon them by State Security [investigators] before the judge," and "complain of mistreatment while in prison."

According to the U.S. Justice Department, "GTMO remains the single best repository of al-Qaeda information in the Department of Defense." In that case, forget Saddam in his skivvies -- I'm all for having any terrorists being held at GTMO modelling this season's entire Speedo Swimsuit Catalogue, if that's what it takes.

While there may exist a few incidents of serious abuse, merely having people pose for pictures in undignified positions isn't a severe form of "torture." (Here in North America, some would say, that's called "holidays with the family.")

People seem to forget these are military detentions at a time of war, legitimized ultimately by the U.S. Congress at the request of the President. If Amnesty had its way, enemy combatants would have access to O.J. Simpson's courtroom Dream Team. Even under ordinary criminal law, defendants sometimes spend months or years behind bars until a determination of guilt or innocence can be made.

Though the War on Terrorism is still raging, some GTMO detainees have been released to their home countries following a review of their status. While he was in Toronto last week to speak at a fundraiser for the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, I asked 9/11-era New York City mayor (and former mob prosecutor) Rudy Giuliani, when he thought the rest should be released. His response: "We will know the end of the War on Terror when we see a tremendous reduction of terrorist acts -- and we're not there yet."

Until then, Amnesty International needs to get a little perspective -- just as it does with the case of AWOL American soldier Jeremy Hinzman, who was recently denied refugee status in Canada.

During his refugee hearing, Hinzman said he actively sought out the military and specifically wanted a combat role like the ones he saw in war movies. Yet on his Web site, he now claims he was blinded by the army's dazzling marketing campaign. "Molested by Madison Avenue," as Amnesty might say.

Hinzman concedes that he wanted the paid university education that comes with completing a stint in the military. But it seems that while he was a fan of the U.S. military on the big screen, he prefers the French army in his own reality show.

After leaching off the army's free medical, dental, meal and housing plans -- as well as the chick-magnet uniform -- Hinzman spent a few months in Afghanistan. He then conveniently discovered the Quaker anti-war movement and fled to Canada when he was called on to serve in Iraq.

But Amnesty has already announced that if Hinzman's appeal fails and he's deported back to America and held accountable for his dine-and-dash, they'd label him a "prisoner of conscience." I wonder how Nelson Mandela would feel sharing that label with a freeloader?

I'm waiting for the day when "G.I. Bolt" decides that he's fed up with Canada's high taxes, and Amnesty labels him an "economic refugee" seeking to escape the "poor house of our times."

Transcript: Sen. Chris Dodd on 'FNS'

2005-05-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

Transcript: Sen. Chris Dodd on 'FNS'
Sunday, May 29, 2005

The following is a transcribed excerpt of 'FOX News Sunday,' May 29, 2005.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Just 70 hours after senators cut a deal on judges this week, Democrats tied the Senate in knots over the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador. So what happened to the new era of good will?

For answers, we turn to one of the leaders of the anti-Bolton forces, Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator, welcome.

SENATOR CHRIS DODD, D-Conn.: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

WALLACE: All right. As we said, a group of senate moderates made a deal on Monday to avert the so-called nuclear option, and people said that this may spur a new era of bipartisanship. But as we also said, just three days later, you were one of the leaders of the forces who held up the Bolton nomination.

I know you want some classified documents, and we'll get to the details of those in just a second, but is that so important that it is worth jeopardizing what might have been a new era of good will in the Senate.

DODD: Well, I don't think it needs to jeopardize it at all. And I commend the 14 senators who were able to avoid what would have amounted to eliminating the extended debate rule on judicial nominations. They deserve a great deal of credit for sticking with that and working that out.

But it was never intended that this would eliminate entirely the right of senators to raise important issues when it comes to certain information we need on judicial nominations or ambassadorial nominations.

It's been done in the past. I couldn't help but go back and take a look to see whether or not at any time in recent past history we had a similar fact situation. My good friend, Mitch McConnell, in 1993 held up five ambassadorial nominations because he wanted information totally unrelated to the ambassadors from the state department regarding personnel files from the Bush administration.

When he said that at the time, there was a wonderful quote. He said, "The issue is how do we get information? I've been here not as long as of some other members but I'm unaware of any other device by which we can get their attention."

Bob Dole had a similar statement at that time.

WALLACE: I take your point. But I guess the question is, on this week of all weeks, when there had been this deal, and people are talking about bipartisanship and, you know, maybe we can stop some of the divisions, is that the time that you want to...

DODD: Well, I wouldn't...

WALLACE: ... hold up a nomination?

DODD: ... no, I don't do -- you're right, Chris. I wouldn't have preferred this timing, but I don't set the timing.

The agenda is set by the majority. It was their decision to set aside the judicial nominations, which had been the source of the controversy, and bring up Mr. Bolton. We knew there was a problem.

I think the assumption they made was that Democrats wouldn't want to stand up on this matter, we'll let it get by and go through and we can put Mr. Bolton in the job he'd like to have. I think they were wrong in that calculation.

My colleagues were uneasy about this. They don't like to hold people up. I don't like to hold people up. In my 24 years in the Senate, there have been 52 people that I've objected to, out of 7,000 nominees that have come before the Senate of the United States.

So I don't like doing it either.

But when the majority sets the agenda, they bring up Mr. Bolton on the assumption they were going to get this through.

The majority leader knew, almost a day before the vote occurred, that the votes might not be there for cloture and that maybe the best advice was to put this aside. Let's bring up these other judicial nominations, let's take the recess break, let's try and get this information and come back and vote up or down on Mr. Bolton.

WALLACE: All right, but here's the real key point. The White House says it's not going to give you the documents, that you already have all the information you need.

If you come back from the Memorial Day recess and you still don't have the documents, are you going to continue to try to hold up this nomination?

DODD: Well, first of all, I'm far more optimistic that we can be creative and work something out where the Senate can get the information it deserves to have, and we'll be able to avoid extending further the need to invoke cloture or to oppose cloture. I'm very hopeful during these five or six days we can work something out.

WALLACE: Such as?

DODD: Well, the possibility of working out some arrangement here. We know the names we're interested in, that we'd like to find out whether or not they were on those intercepts. It's not unprecedented.

Remember now, I'm not seeking to see this. I don't think I have a right to see them. I'm asking that Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and that Senator Rockefeller as well as Senator Roberts, the chairman and ranking member of Intelligence, only those four members, be allowed to see this information. We've done it many times in the past.

In the case of John Negroponte, in the case of Richard Holbrooke, there was highly sensitive material from the Justice Department and the CIA that Republicans and Democrats thought they ought to have before they vote on those two nominations. This is not unprecedented.

WALLACE: Has the White House gave you any indication, because they said from the White House podium on Friday, "No, we're not going to give you more information"?

DODD: Well, I'm more optimistic than others are and I'm hopeful it can be worked out, and I'd like to avoid altogether, just let's have a vote up or down on Mr. Bolton when we get back after the recess. I'm still confident we can get some information.

WALLACE: OK. I'm going to get into the details in a minute. But my direct question: If you don't get the information, will you continue to stand on this principle and hold up the nomination?

DODD: Well, we'll see. I wouldn't want to tell you absolutely what we'll do today. Well, let's see what happens at the end of the week.

WALLACE: OK. Let's talk about the documents you're interested in. It's 10 electronic intercepts in which the names of 19 Americans are mentioned. And the chairman and top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller, as you point out, were briefed on these intercepts, although they weren't given the specific names.

And they both said there's no reason to believe after their briefing that John Bolton did anything wrong. Let's listen to what the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, had to say. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: The names were irrelevant because, quite frankly, these intercepts, and he requested only 10 of them, I would describe them as almost pure vanilla.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, why isn't that good enough for you?

DODD: Well, because the issue is the names. The issues are the names of these people here.

The allegations against Mr. Bolton, which provokes this request, were that on at least two occasions on five different times involving two individuals over 48 months tried to have intelligence analysts at both the State Department and the CIA fired.

Fired, Chris -- not just where he disagreed with them but fired because they wouldn't provide him with the intelligence he wanted to have on a speech he was going to give to the Heritage Foundation and some testimony he wanted to provide on different occasions.

WALLACE: As you know, there's some dispute about that, and, in fact, nobody was fired.

DODD: There's no dispute about that at all, no dispute whatsoever. There are about eight different people, including his own chief of staff, who will tell you categorically what he tried to do.

WALLACE: But in any case, what do these names have to do with it?

DODD: Well, because the issue is, was he going beyond what we know he did, to try and intimidate these people in some way? Why was he seeking the names of these individuals? It's very rare indeed for a policy-setter to request the names on the intercepts of the Americans -- very rare for a policy-setter.

WALLACE: But wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. In fact, in the State Department during these years, there were 400...

DODD: Oh, no, wait a second. That's diplomatic security...

WALLACE: Let me ask my question. There were 400 requests for these intercepts, and John Bolton's represented only 10 of the 400.

DODD: Yes, well, the bulk of them come from the intelligence and research division at the State Department and from the diplomatic security section, not from policy-setters. There's a distinction there. This is not that common an occurrence.

And why do you want to see the names? What -- you have to list and give your purpose, your motivation for doing it.

Listen, it may not be much. I'm not suggesting we know these names are going to pop up. Why are they resistant to sharing it with the chairman, the specific names with the committee chairman?

WALLACE: But let me make sure I understand. Because what you seem to be saying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- is that you believe or you're wondering whether the names of the Americans he was seeking were some of these intelligence officers. And that if he got the information, these people that he had a grudge against, that he might have used that to blackmail them or force them out?

DODD: There's a pattern here, there's a pattern of behavior that raises the question. Again, I don't know that. This has become a bigger issue because of the resistance to share this information.

Remember what I said a minute ago, intercepts and the information in those intercepts have been shared with the intelligence committee on numerous occasions in the past. This is not an unprecedented request. It's not 100 senators looking at it. It's as many as four, maybe as little as two but as many as four, who would have access to this information.

WALLACE: But you say you don't know. I mean, do you have any reason to believe that it was those specific intelligence officers he was trying to get information on?

DODD: No, we don't know that, but remember...

WALLACE: So this is a fishing expedition.

DODD: No, it's not a -- this is a coequal branch of government under our Constitution. This is an important confirmation hearing. There's information that senators would like to have.

I mentioned earlier, when Dick Holbrooke was up, no one batted an eye when they wanted highly sensitive CIA inspector general information about Richard Holbrooke. No one said you don't have a right to that, it's a fishing expedition.

No one thought it was a fishing expedition when we wanted in the case of Mr. Negroponte to get information as well out of the CIA and Justice Department.

So this is not unprecedented. It's an obligation and a right to do our job.

What if we find out, Chris, a month from now, or two months from now, that in fact the names were the names on the list, and it was a process of intimidation? And people would say, "Oh, why didn't you ask for this? Why didn't you insist on getting that information?"

This would be an embarrassment to the president. He'd probably have to withdraw from the post. It would hurt America's prestige at a very important forum.

We're just doing our job. That's what this is all about.

WALLACE: Last point on this, though. John Bolton has testified for eight hours before the committee, you've heard from 29 witnesses, your committee has received more than 800 documents from the administration that you requested. I mean, haven't you gotten enough information to make a judgment? You certainly have enough to make a judgment.

DODD: I would think so. That's why I don't know why there was such resistance to providing this additional information. There are two pieces, by the way. We mentioned the intercept.

There was also a question of whether or not we were trying to make a case, Mr. Bolton was trying to make a case that was not supported by the intelligence that Syria had weapons of mass destruction.

Remember, Chris, the background of this. We've been through a very difficult period over the last several years. We went to war in Iraq principally because we believed -- I voted for us going to war because I believed that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. That's the reason we went in, more than any other reason. We now know that intelligence was flawed.

Mr. Bolton was trying to convince people that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria, at a time when there was no evidence of that, and he wanted to get intelligence analysts fired because they would not provide the information he wanted in those speeches.

That's frightening to me. And it ought to concern every conservative, or anyone else in politics who cares about these issues. To have people cooking the books, doctoring information is very dangerous.

WALLACE: Senator, we're going to have to leave it there.

DODD: Sorry.

WALLACE: No. Thank you so much for coming in.

DODD: Thank you.

WALLACE: Please come back.

DODD: I will.

WALLACE: You're always welcome.

DODD: Thank you, Chris.

* **** *** ******

i watched this interview. i wish the tone of voice could be conveyed here, but, it can't. Dodd, to me, came off looking exactly as though he were on a fishing expedition.

Wallace brings up over 400 requests for information have been made. Dodd says, well, yeah, but... and then breaks down the alleged ratio and still leaves out the names of the other policy-makers that have requested the same type of information. everything is "yeah, but...". not a good argument.

later, in the panel discussion on the show, Juan Williams begins talking about how the American people want Bolton in as head of the UN. The American people want a strong individual in the position to shake things up. then Juan Willians says, but the people can't seem to come to an agreement and have begin the process of the filibuster.

what people, Juan? the politician people? the ones that are supposed to be representing the American people? the politicians are running their personal agendas. NOT the will of the American people. you have the two confused, Juan Williams. Very sadly confused. As do the Left in America.

Iraq: Former PM Reveals Secret Service Data on Birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq

2005-05-23T21:24:00.000-07:00

Iraq: Former PM Reveals Secret Service Data on Birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq

Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.

He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.

(Ham/Aki)

23-May-05 12:08

Blog Trading

2005-05-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Who Owns a Blog?

*raising my hand* I do! I do! *laughing*

Well, guess what? I was curious one day and typed the name of my blog into Google. Three results appeared (and the name of my blog is far from something common). Two were links to my blog, one was a link to

http://blogshares.com

Turns out this is a fantasy "stock market" for blogs. *rolling my eyes and laughing* What will they think of next!?

Anyway... my blog is "worth" $1,045.72 in trade (as of today).

Imagine that. *laughing*

If you have a blog and want to see how you rate in their trading pits, use this link (adding your blog name in place of... you understand...):

http://blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=
http://thenameofyourbloghere.blogspot.com
(connect into one line after the "=")

I'll Be Right Behind You

2005-05-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

A very interesting piece written at BlackFive posted on Michelle Malkin's blog.

And how sadly typical it is of the journalistic mindset... I'll be right behind you and well out of reach of any problems which may arise (remember the scene in Stripes with Bill Murray and Eugene Levy?). A very cowardly act by this so-called "journalist" and an even more grevious omission by Newsweek not reporting the story.

Perhaps it didn't fit into the Bush-bashing agenda in which the elite media is so wrapped up.

The linked article was written in memory of Major Mathew E. Schram, United States Army. Major Schram gave his life in the pursuit of freedom for others. His sacrifice will always be remembered.

About the Story in Newsweek... Kinda

2005-05-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

How about this...

When writing news articles, for any medium, if the source isn't named, the story isn't run.

Look, lets' face facts, in recent history, oh, say from about Watergate to now, the "unnamed source" has become all too familiar a figure in the news.

DeepThroat, for example, *rolling my eyes*, how dramatic was that? How captivating? How well did DeepThroat sell newspapers and make movie stars out of Woodward and Bernstein (Redford and Hoffman), as well as best-selling authors? It was a superlative stroke of genius, whoever dreamed it up, it was spectacular. DeepThroat. How provocative, mysterious, a real page-turner, a real paper-seller.

The story they wrote was, in my lifetime, the first huge, incredible discovery of information implicating so many people of illegal political behavior; all the way up to the president. The facts followed. There was no doubt about it. It was fact. And the hearings bore that out. And one by one they all fell down.

Because DeepThroat was a mixture of several important people, none of whom could be named (or, perhaps they were and we still don't know it), it was here we find the genius. Blending them all together into one very mysterious figure who knew the facts. Good way to go.

But facts matter. That's the difference. There has to be, in the end, balls to the wall, no room to breathe, between a rock and a hard place, the gun's to your chest, the knife's to your throat, the bamboo is under your fingernails, the water is dripping on your forehead... Someone accountable that knows the facts.

Journalistic liars, in need of sensationalism to garner themselves or their publication attention, have all too often gone to the "unnamed source" to get that edge. Journalistic liars completely making up entire situations, circumstances, people, conspiracies. Journalists' reputations are as bad as attorneys and car salesman, these days. They're a laughing stock. Nothing is really read with confidence anymore. Nothing.

Seymour Hirsch. Never names a source. Never. Everything is innuendo and opinion. And he's considered credible? Not in my book. It's this type of journalism that gives journalists a bad name. They've glommed on to the Woodward and Bernstein school of journalism to create sensationalism and doubt. Not cool. Not when society at large is reading what you think happened and believing it as journalistic truth - when it's not. It's only opinion. Personal opinion. That's dangerous. And maybe that's the point. It's sick and twisted, but maybe that's the point.

In the old days, the stories would stand behind who said what. No matter how inane or outlandish, how screwy or important; people were held responsible for their words. What is that old saying? "My word is my bond." not anymore.

There used to be, come on, say it with me...

Credibility and personal responsibility!

Yes! You're right! There used to be.

I know, sometimes a scoop comes along and that informational source just can't be named for security reasons. But everyone reading the story would understand that because the unnamed source "thing" would be so rarely used.

I truly believe, in these times, there are so few circumstances when someone would not want to be named. When you're telling the truth, what's the problem? And, isn't that the point in journalism? Truth?

I’m not talking about personal truth, here, which is, as we all know, opinion. I’m talking about The Truth.

Am I being idealistic? Is the personal and profit agenda so deeply engrained in the (journalistic) human being, that this disregard for truth is inevitable? Is that what I am to believe? Has the world gone mad? People believe the most outrageous things these days without question. Everyone doubts everyone. Everyone is looked at with suspicion and intentions are always circumspect. Everyone so eager to jump into the fray of violence, prejudice, and hate.

Ethics is a foreign word. One to be italicized and scoffed at as something "superior" or hopelessly unattainable, a laughable pipedream.

If that source, in your regular run-of-the-mill story, is unable to have their name associated with the story... Nuh-uh. That information is discounted until such time as it can be confirmed with at least three other people who will give their names.

Why couldn't the person who relayed this information about the alleged desecration of the Koran give his or her name? Why? What possible personal repercussions could result from another's alleged actions? What? I can't imagine one thing.

For the record, the unnamed source said this morning, he couldn't be sure if it really happened or not.

What????? What????? You're not sure? Then what the fuck are you talking about it for?

Yes!!!! Talk with your friends about it, if you want to mull over the possible consequences of such an action, but... To state it as fact to a news publication? A global news publication?

Washington cover-up? I don't think so. This administration has taken the heat for fucking everything from the war to Aunt Emma’s quilting an inaccurate square. Come on. This administration has not hidden from a single thing. Consequences have been given any offending party, investigations are and have been in place on several things, people are being fired, replaced, retired, ousted; some promoted. Every situation has been dealt with, and will continue to be.

You'd think anyone and everyone would want to point the finger at the bad guy here. Behavior, of the type alleged, is unthinkable. Blatantly awful. Not just because of the blatant insensitivity, but because it is a desecration of a holy book. It doesn’t matter if it’s your holy book, it is a holy book. Holy articles are not disrespected. Ever. It doesn’t matter the religion. Holy is holy. I’d want to be able to look at the person responsible for such an action with a just a little bit of an Eastwood squint, wouldn't you? Just be able to look at them with disgust? If it even happened. *lifting my brow*

And now, people have died because someone, unnamed, lied to a journalist and that journalist (or the editors) made the decision to use unconfirmed information as fact. Now, even more people hate America. Even more people want to kill Americans. And it's going to spread like wildfire.

Irresponsible journalism is a disease and it must be eradicated.

SaveArchives.org

2005-05-15T13:08:00.000-07:00

...The administration suggests giving $36 million to the National Archives for the development of a system that could retrieve all types of electronic records. The proposals also eliminate the agency's 40-year-old grantmaking program, which gave money to colleges, universities and local government archives. The 2006 budget request for the Archives is $323 million, an increase of 1.3 percent from 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6211-2005Feb7.html

At first glance, I rushed to the site to add my signature to the list. But, based on politicians and organizations slipping additional verbiage into bills and mission statements unnoticed, or, conversely, those organizations affected by budget cuts leaving out the meat of the matter when only a bit of gristle has been cut away...

break out the A-1 sauce!

by the way, did you notice the "Report Your Activities" at the bottom of their webpage? interesting, isn't it? asking individuals to submit what and to whom they've written regarding the matter.

and, yes, the National Archives do contain geneological information, but even the US government refers people to the Mormons who have the most incredible database of geneology.

The REAL ID Card (National ID)

2005-05-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

I'm okay with this, too. No different than carrying around your 1040 or your medical records. Did you know every medical record in the United States, every visit you make to your doctor, is all stored in central bank/clearing house? *nodding* yup. Whether you like it or not. Some insurance thingy. I kid you not. And no, you cannot get any information from the people at the medical records bank (even though they're your records and you paid for the doctor's services). I don't know why. That's just the way it is.

Thing is... The government has tabs on you now anyway. Everyone that pays taxes and lists the names of their children and dependents, all those social security numbers... They're all stored away. If the government wants you, they'll find you.

What's the difference here? Nothing, pretty much. It's all on a card you have in your purse or wallet. Instant access. Quick turn around if there is a problem.

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to be paranoid about.

Since our borders are wide open, what's your solution to determining who is who on the streets of our cities and suburbs? There is a reason the the floods of people crossing our borders from other countries are called illegal. No documentation, improper documentation, you're illegal.

Do you know what's required to gain entry into Mexico?

Entry requirements for Mexico: the government of Mexico requires that all US citizens present proof of citizenship and photo identification for entry into Mexico. While US citizenship documents such as a certified copy of a US birth certificate, a naturalization certificate, a consular report of birth abroad, or a certificate of citizenship are acceptable, the US embassy recommends traveling with a valid US passport to avoid delays or misunderstandings. US citizens boarding flights to Mexico should be prepared to present one of the above documents as proof of US citizenship, along with photo identification issued by a competent authority. Driver's permits, voter registration cards, affidavits and similar documents are not sufficient to prove citizenship for readmission into the United States.
US citizens do not require a visa or a tourist card for tourist stays of 72 hours or less within "the border zone," defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the US, depending on the location. US citizens traveling as tourists beyond the border zone or entering Mexico by air must pay a fee to obtain a tourist card, also known as an FM-T, available from Mexican consulates, Mexican border crossing points, Mexican tourism offices, airports within the border zone and most airlines serving Mexico.
Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N 30 days) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid US passport. US citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa at the embassy of Mexico at 1911 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20006, telephone (202) 736-1000, or any Mexican consulate in the United States.
In an effort to prevent international child abduction, many governments have initiated procedures at entry and exit points, including requiring documentary evidence of relationship and permission of the parent(s) or legal guardian not present for the child's travel. Parents of minor children (under 18 years old) should carefully document legal custody prior to traveling to Mexico. If a minor child is traveling with only one parent, the absent parent should provide notarized consent. If only one parent has legal custody, that parent should be prepared to provide such evidence to airlines and Mexican authorities. In cases in which a minor child is traveling to Mexico alone or in someone else's company, both parents (or the sole, documented custodial parent) should provide notarized consent. If a child traveling to Mexico has a different last name from the mother and/or father, the parents should be prepared to provide evidence to airlines and Mexican authorities, such as a birth certificate or adoption decree, to prove that they are indeed the parents. Mexican entry regulations require spanish translations of all legal documents, including notarized consent decrees and court agreements. Enforcement of this provision is not always consistent, however, and English-language documents are almost always sufficient.
(http://www.usembassy-Mexico.gov/eacs.html)

Pretty stiff rules and regulations, huh?

How about a driver's license in Mexico?

Driver’s licenses in Mexico are issued by the 31 states and the federal district, with laws regulating identity requirements for those applying in each state being strict. Typical are the regulations of Baja California, the contiguous state with California. In order to obtain a regular Baja California driver’s license the applicant must know how to read and write, be over the age of 18 (“student licenses” are available for those over 16), and they must show an official photo and signed ID. Those forms of identification accepted include a Mexican passport, a federal or state voter’s ID or military identification. Furthermore, applicants must demonstrate proof of residency through electricity, water, telephone and property tax bills that are less than one month old. They must also have a health certificate no less than one month old. And of course they must pass the requisite written and driving tests.
(http://www.mexidata.info/id262.html)

How about into Canada?

United States citizens and alien resident card holders (known as "green card holders") do not require a visa to visit Canada. Nevertheless, they must have proof of their United States citizenship or permanent residence. The following documents are acceptable as evidence of US citizenship or permanent residence for travelers entering directly from the United States: US citizens: a valid US passport; or, an original US birth certificate plus photo identification; or, an original naturalization certificate plus photo identification. US permanent residents: original alien registration card (green card); or, a valid 1551 stamp in the traveler’s passport. Other documents such as a driver's license or voter registration card will not be accepted as proof of US citizenship.

A driver's license in Canada?

When you apply for your driver’s licence or identification card, your registry agent must verify your identity through a stricter identity confirmation process. After all, what good is the most secure card in north America, if it is issued to the wrong person? A registry agent will require information to satisfy the following three categories: 1. Who you are; photo documents that must contain your legal name and date of birth (DOB). Some examples of primary photo identification are (this is not an all inclusive list): Alberta operator's licence or identification card, photo driver's licence (from another jurisdiction), images on the motor vehicles system (moves), photo identification card issued by another motor vehicle jurisdiction or government issued photo identification, citizenship, immigration, naturalization, or permanent resident card, Canadian armed forces identification card, passport municipal, territorial, provincial or federal police force identification. 2. What you have: support documents that contain two data elements such as name, DOB, signature, address, etc. Some examples of original support documents (certified documents are acceptable) are: birth or marriage certificate, credit, debit or account card (must contain your name and signature), municipal, territorial, provincial, federal government employee card, chequing or saving account statements, cancelled cheque with imprinted name and address, utility, telephone, gas or cable tv bill in applicant's name, property tax bill or receipt, land title or mortgage documents, income tax receipts, insurance documents (life, auto, residential, etc.), some examples of unacceptable support documents are: interim/temporary driver's licence, business cards, cheque cashing cards, library card, video club membership cards, insurance liability cards (pink cards). 3. What you know: verification of personal information against the motor vehicles system; your address, postal code, previous address, vehicle registrations, telephone number, etc. All documents presented must be originals or certified copies. Photocopies will not be accepted. Your registry agent will record the identification number from documents presented. Please note: falsifying information when applying for a driver's license or identification card is a criminal offence.
(http://www3.gov.ab.ca/gs/driverslicence/documents.html)

Wow. Look at all the regulations and requirements just for a driver's license. Pretty good, huh? So, what's the problem with the United States enforcing similar policies and procedures?

What about voting? Don't you agree that every voter should produce valid identification prior to casting their vote? I do. Too many dead Democrats on the roles now. *chuckle* and, with this card, the homeless will have an opportunity to vote, too. Not felons, though, like Kerry and Clinton want. *smirk*

How will the government have more control over you? Remember... The 1040s at the IRS and the medical records clearing house are in existence today.

Why shouldn't we be sure that those boarding planes and entering federal buildings are actual citizens of the United States, or at least, well-documented foreign visitors? How about people taking flying lessons? Are their papers in order? Do they have the required documents? Or, maybe we should let any Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to learn to fly onto the tarmac. Why the hell not? Who cares if the person is an illegal visitor (terrorist) with a suicide vest strapped on tightly for this holy and meaningful flight (mission) and is headed for the movie theatre of your town while you're blissfully in the dark and unaware? When that plane explodes into your town's movie theatre, you can be damn sure there will be an outcry of "Why aren't there stricter policies for entry into the United States? How could this happen? Why did this happen?"

What will change about gun purchasing? Current rules have you provide your home address when filling out the forms for a permit, or for purchase. Seven-day waiting period, and all that. All those forms are sent to the government now, so what's the problem?

None of this is going to stop the illegal gun trade. Nothing will. The criminal element, ne'er-do-wells, and social malcontents will always find a way to break the law.

What are the problems (be realistic - not hypothetical, not supposed) you foresee with the issuance of a National ID card? How will it affect you personally (not your friend or neighbor or someone down the road or in another city)? No one else. Just you. Can't think of a thing that will change for you personally, can you? *smile*

First Lady Steals the Show

2005-05-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

THE NATION
First Lady Steals the Show
Laura Bush pokes fun at her husband and draws big laughs at a White House dinner.
By Leslie Hoffecker
Times Staff Writer
May 2, 2005

WASHINGTON — It isn't often that the president of the United States gets upstaged. After all, being the leader of the free world is about as powerful as it gets.

But Laura Bush firmly pushed her husband aside at the annual White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday, bringing down the house with impeccable comedic timing and a deadpan delivery that put professional comedians — like the evening's headliner, Cedric the Entertainer — to shame.

Before her husband's reelection in November, she appeared content in the traditional role of the first lady, smiling a lot and saying little.

But now that the election is over, and given that her approval rating is more than 30 points higher than her husband's, the administration is putting Laura Bush front and center on the public stage — heading an initiative to keep at-risk children from involvement with gangs and drugs, traveling to Afghanistan to thank U.S. troops for their service and to visit with Afghan women training as teachers, even dropping by "The Tonight Show" last week for a chat with Jay Leno.

Her turn in the spotlight Saturday was not the first time a first lady had stolen the show at such an event. At the 1982 Gridiron dinner — a similar gathering of the media and political elite — Nancy Reagan appeared in thrift-shop couture and crooned "Second-Hand Clothes," a takeoff of her spending habits in the White House, set to the tune of "Second-Hand Rose."

Traditionally, the president addresses the White House correspondents dinner, and this was no exception. President Bush was heading into a joke about a city slicker's encounter with a cowboy — one that he noted had bombed during a recent stop in Montana — when he was stopped by a heckler on the dais: "Not that old joke — not again."

With that, the first lady took charge, delivering zingers about her husband, the large Bush family and her life on the ranch near Crawford, Texas.

"George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now," she said to laughter. "I said to him the other day, 'George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later.' "

A typical White House evening goes like this, she went on: "Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching 'Desperate Housewives' — with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife."

Guffaws came from the audience of more than 2,000 journalists, politicians and show business and sports celebrities, including Richard Gere, Al Franken, Jane Fonda and the two quarterbacks of the most recent Super Bowl, Tom Brady of the New England Patriots and Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles.

She noted that she and her husband were "complete opposites — I'm quiet, he's talkative; I'm introverted, he's extroverted; I can pronounce 'nuclear.' "

The president laughed at that one.

She discussed the family she married into, saying of Barbara Bush: "People often wonder what my mother-in-law's really like. People think she's a sweet, grandmotherly, Aunt Bea type. She's actually more like, mmm, Don Corleone."

And the native of the Lone Star State poked fun at her husband's patrician upbringing: "George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place" near Crawford. "Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program.

"But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse." She paused. "What's worse, it was a male horse."

When she finished, the audience rose in extended — and sincere — applause, although one crowd member may have been a bit miffed by her success.

"I thought I could follow the president," Cedric the Entertainer told the crowd. "But the first lady — that's something different."

Another story...

First Lady Stars at Laughs-A-Plenty D.C. Dinner
May 2, 2005
BY BILL ZWECKER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- Without a doubt, Laura Bush stole the show Saturday night at the 91st annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, surprising the crowd of 2,000 journalists, politicians and celebrities with a cleverly written, fairly racy standup routine that really zinged her husband.

As is the tradition, President Bush started to deliver the joke-filled address, saying, "I always look forward to this dinner, where I'm supposed to be funny -- intentionally." As he began to tell a joke, the first lady walked to the podium and gently shoved aside the commander-in-chief.

"I've been attending these dinners for a number of years, quietly sitting here not saying anything.

"[Tonight] I've got a few things of my own to say."

The first lady had one word for the president's claim that he enjoyed attending the dinner at the Washington Hilton: "Baloney! George is usually in bed by now. I'm married to the president of the United States and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. I'm a desperate housewife ... left watching 'Desperate Housewives' -- with Lynne Cheney," who was laughing uproariously, sitting a few feet away.

The first lady joked that recently she and the vice president's wife went to a Chippendale's [men's strip] club, "along with Condoleezza Rice and [top presidential adviser] Karen Hughes."

"But it was OK. [Supreme Court justices] Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't say what went on, but let's just say that Lynne's Secret Service nickname now is 'Dollar Bill.' "

Mrs. Bush also made fun of the close-knit Bush clan's beloved summer home in Maine. "Kennebunkport is a lot like Crawford [Texas] -- without the nightlife."

As for her mother-in-law, former first lady Barbara Bush, Laura Bush smilingly cooed, "So many parents are not involved in their children's lives. That's not a problem with Barbara Bush. ... She's more like Don Corleone."

The first lady also tweaked the president's image as the rugged West Texas rancher, "complimenting" her husband's work ethic on their Crawford spread -- considering his true background. "He does a pretty good job, considering they don't really have a strong ranching program at Andover or Yale."

Considering he had to follow the first lady's hysterical standup act, no one envied comedian and actor Cedric the Entertainer, who admitted even he was surprised to be invited to perform -- given he's not known for his political humor. Cedric did manage a number of solid quips -- eliciting a big laugh from the president saying, "The best job in the armed services is to be the guy who stands there greeting the president when he gets off the helicopter. He even gets a little TV time!"

While Cedric admitted, "The only time I'm a Republican is during tax season" -- he hoped his participation Saturday "might get me a little break from the IRS!"

The White House Correspondents Dinner also brings together an eclectic assortment of famous faces. Besides the well-known reporters schmoozing with politicos, media organizations often invite Hollywood stars to add some glamor. Here's a rundown of those seen -- and what some had to say:

**Jane Fonda -- exiting the ladies' room -- laughed when asked about sharing a venue with George W. Bush. "Not a usual occurrence, to be sure ... but he is the president of the United States ... and I'm just happy to be here. I'll be interested to see what he has to say."

As she left the gala -- after being surprised with everyone else by Laura Bush's routine -- Fonda said, "I think she was terrific! Very funny stuff. Wow!"

*Mary Tyler Moore was spied "enjoying myself immensely. ... After all, I did play a newswoman on TV for an awfully long time! ... It's just great to be here. I'm a real news junkie ... Love seeing all the people who really bring us the news of the world every day."

*Veteran Illinois Republican leader and diplomat, Ambassador Richard Williamson was happy to be sitting at the same table with Richard Gere. While admitting the two men's politics are very different, Williamson was quick to point out, "When it comes to Tibet, we are totally in agreement." Gere -- a devout Buddhist and major supporter of the Dalai Lama -- has long campaigned to free Tibet from Chinese domination.

Gere himself loved "the dynamic of this event. I've never come to this. ... It's fascinating to see everyone."

*For Chicago-based political consultant David Axelrod, the timing of Saturday's dinner was perfect. "It's serendipitous -- with the Bulls playing the Wizards in Washington the afternoon before the dinner." While Axelrod got to go to the game, his cheering obviously "wasn't strong enough" to prevent the Wizards from crushing the Bulls in the third game of the opening playoff round.

*Others sighted on the run: "The West Wing" star Richard Schiff, liberal comedian and commentator Al Franken ("Yes, this certainly is one party I should be going to"), Arriana Huffington (predicting "very tough days ahead" for her former primary opponent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger), actors Ron Silver and Dennis Hopper, Princess Diana biographer Andrew Morton, former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark (laughing when he set off the metal detectors entering the ballroom -- forcing him to be "wanded" by a security guard), Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (acting like any other husband, waiting patiently outside the ladies' room for his wife, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell), Salman Rushdie (spied running around wearing a modified Nehru jacket), Elle Macpherson (doing nothing special except looking absolutely gorgeous -- something she does to perfection) and "Sideways" colleagues -- director Alexander Payne and Chicago's own Virginia Madsen -- enjoying a mini-reunion at the dinner.

*laughing* she was a riot! i saw the video with the Chippendale's joke. the audience was howling and rocking with laughter.

her sense of humor (and sometimes self-deprecating humor, at that!) is wonderful. a gift some politicians and their supporters woefully lack.

interesting the tone difference in the articles, though. for example, "Laura Bush firmly pushed her husband aside at the annual White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday, ..." vs "the first lady walked to the podium and gently shoved aside the commander-in-chief."

The Enemy on Our Airwaves

2005-04-25T15:48:00.000-07:00

The Enemy on Our Airwaves
By DORRANCE SMITH
The Wall Street Journal
April 25, 2005; Page A14

On April 11, Jeffrey Ake, an American, was taken hostage in Iraq. Video of him in captivity was shown on Al-Jazeera on April 13. A short time later six American networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC -- aired the same video, a vivid example of the ongoing relationship between terrorists, Al-Jazeera and the networks. Last week, Al-Jazeera showed video of a helicopter being shot, bursting into flames and trailing smoke as it fell to the ground. It also aired video of the lone survivor being forced to walk on a broken leg and then being shot by the terrorists, one of whom said, "We are applying God's law."

As the war continues, more hostages will be taken and acts of murderous violence committed -- leading to more videos for Al-Jazeera and the networks. Isn't it time to scrutinize the relationship among Al-Jazeera, American networks and the terrorists? What role should the U.S. government be playing?

Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the U.S. This partnership is a powerful tool for the terrorists in the war in Iraq. Figures show that 77% of Iraqis cite TV as their main source of information; 15% cite newspapers. Current estimates are that close to 100% of Iraqis have access to satellite TV, 18% to cell phones, and 8% to the Internet. The battle for Iraqi hearts and minds is being fought over satellite TV. It is a battle today that we are losing badly.

The collaboration between the terrorists and Al-Jazeera is stronger than ever. While the precise terms of that relationship are virtually unknown, we do know this: Al-Jazeera and the terrorists have a working arrangement that extends beyond a modus vivendi. When the terrorists want to broadcast something that helps their cause, they have immediate and reliable access to Al-Jazeera. This relationship -- in a time of war -- raises some important questions:

• What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video?
• Does it pay for material?
• Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.)
• Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice?

While I was in Iraq in 2004, Al-Jazeera was expelled from the country by the Iraqi Governing Council for violating international law. Numerous times they had advance knowledge of military actions against coalition forces. Instead of reporting to the authorities that it had been tipped off, Al-Jazeera would pre-position a crew at the event site and wait for the attack, record it and rush it on air. This happened time after time, to the point where Al-Jazeera was expelled from Iraq. The airing of the Ake video, however, demonstrates that it can still operate on behalf of the terrorists even from outside the country.

Al-Jazeera continues to broadcast because it reportedly receives $100 million a year from the government of Qatar. Without this subsidy it would be off the air, off the Internet and out of business. So, does Qatar's funding of Al-Jazeera constitute state sponsorship of terrorism? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. government maintain normal relations with Qatar? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as we are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are we not fighting back against Al-Jazeera and Qatar, the nation that makes possible the network's existence? Should the U.S. not adopt a hard-line position about doing business with Qatar as long as Al-Jazeera is doing business with terrorists?

In addition to being subsidized by Qatar, Al-Jazeera has very strong partners in the U.S. -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Video aired by Al-Jazeera ends up on these networks, sometimes within minutes. The terrorists are aware of this access and use it -- as in the Ake case -- to further their aims. They want to reach the American audience and influence public opinion.

The arrangement between the U.S. networks and Al-Jazeera raises questions of journalistic ethics. Do the U.S. networks know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with the terrorists? Do they want to know?

There has been no in-depth reporting about Al-Jazeera in the U.S. and virtually no scrutiny of Qatar and its relationship with the network. Why not? Is it that the American networks don't want to give up their tainted video? And since they all get the same material and all air it at the same time, do they feel a certain safety being in bed together? The cable networks have become addicted to the latest B-roll video. If that video was obtained by means that violated their own standards and practices, would they air it? Would they even know?

What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused to air the Ake video on the grounds that it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and that from this point forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda? The terrorists know that the airing of such video creates pressure on the government to negotiate a release. It also sends a signal to Americans about the perils of being an American working in Iraq. If the Ake video had never aired in the U.S., the position of the hostage-takers would have been severely impaired. Had it never aired, terrorists would have had no incentive to continue making the tapes.

Is it fanciful to think that network news executives would have the fortitude not to air any video shot by terrorists? They already stop short of airing everything, so why not refuse to touch the stuff altogether? At the very least, is it not reasonable to raise questions about the sources and methods used to obtain this material? The war in Iraq will likely drag on for some time. More lives will be lost and more hostages will be taken and more videos will be made. Now we should engage the terrorists on the airwaves as we do on the ground.

Mr. Smith, currently a media consultant in Washington, spent nine months in Iraq as a senior media adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremer.

Euthanasia vs Medical Treatment Choices

2005-04-22T23:38:00.000-07:00

a thread today on the political corkboard i visit, with my reply:

The Questions

Why is euthanasia so frowned upon in our society?
If a person is able to say..."I want to die" why is it not ok to help them?
But on the other hand, a living will is ok... I understand that the Judeo-Christian ethic is pro-life...but dammit...why the double standard?
Why is it ok to do nothing (through a living will) but not to actively help someone die?

The First Response

euthanasia is a slippery slope... if we accept that it is all right to actively kill someone... that is slip a needle in their vein and take their life because they "request" it... how long before that choice is no longer ours? that is to say.. how long before it becomes "what is good for society"?
we can logically make that jump from "requesting"...to assuming that ones not fruitful to society would not want to "live"...so how hard is it to euthanize the elderly? the infirm? the developmentally disabled?
there is a world of difference between someone who has a terminal, probably painful disease: ie: cancer, MS, alzheimer's, stroke (debilitating to the point they can't eat, or which destroys massive sections of the brain), and someone who is depressed or insane....
someone who is clinically depressed can be treated...and may feel completely different after that treatment...
i would not, as a nurse, assist someone to die...i have been asked...and i am sure others have been as well...my answer to the family who requested it...was just this...
when it is God's time to call you home...it is His time...it is not up to man to make that decision...
after all...what was it the Nazi's were actually trying to accomplish with their final solution? it was a master race of course, without the "dregs" of society... those too ill, infirm, to give back to society....
read z-pop...it was eye opening to me....and abhorent....when life is so cheap we can dispose of those who may not have the qualities that society deems acceptable..then who of us will be safe?
passive euthanasia, ie: not treating infections as they occur, not inserting a feeding tube, not giving blood...is a medical choice...it is allowing nature to take it's course...these medical interventions are new to man...and before they came into being people died from their ailments...
just because we can...doesn't necessicarily mean we should intervene... and it is not euthanasia per se...it is putting your faith in something besides the accepted medical establishment...
i am taking care of a lady right now, who declined a feeding tube... didn't want it... even though she aspirated everytime she tried to eat... we all thought she would die much as shiavo did.... that was 3.5 years ago and the lady is still going strong... she eats... she chokes, and sometimes we have to treat her for pneumonia, but... she did not starve to death as everyone predicted... she overcame... and she eats....
karen ann quinlin is a famous case that everyone recognizes... she didn't want to be on a respirator... and was a long drawn out court case... which ultimately deemed she had the right to refuse treatment.... and what happened? they pulled the tube and she did not die....
just with holding some treatments doesn't mean the person will die... it just means it is left in God's hands.... and what He chooses to do with that life....
if instead of withholding treatment, we had put a needle in their arms... both these ladies would have indeed died.... and that is wrong.... no matter what way you cut it...
no to euthanasia.... yes to treatment choices... which to accept... which to deny...

My Response

why is euthanasia so frowned upon in our society?

i believe it’s seen by many as taking life before it’s “time”. God’s hands.

if a person is able to say..."i want to die" why is it not ok to help them?

i’ve struggled with this one myself.

if the person is a physically healthy adult, i’d believe depression, which is an illness somewhat treatable with medications and therapy, may be doing the talking in this scenario. those words, spoken by a person in the midst of depression, cannot be taken seriously. the emotion behind those words, though, should be taken more than seriously. at that moment, they are not themselves and will, in the long run with proper medical treatment, come back to themselves.

however; if that person is of sound mind and in the midst of a grave and irreversible illness, death the known end, i’d consider the wishes of that person.

judas priest, i’m imagining just that in my mind at the moment and seeing myself agreeing with their wishes, though very reluctantly and very tearfully.

why it’s not okay to assist those with fatal illnesses is, again, a God’s hand belief for most. even if they wish to end their lives, God must decide when. it’s His call.

why is it ok to do nothing (through a living will) but not to actively help someone die?

doing nothing is, to me, letting it play out for God to call.

not wanting to dredge up the past, but the Terri Schiavo situation completely ripped me apart and has been over discussed... i'll refrain from commenting about it further.

the comment “what is good for society” really struck me. for me, abortion has become just that. it’s an empty and hollow reason for discarding unwanted or unplanned life. i agree, it could get to that if legalized. it's an out (financially and emotionally). a selfish playing God mentality (which is so pervasive) to choose who will live and who will die and the reasons for such. who among us can sincerely decide such a thing?

i don’t see hospitals, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies wanting to cut off their flow of cash from the sick, dying, and terminated anytime soon. it’s guaranteed income.

what's that saying? the love of money is the root of all evil.

same in the field of medicine.

Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda

2005-04-21T23:06:00.000-07:00

Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda
Thursday, April 21, 2005

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said Fonda received a standing ovation when she came out and when she finished speaking. Alan Tilson, one of those who had his book signed but left before the incident, said the crowd was very "warm and supportive" to Fonda and he was surprised to learn what had happened.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

"The important thing is that she was so calm and so gracious about it," Jennings said of Fonda. "She was wonderful."

Jennings said that the man had a book to which the name "Jody" had been affixed as he approached to have it autographed. She said that when Fonda got the book, she looked up and said, "You're not Jody."

"At that moment, he turned his head quickly and spit a trail of tobacco juice," Jennings said. "He immediately jumped off the stage and started running down the aisle."

Jynne Martin of Random House, Fonda's publisher, said the actress was flying to Minneapolis Wednesday for another appearance on the book tour she began April 5 and expected to have a statement later.

it would have been better for him to speak through his teeth than spit through them. bad decision. bad behavior. flat out... wrong.

her not pressing charges was, *sighing and wincing*, kind of her. somehow, over the years, i believe she's bluddy well prepared for this kind of confrontation. her not abreacting or pressing charges plays to her now apologetic public personna.

she's gonna get more books sold because of it. too bad she's keeping all the money instead of putting it where her mouth was. i'm sure the veterans' agencies would appreciate a donation to assist in the on-going mental therapies being given the men and women that were spat upon and whose self-images were irreparably destroyed by those she incited to that behavior.

Donald R. May

2004-12-18T02:32:00.000-08:00

Donald R. May
December 18, 2004

The Christmas Deconstruction Alliance just does not get it. They are dumbfounded as they have not been able to secularize Christmas. They throw tantrums because of the tenacity with which the vast majority of us hold onto our Christian beliefs and traditions. They do not understand why the United States does not roll over, accept the abolition of Christmas, close down our churches, and remove the crosses from our cemeteries.

They have failed in their attacks on Christmas, as they have not even convinced most of their liberal following. A recent poll indicated 89% of Americans want religion “included in public holiday celebrations.”

The liberal elite think their superior wisdom, and their control of education and the media, should convince us to become a bunch of pagans. They fantasize we will give up our guns, values, morals, and Constitution. They romanticize we will embrace socialized medicine, tolerate failing schools, and become mindless socialist whimps eager to be euthanized before becoming a burden on society.

Why do fringe liberals, Muslim terrorists, European socialists, and communists all hate Christianity? What is the common thread that joins them? They desire to control others, and they despise the fact Christianity promotes freedom based on personal responsibility. One can’t have Christianity directing people’s lives. The autocrats will direct our lives.

They especially hate Christmas as it is the most visible manifestation of Christianity and is celebrated by more people than any other holiday. The fact that Christ and Christmas are still so feared and hated can mean only one thing; Christ really was who He said He was.

The argument of hurting someone’s feelings or making them feel uncomfortable by celebrating Christmas is one of the most powerful liberal weapons used against Christmas. They put the feelings of the few above the many, and that is not democracy. Their actions are hypocritical, as liberals demand our tolerance all of their abominable behavior.

The politically correct insist we should value everyone’s culture. As Christianity is the majority culture in our country, should it not also be valued? Are we observing an overdose of progressive hypocrisy? Just how long are we going to endure the liberal intolerance of our values?

Nowhere does a “wall of separation of church and state” appear in our Constitution. Most people simply do not know this as they have heard assertions of its existence for so long. We can only hope and pray that in the near future our Supreme Court will enforce our Constitution and cease to reinterpret it as a judicial legislative tool.

In typical liberal fashion, the Christmas Deconstruction Alliance attacks the most vulnerable of our society, our small towns and villages, and our schools. Community and school officials are often terrified or simply unaware of the laws. They cannot afford the time and money to fight the legal challenges. There are also those among them who support the leftist attack on Christianity.

Just what are some of the things opposed by those who would eliminate our Judeo-Christian heritage? For one, we can’t have honesty. If the left’s ideas were honestly stated, the left would become an endangered species.

We can’t have self-reliance, as people are too stupid to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their own actions, especially conservatives.

We can’t have hard work and financial success. Israel and the United States have strong economies that must be damaged or at least economically disabled by the Kyoto Treaty.

We can’t have joy since the liberals and terrorists always are angry about something.

We certainly can’t have giving and charity; that is the job of government. Only government bureaucrats are smart enough to dispense our money. What business does the Salvation Army have of collecting money and giving it to the poor? That won’t get any votes.

We can’t have patriotism either. We might offend our enemies. We also shouldn’t defend ourselves as we might insult some thugs and dictators.

We certainly can’t have cohesive families. Families take care of each other and greatly reduce the need for the government to step in and pretend to take care of people.

We definitely can’t acknowledge we are a God-fearing nation who’s Constitution is based on The Ten Commandments. Why that’s in direct opposition to moral and legal relativism (depravity).

If The Ten Commandments, moral values, prayer, and Christmas are removed from our public schools, we are in grave danger. Public schools would increasingly pretend to educate students while indoctrinating them with more leftist propaganda.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses and other places where unsuspecting citizens might be exposed to them. Recently, a California school tried to ban The Declaration of Independence from a classroom as The Declaration contained references to God. We certainly can’t have impressionable students exposed to the fact that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” All socialists know that our rights come from governments.

If we allow Christmas to be taken from our public life and our educational system, if we allow our Constitution to be turned against us, if we fail to be a light of liberty unto the World, we will also deny freedom to a desperate World that will slip further into darkness. Just like the War on Terror, the battle for Christmas will be long and difficult.

A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!

Dr. May resides in Lubbock, Texas and is a retina surgeon; he lectures on economics, and he has been on the faculties of the University of Illinois, the University of Texas, the University of California, Tulane University, and Texas Tech Health Sciences University. He has lectured and taught surgery throughout the United States and in Canada, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, and Western Europe.

We're The 'Lose-Lose' People!

2004-12-15T20:09:00.000-08:00

We're The 'Lose-Lose' People!
December 15, 2004
Ann Coulter

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME – OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Shrum's losing streak obscures the fact that he is also a swine. Among his charming unifying political campaigns, in 1996, Shrum yanked his dripping snout from the political donation trough just long enough to design the commercial against California's Proposition 209 – which proposed banning racial preferences – that featured Klansman, burning crosses and David Duke. (Conforming to pattern: Shrum lost, Californians voted for the Proposition 54-46 percent, and then liberals tried to get a court to overturn it.)

This year, Shrum racked up his eighth loss in an unblemished 0-8 record of losing Democratic presidential campaigns. He's the embodiment of the Democratic Party ideal: Screw up, keep getting hired or promoted. One more loss and his last name officially becomes a verb, as in "we were ahead by 6 points but we ended up 'shrumming.'"

At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.

This came as no surprise to those who have followed the fate of Geragos' other hapless clients throughout the years. (Or, to be fair, the evidence against Peterson.) Among Geragos' clients are:

Clinton crony Susan McDougal: spent 18 months in federal prison. In his defense, at least Geragos didn't get Susan McDougal the death penalty. Any additional damage Geragos could do to McDougal's case was nullified when Clinton granted her a presidential pardon hours before he left office. As Susan McDougal assured New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in 1997, Clinton would never pardon her: "He's not going to wake up one day and confer it on me." As to how McDougal knows the way Bill Clinton behaves when he first wakes up in the morning, I'll leave that to your imagination.

Gary Condit: suspected (but never accused!) of involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance. Condit was never charged with any crime. But he hired Geragos to manage a media campaign to defend his reputation. The next thing Condit knew, he was kissing his 30-year political career goodbye when he lost to his Democratic primary opponent by a whopping 18 points. Or as the kids are saying these days, Condit got "shrummed" by 18 points. The only way Condit could have lost by a bigger margin would be if Bob Shrum had managed his campaign.

Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial, where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.) Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.

Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him. Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man.

And now Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been convicted of first- and second-degree murder in a trial that I believe began sometime in the '80s – which is good because you can always catch the trial highlights on VH1's "I Love the '80s."

The only reason to hire Mark Geragos is if the only other attorney left on Earth is Mickey Sherman, aka the "Mark Geragos of the East Coast." And that's only if Long Island gunman Colin Ferguson, who famously represented himself at trial, is not taking new clients.

But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.

In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."

Speaking of O.J., I keep hearing TV commentators say the Scott Peterson jury was influenced by the O.J. jury. Besides the fact that the jurors themselves say O.J. never crossed their minds until the press started asking them questions, the comparison is absurd. Among the burdens liberals have placed on blacks is the nutty idea that all blacks are obliged to defend the worst elements of their race.

White people don't feel a need to defend Jeffrey Dahmer or Scott Peterson. Go ahead, kill him. If we did, the Judgment at Nuremberg would have ended in a hung jury. In fact, the biggest dilemma we usually face after a case like Scott Peterson's is, "Lethal injection, or Old Sparky?"

Former FBI Agent Cites Penetration of CIA by China

2004-12-15T10:37:00.000-08:00

Former FBI Agent Cites Penetration of CIA by China
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
15 December 2004

China's intelligence service spent years training a spy who posed as a Catholic priest in New York and was part of an escape plan for a Chinese agent in the CIA, according to a veteran FBI counterspy.

Retired Special Agent I.C. Smith said China's use of the masquerading priest was "one of the most fascinating things" about the spy case of Larry Wu-tai Chin, who supplied secrets to China for decades as a CIA translator until his arrest in 1985.

"The People's Republic of China Ministry of State Security took a married Chinese national from the People's Republic and over several years gave him the background to be a priest," Mr. Smith said in an interview.

He identified the agent-priest as Mark Cheung, a minister with the Church of the Transfiguration in New York's Chinatown. "He was actually a Ministry of State Security operative," Mr. Smith said of Cheung.

Cheung was a Chinese "illegal" — a deep-undercover spy dispatched abroad to help in intelligence-gathering operations, he said. Mr. Smith said Cheung "was there to be part of the escape plan for Larry Chin."

According to Mr. Smith, emergency escape plans called for Chin to meet Cheung in the confessional booth of the downtown New York City church. China's intelligence service "spent years on this guy, bouncing him around in the South Pacific, building up a background to make it appear that he was a legitimate Catholic priest."

FBI agents later caught up with Cheung in Hong Kong and questioned him about his activities. But he was "uncooperative" and eventually fled to mainland China, where he is believed to be today, Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith, a former FBI special agent in charge in Little Rock, Ark., worked for years in Chinese counterintelligence within the agency. He disclosed new information about China's spy and influence operations in his book, "Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI." Mr. Smith spent 1973 to 1998 in the FBI.

Chin was uncovered in 1983 and arrested in November 1985. In 1986, he killed himself using a plastic bag in an Alexandria jail cell two weeks after he was convicted of spying for China since 1948. He was revealed after an official of the Ministry of State Security began working secretly for the CIA before defecting to the United States.

The Chinese defector has been identified by U.S. officials as Yu Zhensan, who was code-named "Planesman" by the FBI. He is one of only two major intelligence defections from China. "He was a guy that was being operated in China," Mr. Smith said.

Chin was caught after the defector provided a "sketchy" clue in the early 1980s that an Asian employee of U.S. intelligence was spying for China and had once been delayed prior to a flight to Hong Kong to meet a control agent.

"The source basically said [the spy] came to Beijing, but his flight got delayed," Mr. Smith said. "We go back and find a phone call went in to the [Chinese] Embassy, where it basically said, 'Hey, my flight's delayed, what do I do?' That kind of gave it to us. We looked at everybody on the flight. It was just typical grunt, hard investigative work."

The phone call led the FBI to Chin.

Prior to the FBI probe, the CIA conducted its own probe, but failed to uncover Chin, a translator who was granted access to classified information in 1970. He caused the deaths of U.S. agents by supplying information to Chinese intelligence during trips to Hong Kong, Mr. Smith said.

Never Say Never

2004-12-15T00:01:00.000-08:00

'Never Say Never'
The Ukrainian revolution and the renaissance of democracy.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Orange, rose, yellow. These are the colors not just of sunrise, but of a few of the many "people power" revolutions that over the past generation have been by increments changing the world. Yellow was the Philippines in 1986. Rose was the former Soviet republic of Georgia last year. Now we see an exuberant orange in Ukraine, where despite election fraud, poisoning and the displeasure of the Kremlin, democratic candidate Viktor Yushchenko looks poised to win a revote Dec. 26.

I'll get to the caveats in a minute. But first, despite the perils of our time, despite the terrorists and bombs and war, despite the inevitable erosion of high ideals and disappointments of daily political practice, I will hazard the prediction that if we of the free world stick to our principles--and, where necessary, defend them with our guns--we stand on the verge of a global renaissance.

This was driven home in an interview Sunday with Mr. Yushchenko's close aide, Ukrainian legislator Oleh Rybachuk, who has just completed a whirlwind trip to the U.S. A tall, athletic-looking man, Mr. Rybachuk reportedly radiates energy at the worst of times. Right now, he is surfing a tidal wave of hope. To sit down with him over coffee in New York is to catch a whiff of the vitality with which the people of Ukraine have stood up to demand government of, by and for the people.

Fluent in English, and sporting the same kind of bright orange scarf that has become Mr. Yushchenko's trademark, Mr. Rybachuk had a great deal to say about his party's plans. He stressed such gritty basics as monetary stability, unhooking Ukraine from Big Brother in Moscow, and joining the European Union. He described the inspiration Ukraine's democratic opposition has drawn from Poland--once a Soviet vassal state, now a member of the EU.

All these matters are important, and if Mr. Yushchenko becomes president, there will no doubt be plenty of devil in the details. But what came through most clearly in Mr. Rybachuk's conversation, the point to which he returned again and again, was his pride that the people of Ukraine have stood up for their freedom. Not so long ago, there were few believers that this could happen. Ukraine achieved independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, only to be written off in short order as a basket case. The country has been run for the past 10 years by a former Soviet party boss, President Leonid Kuchma; sunk in corruption and lamed by generations of subservience to Moscow. When Mr. Yushchenko set out upon his campaign for the presidency, says Mr. Rybachuk, there were people "laughing in my face, saying we are idiotic, or romantic, or naive."

As it turned out, the voters of Ukraine thought otherwise, and when Mr. Kuchma tried to steal the election, they spoke up. With their flags and vigils and calls for fellowship from the democratic nations of the world, they have been insisting on their right to choose freely and fairly who will govern their country. "This is real independence day," Mr. Rybachuk told me, "because we have kids who will never be slaves again."

In such statements is a world of promise for the people of nations where the moment of democratic truth has not yet arrived. Ukraine is telegraphing around the globe a reminder that freedom brings with it the great gift of dignity. That is precisely why it is so stirring to watch such revolutions. They speak to the best part of the human spirit, because we are witnessing people, often against big odds and at great risk, recovering their self-respect.
And right there is the basic remedy for the miseries of the Middle East. There has been plenty of debate about the humiliations of the Muslim world, and how to redress or contain the rage and hate this breeds. There have been endless disquisitions on the complicated politics, the complex cultural and religious divides, and the--how did Mr. Rybachuk put it?--the idiocy, romanticism and naiveté of the idea, put forward as policy by President Bush, that living under the rule of some of the world's most corrupt thugs are vast silent majorities who given any room to maneuver would prefer to create free societies.

The bottom line is simple, and universal. Freedom brings with it a degree of dignity that repression can never confer. No amount of handouts from the likes of the Saudi royals, or Libya's terrorist tycoon, Moammar Gadhafi, or United Nations-sanctioned rations under a Saddam Hussein, can make up for the self-respect that comes with the self-determination of free people.

The caveats are obvious. People-power revolutions do not always succeed with a first try. In some cases--Nazi Germany, say, or Iraq--democrats stand no chance at all unless someone wages war to remove the tyrant. And democracy depends on institutions that need time to evolve. They cannot be unpacked overnight from a kit. The Philippines in 1986 got rid of Ferdinand Marcos, but has yet to live up to the full hopes that swept the country when he left. In Burma in 1988, thousands died in protests that led to the election of democratic leaders who were never allowed by the junta to take power. In China in 1989, the Tiananmen uprising ended with army gunfire. In Russia, the great moment in 1991 of Boris Yeltsin atop an armored personnel carrier, waving the red-white-and-blue Russian flag, has given way to a rough 13 years marred most recently by President Vladimir Putin's increasingly authoritarian rule. Ukraine itself is now in round two of the contest for liberty and justice, and from there may yet face round three or four.

But even with the setbacks, the general direction is progress. One heroic act encourages the next. Every time people stand up for their rights, they send the kind of message we are now hearing from Ukraine. Freedom matters. Democratic rule matters. The Philippine revolution may have fallen short of the mark, but the country is freer today than under Marcos, and that uprising 18 years ago became a shot heard round the world. Within the decade, Taiwan and South Korea went democratic. The people of Burma and China flashed the message that they desire the same. The Baltics broke free; the Berlin wall fell; Eastern Europe shook loose. Russia today may be a deeply troubled country, but it's a big step up from the Soviet Union. And I would place my bet that there are plenty of people in Russia--and in dismally repressed neighboring Belarus--watching quietly but intently right now Ukraine's second run at the democratic prize.

Likewise, in Iraq, even in a society still suffering a violent Baathist hangover, there is finally room for voters in January to choose something other than a 99.9% show for Saddam--and there begins the real recovery. Afghanistan is already embarked on the democratic trail. From Ukraine comes this latest beacon, and I promise you, it is being observed not only with applause in America, but with yearning in places such as China, Cuba and Iran.
Before saying goodbye to Mr. Rybachuk, I asked if he had any advice for people living in nations where rule of liberty and law still seems a dream beyond hope. He answered, "Never say never."

Ms. Rosett is a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.

Foreign Terrorists in Fallujah

2004-12-14T10:36:00.000-08:00

Foreign Terrorists in Fallujah
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
14 December 2004

U.S. military forces captured more than 30 foreign fighters during recent combat in Fallujah and found equipment used by terrorists to make fake passports and documents, a senior military official in Iraq said.

"We found a lot of evidence in the city of foreign fighter involvement, to include equipment for making and forging passports and official documents, rolls, books or ledgers with names and countries of origin of foreign fighters that were located within the city," the senior officer said.

However, al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi and other insurgent leaders fled the city and are believed to be moving constantly. Some are operating in the Mosul area in northern Iraq, the senior officer in Iraq told The Washington Times.

One finding of the battle of Fallujah was that no single nation was the main home of the foreigners who were killed or captured. The list of foreign fighters who were identified included nationals from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Morocco and Algeria, said the officer, speaking on condition that he not be named.

In addition to the 30 captured foreign fighters, the remains of more than 40 others have been identified as non-Iraqis. Many of those killed in the recent fighting also may have been foreign terrorists, but did not carry any identification.

"The number of foreign fighters that were found in the city was lower than we expected," the official said, adding that many fled the city and others were killed but not identified.

A total of 1,200 insurgents were killed and about 2,000 others were captured in the battle that began early last month. A total of 54 U.S. servicemen and eight Iraqi security troops were killed.

The official said he could not confirm published reports that said more than 400 foreign fighters were believed to be in Fallujah before the start of military action last month.

The officer said some of the terrorists who have entered Iraq "have ties to al Qaeda" and some of the attacks across the country appear linked to the group headed by Osama bin Laden.

Since April, Zarqawi used Fallujah as a base of operations and built up a supply of 400 arms caches. He used the city for kidnappings and beheadings and as a "center of command and control" for terrorist attacks, the officer said.

"They pretty much could do as they pleased in Fallujah and taking that away as a safe haven now has denied Zarqawi and all the fighters who used that from having a location where they could walk freely around the city, could communicate more openly, where they could plan operations," he said. "And really, at this point, the insurgents are disrupted. We're continuing to pursue them throughout the country and they don't have any safe haven like they had in Fallujah."

There are signs the various insurgent groups are coordinating attacks in Iraq.

"We've seen signs that they are working together, both the former fighters and the former regime leaders, the Saddamists," he said. "They have two common goals: One is to get rid of the multinational forces and [a second is] to stop the elections."

Attacks in the past were limited to small-scale attacks by groups of two to five persons, the officer said.

"We have seen an increase in the number of complex attacks that require some planning and coordination," he said. "So we believe they are working together with that as a common goal."

Asked about Zarqawi's announcement that he has formally joined forces with al Qaeda, the officer said the public acknowledgment was aimed at cementing ties between the Zarqawi network and al Qaeda.

"Al Qaeda is on the run in Afghanistan and losing that as a base of operations," he said. "Zarqawi has lost Fallujah as a safe haven and base of operations. And so they're trying to join forces to try to continue to rally jihadist support for their operations, trying to continue to ensure that they have financing, people to carry out suicide attacks."

Christmas Censors

2004-12-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

Christmas Censors
John Leo
December 13, 2004

The annual assault on Christmas comes in many forms. First, there is the barrage of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is reliably offended by almost any representation of Christianity in the public square. Small towns, facing the prospect of expensive litigation over religious displays on public property, often cave in simply out of fear. Part of the intimidation is that if the towns lose, they must pay the legal fees of the ACLU. But now religious-liberties legal groups provide attorneys to stand up to the ACLU. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund won in federal court last month in a suit filed by the ACLU against the city of Cranston, R.I. Cranston allows religious and secular displays of all kinds on the front lawn of City Hall.The ACLU argued that this was a church-state violation, but U.S. District Judge William Smith ruled that nothing in the evidence “reveals or even remotely supports an inference that a religious purpose was behind the creation of the limited public forum.”

Another standard anti-Christmas maneuver is to argue that all references to Christmas in public schools are suspect, while references to Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, for whatever reason, are not. The policy of the 1,200 New York City public schools is that no purely religious symbols are allowed, only ones that have a “secular dimension,” such as Christmas trees, menorahs, and the star and crescent. But the star and crescent is hardly secular. It is the symbol of Islam. And the menorah, though now losing some of its religious significance, is the symbol of an intervention by God to save the Jewish people. The Thomas More Law Center filed suit on behalf of a Roman Catholic mother of two public-school students, saying, in effect, that if the city’s public schools are allowing brief and educational use of religious symbols for Muslims and Jews, then the Christian crèche should be permitted, too. Last February, U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton ruled for the school system. The case is under appeal. The crèche, for now, remains banned.

Like New York’s schools, Bay Harbor Islands in Florida refuses to allow a Nativity scene on public property but has menorahs and the Star of David on lampposts and permitted a local synagogue to erect a 14-foot-high menorah on public land.

A fairly new tactic in the Christmas wars can be called the sensitive person’s veto. In 2000, the city of Eugene, Ore., banned Christmas trees on public property, then allowed firefighters to put up a tree on Christmas Eve and Christmas, with the provision that if one person objected, the tree had to come down. The next year, Kensington, Md., banned Santa Claus from a tree-lighting ceremony because of two complaints. So the city’s most sensitive person was, in effect, allowed to make policy.

The sensitivity argument — that any reference to Christmas at all might make someone feel bad—is responsible for the spread of the anti-Christmas campaign from religious symbols to the purely secular and harmless trappings of the season, including red poinsettias, red-and-green cookies, holiday lights, and Rudolph the reindeer. Santa Claus, originally based on a Christian saint but no more religious than Kermit the Frog, is considered much too divisive and hurtful to non-Christian students in many schools. The principal of Braden Middle School in Florida said, “You won’t see any Christmas trees around here. We keep it generic.” Some principals and teachers around the country even ban the word Christmas. In Rochester, Minn., two girls were reprimanded for saying “Merry Christmas” in a school skit.And though Christmas trees are considered secular when they are useful in warding off Nativity scenes, the word Christmas is often removed by panicky officials, thus producing multicultural trees, holiday trees, community trees, care trees, and giving trees. The White House still has a Christmas tree, but Congress has a Capitol Holiday Tree. Accommodating all traditions is a worthy goal. But a broad movement to erase the word Christmas is an extraordinary development in a culture that is more than 80 percent Christian. How much more of this is the public willing to tolerate? William Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, points out that an elementary school in New Hampshire declared that December is a gift-giving month but couldn’t explain why or how it got to be a giving time of year, since it refused to use the word Christmas.

The South Orange/Maplewood, N.J., school district banned religious Christmas songs, even in instrumental versions. In Florida, an elementary school concert included songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but offered not a single note of Christmas music. A recent winter parade in Denver looked very much like a Christmas event, except for one small thing: Every reference to Christmas was banned. Unless believers and religious-liberties groups begin to push back, the anti-Christmas trend will prevail in the public square.

Bought and Paid For

2004-12-11T01:50:00.000-08:00

"We bought it, we own it and now we're going to take it back.".

*blink blink blink*

* * * * *

BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

December 11, 2004 -- 'Now it's our party," reads the typically arrogant e-mail, referring to the Democrats, from MoveOn.org to its supporters: "We bought it, we own it and now we're going to take it back."

Sad to say, the message — sent by the group's political director, Eli Pariser — is largely true.

MoveOn.org and similar so-called "527" groups (named for the section of the campaign-finance law that governs their activities) did all but take control of the Democratic Party this year — for no other reason than that the Democrats offered themselves for sale.

So groups like MoveOn and left-wing fat cats like George Soros effectively pumped $300 million into the Democratic presidential candidates' campaign — first Howard Dean, then John Kerry — all while remaining officially and legally "independent."

Indeed, MoveOn & Co. pretty much set the Democratic agenda this year, forcing Kerry to lurch sharply leftward in order to outflank Dean, who seemed to have cornered the market on strident, over-the-top anti-war rhetoric.

So now the party finds itself in a political pickle as it prepares to choose a new chairman of its national committee.

Howard Dean wants the job in a big way — a prospect that terrifies most Democrats, who see his candidacy as a one-way ticket to irrelevance.

Dean would insist that the party echo the MoveOn message — that the Democrats must remain firmly rooted on the leftward-most edge of the political spectrum. As Dean himself puts it: "There's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left — and that's for us to lurch to the right."

(Though it might be a tad indelicate to point out that the Democrats have never been stronger in the past 40 years than when a guy named Bill Clinton "lurched to the right" — first being elected president as a moderate Democrat and then governing by co-opting GOP themes and proposals, like welfare reform.)

If the Democrats want to be honest about the state of their party today, they'll elect Dean and embrace the MoveOn crowd enthusiastically.

And go the way of the Whigs.

* * * * *

Eli Pariser is the 23-year-old director of the MoveOn.org anti-war campaign.

wanting a little more information on Eli Pariser, i found this from, *rolling my eyes*, MotherJones (May/June 2003):

http://www.motherjones.com/news/hellraiser/2003/05/ma_379_01.html

what lifted my brow was the last paragraph:

"A visit to MoveOn's New York office really got Wimsatt thinking. Upon arriving at the door, he was ushered into the 8-by-10-foot room where Pariser sleeps. "There was a little desk, a little bookshelf, a chair, and a laptop," says Wimsatt. "I'm like, 'Okay, let's go see your office.' But he's like, 'This is it.' I was stunned -- the most effective progressive political force today is coming out of this 22-year-old kid's bedroom."

shades of Ted Kaczynski. creepy.

Bush Supports Annan - WTF?

2004-12-10T22:39:00.000-08:00

i damn near dropped my dinner fork when i heard on this evening's news that President Bush supports Kofi Annan and his position with the United Nations.

did i really just say that? *looking at it* yup. that's what was reported.

it's being surmized there must be a "possible deal" in the works with Annan.

forcasting perhaps Annan is now willing to provide solid United Nations support for the war in Iraq and perhaps reopening the "office" in Baghdad (which of course, will be protected by soldiers from the United States).

perhaps Annan knows he's a failure and a fraud, and, because he is willfully obstructing justice (and everyone on the planet knows it) by denying access to relevant Oil-For-Food documents implicating him, his son, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, China, and Gerhardt Schroeder in the deliberatly planned stealing from the Iraqi people in addition to selling their Security Council votes to Saddam Hussein to assist in the sought after and cooperative destruction of the United States...

perhaps Annan knows President Bush would prefer the cooperation of many nations united in the democratic cause of freedom and peace over the destruction of a body of corrupt, money hungry, backstabbing, lying, self-important ne'er-do-wells, some of whom will certainly be brought to justice in the near future.

Take Your Christmas and Stuff It

2004-12-09T10:27:00.000-08:00

Take Your Christmas and Stuff It
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 09, 2004

"Christmas with the Kranks" is not only the name of a holiday movie this year, it is also a national trend. Once again, Christmas is under siege by the growing forces of secularism in America. Put these facts in your stocking:

* Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy's, has suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.

* In Denver, a church was banned from the "Festival of Lights" parade because it wanted a religious theme to its float.

* The Maplewood, New Jersey school board has banned all religious music from "holiday" concerts. (Would somebody please tell me exactly what holiday this is?)

* And New York City Mayor Bloomberg insists that the lighted tree outside City Hall is not a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree." (What holiday, Mr. Mayor?)

Surveys show that more than 90% of Americans celebrate the Federal holiday of Christmas, signed into law by President Grant in 1870. Despite that overwhelming number, the tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.

The anti-Christmas forces say it's all about diversity, protecting the sensitivities of those Americans who get offended by the mere mention of the birth of Jesus. Somehow, I haven't been able to locate any of these people--folks who find a baby in a manger so off-putting, it ruins their day.

So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What's really going on here is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.

The secular-progressive movement understands very well that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia, and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized in the USA, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.

It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said that religion was important to the country. That number has now fallen to 61%, according to an Environics Focus Canada poll.

In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; now that number has risen to 16%.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Unlike Americans, Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion. Also, the age of consent for sex up north is just 14 years old. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can't.

Even drug legalization is close to being a reality, as the city of Vancouver is developing a heroin give-away policy, and pot has been largely decriminalized across the country.

The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, and so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, the strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes perfect sense.

I know this sounds kind of conspiratorial, but it really isn't. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture I've just presented. They simply think they're looking out for the minority of Americans who don't celebrate the birth of Christ.

But committed secularists in the media, in the courts, and in the education system know exactly what's going on. And now so do you. Merry Christmas!

Christmas Under Siege: The Big Picture

2004-12-07T10:38:00.000-08:00

Christmas Under Siege: The Big Picture
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

Christmas under siege — the big picture. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

All over the country, Christmas is taking flak. In Denver this past weekend, no religious floats were permitted in the holiday parade there. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the holiday tree and no Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools. Federated Department Stores, [that's] Macy's, have done away with the Christmas greeting, "Merry Christmas."

Now, all of this anti-Christian stuff is absurd, and may even be a bias situation. But the real reason it's happening has little to do with Christmas and everything to do with organized religion.

Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.

But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That's what happened in Canada.

The facts:

• In 1980, 79 percent of Canadians said that religion was important for the nation there. That number has now dropped to 61percent.

• In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion. That number has now risen to 16 percent.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to the rise in progressive public policy. Most Canadians now favor gay marriage. The age of consent for sex is 14 years. That means if you're an adult and you have sex with a 15-year-old, that's fine.

Welfare's double what it is in the USA. And the Canadian military is almost non-existent.

Drug decriminalization is a reality, as is any kind of abortion. The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for. Thus, Christian displays like Christmas must be scaled back because the connection with Judeo-Christian beliefs is bad for the secular agenda.

Now most people, of course, love Christmas and want to keep its traditions, but the secular movement has influence in the media, among some judges and politicians. Americans will lose their country if they don't begin to take action. Any assault on Judeo-Christian philosophy should be fought.

Organizations like Thomasmoore.org and the Alliance Defense Fund in Phoenix are fighting back, but need your help. Billoreilly.com has information on that.

"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil without a strong, traditional foundation that clearly defines right from wrong. The struggle today is not about Christmas, but about the spirit of our country.

And that's "The Memo."

Why Does the Media Lie About Powell’s Speech to the UN?

2004-12-06T10:42:00.000-08:00

Why Does the Media Lie About Powell’s Speech to the UN?
Joel Mowbray
December 6, 2004

When Secretary of State Colin Powell stepped down earlier this month, the flood of political obituaries were packed with praise, but almost all contained obligatory paragraphs highlighting the top diplomat’s “low point”: his February 2003 speech on Iraq to the United Nations.

But no matter how much conventional media wisdom says otherwise, Powell’s presentation on the eve of the Iraq War remains as true today as it was then, which is to say almost entirely so.

To claim, as the New York Times editorialized recently, that “Mr. Powell in fact offered half-truths, poorly analyzed intelligence and outright fantasies” is pure fiction retrofitted to match anti-war rhetoric. Most of the case the four-star general presented was based not on shaky human sources, but telephone intercepts, satellite imagery, and not unimportantly, Saddam’s own admissions and track record.

Perhaps the most flagrant revisionism, though, occurred not in the opinion pages, but in news stories from the country’s most respected source for objective news: the Associated Press.

Near the end of its original story reporting Mr. Powell’s departure, AP scribes George Gedda and Deb Riechmann wrote: “Powell will perhaps be best remembered for that U.N. Security Council appearance on Feb. 5, 2003, during which he argued that Saddam must be removed because of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. There is no evidence that those claims had any foundation.”

The AP report is, in turn, both misleading and simply untrue.

General Powell did not rest his entire case on Saddam’s possession of WMD. Nor was his primary argument founded on Saddam’s extensive ties to terrorism or his clear, savage history of human rights abuses, though both were included near the conclusion.

No, Mr. Powell tailored his message for his audience. His first and foremost argument was that Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which warned Baghdad of “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.” Saddam was, in fact, in violation of Resolution 1441—and Mr. Powell proved it.

One of the first pieces of evidence offered by Mr. Powell was a telephone intercept of a conversation between two senior officers from the Republican guard on November 26, 2002—the day before UN weapons teams started up inspections. The most damning line: “We evacuated everything. We don’t have anything left.”

As he did throughout the speech, Mr. Powell detailed the only plausible interpretation. He said: “Note what he says: ‘We evacuated everything.’ We didn't destroy it. We didn’t line it up for inspection. We didn’t turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. ‘I will come to you tomorrow.’”

Moments later—after pointing out that “the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16”—Mr. Powell played another intercept, one of a Republican Guard officer issuing an order to a subordinate in the field.

In the recorded conversation, the superior reiterated a previous instruction: “And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there. Remember the first message: evacuate it.” Lest anyone had any doubt how to interpret this clandestine conversation, the senior officer said, “After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don’t want anyone to see this message.”

Buttressing the intercepts, Mr. Powell also provided satellite photos, including shots of bunkers at a facility called Taji. The side-by-side photos—one from before the arrival of weapons inspectors, one taken afterward—with tents and decontamination vehicles nowhere to be found in the later image.

Mr. Powell also showed photos of three sites—out of roughly 30 total—where large cargo trucks arrived at known weapons facilities just before the UN inspectors did.

If anything, subsequent discoveries have bolstered Mr. Powell’s primary argument that Saddam was in violation of Resolution 1441. There were large, unknown shipments crossing into Syria on the eve of war—entirely consistent with evidence of transfer from facilities shortly before UN inspectors appeared.

And David Kay — the man whose credibility is considered near-perfect by the media because he believes Saddam did not possess WMD—found that Saddam had, in fact, duped the weapons inspectors.

As for the remainder of Mr. Powell’s address to the UN, most of the other evidence he cited to support claims that Saddam possessed WMD still stands—particularly Saddam’s own admissions, his bloody track record, and his inability to produce any legitimate proof that he had actually destroyed his stockpiles.

Finally, the 9/11 Commission supported Mr. Powell’s contention that Iraq had ongoing contacts with al Qaeda, and regular news reports of beheadings and terrorist strikes remind Americans that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is as dangerous as originally claimed.

Perhaps it is too much to ask of journalists to go back and actually re-read Mr. Powell’s speech to the UN. If they don’t, though, the media-created myth that the four-star general’s presentation has been debunked will soon become accepted as true.

Hype, Hoaxes, Hacks...and Science

2004-12-05T10:40:00.000-08:00

Hype, Hoaxes, Hacks...and Science
Paul Jacob
December 5, 2004

The end is near. Well, the end of the year is near. So it's time to ape Dave Letterman's favorite bit and construct a Top Ten list. I'm working on mine: a Top Ten List of The Year's Top Ten Lists. And I've found a contender for the Number One spot, courtesy of a website dedicated to "All the junk that's fit to debunk."

JunkScience.com just published this year's list of Top Ten Most Embarrassing Moments. The list spotlights individuals and organizations that use the mantle of science to provide intellectual cover for exaggerated claims, bad judgments, or hidden agendas that have "most egregiously undermined public confidence in the scientific community's capacity to conduct sound and unbiased research."

Here are just a few of its "embarrassing moments":

-- Polar bears, we were told, face extinction because of global warming. The claim, however, underplayed the cyclical nature of warming and cooling in the Arctic. It also ignored the inconvenient fact that polar bear populations have increased, rather than decreased, during the recent warming.

-- A leading scientist successfully plugged stem cell research to California voters. The research may or may not be a promising avenue to achieve the promised results. But it certainly was the most promising way for said scientist's troubled company to make millions off of taxpayers — the scientist's economic ties to the company were of course not disclosed to the public.

-- Four years ago, those in charge of public water in Washington, D.C. stopped using chlorine. They abandoned the world's most effective disinfectant for something more expensive and less effective. Why? On undocumented fear that chlorine causes cancer. Unfortunately, the substitute was more corrosive. So this year they detected increased levels of lead in the water, corroded from old pipes.

Obviously, too much of what activists and worrywarts and even scientists publicly claim as science isn't science. It's what's been called "scientism" — the romance of science wrapped up in a good story, involving catastrophe if at all possible. It belongs in the science fiction mags, not in government or the newspapers. But, says JunkScience.com publisher Steven Milloy, "all too often, the media simply repeat such claims verbatim."

Of course, the conflict between hype and science is nothing new. And journalism traditionally takes the side of hype. Indeed, in the old days outright hoaxery in pursuit of story was part of the journalist's toolkit.

For example, in the 1830s and '40s, after a wildly popular series of fantastic articles in The Sun was admitted as a hoax — articles describing a lunar civilization made up of humans with bat-like wings — Edgar Allan Poe was one of the few to be really upset. He was annoyed at the articles' obvious bad science.

But as debunkers go, Poe retained a strong streak of bunk. He appears to have been miffed that similar writing of his own had not gained the same notoriety. So, after tiring of playing debunker, Poe approached The Sun and concocted the Balloon Hoax, slightly more "scientific" in nature, an account of the "first" trans-Atlantic flight. No people with bat wings. Unfortunately for its money-making potential, The Sun had to repudiate it much quicker than the earlier extravaganza, and the chief effect of it seems to have been to spark the career of Jules Verne. But that's another story.

It's hard to keep a good liar, er, fictionalist, down, though. A number of Poe's fantastic whoppers originally appeared, or were reprinted, as true tales.

Nowadays, we say things are different. Our journalistic reading material is less muddled than in the past. The Weekly World News may present science fiction as sensational fact, but few other periodicals do. When we read Time or Newsweek or The Washington Post, we expect something close to good reporting about science.

But how sure can we be? News is entertainment, and journalists will always be tempted by The Big Story. They have every reason to downplay critics of whatever catastrophe is in the offing.

Scientists should have a closer track on the truth. But though public testing is the modus operandi of their business, the actual business side of their business proceeds on funding, and...well, you can probably write the rest of this sentence yourself.

Funding for research these days has One Big Source that may be more corrupting than the journalists' desire for the Big Story. As long as scientists expect the federal government to provide the bulk of the funds for their work, there will always be a strong element of ideology, hyperbole, and scare-mongering in the way they present their stories to journalists.

Example? I'm tempted to say, "global warming," but that story is extremely complicated. (It's a pity that journalists so often make it out as simple then, isn't it?) Instead, I'll cite a scientistic fad a tad more political, Keynesianism.

From the Great Depression up until the stagflation of the '70s, economists had great deal of prestige, and economics then was almost synonymous with Keynesianism. Tied closely to government, the economists' job was to micromanage the "macro-economy." It turned out a mess on every level, and soon after Richard Nixon said "We are all Keynesians now," nearly everyone started repudiating Keynesianism.

How did the science of economics get corrupted? By working too closely with the state. How did the Keynesians treat their critics during the period of their ascendancy? With arrogant contempt. And how did the Keynesian ediface crumble? Well, with less ballyhoo than it started. In paradigm shifts and in hoax stories, retractions are printed in small type on page D-6

So I appreciate the work of the debunkers. I may even qualify as one myself — in my Common Sense e-letter I often debunk the Big Stories of the day. Power tends to corrupt, and journalists too often miss that story. And without debunkers like Steven Milloy of Junkscience.com, the corruption of science by politics and scare-mongering journalism might be missed.

I have a new Top Ten list idea: Top Ten Things to Do to Be a Good Citizen. Number one? Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

now i know where all the urban legends come from and why they stack up so quickly.

More Nuance and Flipflops

2004-12-03T10:46:00.000-08:00

More Nuance and Flipflops
David Limbaugh
December 3, 2004

The Democratic Party keeps agonizing over why it lost the election and how to recover. Let me suggest this: Quit undermining the electoral process in the name of protecting it.

And quit exploiting African-American voters by stirring fear in their hearts over fraudulent claims that Republicans want to disenfranchise them.

It's hard to estimate how much damage occurred to our democratic process with the spate of litigation and unsubstantiated allegations of GOP voter fraud in Florida in 2000.

Neither the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights nor the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division found any credible evidence that the GOP harassed or tried to suppress black voters in Florida in 2000. But these findings did not deter disgruntled, race-baiting Democrats from repeating those charges for the next four years.

They did not stop John Edwards from telling "a largely African-American crowd" at a rally in Miami Gardens, "Whatever it is, we know they're going to be up to their old tricks, right, trying to keep people from voting." They did not keep John Kerry from telling African-American church congregations in Florida and Ohio, "Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America."

On election night, Kerry apparently saw Ohio 2004 as a potential Florida 2000 -- a state whose electoral votes could reverse his defeat -- and so delayed conceding the election until the next day when a challenge seemed farfetched. Nevertheless, his decision to spare America the uncertainty of another protracted series of contests was wise and decent.

When the Green and Libertarian candidates sought a recount, Kerry continued in that posture, saying he wouldn't get involved. But this week, he appears to have changed his mind -- by trying to intervene in their suit to include Delaware County in the recount -- yet says he hasn't. Kerry campaign attorney Daniel Hoffheimer denied Kerry was trying to overturn the Ohio outcome, but said Kerry just wanted the recount to proceed in all counties to ensure that all votes were counted. Is that a vintage Kerry flipflop or merely sophisticated Kerry nuance that is beyond the ability of ordinary mortals to fully understand?

Just for the record, all the votes have been counted. Hoffheimer must mean he wants all the votes recounted. That seems to be the new standard for Republicans these days: They have to win twice.

Hoffheimer admitted that no evidence has been found proving fraud, but turned right around and said, "We know there were a lot of problems in this election. We want people to feel the election was fair."

Do we see a pattern here? Just as in Florida, there is no evidence of fraud, but they're going to insist on an expensive, unwarranted recount anyway, just to make people feel better?

Which people are they talking about? Surely not the Left's black helicopter crowd, who wouldn't be convinced of a legitimate Bush victory if they personally counted all the votes themselves -- the people whose loony "proof" of election fraud is the skewed exit polling results.

Their demagogic mantra, "Every vote must count," is getting old. No, only legal votes should count. And they don't always have to be counted twice.

The Democrats started a very dangerous precedent in Florida, and they're playing with fire again in Ohio. While they profess to be motivated by a desire to restore public confidence in the process, they are going to degrade our system to that of a glorified banana republic if they don't stop these reckless assaults.

It seems, as usual, that Kerry wants it both ways: to promote the recount behind the skirts of the other parties while denying his interest in it. Admittedly, I have no way of knowing for sure whether Kerry is trying to overturn the Bush victory. What I do know is that even if he isn't, his participation in this charade is destructive and he must put an end to it.

Kerry certainly cannot control the Green and Libertarian windmill chasers, but he can take charge of his own campaign. And if he refuses to exhibit the statesmanship to opt out of this disgraceful nonsense, then adults at the helm of his party, if there are any left, should take him to the woodshed and persuade him to cease and desist.

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. It needs to decide whether it wants to continue to marginalize itself as the party of Michael Moore, or be a constructive force in the future of American politics and governance.

'The Turning Point'

2004-12-03T10:45:00.000-08:00

'The Turning Point'
Oliver North
December 3, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week, Americans commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed 2,403 Americans. It was the worst attack on American territory until the terrorist strike on Sept. 11, 2001.

Both surprise attacks signaled the beginning of a bitterly fought war for survival against a brutal, fanatical foe. And both the Pacific War and the present Global War on Terror pitted the United States, virtually alone, against adversaries on a "holy mission" to drive Westerners from "their" territory. The parallels don't stop there.

To the extent that today's schoolchildren are taught anything about the origins of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the unprovoked assault is explained away as the consequence of "Japanese expansionism," or worse yet, the result of America denying Japan "essential raw materials and oil."

Such historical contortions from the Blame America First crowd ignore the ideological conviction of Tokyo's leadership, from Emperor Hirohito on down, that the Japanese had a "divine duty" to cleanse Asia of Westerners and "inferior Western influences and institutions."

In short, the Imperial Army, Navy and Air Force became the instruments of a race war, waged with religious zeal. Today's radical Jihadists have precisely the same goal -- evicting the infidels, meaning "Westerners" -- and all their institutional influence from "Islamic lands."

The Japanese military never contemplated "invading" the continental United States. Nor do the extremist Imams, Sheikhs and Mullahs inciting today's jihad envision seizing U.S. territory. But then and now, our adversaries were -- and are -- willing to employ any tactic, violate any rule of "civilized war" and commit any atrocity to accomplish the "holy goal" of driving "Westerners" from "their region" of the world.

Thus the horrific images found in Fallujah's slaughterhouses -- even the broadcast TV facility uncovered this week -- have an eerie precedent in the films and photographs of Japanese soldiers proudly holding the severed heads of brutally murdered American, British, Dutch and Australian prisoners of war. Then, as now, those images were shown widely to the "home audience" as proof of oriental superiority over Western interlopers.

But in this kind of "holy struggle," being a "local" won't guarantee safety. During the Pacific War, Japanese troops were merciless with indigenous populations that failed to appreciate their "liberation." Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, Indo-Chinese and Pacific Islanders who were believed to have cooperated with the hated Westerners were raped, tortured and violently murdered.

Today, Iraqis, Afghanis and other Muslims who help coalition forces, or even benign Western aid organizations, face the same horrors. Thus, Iraqi government workers, policemen and supporters of democratic elections -- institutions peculiar to Western civil order -- are as vulnerable to Jihadist's retribution as Christian missionaries were on New Guinea in 1942.

There is yet another parallel between the Global War on Terror and the Pacific War: martyrdom. Though most histories record the sinking of the USS St. Lo on Oct. 25, 1944 as the first organized Kamikaze attack of the war, there had in fact been hundreds of prior "killer-suicides." Japanese Banzai charges on Guadalcanal -- starting in August 1942 -- were ground-based versions of the same tactic: convincing a young fighter that he will be granted eternal rewards and promising his family material benefits for dying the right way while killing a "Westerner." Substitute "Christian," or "Jew," or "infidel" for the word "Westerner," and the description fits today's "Islamic martyr" in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan – or on Sept. 11, 2001.

During the Pacific War, an estimated 40,000 Japanese soldiers died in suicidal Banzai charges, and another 2,100 perished in Kamikaze aircraft. On Saipan, more than 800 Japanese women and children committed suicide rather than surrender to American troops. And hundreds of incidents were recorded throughout the Pacific where wounded Japanese soldiers pleaded for help -- only to blow themselves up with hand grenades or explosives in an effort to kill the American medic, corpsman, soldier or Marine who tried to treat their wounded adversary. To the practitioners of Japanese Bushido, compassion was a weakness. So it is with today's "Islamic martyrs."

In August 1945, President Harry Truman stopped the bloodletting and forced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally by dropping the only two nuclear bombs ever used in war. Since the use of such weapons is out of the question in the Global War on Terror, how do we convince the perpetrators of today's jihad to stop killing? Those who think that withdrawing from Iraq will solve our problem aren't paying attention to what's happened in Fallujah.

The opponents of democracy in Iraq aren't just remnants of Saddam's regime. Among those captured and killed in Fallujah and Ramadi are Jihadists -- not insurgents -- from at least 12 different countries including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Morocco and Algeria. They came to Iraq to stop the January election. They -- and those who enticed them to the "Jihad" -- know that women's suffrage, private property rights and respect for other religions, all part of the Iraqi election, will have the equivalent effect of a nuclear bomb.

And while it's not obvious from all the hand-wringing in the so-called mainstream media, we are faring far better in this campaign than we did during World War II. It wasn't until the Battle of Midway in June 1942 that the "turning point" was reached in that war. By then, tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen were dead, prisoners of war or missing in action. Reinforcements were sent. Intelligence was improved. And the tide of war shifted in our favor.

That's what's happening today. The smartest and best educated, trained and equipped military force in history has suffered fewer than 2,000 killed in action and one missing in action in three years of fighting the Global War on Terror. Thanks to their heroism, perseverance and selfless sacrifice, Afghanistan has its first democratically elected government. In Iraq, the terrorists are on the run.

Reinforcements are on the way. And if we are steadfast, years from now, historians will look back and note that the turning point in the Global War on Terror began with the Battle of Fallujah and ended with the Iraqi elections on Jan. 30, 2005.

China Tests Ballistic Missile Submarine

2004-12-03T10:35:00.000-08:00

China Tests Ballistic Missile Submarine
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
03 December 2004

China's military has launched the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in what defense officials view as a major step forward in Beijing's strategic weapons program.

The new 094-class submarine was launched in late July and when fully operational in the next year or two will be the first submarine to carry the underwater-launched version of China's new DF-31 missile, according to defense officials.

"When fully operational, it will represent a more modern, more capable missile platform," said one official familiar with reports of the new submarine.

A second intelligence official said building submarines is a top priority of the Chinese, and the Type 094 will be "China's first truly intercontinental strategic nuclear delivery system."

The new Type 094 was spotted by U.S. intelligence agencies at the Huludao shipyard, located on the coast of Bohai Bay, some 250 miles northwest of Beijing.

The submarine is in the early stages of being outfitted and is not yet equipped with new JL-2 submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

The submarine is believed to be based largely on Russian nuclear submarine technology, the officials said.

A CIA report made public last week stated that Russia was a major supplier of technology to China's naval nuclear propulsion programs.

The launching of the new missile submarine appears ahead of schedule. A Pentagon report on Chinese military power made public in May stated that the new Chinese missile submarine would not be deployed until around 2010.

A Defense Intelligence Agency report produced in 1999 and labeled "secret" stated that the new submarine is part of a program by China of "modernizing and expanding its missile force."

"Mobile, solid-fuel missiles and a new ballistic missile submarine will improve the force's ability to survive a first strike," the report said, "while more launchers, on-board penetration aids, and possibly multiple warheads will improve its ability to penetrate missile defenses."

The DIA report stated that China is expected to field one new ballistic missile submarine by 2020.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman had no immediate comment.

In a related development, U.S. intelligence officials said the Chinese suffered a setback in their JL-2 missile program when a test flight of the JL-2 missile failed over the summer.

The JL-2 missile program was delayed by the test failure but is continuing to be developed, the officials said. China conducted tests of the JL-2 in 2002 and last year.

Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the launch of the new missile submarine is "an astounding development."

"The 094 has followed 093 development far more rapidly than the assessments in the annual Pentagon reports on the PLA," Mr. Fisher said, referring to the China's People's Liberation Army.

China also recently launched a new attack submarine known as the Type 093. Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies were surprised by China's disclosure in July of a third new type of submarine known as the Yuan-class, a diesel-electric attack submarine.

"In the very near future, China will have a secure, second-strike nuclear attack capability that it will use to bolster its nuclear strategy of seeking to deter the United States from aiding Taiwan after a PLA attack," Mr. Fisher said.

Mr. Fisher said the JL-2 likely will have multiple warheads.

The new submarine will make it more difficult for the U.S. military to take part in a defense of Taiwan because of the threat of nuclear retaliation, he said.

The Pentagon has deployed a new missile defense system, but a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency has said the current interceptor system is designed to stop a long-range North Korean missile, but not an attack from Chinese or Russian missiles.

A 1999 report by the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China stated that the new missile submarine will likely benefit from stolen U.S. nuclear warhead designs.

The report stated that the JL-2 is expected to have a longer range than the DF-31 and that 16 JL-2s will be deployed on the new submarine.

The range of the JL-2 is estimated to be about 7,500 miles, enough "to strike targets throughout the United States," the report said.

"Instead of venturing into the open ocean to attack the United States, the Type 094-class submarines could remain near [Chinese] waters, protected by the [People's Liberation Army,] Navy and Air Force," the report said.

The new submarine will be a major improvement over China's current ballistic missile submarine known as the Xia, which is equipped with medium-range missiles.

The current Xia submarine is considered so noisy to underwater detection gear that its chances of surviving attack submarine strikes in ocean waters are limited.

Biased Coverage in Iraq

2004-12-02T10:58:00.000-08:00

Biased Coverage in Iraq
Helle Dale
December 2, 2004

If you trust most media accounts fed to American viewers and readers, Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. There is no security throughout the country, and armed insurgents are springing up, sown like dragon's teeth by the offensive of the U.S. military forces. The scheduled elections are highly uncertain. Indeed, 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. forces. Iraqis have never had it so bad. It is a drumbeat with echoes of the way the American media reported the Vietnam War.

Those who have the opportunity to hear the accounts of Americans serving in Iraq often come away with a completely different impression. Many readers of this newspaper who have relatives and friends serving in Iraq know that they hear differently from them. This point was recently brought up by Ambassador Edward Rowney in a Council on Foreign Relations discussion with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezinski, who is an ardent critic of the war. Mr. Brezinski's response was to dismiss first-hand accounts as mere anecdotal evidence.

Yet even in the mainstream media, differing views do seep in. Consider a recent column by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, a paper that has consistently reported the bad news from Iraq. This is what Mr. Friedman wrote from Iraq. "Readers ask me when I will throw in the towel on Iraq." Impressed with the spirit and the commitment of the troops on the ground, Mr. Friedman writes, "I will be guided by the U.S. Army and Marine grunts on the ground. They see Iraq close up. Most of those you talk to are so uncynical — so convinced that we are doing good and doing right, even though they are unsure it will work." And the fact is that despite the unrelenting drumbeat of bad news, there is much good to be told as well, only you don't hear it as much. Agreement has so far been reached with Iraq's Russian and European debtors to forgive $33 billion of Iraq's debt, about a quarter of the total. Some 45,000 Iraqi police and 48,000 Iraqi army and National Guard troops have now been trained. $5 billion in U.S. aid alone has been disbursed, and oil revenue, which flows into Iraqi accounts via a U.S. government trust, reached $1.9 billion in October.

A weekly update of reconstruction projects in Iraq can be located on the Web site of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Much of this good work you will never find reported, precisely because no news is good news for much of the U.S. media. And the foreign media is even worse.

Admittedly the security situation is dire, but look at these figures. In October, the number of Iraqis killed was 775 from acts of war and murder; American troops suffered 63 casualties and 691 wounded. These are too high, but at a time of a major military offensive against insurgents, those numbers are not gigantic.

Or how about the constantly cited figure of 100,000 Iraqis killed by Americans since the war began, a statistic that is thrown about with total and irresponsible abandon by opponents of the war. That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq was derived from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine the Lancet. It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, be they military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize.

As the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study's authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq's Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 155,167 wounded.

The fact is that 40 percent of Iraqis say their country is better and 65 percent are optimistic about the future. Iraqis are intending to vote in the upcoming elections to the tune of 85 percent, and 45 percent currently support Prime Minster Iyad Allawi. Many are unhappy with the U.S. troops presence there, but at least 35 percent want the United States to stay.

We still have a rocky road ahead, beyond doubt, but these figures do not add up to a picture of unmitigated failure being painted by critics of the Bush administration.

Helle Dale is deputy director of the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation

Tilting for the Children

2004-12-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

Tilting for the Children
Suzanne Fields
December 2, 2004

My mom was a full-time mother and I was the envy of my classmates. Not just because she was there, but because she was there and she was fun. She might be baking a chocolate cake and she would let us eat the raw dough from the Mixmaster bowl. She listened to us recite the lines we had to memorize from "Romeo and Juliet" and play the nurse or Friar Lawrence.

In high school, everybody descended on my house after school to plan campaigns for class officers, plot class picnics or gossip about who was going out with whom. My father would breeze in to talk about the Redskins (more fun to talk about in those days) with the boys and to tell the girls how smart and pretty they were. I didn't realize how lucky I was at the time, it was just how things were supposed to be.

Once my father gave us a genuine Wurlitzer jukebox for the rec room. He showed us how to push a button in the back so it wouldn't require a nickel to play a Perry Como record. We learned to square dance to the music on the juke: "Dive for the oyster, dive. Dig for the clams, dig. Do-si-do and away we go." Corny it was, but kids are born with a taste for corn. (Every generation just thinks its corn is cool.)

Mary Eberstadt's new book, "Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes," brought all this to mind. The title is a mouthful and it raises a noisy controversy over the effects of modern feminism on child-rearing practices. For years, the idealized stay-at-home mom, with Daddy as the breadwinner, has been under siege and on the defensive, decried as the victim of "gender tyranny." The cover of "Home-Alone" would melt the heart of Scrooge, with a little boy clinging to the ankles of his mommy and daddy, armed with matching briefcases, heading out the door.

That's a metaphor for lots of children today and it's not necessarily all bad. It helps children recognize that parents have a life beyond the hearth. But for some children it's sad indeed, and it's the sad children that Mary Eberstadt's book is about - children who rarely have any fun with their parents, suffering the cries and whispers of loss without having a name to put on it. It's about the tilt of a culture that encourages the growth in the number of those children.

The emotional life of childhood when parents are absent from the during-the-day lives of their children is often empty, indeed. Although we've heard a lot about the pros and cons of day care for the youngest children, we haven't heard so much about what happens to teenagers deprived of parental supervision after school. These are the chapters that will spark debate. The teenage years are the last best chance to influence a child's character and values, and it's the most sensitive time to shape development, to enable children to see parents as models for their future.

"If yesterday's rock was the music of abandon, today's is the music of abandonment," she writes with poignant documentation.

Coinciding with this lament is the documentation of what happens when vulnerable teenagers in empty houses hook up casually, and always hurtfully. Such teenagers are not rebelling against their parents so much as taking advantage of their parents' absence. You don't need the statistics - though they exist in abundance - to know that teenagers whose parents aren't around indulge in more sex (and acquire more sexually transmitted diseases), drugs, alcohol and cigarettes than teenagers supervised at home.

So what to do? Eberstadt does not offer prescriptions and she doesn't try to fit square parents into round holes. One size does not fit all. There's room in her scenarios for men and women who are better off divorced, for working parents who can't be home and whose children succeed despite all kinds of emotional obstacles. But she accumulates the evidence that requires us to question deeply the tilt of priorities that shortchange children.

No parent can participate in a child's life 24 hours a day. But we can encourage parents to be there for teenagers in bigger chunks of time, both formal and informal. Teenagers are enormously susceptible to rewards and punishments for good and bad behavior if a loving person is present to provide it.

"For a significant number of today's kids, life is worse in important ways than it was for their parents," writes Eberstadt. And, "many of us adults know it."

i'm lucky that my Mom was a stay-at-home Mom. i'm lucky that i am a stay-at-home Mom. usually, while our child is on vacation, our home is filled with his friends playing video games, watching movies, playing games, or, once in awhile, helping me bake up their snack of the day (usually cookies). i have great fun with these kids. i listen to the same music they do, watch the same movies, know the same "celebrities". i pay attention to what interests our child. and his friends.

i have a rule, though. visiting children must always have their parents' permission to be here, their parents must have our phone and address, and the children must call their parents upon arrival to our home and upon departure.

i was shocked, in the beginning, when quite a few of these children said, "oh, Mom doesn't care where i am. it's okay." no, it's not okay. how can a parent let their child out of the house (under twelve age group) and not know where they are or care about with whom their child is spending time? i don't get that. at all. not even a little bit.

the same with youth sport practices. parents drop off their children and go shopping. what? these children are in a park! a big park! and when practice is over, the supervisors/coaches of the sports practices leave. they don't stay behind to protect the "abandoned" children. i do, though. i wait with them until their uncaring and self-absorbed parent/s return. they gotta be former Kerry-supporters. *grin*

that's it, though. the parents are so involved in themselves, they leave the children to fend for themselves. the children aren't able to develop a relationship with their parents. "hi" and "bye" seem to be the depth of the relationships i've had the great misfortune of witnessing.

no wonder the youth of recent years has no idea what it right, wrong, or moral. if you can get away with it, it's cool. no limit on

It's News to Us

2004-12-02T10:47:00.000-08:00

It's News to Us
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 02, 2004

The changing of the guard at NBC and CBS News is more a media event than a people event. Even though there is some sentimentality attached to the departures of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, few of us have emotion invested in them simply because our lives are so frenetic. Long gone are the days when guys like Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley had an honored place in millions of American homes. That time in America featured an early family dinner and a ritual of national news viewing. Talk about Jurassic Park!

Another factor that has eroded the power of TV news is the deep suspicion among many Americans that the press is not looking out for them. While there is some paranoia in this area, there is also some truth to the notion that what you get with TV news is not always "the way it is," to quote Cronkite.

Many of the news decision-makers today were children of the anti-war, anti-establishment 1960's. Their perceptions were formed in those free-wheeling, anti-war years and core liberal philosophies were ingrained. So, now, we have a bunch of baby boomer journalists imparting their view of life to a nation that, often, does not share the 60's sensibilty. Remember, survey's showed that about 80% of the media favored John Kerry for President. The divide between the press and the everyday folks is enormous.

There is no question that the daily headline service provided by the big three networks is valuable. But it is a random, often timid, reportage. The intense culture war in America is often ignored or presented in a one-sided manner. Even network news supporters would have to admit that the presentations are extremely politically correct. For example, the joke in the industry is that the only time you hear a pro-life point of view is when some nut blows up an abortion clinic.

Thus, traditional and conservative Americans often feel they are underserved by national news services which pander to the elite and see the world from a Manhattan or Georgetown point-of-view. Folks in Tupelo have figured out their values don't matter in Rockefeller Center.

So, the guard is changing, and the more traditional Fox News Channel is the chief beneficiary. That, of course, has caused enormous fear and loathing among the media establishment. In one of his last interviews before stepping down, Mr. Brokaw made it a point to say that the network news still dominates in the ratings. He pointed out that "Bill O'Reilly maybe gets 2-1/2 or 3 million viewers a night."

Well, my total audience last month doubled Brokaw's estimate, but that's not really the point. Fox News continues its dramatic rise as our competitors fall, because it makes room for the traditionalist point of view and provides provocative analysis that is lacking in the network operations.

In this age of spin, deception and defamation, honest analysis is a must, even if one disagrees with the analyst. Most Americans realize the danger this country is facing both inside and outside our borders. Confronting that danger in a straightforward way will attract an audience. Doing a politically correct dance no longer will.

And that's really the way it is.

Oil-for-Food Blackout

2004-12-02T10:44:00.000-08:00

Oil-for-Food Blackout
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Tim Graham

The national media usually presents themselves as dedicated debunkers of every item of political pomposity, ready to milk the ratings out of exposing every sacred cow. But that has never been true of its coverage of the U.N., which represents for liberals the deeply idealistic notion of a harmonic convergence of governments, united to saving the world for humanitarian ends. Some news media may attempt to force the unfolding reality that the U.N. is deeply corrupt, but that would not include America’s liberal media elite.

In April, September and November, investigative reports revealed an increasingly massive scandal, involving billions of dollars (now estimated at over $20 billion), Saddam Hussein was able to steal from under the nose of the U.N. officials managing the Oil-for-Food program. This might seem like a big news story in an election year in which John Kerry’s stump speech constantly pounded on the need for greater multilateralism and greater American deference to the wishes of the U.N. bureaucracy. So how many stories did the Big Three networks air from January 1 to November 2? NBC was the leader, with three stories. ABC had one, on April 21, the day the U.N. announced its own internal probe into the scandal. CBS did not air one story.

Despite nine ongoing probes, the network watchdogs barked after anti-Bush angles. ABC, CBS, and NBC combined for more than 75 stories on George W. Bush's National Guard service, more than 50 stories on "skyrocketing" gasoline prices, and hundreds on prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. After liberal media stars denounced American allies as "the coalition of the bribed," where were they on the U.N.'s bribery scam?

Unfortunately, that same pattern continued after the election, even as Congress spoke out and held hearings. On November 30, CBS did its first story, a strange report which began with Dan Rather introducing the Oil-for-Food fiasco as an "alleged scandal." Is Dan trying to say that Saddam bilking the U.N. for billions should be seen as an acceptable method of international business?

Some news outlets, from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News, have taken the story more seriously and dug in deeply. But they have been dismissed by other journalists as partisan, eager to make trouble for the U.N. Shouldn’t so-called hard-bitten journalistic debunkers who revere the ideal of a functional U.N. be the most outraged by a corrupt bureaucracy that mocks the ideal?

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center in Alexandria, VA, and author of the book, "Pattern of Deception: The Media’s Role in the Clinton Presidency."

and there you have it.

What Part of 'Enforcement' Don't They Understand?

2004-12-01T11:08:00.000-08:00

What Part of 'Enforcement' Don't They Understand?
Michelle Malkin
December 1, 2004

The obtuseness of the open-borders lobby never ceases to amaze. Here we are, three years after the 9/11 hijackers easily exploited lax borders, and the OBL continues to argue that cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening terrorist-friendly loopholes are "anti-immigrant."

Banging. Head. Against. The. Wall.

How do you maintain sanity when wading through the emotional drivel that passes for the OBL's reasoning? Tip: Whenever they say "anti-immigrant," substitute "pro-enforcement." And shout it at the top of your lungs.

Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism. By smearing the overwhelming majority of Americans who support real borders as racists and xenophobes, the OBL obscures its deadly agenda: sabotaging our existing immigration laws and blocking any new efforts to punish those who abuse the system.

Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza illustrates perfectly this blustering open-borders tactic in a hysterical "action alert" this week titled: "STOP ANTI IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS FROM BECOMING PART OF THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL." La Raza and their fellow travelers argue that tough enforcement measures "needlessly scapegoat all immigrants," are "extraneous" and "harsh," "would not have prevented the terrorist attacks and will not make us safer," and are "non-solutions that will only drive people further underground and cause panic among immigrant communities."

"Extraneous"? These same critics had no problem when a $1 billion illegal alien health care bailout for border hospitals was tacked on to the mammoth Medicare Prescription Drug bill.

"Non-solutions"? The 9/11 commission itself blamed "a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as part of border security, and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism."

"Anti-immigrant"? If you actually read the immigration enforcement provisions supported by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and his fellow maverick House Republicans (side note: just once, I'd like to see the mainstream media call a Republican other than John McCain a "maverick"), you will see clearly and unequivocally that these vital measures are anti-terrorist. Anti-criminal. Anti-fraud. And above all, pro-enforcement.

Open-border activists not only oppose the most-publicized provision that would deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they also oppose provisions:

Adding at least 2,000 new border patrol agents, 800 new interior enforcement investigators, and 150 additional consular officials overseas.

Increasing illegal alien detention facility space by 2,500 beds.

Expanding the number of foreign airports with counterterrorist passenger prescreening programs.

Creating a uniform identity document rule for all aliens present in the United States

Toughening criminal penalties for using or trading false identification documents.

Reducing bureaucratic delays that allow illegal aliens who obtained fraudulent visas to re-enter or remain in the country even after their visas have been revoked.

Creating an information- and intelligence-sharing system at the Department of Homeland Security to track terrorist travel tactics, patterns, trends and practices and disseminate the data to front-line personnel at ports of entry and immigration benefits offices.

Making it easier to deport terrorists and alien supporters of terrorism by curbing their avenues for appeal and delay.

Speeding up the development of a long-delayed entry-exit system to guard against terrorists slipping through the cracks.

Requiring asylum-seekers tied to guerrilla, militant or terrorist organizations, and who claim asylum without submitting corroborating evidence, to provide credible proof of their "persecution."

As usual, mainstream reporting on these specific immigration-related measures at issue has been skimpier than a Bratz doll's wardrobe. That's because so many national editors themselves subscribe to the open-borders gospel. Since 9/11, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have published countless news items and editorials decrying immigration enforcement: sob stories about families caught evading deportation orders; foreign students complaining about new registration requirements violating their "privacy"; Latino activists outraged about border patrol agents doing their jobs; Middle Eastern tourists protesting visa screening measures; and illegal aliens clamoring for protection of their "rights."

Rep. Sensenbrenner and his GOP colleagues face not only the OBL on the left and in the media, but also at the highest echelons of the Bush administration. The mavericks need all the help they can get. Before it's too late, call the White House now and yell: It's the enforcement, stupid!

this is one of the issues i believe needs addressing, just as Michelle Malkin does, now!. north and south, tighten 'em up.

Vicente Fox (down south) isn't helping matters in the least. and up north is completely laissez-faire.

nope. this is high on the list of "Things To Do" -- now!

A Broken Window Into Civilization

2004-12-01T11:02:00.000-08:00

A Broken Window Into Civilization
Kathleen Parker
December 1, 2004

As we marveled over the basketball brawl between players and spectators at a recent Indiana Pacers-Detroit Pistons game - and then the fourth-quarter melee between Clemson University and University of South Carolina football players - I kept thinking, "broken windows."

The "broken windows" theory of social breakdown goes more or less like this: If a broken window in a building is left unrepaired, pretty soon all the windows are broken, and so goes the neighborhood.

By now familiar, the theory was conceived and popularized by Harvard professors James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. They wrote in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly that if broken windows are not repaired, "the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside."

"Or consider a sidewalk," wrote Wilson and Kelling. "Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."

The authors determined that the way to prevent vandalism - and thus more serious forms of crime and urban deterioration - was to fix the broken windows. To clean up the sidewalk. To fix the small things before they become big things.

As mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani put the theory to work by strictly enforcing laws against small crimes - subway fare evasion, for example - and major crime dropped significantly.

Wilson and Kelling explained that the reason one broken window leads to more broken windows is because human beings respond to these signs as an absence of caring or of anyone being in charge. In the absence of authority - the symbolic adult - children tend to behave badly. Order breaks down. Civility disintegrates.

Given which, it seems reasonable to extend the broken windows theory to the larger culture. Why wouldn't a similar lack of adult attention to standards of human civility eventually result in the cultural equivalent of broken windows?

It does not seem a stretch that what we witnessed on the basketball court and the football field is merely the inevitable conclusion of the general coarsening we've witnessed in the culture the past few decades.

Where Wilson and Kelling considered broken buildings and littered sidewalks, we might consider a profane and sex-saturated culture in which coarse language, base human interaction and incivility are no longer the exception but the norm.

In such a climate, shock jocks and post-pubescent television producers think scatological humor and titillation on public airwaves is a hoot. It's knee-slappingly funny during family time - the more and better to offend.

Setting aside for a moment the utter banality of what passes for entertainment - and the yawn that has replaced contempt amid extreme familiarity - such cultural coarsening nourishes the impression that nothing matters and no one cares.

Parents struggling to raise decent, well-mannered children in this swamp know, of course, that everything matters. Even the words we use. When we ignore the little niceties - tolerating coarse language or behavior in public - we invite larger fractures in civilization, which is a fragile facade after all.

Talking like this, of course, will get you labeled a rube, a prude, or worse - a censor. What's with profanity, anyway? They're only words. Comedian George Carlin, who is funny without the seven words he built his most famous skit around, made us feel silly for caring about language.

As for the relentless fascination with variations on ye olde bump 'n' grind, confusion sets in. What's wrong with sex? Not one thing - in the right place and time. But the courtesy of observing certain rules of decorum - previously known as manners and once taken for granted - is passe. Soooooo whenever.

It is considered sophisticated, on the other hand, to ridicule America's "obsession" with such things as Janet Jackson's nipple, famously revealed during her "wardrobe malfunction" in the Super Bowl halftime show. It was just a breast, for heaven's sake! What's the biggie?

Nipple-schmipple. No it wasn't just a breast. A mother nursing her infant is just a breast. Janet and Justin's little prank was a deliberate act of juvenile defiance, a self-indulgent, narcissistic display by emotionally stunted adults playing fast and loose with the rules for their own amusement. It was a middle finger shoved in Middle America's face.

The point then, as now, is only this. Either we believe in and honor community standards or we don't. Ignoring simple standards, constructed to protect and advance civilization, is like ignoring the broken window. In time, the culture - like the neighborhood - goes to you-know-where in a handbasket.

okay. i like profanity and all things sexual, but that's me. in the times and places appropriate. and that doesn't mean waiting in line at the grocery, parked in a car at the bank, or in the darkened seats of a movie theatre. but all the other stuff? *nodding* yeah. it's that sense of entitlement some have. that they're above the rules. and, if they get caught breaking them, "Daddy", or their high-priced attorney, will find some way of getting them excused. those that disrupt should not be excused. too many get away with "wrong" these days. respect for others completely eludes some people.

some are very good at "pretending" to care about others (they can talk the talk but haven't a clue how to walk the walk) when it is only themselves and their selfishness that counts. what they need and want, everyone else be damned. *whispering* entitlement.

i agree with this article.

Attack on Decency

2004-12-01T10:59:00.000-08:00

Attack on Decency
Walter E. Williams
December 1, 2004

Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," Nicollette Sheridan's towel malfunction and naked leap into the arms of Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens in a promotion before ABC's "Monday Night Football," and the recent Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers game melee are just the most recent signs of a new culture that has emerged among Americans, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men wouldn't use the kind of language that's routinely used today not only in the presence of women but often to women. To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance used to be unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name was also unthinkable, not to mention the use of foul language in the presence of or to adults. How about guys and girls walking down the street whilst the guy has his hand in the girl's rear pocket?

What might explain the differences in behavior today versus yesteryear? A significant part of the explanation is seen by recognizing that society's first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. Customs, traditions and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots such as: thou shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers and others in authority plus those courtesies one might read in Emily Post's rules of etiquette.

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. There are not enough cops, and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and the criminal justice system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws, and the criminal and civil justice systems as society's first line of defense.

For nearly a half-century, the nation's liberals, along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts, have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many in this generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion, or what is or is not criminal.

During the 1960s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads like "values clarification." So-called sex-education classes were simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family/church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passe, and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extra-legal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn't.

Customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now, we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist "there ought to be a law." As such, it points to another failure of the so-called "great generation" -- the failure to transmit to their children what their parents transmitted to them.

Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure

2004-12-01T10:55:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure

"At the risk of giving away the ending, it's all liberals' fault."

Amuse your conservative friends and annoy your liberal neighbors with the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. This incredibly lifelike action figure looks just like the beautiful Ann Coulter, and best of all... it sounds like Ann, too! Ann recorded these classic Coulter sayings especially for this action figure.

Push the button on the figure, and you'll hear such "Coulterisms" as:

"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."

"Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."

"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

This highly collectible doll comes in a display box with information highlighting Ann's unique contributions to America's political discourse. If you can't get enough Ann Coulter, you'll want to order the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure today!

* * * * *

Oh, SantaBaby! Put an Ann Coulter doll under my tree, please!

*laughing*

This is fabulous!

Madame Hillary: The Road to the White House - Book Review

2004-12-01T10:51:00.000-08:00

Hillary: dishonest, grasping, and corrupt -- and now, says R. Emmett Tyrrell, she's going to do everything she can to become President

"This is a woman who's been first lady, who's lived in the White House and shared power with a president," says one of Hillary's fellow Senators. "Her ambition is not the Senate leadership. . . . It's obvious she has a much greater goal in mind. Her ambition is the White House, with all the moves to prepare the way." Now, R. Emmett Tyrrell and Mark Davis reveal in Madame Hillary: The Road to the White House that not only is Hillary determined to be President: she has the power, the influence, and the determination to attain that goal.

Tyrrell's American Spectator magazine was one of the Bill Clinton administration's most formidable opponents. For eight solid years it remained a persistent (as well as a devastatingly perceptive and witty) obstacle to the Clintons' attempts to hoodwink the public and whitewash their own corruption. Now Tyrrell, the author of Boy Clinton, has Hillary in his sights again! He reveals that her focus from the first day in the Senate (and long before that as well) has been to capture the presidency - and as a Senator puts it: "She's more disciplined than in the White House, and more poisonously partisan than Bill."

Tyrrell details her plans to capture the presidency -- with help from the liberal media establishment, which continues to treat her adoringly and ignore uncomfortable questions about her record. With an insider's access to Hillary's Senate colleagues and other key players, he examines in detail several strategies she may use to win. He also explains how she distorts the Clinton administration's sorry record in order to position herself for her own run for the Oval Office, forecasts the damage that a President Hillary might inflict upon the nation - and best of all, shows how she can be stopped. A sampling of what you'll discover:

The Basic Hillary: abundant evidence that this hero of the Left is in fact little more than a controlling personality and a self-promoting dynamo
Why Bill Clinton's decision to run for President in 1992 was the most brilliant choice the Clintons ever made -- and how Hillary plans to duplicate it in 2004 or 2008
2004 or 2008? Why, despite intense pressure from some of the Democratic party's heaviest hitters to run in 2004, 2008 looks like Hillary's best chance (although that could change quickly)
How Hillary did all she could through 2003 to detract, distract, and denigrate her party's presidential hopefuls -- including trying to keep wll-heeled Democrats from supporting other candidates financially, thereby keeping her options open for 2004
Howard Dean: why his hostility to the Clintons is real, and poses a genuine threat to Hillary
The long-term strategy that might compel Hillary to run for Vice President in 2004
How Hillary and her supporters might not run in a single primary, and then engineer a takeover of the Democratic convention in order to win the big prize
Skillful ways Hillary has managed the transition from First Lady to Senator -- and even affected a deceptive veneer of bipartisanship and willingness to compromise
Hillary's charm: says a fellow Senator, "She stares at you across the table, those eyes cold, calculating. She holds a grudge. She looks like she has ice water in her veins. . . . Her every action betrays a deep-seated hatred of conservatism"
Why Hillary's attacks on the Bush administration are not logically planned thrusts in a strategic attack -- and why she prefers not to work off a hard and fast plan against Bush
How candidate Hillary will try to run to the Right in a presidential campaign, although in a Hillary presidency she will govern from the hard Left
Saul Alinsky: the astonishing truth about Hillary's radical ideological mentor -- and how, despite her disavowals, she continues to follow his program down to the smallest detail
Hillary's Iraq War juggling act: how she managed to hold a dizzying variety of contradictory positions -- all in service of keeping her presidential ambitions afloat
The four-step approach that both Bill and Hillary have used to great effect to blunt criticism and silence questions about the many blemishes on the Clinton record
Living History: subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which her book reveals Hillary's vengeful, paranoid, grudge-holding tendencies
How Hillary unscrupulously used the death of Daniel Patrick Moynihan to defy Senate tradition and position herself as a major power broker
Bill Clinton's administration: how its lack of accomplishments could actually improve Hillary's chances to become President in her own right
Hillary's private life? "I don't think she's had one," says Dick Morris -- evidence that without the narcissistic appeal of the klieg lights and applause, she would have no real identity
The long-term strategic costs of the Democratic party's involvement with the Clintons: how they have weakened the party that nevertheless continues to fawn over them
Abortion: how Hillary's unbending support for legalized abortion may actually end up hurting her chances to become President -- and her clever attempts to recast her support for abortion as an anti-Big Government position
President Hillary: how she would be likely to govern -- and what conservatives will have to do in order to survive

There's a great deal at stake in Hillary's quest for the presidency. Says an Arkansas politician: "Hillary is the ideologue, the true-blue leftist." Packed with eye-opening facts and incisive insights, Madame Hillary proves conclusively that a Hillary victory in 2004 or 2008 would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation, doing damage that would take generations to repair. As Tyrrell puts it, "Freedom is the cause. And we need to show that if Madame Hillary loses, freedom wins." Madame Hillary gives you the ammunition you need to do just that.

Secretary and Son

2004-12-01T00:00:00.000-08:00

Secretary and Son
Kofi Annan isn't Kojo's keeper, but he can't shirk responsibility for the U.N.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, December 1, 2004 12:00 a.m. EST

"He is a grown man, and I don't get involved with his activities and he doesn't get involved with mine."

Thus did the U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan distance himself at speed Monday from news that his own son, Kojo Annan, had received money right up until early this year from one of the U.N.'s prime contractors under the Oil for Food program. The elder Mr. Annan pronounced himself "disappointed," "surprised" and--lest he look completely clueless--able to understand "the perception problem for the U.N."

But at no point did the secretary-general suggest that he himself bore any responsibility for this glaring conflict of interest. That evasion deserves a closer look. It is a terrific cameo for the U.N. mindset that brought us the Oil for Food swindle in the first place--a culture in which secrecy is the norm, the buck stops nowhere, and some of the resulting surprises have most recently have included at least $17 billion grafted out of a U.N. relief program for Iraq, charges of rape and pedophilia among U.N. peacekeepers in Africa--and now this tale of the secretary-general's family ties.

If we go by U.N. chain of command, Kofi Annan is, however, correct that he cannot be held responsible for the activities of his grown son. One might hope, of course, that a U.N. secretary-general out of deference to the dignity of his own office would make a more diligent attempt to keep an eye on the business activities of his close kin. Instead, the discovery of Kojo Annan's ties to U.N. contractor Cotecna Inspection Services SA has required four separate bouts in which the press uncovered further financial links between Cotecna and the younger Mr. Annan.

The first round came in early 1999, just after Swiss-based Cotecna won a crucial U.N. contract to inspect Oil for Food relief goods filtering past sanctions into Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Back then, Secretary-General Annan was apparently surprised to learn he had any family ties to a major U.N. contractor--but gave us to understand that the pecuniary cord had been cut. This past year brought yet more surprises for the secretary-general, via disclosures eked out by the press in March, September and November. The current picture is that Kojo Annan's consultancy for Cotecna lapsed on the same day the company won the U.N. contract, Dec. 31, 1998 (not three weeks earlier, as the secretary-general's office previously conceded). For the following five-plus years, which comes to about twice the time Kojo Annan spent actually working for Cotecna, the company paid him $2,500 a month not to compete with its business. That would have summed to at least $150,000, plus incidentals for which the U.N. has as yet supplied no total.

It is a disturbing pattern that this information had to be dredged up after-the-fact, in fragments, by the press, rather than being publicly disclosed at the time by a secretary-general who has better access both to U.N. records and to his own son. What Secretary-General Annan neglected to mention, moreover, is that he himself does bear responsibility for how his Secretariat handles its procurement procedures, and what level of disclosure the U.N. requires of its contractors, and provides to the public. Instead, Mr. Annan miscast the case--and not for the first time--saying "I have no involvement with granting of contracts, either on this Cotecna one, or others."
That's not true. Under Oil for Food, there were two basic kinds of contracts. There were tens of thousands of deals signed by Saddam's regime with oil buyers and relief sellers. That was one kind of contract, which the U.N. was supposed to monitor. And then there were a handful of contracts signed by the U.N. Secretariat itself, with companies hired to help the U.N. monitor Saddam's Oil for Food deals. The contract that Mr. Annan referred to as "this Cotecna one," as if he weren't quite sure what whichamahoosy everyone was talking about, belonged to the handful signed by the Secretariat. That "Cotecna one" (rolled over into the Cotecna two) was handled by the U.N. Procurement Division. And the U.N. Procurement Division reports to the secretary-general.

Not that one would expect the secretary-general to spend long nights poring over details of every contractor hired by his own Procurement Division. But it is reasonable to expect that somewhere in the multibillion-dollar procurement operations of the United Nations there would be a functional mechanism to require disclosure by all U.N. contractors of such details as, say, a stream of payments to the immediate family of a top U.N. official.

That is not merely a matter, as Secretary-General Annan suggested, of "perception of conflict of interests." Even if nothing wrong gets done, it is a conflict of interest. Both Cotecna and Kojo Annan, through his lawyers, have denied any wrongdoing. Fine. But given that the U.N. is supposed to be a public institution, not a privately held secret society, what's needed here is systematic full disclosure. Had this been the prevailing climate at the U.N. during Oil for Food, there would have been far fewer opportunities for Saddam to scam billions out of the program, and maybe even a lot fewer surprises for the secretary-general.

Ms. Rosett is a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News

2004-11-30T14:52:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News
Friday, November 26, 2004
This is a partial transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Nov. 23, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

BRIAN WILSON, GUEST HOST: Well, the big question. Is Dan Rather (search ) leaving of his free will or being shoved out the door? And what role does this controversy over those bogus National Guard documents Rather reported on during the campaign have to do with all this?

For more, we turn to David Blum, media writer, television critic, journalism teacher; he’s also the author of "Tick... Tick... Tick...: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes."

David, thanks for joining us. What’s your assessment first blush of his announcement today, that Dan Rather will leave oh, March of next year?

DAVID BLUM, "NEW YORK SUN"/TV CRITIC: Well, I think this announcement was designed for Rather to leave his job in advance of the issuance of the report; the investigation into what happened in September on that now infamous National Guard (search ) story. Rumor has it that, that report is going to be devastating.

And I think Rather saw the opportunity to leave a little bit more gracefully by announcing his departure now, than having the report come out and having it look as though the two actions are directly related, even though they are, obviously directly related.

WILSON: Well, David, anybody who has been around journalism knows there’s the thing called "news management," where you try to manage bad news. And so one would guess that a good time to release really bad news would be around the Thanksgiving holiday, when people’s attention is diverted, when they’re traveling through out of pocket. If Dan Rather made this announcement today, would you expect to see this report come out, let’s say, I don’t know the day after Thanksgiving?

BLUM: Possibly during halftime at the Lions’ game on Thursday. I don’t know. Whenever it is most likely that media reporters are busy eating or drinking elsewhere.

You know, this is going to be very bad news for CBS. And in fact, the Rather departure is bad news in the sense that they have no successor named. Whereas Tom Brokaw (search ) is being carried down the street on everyone’s shoulders and talked about as a presidential candidate, Dan Rather is experiencing no such elation today. And there’s no successor.

WILSON: Well, let’s talk about the bench; people who might be on the bench who might step up and fill the void. You hear two names a lot of times. John Roberts, who has done his time at CBS for many, many years. And then the other name you hear is Scott Pelley, a former White House correspondent. We know Scott in this town, a guy who is doing his time now on "60 Minutes." Which of those two guys do you think might have the lead?

BLUM: You know, it’s hard to say. As your pictures reveal, as good reporters as they are, they do appear to be born and bred on an anchor farm somewhere.

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: And you know, I don’t exactly think that either one of them have quite the stature of a Rather, or Jennings or Brokaw. Not to discredit them, they’re good journalists. But you know, the day when people turn to their anchormen for comfort in a difficult moment, such as a day like a 9/11 or Kennedy assassination (search ) are past. I don’t see Americans turning to Scott Pelley for comfort, as good a journalist as he might be. And that’s as deep as their bench is, two men. A little sad, I’d have to say.

WILSON: Well, listen to this sound bite. It was in the package. Listen to it one more time. Here’s Andy Rooney and what he had to say -- I’m sorry. Excuse me. I’m sorry. I thought we had that. We’ll not go to there.

But Andy Rooney saying well, look, he was in the chair longer than Cronkite was.

BLUM: That’s right.

WILSON: And maybe it’s time for him to move on. Kind of strange to hear that coming from a guy who’s been in the chair for what; about 106 years?

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: Well, that’s fair enough. Although, you know, the fact is that he’s right. Rather held that job for 24 years. It’s long since been time for him to go. You know, people who are feeling sorry for Dan Rather today really shouldn’t. He’s had a quarter century of multimillion-dollar salary, high-profile job. You know, it’s time to move on and give somebody else a chance and -- it’s a third place now. It’s been third place for a long time. Under any other circumstances, the anchorman would have been forced out. But Dan Rather is the biggest star CBS has and they were not about to push him out without some plan for succession.

WILSON: You know as well as I do that one of the things that is important in TV is that you have a following, that you have some credibility, and that you have name recognition. With Dan Rather leaving in March and Tom Brokaw leaving now, are we going to see what some have called the further decline of the big network dinosaurs?

BLUM: Well, I’m leaving here to go to the big party at Peter Jennings’ house later.

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: You know, it’s really not a happy day for the future of the evening news. You know, this is already to some extent an anachronism. Most people don’t wait until 6:30 in the

Annan `Surprised' by Son's Connection to Oil-for-Food Scandal

2004-11-30T14:24:00.000-08:00

Annan `Surprised' by Son's Connection to Oil-for-Food Scandal
November 30, 2004

UNITED NATIONS -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Monday he was "surprised and disappointed" by revelations that his son received payments until this year from a Swiss company that won a lucrative contract under the United Nations' scandal-ridden Iraqi oil-for-food program.

Annan confirmed news reports that his son, Kojo, 29, received $2,500 a month over four years from Cotecna Inspection SA, totaling $125,000.

Cotecna--and Annan--previously had claimed that Annan's son stopped working for the company in 1998. The company later said it had paid him a monthly stipend through 1999 to keep him from working for competitors and that he never worked on a project related to Iraq.

Uncovering Scandal at the U.N.

2004-11-30T14:22:00.000-08:00

Uncovering Scandal at the U.N.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
By John Gibson

Two bits of news on the U.N.'s corrupt Oil for Food program by which Saddam Hussein tried to bribe members of the Security Council...

Now it turns out that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo was also on the Oil for Food gravy train to the tune of about $150,000 a year.

And did you read in Monday's Los Angeles Times that Iraq is investing $3 billion in its oil fields next year, at which time it will exceed output of the Saddam regime?

Considering the so-called insurgents are trying to blow up oil facilities every day, that's quite an accomplishment.

FOX News Channel's Jonathan Hunt also went to France to interview the former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua.

He was listed as a recipient of oil vouchers — also known as bribes — from Saddam. This was the method by which the Iraqi dictator beat the sanctions against his government.

Some people suspect Pasqua was the conduit to distribute Saddam's dirty oil money around the French system, wherever it had to go in order for the French to tend to Saddam's interests on the world stage.

You might have noticed the French did just that.

Now Pasqua denies any wrongdoing, which you expect — he could hardly admit to doing Saddam's dirty work.

But you get to see him deny. You get to see Hunt pester him, you get to see him deny again, in a fashion that could be described as not exceptionally convincing.

By the way — near as I understand it — even if U.N. officials are eventually identified as part of Saddam's plot to cheat under U.N. sanctions... not much will happen.

The officials are, after all, basically beyond the law... that is, unless you foolishly expect the U.N. itself to do something about its own crooked executives.

That brings me back to an item at the top. Annan's son was in on the scam. The secretary-general says he is disappointed to learn about it.

You can expect he will express similar disappointment when the investigators he has hired find his own officials were bought by Saddam's dirty money.

That's My Word.

PM - Calls for Annan Resignation as Oil for Food Scandal Continues

2004-11-30T14:16:00.000-08:00

ABC Online

PM - Calls for Annan resignation as oil for food scandal continues

[This is the print version of story
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1254955.htm]

PM - Tuesday, 30 November, 2004 18:25:58
Reporter: Alison Caldwell

MARK COLVIN: The United Nations oil for food scandal, already known to involve up to $20-billion, is starting to lap at the very top of the UN.

The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has been forced to distance himself from the business dealings of his son Kojo. The reason - revelations that Kojo was paid by a company involved in the oil for food program as recently as February this year.

Kofi Annan has been forced to express his disappointment in his son's lack of disclosure on the matter, which has dogged the UN chief for the past three months.

The pressure on Kofi Annan has intensified in recent days with high profile columnists in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal now calling for him to resign.

It comes just two days ahead of the release of a major report recommending widespread reform of the UN, a report requested by the Secretary General himself.

Alison Caldwell reports.

ALISON CALDWELL: The controversy surrounding the UN's oil for food program is now threatening to destroy the credibility of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The latest chapter involves his son Kojo Annan and payments he received from a firm that had a contract under the oil for food program in Iraq.

Late last week, a spokesman for Kofi Annan was forced to admit that the monthly payments continued up until February this year, six years later than previously reported.

Today UN Spokesman Fred Eckhard fronted the media in New York to express the Secretary General's disappointment.

FRED ECKHARD: As to his son Kojo, and the specific allegations that he continued to receive payment from Cotecna until February of this year, the Secretary General said he had been under the impression that those payments had stopped in 1998. When he recently found out that had in fact continued until this year, the Secretary General said he was surprised and disappointed.

ALISON CALDWELL: Nigeria based Kojo Annan once worked for the Swiss company Cotecna Inspections. The UN had claimed that Kojo severed ties with the company in February 1999, but the monthly payments of more than $3,000 continued until February this year.

Fred Eckhard again.

FRED ECKHARD: He added that his son is a grown man, and that the Secretary General doesn't get involved in his son's business, and that his son doesn't get involved in the UN's business.

ALISON CALDWELL: The United Nations hired Cotecna to check civilian supplies reaching Iraq under the UN's oil for food program, from 1998 until 2003.

There's no evidence that Kojo Annan worked on Cotecna's Iraqi program, and according to Fred Eckhard, the Secretary General had no role in the distribution of UN contracts.

The oil for food scandal is the subject of six separate US congressional inquiries. Kofi Annan commissioned the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, to conduct his own independent inquiry.

Conservative commentator Frank Gaffney was a senior Defence Department official in the Reagan administration. Now with the Centre for Security Policy in Washington, he believes the story about Kofi Annan's son is just the tip of the iceberg.

FRANK GAFFNEY: It will be simply one more instance in which the integrity of the Secretary General is called into question. And my guess is that the institution will decide that if it's a question of his survival or its reputation, that it will be time for Kofi Annan to go.

ALISON CALDWELL: This has been the subject of an inquiry by Paul Volker's there, and Kofi Annan has also said that reporters should be patient and wait for the outcome of that inquiry. That's not going to stop the discussion is it?

FRANK GAFFNEY: I don't think so. There are a number of congressional investigations now in the United States that are going forward apace. It's a question of how long will it take for all of the relevant information to come out, not a question of whether it will come out. And the longer it takes, I think the more the damage will be to the reputation and the authority of the United Nations.

MARK COLVIN: The neo-conservative Frank Gaffney from the Centre for Security Policy in Washington, with Alison Caldwell.

The Problem is Putin

2004-11-30T14:14:00.000-08:00

The Problem is Putin
George Will
November 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Now more than ever, the bedrock idea on which U.S. foreign policy rests is that the nation's security is enhanced by the spread of democracy. Since 9/11 the idea has been that security depends on democratization in nations with slight, if any, traditions of popular sovereignty.

However, the policy of promoting democracy is a sharp scythe that can mow down more than the persons wielding the tool might intend. In Ukraine's debased election, Russian President Vladimir Putin twice campaigned for the candidate who benefited from fraud, violence and other violations of civilized norms, incidents that seemed to bear Putin's signature. Commenting on Ukraine, Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse.

Which could have been said of President Putin's own re-election earlier this year. What President Bush said three years ago was that he had ``a sense of'' Putin's soul -- formed by 15 years in the KGB -- and liked what he sensed: ``We share a lot of values." Events in Russia have not tempered the president's reiterated insistence that ``freedom is on the march.''

Putin stands athwart that march in Russia, where he has marginalized inconvenient parties, controlled the media and used the criminal justice system to intimidate potential rival sources of power and social authority. Now the Kremlin, which issued instructions to Ukrainian state-controlled media during the presidential campaign, seems determined to export Putinism to contiguous countries.

Putin calls Viktor Yanukovych's 49.46 percent of the Ukrainian vote a ``convincing'' victory over Viktor Yushchenko. He received 46.61 percent in his challenge to the authoritarian regime that backed Yanukovych, who favors closer relations with Russia, in the manner of some other ``managed democracies'' among former Soviet republics. Yushchenko favors Ukrainian membership in the European Union and, perhaps, in NATO.

Criminality against Yushchenko's campaign went beyond multiple instances of violence, intimidation and vote fraud. The Financial Times reports that when Yushchenko appeared before a large crowd of supporters in Kiev, and his face filled a large video screen, a woman exclaimed, ``Oh, how terrible. He was so handsome.'' His pockmarked and scarred features are the result of what seems to have been a poisoning that felled him hours after dining with the head of Ukraine's secret service.

Russia's attempt to control Ukraine's destiny is partly a reverberation from the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Russia's desire to envelop Ukraine within its sphere of influence is a centuries-old Russian tendency. The novel impulse at work here is the transformation of ``Europe'' from a geographic into a political expression -- and Putin's recoil against that.

In its admirably sharp criticism of Ukraine's election, the E.U. is postulating certain standards of civic hygiene integral to European identity. If the E.U. extends membership to Turkey, Europe's border will abut Iraq. And if, in time, Ukraine joins, Europe's border will be within 250 miles of Moscow.

The canon of European literature includes Pushkin, Chekhov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, but that does not settle the question of Russia's identity -- its relationship to Europe. Charles de Gaulle spoke of Europe extending from the Atlantic (in some of his moods, from the English Channel) to the Ural Mountains. But there is a lot of Russia -- 8 time zones of it -- east of there.

Ukraine has been independent for 13 years -- the length of time between America's declaration of independence and the election of its first president, when the cohesion of the national entity was in doubt. Talk of secession is rife in Ukraine's eastern, Russian-oriented region.

The 19th century featured national consolidations -- the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc. Recently, the disintegrative forces of religion, ethnicity and language have driven events in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. Ukraine, where Catholicism and the Ukrainian language flourish in the west and Orthodox Christianity and Russian in the east, could be the latest cauldron to boil over.

The United States, with its foreign policy hostage to January elections by the Palestinian Authority and those in Iraq, has a stake in Ukrainian events that is much larger than its leverage. As Lech Walesa, hero of Poland's liberation, told a mass meeting of Yushchenko's supporters, Poland supports you but you must do this yourself.

The problem, in Ukraine and others among Russia's anxiously watching neighbors, is Putin. Perhaps Secretary Powell intended the wide arc of his scythe to encompass Moscow when he said that corrupt elections cannot create legitimate governments.

UN Chief's Son in Iraq Oil-for-Food Scandal

2004-11-30T14:10:00.000-08:00

UN Chief's Son in Iraq Oil-for-Food Scandal
December 1, 2004
From: The Washington Post

Kofi Annan did not know his son, Kojo, received as much as $US150,000 ($193,000) from a Swiss company linked to the UN's scandal-plagued Iraqi oil-for-food program.

The UN Secretary-General said this yesterday as he accepted that the payments created a "perception of conflict of interests and wrongdoing". He was "very disappointed and surprised" that his son had not told him about them.

Kojo Annan's ties to the company, Cotecna Inspection Services, are the subject of US congressional inquiries and a UN investigation into influence peddling and mismanagement in the oil-for-food program.

Kofi Annan said he thought his son had severed financial links to Cotecna in 1998, shortly before the company received a contract to oversee UN-managed trade with Iraq.

He denied any wrongdoing. He had played no role in granting UN contracts to Cotecna or any other companies, he said.

"Naturally, I have warm, family relations with my son, but he is in a different field. He is an independent businessman. He is a grown man, and I don't get involved with his activities and he doesn't get involved in mine."

The oil-for-food program began operating in December 1996 as a way to allow Iraq to export oil to buy humanitarian goods for its people.

The UN oversaw the export of $US64 billion in oil before the program was transferred to US-led authorities in Iraq a year ago.

Allegations of wrongdoing by UN officials surfaced after the fall of Saddam Hussein and set off investigations by Congress and US prosecutors into the diversion of billions of dollars in oil money and kickbacks from the UN program to Saddam's government.

Kofi Annan appointed Paul Volcker, the former US Federal Reserve chairman, to investigate UN misconduct. He urged reporters to be patient until Mr Volcker, who has been looking into Kojo Annan's relationship with Cotecna, concludes his inquiry.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Danforth, said on Monday that his country took the allegations of UN misconduct "very seriously" but there should be no "rush to judgement until all of the facts are in".

Mr Danforth also urged Mr Volcker to release 55 internal UN audits and other documents to congressional investigators as "quickly as possible".

Mr Volcker said in a recent interview that he would hand over the audits when he finishes the first stage of his investigation in January.

Kojo Annan worked for Cotecna, first as a trainee and later as a consultant in Africa, from December 1995 to December 1998. The United Nations had previously asserted that his commercial relations with Cotecna ended in December 1998, the same month the company received a $4.8-million contract to monitor the import of humanitarian supplies in Iraq for the United Nations.

Verifying Victory

2004-11-30T14:06:00.000-08:00

Verifying Victory
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
By Brit Hume

The latest from the Political Grapevine:

Verifying Victory

Miami Herald reporters who conducted an independent recount in three heavily democratic Florida counties say that President Bush's lopsided victory there is legitimate. Critics have questioned the President's strong showing in the Florida panhandle, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1.

But after reviewing more than 17,000 optical-scan ballots in northern Suwannee, Lafayette and Union counties, the Herald reporters conclude that charges of voter fraud are unfounded. In fact, while those three counties have long been overwhelmingly Democratic, they have reguarly voted for Republican presidential candidates, including Senator Bob Dole in 1996 and President Bush in 2000.

Misleading Survey?

A new AP/Ipsos poll shows that 59 percent of Americans say President Bush should choose a Supreme Court nominee who will uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the AP questions distorted the Roe v. Wade ruling, telling participants it made abortion legal only in the first three months of pregnancy. The ruling actually allows no limits on abortion until nearly six months into pregnancy.

What's more, an article accompanying the poll implied that overturning Roe would ban abortion — when a repeal of Roe v. Wade would remove constitutional protection and put the issue in the hands of individual states.

Swift Boat Broke

The only Swift Boat Veteran for Truth to serve on John Kerry's boat says his anti-Kerry stance cost him his job. Steve Gardner, who served as a gunner on Kerry's swift boat for four months, told Mary Laney of the Chicago Sun-Times that a representative from the Kerry campaign threatened to "look into his finances"after he spoke out against Kerry.

What's more, Gardner claims he was laid off from his job selling information technology to insurance companies — 24 hours after an article accusing him of being politically motivated was published online. Gardner says he's broke, but that if he had it to do over again, he would still speak out against Kerry.

Excuse their French

France's fight to slow the advance of the English language in French society continues. Last week, the government abandoned a plan requiring all elementary school students to learn "basic international English."

And ten years after a law making French usage mandatory in the workplace, technicians at a Paris branch of General Electric have filed suit claiming they are illegally being forced to use English on the job. A Union spokesman tells the London Times that the pressure to use English in e-mails and even in meetings between French staff is "unacceptable," adding that French employees merely want English speaking management to "make an effort on their side."

— FOX News' Michael Levine contributed to this report

Iraqi Bomb Labs Signal Attacks in the Works

2004-11-30T10:29:00.000-08:00

U.S. and Iraqi troops in Fallujah uncovered a ''cookbook'' for making chemical and biological weapons, an indication the terrorists plan to use these arms in future attacks.

Iraqi Bomb Labs Signal Attacks in the Works
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
30 November 2004

Chemicals and bomb-making literature found at two houses in Fallujah, Iraq, last week show Iraqi rebels are prepared to use chemical and biological weapons in future attacks, a U.S. military spokesman said yesterday.

Rebels in Fallujah had materials for making chemical blood agents and also a "cookbook" on how to produce a deadly form of anthrax, said Army Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan in a telephone interview.

Col. Boylan said there are no signs to date that the terrorists actually used chemical or biological weapons in homemade bombs that the military calls improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

"But this definitely shows that they had the intent and willingness to go down that road," he said. "The intent is there to at least make it and potentially to use it."

A U.S. military team trained to handle chemical weapons removed the materials and equipment, and testing is under way, Col. Boylan said.

The two houses in Fallujah were used by terrorists linked to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al Qaeda-linked leader who is behind many of the suicide bombings and attacks against Iraqi civilians and U.S. military personnel, Col. Boylan said.

Iraqi security forces and the U.S. military uncovered one chemical and bomb-making factory Wednesday, Col. Boylan said. A day later, a second residence was found with bomb-making and chemical-weapons material in another part of the city, he said.

The chemical lab was found during house-to-house searches of the city, where some 2,000 terrorists and former fighters for Saddam Hussein's regime were killed in recent battles.

"The chemical labs had cookbooks that had formulas for making explosives," Col. Boylan said. "One of them had directions on how to make anthrax. One of them had ingredients and directions on how to make blood agent."

Chemicals for the blood agent hydrogen cyanide that were found included potassium cyanide and hydrochloric acid, he said.

Hydrogen cyanide, which affects the blood, is extremely poisonous and can be used as a weapon in both vapor and liquid form.

In addition to chemical-weapons materials, the troops uncovered other bomb-making materials in the residence, including ammonium nitrate and military explosives that are used in making roadside and vehicle bombs, he said.

It is believed the Fallujah rebels had planned to lace their improvised bombs with hydrogen cyanide, he said.

Soldiers also found testing kits labeled "Soman, Sarin and V-Gases," which are used to test for the presence of chemical nerve agents.

The kits contained vials labeled in English, Russian and German that read, "For working instructions, refer to the instructions leaflet."

Col. Boylan noted that the chemical weapons are "indiscriminate" terror weapons that were to be used against Iraqi civilians as well as against U.S., Iraqi and allied troops.

He said Fallujah has been neutralized as a center for terrorist bombing operations by the U.S. military's ongoing operation there.

"We're finding tons of weapons — caches with hundreds of weapons, ammunition, IEDs and factories," he said.

"These locations were being used to do nothing but fabricate IEDs and other weapons."

He noted that Fallujah is considered the single largest place for weapons and explosives used by rebels in Iraq.

"We're still going house to house" in Fallujah, he said.

Troops are fighting to clear buildings of insurgents, but "we still have pockets [of resistance] and sporadic fighting as they find holdouts, and that's to be expected," Col. Boylan said.

"It's not an easy process. It's a slow, methodical process that once completed will have cleared the city" of insurgents, he said.

Iraqi Minister of State Kassim Daoud said last week that the chemical laboratory "was used to prepare deadly explosives and poisons."

Those Ka-Way-Zee Lefties and What They're Crying About Now

2004-11-29T22:24:00.000-08:00

What follows is, without a doubt, the most pathetic collection of thoughts and ideas I have ever had the displeasure of reading. This is akin to being "inflicted" with the PEST syndrome now so prevalent (and chic) with the Lefties.

My God! What is wrong with these people? From the article, "First, admit you're a victim." What? Isn't that curling up into a ball and letting life happen to you? Where's the spunk? Where's the get-up-and-go? Where's the take life by the horns? Where's the risk-taking? Where's the adventure? Where's the accepting personal responsibility for the choices you make in your life?

It's all dreary and gloomy and constantly dark skies for the Lefties. They need to have their umbrellas to hold on to for security. Something to shield them from life and reality. And, of course, someone or something on which to blame everything wrong with the world today; even down to their personal problems. They can't seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. Entitlement is their mantra. And it's getting pretty damn tiresome.

From where does this kind of "give up" thinking spring? It's pure fear. With a touch of arrogance thrown in for good measure. That "if looks could kill" gleam in the Lefties' eyes. Repeating it in disbelief... "First, admit you're a victim."

When you see and believe yourself to be a "victim", you are looking to lay blame. That's the only purpose in such thinking or such a belief system.

They are afraid of who and what they are, so, they discard their ownership in any thought, idea, situation, or circumstance. If they'd stop for a moment, take a breath, see and understand how they actually did contribute to the "catastrophy" to which they're all pointing instead of immediately jumping to "Who can we blame for this?" perhaps sincere and meaningful dialogue would result.

Those who have suffered an act of personal violence will say they are a victim. That's understood. Through the healing process. However; if one continues to label themselves a victim, they are inviting more violence against themselves. They have not changed their thinking. Like animals, those that seek to inflict violence can "smell" fear. Shirking the label of "victim" is the first step.

Good God in Heaven! And these people want to have a prominent place in politics?

I'll keep the post updated as the Lefties reply. This is gonna be a riot! And wholly pathetic.

Mon Nov 29 22:24
Subject: Mel Gilles: The Politics of Victimization (posted by popular demand)

Lethal said:

From http://mathewgross.com/blog/, link here:

The Politics of Victimization

[Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross]

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likeable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, 'Why did they beat me?'

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can't seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won't; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don't resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don't know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don't let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he'll win, not because he's right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, 'loose', irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.

Even if you do everything right, they'll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don't even know they are being hit.

Tue Nov 30 00:08 ~ - Subject: * - 0 reaction(s)
Director's Starlet said:
;-)

Over the Top

2004-11-29T14:30:00.000-08:00

Over the Top
John Leo
November 29, 2004

It’s time for the 2004 awards for over-the-top rhetoric.

Cameron Diaz said that if you think rape should be legal, you should not vote on November 2.

Alan Keyes, Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, said Catholics who voted for his opponent, Barack Obama, would be committing a mortal sin.

Comedian John Leguizamo said that Hispanics who pulled the lever for Bush would be like roaches voting for Raid.

According to Sen. John Edwards, “I’d say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you’ve lost your mind.”

So, according to these four sages, on Election Day 44 percent of Hispanics revealed themselves as roaches who favor Raid, 1.3 million Illinois Catholics committed a mortal sin, 80 million nonvoters may have endorsed rape and 60 million Americans lost their minds.

In the narrow category of people who used the “H” word (Hitler) and were not referring to George Bush, the winner is Roseanne, who said the person who reminds her of Hitler is TV’s Dr. Phil. In the even smaller category of Hollywood people who used the “F” word but weren’t talking about the president, the winner is Tim Robbins for “F - - - compassionate conservatives!” In the animal-waste category, honors go to actor Billy Bob Thornton, who said that all of Shakespeare’s work is bulls - - -. Previous winner: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who said in Iowa that large-scale hog farms are a bigger threat to America than Osama bin Laden and his terrorists.

In the sour-grapes department, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said “Fox News is hated because they’re elitist and the worst winners television’s ever seen.” Also referring to Fox News, he said “Shallow, phony patriotism will always draw a crowd, like dogs humping in the street.” Bill Moyers, who said in 2003 that the Republicans were planning the “deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America,” said this year that the Republicans would end democracy in America by staging a coup if Kerry won, because “the right wing is not going to accept it.” Perhaps inspired by Moyers, Village Voice theater critic Michael Feingold said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”

Some people blamed Bush for personal setbacks or natural disasters. Palm Beach Post ombudsman C. B. Hanif thought Bush produced Florida’s hurricanes by irritating God. Sharon Stone blamed Bush for preventing her from planting a lesbian kiss on Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman. Others thought Karl Rove was the primary villain. Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite said he is inclined to think that Rove “probably set up bin Laden” to deliver his latest tape. Maybe he set up Florida’s hurricanes, too.

In the category of saying nice things about terrorists, Michael Moore wins for comparing the insurgents in Iraq to the American Minutemen (one difference being that the Minutemen did not rape women or hack their arms, legs, and heads off). Julian Bond, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said at his group’s 2003 convention that Republicans’ “idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.” Bond liked it so much that he repeated it in 2004. Elsewhere, a St. Louis conservative sold anti-Hillary “Osama bin Rodham” T-shirts and mugs featuring a composite picture of Senator Clinton and bin Laden.

Janeane Garofalo said after Bush’s re-election that she wants the “Archie Bunkers in the cracker belt to feel pain.” Citing a quote from Thomas Jefferson, Hollywood political analyst Barbra Streisand called the Bush era a “reign of witches.” Playwright Tony Kushner (Angels in America) wrote a one-act anti-Bush play for the campaign featuring Laura Bush reading the works of Dostoevski to a group of Iraqi children, all of them dead.

Eve Ensler, genitally oriented author of The Vagina Monologues, said at a feminist concert and rally for Kerry in New York that women should “Step into your vaginas” on November 2, an unusual approach to voting and one that sounds just plain uncomfortable. At another New York rally, John Mellencamp called Bush “a cheap thug,” and Whoopi Goldberg offered some obscene reflections on Bush’s name. John Kerry said that the entertainers who spoke at the rally reflected the “heart and soul of our country.”

Natalie Maines, apparently surprised that many Dixie Chicks fans hated her famous anti-Bush comments of 2003, said “I realize that I’m just supposed to sing and look cute so our fans won’t have anything to upset them while they’re cheating on their wives or driving around in their pickup trucks shooting small animals.” Then she complained that the political climate is “so the opposite of me as a person and what I believe in.” It’s just about opposite my personhood too, Natalie.

France's American Problem

2004-11-29T14:26:00.000-08:00

France's American Problem
Robert Novak
November 29, 2004

PARIS -- U.S. diplomats here respond to Jacques Chirac's continued Yankee-bashing following George W. Bush's re-election by saying the French president is out of step with his people, who are not nearly that anti-American. But thoughtful Frenchmen believe President Chirac is mining a deep vein of sentiment among fellow citizens that transcends President Bush.

During a week in Paris, I encountered none of the rudeness I had been warned to expect because of my nationality. However, the question goes beyond amenities to visitors. One French intellectual described anti-Americanism to me as "a cancer that is sweeping across the country." It may not be as deadly as cancer, but it surely is not healthy for France.

The chronic nature of French hostility toward the United States contradicts claims by Bush's domestic critics that his unilateral policies caused deterioration of Franco-American relations. It is less the U.S. with a French problem than France burdened with a serious American problem.

On his recent visit to London, Chirac pressed for "multipolarity": a return to international rivalries that produced the carnage of the 20th century. He also suggested there was no point trying to repair his country's difficulties with Washington and taunted British Prime Minister Tony Blair because "our American friends" do not "pay back favors." Mocking Donald Rumsfeld's designation of France as "Old Europe," he pretended not to remember the secretary of defense's name and referred to him, sarcastically, as "that nice guy of America."

State Department officials thought Chirac would reach out to Washington once Bush was re-elected, and U.S. diplomats here say he has misread French opinion. On the contrary, playing the anti-American card is seen in political circles here as Chirac's strongest position as he prepares to run for a third five-year term in 2007. He is unpopular, detested by the Left and considered an apostate on the Right, but may survive by bashing Uncle Sam.

The impression by U.S. officials that Chirac is going too far in chiding the Americans may be based on anecdotal evidence, such as my encounter with a Paris kiosk owner from whom I bought a newspaper. "Oh, we just love Americans," he beamed as he gave me a free piece of chocolate candy to go with the International Herald Tribune, "it's Bush we hate."

However, the problem goes much deeper than Bush or the 80 percent election preference for John Kerry in French polls. A writer here told me of his 19-year-old daughter attending a one-day French army briefing, mandatory after conscription was abolished. The last four hours consisted of a harangue on U.S. foreign policy, especially in Iraq. That war was described as a plot by American capitalists to cheat Iraqis out of their oil in a lecture that would have done justice to a conspiracy-minded Internet blogger.

U.S. officials say Charles DeGaulle at least gave the U.S. help when needed and so is unlike the latter-day Gaullist Chirac. Actually, DeGaulle was an inconstant ally in the Cold War who often sided with the Soviet Union in return for soft treatment by the then powerful French Communist Party.

Yet, the attitude Chirac reflects cannot be blamed on DeGaulle. The U.S. may have replaced Britain, which for centuries was "Perfidious Albion" to the French. Jean-Claude Casanova, editor of Commentaire (France's leading intellectual quarterly) sees France's "naive superiority" toward the Americans.

France is burdened with problems distant from American shores. The economy is stagnant, and the replacement of the franc by the euro has meant higher prices but not higher wages. Last Thursday, some 50,000 railroad employees poured into Paris to protest insufficient new hiring. The civil service dominates the government, which suffocates the powerless National Assembly. Michel Gurfinkel, editor of a small newsweekly, told me the press is "free but not independent" of the government.

The lone potential breath of fresh air viewed by internal critics is flamboyant populist Nicolas Sarkozy, who is resigning as finance minister to seek leadership of France's governing party and then perhaps run for president. Although Sarkozy is unabashedly pro-American, it has not hurt him so far. But his opponent is likely to be Jacques Chirac, still waving the bloody American shirt and still hard to beat.

Sept. 11 Planner Ordered Madrid Bombings

2004-11-28T14:32:00.000-08:00

Report: Sept. 11 Planner Ordered Madrid Bombings
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Associated Press

MADRID, Spain — An unidentified Muslim militant suspected of helping plan the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States also ordered this year's Madrid train bombings, a Spanish newspaper said Sunday, asserting the closest link yet between the two terrorist attacks.

The man is believed to be a lieutenant of Mustafa Setmariam, a fugitive with dual Syrian and Spanish nationality who is considered a key figure in the March 11 backpack bombings that targeted the Madrid commuter rail network, the newspaper ABC said, citing information from the FBI.

Last week, the United States announced a $5 million reward for information leading to Setmariam's arrest, saying he was an Al Qaeda operative who ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

Also known as Abu Musab al-Suri, he trained terrorists in poisons and chemicals, the State Department said.

The Madrid attack killed 191 people and was claimed in videotapes by militants saying they acted on behalf of Al Qaeda in revenge for Spain's sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives who backed the war in Iraq were voted out of power in elections three days after the attack.

The FBI has told Spanish investigators that a man who attended a July 2001 meeting with the Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and suspected coordinator Ramzi Binalshibh in Tarragona, Spain, also came to Madrid last December and activated a cell that staged the train bombings, ABC said.

The identity of the third person at the meeting with Atta and Binalshibh is not known but has been narrowed to three candidates, the paper said.

The new information on that meeting came from US interrogations of Binalshibh, who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, the newspaper said.

Interior Ministry officials were not available to comment on the report.

Spain's leading anti-terrorism judge, Baltasar Garzon, said in an indictment handed down in September 2003 against 35 al-Qaida suspects — including Osama bin Laden and Setmariam — that the Tarragona meeting was used to decide last-minute details of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, including the exact date.

Investigators in Spain and the United States have long said Spain was a key staging ground for Sept. 11, along with Germany.

In previously established links between the Sept. 11 and Madrid attacks, Spanish officials say Jamal Zougam, one of the 16 people jailed in the investigation of the latter, was a follower of Imad Yarkas, the suspected leader of a Spain-based al-Qaida cell that allegedly provided logistic support and financing to Sept. 11 plotters.

Another alleged follower of Yarkas was Serhane Ben Abdelmajid, a Tunisian described as the Madrid cell's ideologue. He was among seven suspects who blew themselves up on April 3 as police tried to arrest them.

Yarkas has been in jail since November 2001 and was among the 35 suspects indicted by Garzon. The judge later indicted five more, and those in Spanish custody are expected to go on trial next year.

Oil-for-Food Funds Traced

2004-11-27T14:34:00.000-08:00

Oil-for-Food Funds Traced
Kofi Annan's son got more money than U.N. said
Sat, Nov. 27, 2004
The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son received payments from a firm with an oil-for-food contract more than four years longer than the United Nations previously said, a U.N. spokesman said Friday.

Fred Eckhard said the panel investigating alleged corruption in the oil-for-food program has been told by Kojo Annan's attorney about the payments.

“There is nothing illegal in this,” Eckhard said of the payments from the Swiss firm Cotecna.

It was an embarrassing moment, however, for the United Nations to have to admit that its earlier information was wrong.

Eckhard said that Kojo Annan's attorney told him that the younger Annan “continued to receive monthly payments beyond the end of 1999, when we previously thought they had ceased, through February 2004.”

Eckhard acknowledged that the United Nations previously said that Kojo had stopped receiving monthly payments at the end of 1999.

Eckhard explained that Kojo worked under an open-ended no-compete contract, meaning that when an employee leaves a company, he can receive payments to assure that he won't set up a competing company doing the same work as the employer.

The oil-for-food program, instituted to help Iraqis cope with sanctions, began in December 1996 and ended in November. In the program's seven years, Iraq exported $65 billion worth of oil, and $46 billion of that revenue went to the oil-for-food program.

Saddam Hussein's government determined which goods it would buy, who would provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil.

Cotecna, the firm that employed Kojo Annan, was hired to verify that the goods that were purchased actually reached Iraq.

Allegations of corruption surfaced last January in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada and have intensified in recent months, calling into question the United Nations' credibility and causing what Annan called “a very serious” crisis.

The paper listed about 270 former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from oil sales.

The program is now the subject of an investigation by a three-member panel led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

It's Wabbit Season

2004-11-24T14:54:00.000-08:00

It's Wabbit Season
Ann Coulter
November 24, 2004

Admittedly, still reeling from the nastiest Democratic campaign since sorority rush at sniper school, the country could do with a little civility. But victorious Republicans behave like Warner Bros. gophers Mac 'n' Tosh: "Awfully sorry, old boy." "No, not at all – after you." There's something to be said for coming out swinging. We won! The nation is lousy with red states! It's wabbit season!

The country has witnessed a relentless Republican juggernaut for the past quarter-century. But Republicans can't shake the notion that they are a minority insurgency fighting for any scrap liberals will give them.

Despite the fact that Bob Shrum was running John Kerry's campaign, racking up his eighth loss in a presidential campaign, Republicans won the White House. With the exception of the decadent buffoon, whose newly opened presidential library and museum becomes the first to ever feature an "adults-only" section, Republicans have controlled the White House for 25 years. Even Clinton got into office on a virtual technicality when third-party candidate Ross Perot took 20 percent of the vote and the buffoon was elected with 42 percent of the vote (or what used to be known in Democratic Party circles as a "mandate").

It's been a decade since Republicans swept the House of Representatives after a half-century out of control. Republicans have had a lock on the House since. Indeed, in the recent election, more Republicans were elected to the House than in any election since 1946.

Republicans have also solidified their control of the Senate. With the humiliating defeat of the Democrats' Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, in the last election, Republicans toppled a Senate party leader for the first time since 1952. (Daschle's ultimate undoing: too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Get it???)

And of course, Republicans have held the vast majority of state governorships for a decade – a dominance that now includes the very blue states California and New York.

But Republican politicians simply can't grasp that they are a majority party and the Democrats are going the way of the Whigs. Republican senators still think the key to their success is making sure they are purer than Caesar's wife so that the mainstream media can't possibly attack them. That's never worked before, so let's try it again! What are they, Bob Shrum all of a sudden?

Democrats never needed a quarter-century of steady victories to act like the majority party. In 2000, when the Senate was divided 50:50, giving the Republicans a one-vote majority with the vice president's vote, Republicans "played fair," dividing Senate committees equally between Republicans and Democrats. But the moment Jim Jeffords became an Independent – not even a Democrat! – splitting the Senate 49-50 just a year later, the Democrats turned around and gave themselves a majority on all Senate committees.

If they were in the majority, I promise you the Democrats would never allow a moderate Democrat like Evan Bayh chair the Judiciary Committee. Even now, they won't even let Bayh sit on the Judiciary Committee.

But Senate Republicans, with a quarter-century of nearly uninterrupted victories at their back, are afraid to change their own rules to deprive Arlen Specter of the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. CBS' "60 Minutes" might run a hit piece on Republicans saying Republicans aren't playing fair!

Only when it comes to the media do Republicans suddenly become Neville Chamberlain: They don't like us, so let's give them what they want.

Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that if anyone cared what Dan Rather had to say, Republicans would not be the majority party. Republicans should be required to say this mantra over and over to themselves: "It is a good thing to be attacked by the likes of the New York Times and '60 Minutes,' both of which are losing readers/viewers faster than innocent bystanders exiting the Vibe awards after another random stabbing. It is a good thing ..."

Republicans are also sublimely confident that Arlen Specter has been so cauterized by the recent attacks that he will suddenly break a 30-year habit of sabotaging his own party. Republicans are pretty sure he will not go on "Meet the Press" to call any of Bush's judicial nominees "out of the mainstream" – all while flogging his credentials as the REPUBLICAN chairman of Judiciary, chosen by the REPUBLICAN majority in the Senate.

It is as certain that Arlen Specter will double-cross Republicans as it is that Bob Shrum will lose his next presidential campaign. You can add this to a certain infamous list that already includes "death" and "taxes."

What will Republicans do then? If Republicans are worried about not appearing "fair" to the editors of the New York Times if they deny Specter a chairmanship now, how will it look if Republicans wait for Specter to double-cross them to strip him of his chairmanship? If they're not willing to do that, then the moment Specter becomes chairman, the only people he will have to please all work at the New York Times, CBS and other sworn enemies of the Republican Party.

Finally, individual Republican senators oppose stripping Specter of his chairmanship for fear that they too will be punished every time they fail to toe the party line – and God forbid a Republican hesitate before holding a press conference to denounce his own party.

It would be worth making Sen. Lincoln Too-Dumb-to-Know-He's-a-Democrat Chafee chairman of some important Senate committee if that's what it takes to calm Republican "mavericks," as the New York Times calls Republicans who agree with the New York Times. The Judiciary Committee is different.

Liberals cannot win when Americans are allowed to vote, so they jam their insane ideas down our throats through the courts. In Bush's second term, there is no more important committee than the one charged with overseeing his judicial nominations.

If Republicans blow this once-a-century opportunity to end the tyranny of the judiciary, they deserve to lose. And they can't keep counting on Democrats to hire Bob Shrum.

Kerry Won't Go Gently Into Good Night

2004-11-24T14:53:00.000-08:00

Kerry Won't Go Gently Into Good Night
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — John Kerry was not able to break the frustrating record of senators failing to get elected president, but that doesn't mean he's going to fade into history or even give up on his dream of higher office.

Aside from the brief respite of Thanksgiving, the Massachusetts senator was quick to return to work after more than a year of grueling campaigning and one of the nastiest presidential races in modern times.

His Democratic colleagues in both the Senate and in the House appear happy to have him back and in a visible role, as they also are thinking about the party's future and how to move this losing political family forward.

"Every time his name was mentioned, there was enthusiastic applause," said newly named Senate Democratic Caucus Secretary Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., referring to Kerry's appearance on Capitol Hill Nov. 16.

"He has a lot to be proud of, and I hope he'll find what I did — that it was great to have the U.S Senate to come back to," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, who lost a vice presidential bid when he ran with Al Gore in 2000.

Just two weeks after a disappointing election outcome, Kerry's first day back as one of 100 senators included sharing the spotlight with newly installed Minority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., and suggesting that he would consider a second attempt at becoming president in 2008.

Kerry's course is sharply different than the one taken by former Vice President Gore, who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Gore moved to the fringes of party politics after a campaign that ended with many Democrats blaming the candidate directly for the loss to then-Gov. George W. Bush. Gore taught a course at Columbia University in New York and has spoken out forcefully though sporadically against Bush's foreign policy.

Gore has been described as embittered after his loss, especially by those who say the election was stolen. But Kerry, who lost the popular vote by about 3.4 million ballots, is definitely not going that route, say close observers.

"I think he is going to be looked on as one of the leaders of the party," said Democratic strategist Tom King, who spent the last year working on races across the country. "He will be able to command attention. I think he's earned that right. Don't forget [the vote] was 51 to 48 percent."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed.

"I think Sen. Kerry has a lot to offer the caucus and the country — I'm glad he's coming back and taking up his work again," Schiff told FOXNews.com. "He commanded a huge number of votes in a very divided country — nearly half the country was supportive of his candidacy and I think it will give him standing to be a more effective voice in the Senate."

Kerry has sent signals that he will pursue an active domestic policy agenda, focusing on Medicare and Social Security reform — two staples in his presidential campaign. Even before returning to Washington, Kerry made it clear he wasn't fading away. Issuing a Nov. 10 statement on the resignation of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Kerry called his former Senate colleague "one of the most divisive faces in this administration."

The day after his return to Capitol Hill, Kerry spoke at length on the Senate floor about his concerns over the national debt and runaway spending by Congress. The debt ceiling had been raised to $8 billion by the Senate that day. Kerry opposed the measure.

"The United States is running a borrow-and-spend government," Kerry said. "Congress seems ready to write new rules when it wants to."

He then launched into territory reminiscent of his many campaign speeches. He urged streamlining government, ensuring that tax cuts produce jobs, spending only money that is in hand and ensuring an economic policy "that works to create opportunity and demands responsibility."

Last week, Kerry sent out an e-mail to some 3 million supporters of his campaign, warning against the recent Cabinet shakeup of the Bush administration and the influence of Bush supporters behind the scenes.

"Despite the words of cooperation and moderate-sounding promises, this administration is planning a right-wing assault on the values and ideals we hold most deeply," he wrote.

But will Kerry's bright star guide his party through its troubled times, particularly as the minority party in both chambers on Capitol Hill, or is his mind to continue campaigning for another run in 2008?

Kerry told a Fox News affiliate the day of his Washington return that "it is so premature to be thinking about something that far down the road. What I've said is I'm not opening any doors, I'm not shutting any doors."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said it's way too early to speculate, and Democrats will certainly have varying opinions about whether Kerry is the best man to run in four years.

"John Kerry is a fiercely competitive guy and he doesn't like to lose," Marshall said. "He could well be thinking about it, but right now is not the time to think about that. He understands that and that's why he won't say anything on that score."

Marshall said Kerry will have to decide how and whether he can use the clout he earned on the campaign trail to lead the party, and it will be up to Democrats whether to follow him. One thing going for him is "there isn't a sense this time that our candidate let us down, as there was from certain quarters in 2000," Marshall said.

"We need a nationally prominent spokesman to convey the message and I think he should be the person who does that," he said.

Juan Williams, correspondent for National Public Radio, said Kerry may have trouble with that. He was roundly criticized for "not connecting" to people in the election, and the Democrats don't appear to have a coherent message to sell yet.

"Kerry is not Bill Clinton," Williams said. "I just think he lacks the charisma, that sense of connection to the very vote that won President Bush the election," Williams said. "He plays very badly to the very audience the Democrats need to attract to get back on track."

Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, said Kerry will likely be one of "a series of leaders" who will help shape the ideas and advance the causes of the party in the next four years.

"He won't be alone, but has certainly earned the opportunity to really help develop a voice," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News

2004-11-23T14:47:00.001-08:00

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News
Friday, November 26, 2004
This is a partial transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Nov. 23, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

For more, we turn to David Blum, media writer, television critic, journalism teacher; he’s also the author of "Tick... Tick... Tick...: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes."

David, thanks for joining us. What’s your assessment first blush of his announcement today, that Dan Rather will leave oh, March of next year?

BLUM: Possibly during halftime at the Lions’ game on Thursday. I don’t know. Whenever it is most likely that media reporters are busy eating or drinking elsewhere.

BLUM: You know, it’s hard to say. As your pictures reveal, as good reporters as they are, they do appear to be born and bred on an anchor farm somewhere.

(LAUGHTER)

But Andy Rooney saying well, look, he was in the chair longer than Cronkite was.

BLUM: That’s right.

WILSON: And maybe it’s time for him to move on. Kind of strange to hear that coming from a guy who’s been in the chair for what; about 106 years?

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: Well, I’m leaving here to go to the big party at Peter Jennings’ house later.

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: You know, it’s really not a happy day for the future of the evening news. You know, this is already to some extent an anachronism. Most people don’t wait until 6:30 in the evening to get their news. They’re getting it on the Internet. They’re getting it here on FOX or wherever they might be looking during the day. You know, these are essentially newsreaders: Rather, Jennings, Brokaw. Except when they’re out cover a story, they’re reading off the teleprompter. They’re highly paid and well trained actors performing a role.

Now that role is becoming less and less important as time goes by. And that’s why we’re seeing the evolution of anchormen who are also commentators, opinion makers, debaters. The kind of people that appear al over on cable. That’s not what Jennings, and Brokaw and Rather have been or ever wanted to be. That’s why their future is limited and the successors are not even around anymore.

WILSON: Now, I think it was mentioned by Major Garrett in his report, but he still has a venue even after he leaves the anchor desk. He’s going to remain as a correspondent for "60 Minutes." Continue to do investigative reporting.

BLUM: Right.

WILSON: What kind of things do you think we’ll see from Dan Rather in the days ahead?

BLUM: Well, you know, he’s always been a good journalist. And I think that what happened last September was an example of Dan Rather spreading himself too thin. I mean he anchors a newscast five nights a week. He trusted his producer Mary Mapes (search ). He didn’t have the time to double check the information she was providing him. That was a mistake.

He compounded the error by standing by her. Which was admittedly a great act of loyalty and friendship. And I respect that. But it was an act of stupidity as well because the story turned out to be false.

WILSON: Right.

BLUM: You know, that was a huge mistake, but it comes from the kind of ego that these men have that they should be on television all day, every day as much as possible.

WILSON: David Blum, got to go. Thank you very much.

BLUM: Thank you.

WILSON: He’s 73. He could have 20 years left if you follow the Wallace mode.

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News

2004-11-23T14:47:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather's Departure from CBS News
Friday, November 26, 2004
This is a partial transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Nov. 23, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

For more, we turn to David Blum, media writer, television critic, journalism teacher; he’s also the author of "Tick... Tick... Tick...: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes."

David, thanks for joining us. What’s your assessment first blush of his announcement today, that Dan Rather will leave oh, March of next year?

BLUM: Possibly during halftime at the Lions’ game on Thursday. I don’t know. Whenever it is most likely that media reporters are busy eating or drinking elsewhere.

BLUM: You know, it’s hard to say. As your pictures reveal, as good reporters as they are, they do appear to be born and bred on an anchor farm somewhere.

(LAUGHTER)

But Andy Rooney saying well, look, he was in the chair longer than Cronkite was.

BLUM: That’s right.

WILSON: And maybe it’s time for him to move on. Kind of strange to hear that coming from a guy who’s been in the chair for what; about 106 years?

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: Well, I’m leaving here to go to the big party at Peter Jennings’ house later.

(LAUGHTER)

BLUM: Right.

WILSON: What kind of things do you think we’ll see from Dan Rather in the days ahead?

WILSON: Right.

BLUM: You know, that was a huge mistake, but it comes from the kind of ego that these men have that they should be on television all day, every day as much as possible.

WILSON: David Blum, got to go. Thank you very much.

BLUM: Thank you.

WILSON: He’s 73. He could have 20 years left if you follow the Wallace mode.

Get Out The Blog

2004-11-22T07:23:00.000-08:00

Get Out The Blog
Matt Margolis
Blogs for Bush

A number of people have asked me about new graphics being available for GOP Bloggers. We are in the process of ironing out design ideas for the new site, so a line of buttons and banners hasn't been created yet...

...But...

We have some graphics you can put on your sites to mark our relaunch date.

Here is a button for your sidebar:

And you can click here for a banner you can put on your site as well.

Please download the graphics and put on your own servers if possible. Don't forget to have them link to http://www.gopbloggers.org

Bill Clinton vs Peter Jennings

2004-11-21T14:57:00.000-08:00

Bill Clinton vs Peter Jennings
Sunday, November 21, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

The network news anchors usually stay away from controversy. So last night [Thursday, November 18] when Peter Jennings questioned Bill Clinton about how historians have ranked his moral authority, eyebrows went up. Here's some of what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "PRIMETIME LIVE")

PETER JENNINGS, "PRIMETIME LIVE": They gave you a 41st on moral authority.

BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT: They're wrong about that.

JENNINGS: After Nixon.

CLINTON: They're wrong about that. Do you know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it.

JENNINGS: Why, sir?

CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us and all of these inspections. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, whether I ever let the American people down. And I had more support from the world and world leaders and people around the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care what they think.

JENNINGS: Oh yes, you do.

CLINTON: They have no...

JENNINGS: Oh, excuse me, Mr. President, you can — I can feel it across the room.

CLINTON: No, no, I care...

JENNINGS: You care very deeply.

CLINTON: I care — you don't want to go there, Peter. You don't want to go there, not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr, the way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Wow. Now let's analyze the situation without emotion. First, President Clinton sincerely believes that a cabal of conservatives launched a witch-hunt against him and that the media picked up every sleazy charge and ran with it.

Mr. Clinton is partially right. The media did slime him with allegations. And some right wingers did not afford him the presumption of innocence.

But there were so many ethical problems during the Clinton administration, it is ludicrous to say that the controversies were manufactured. Campaign finance violations, the Marc Rich pardon, the Travelgate fiasco, Jim Guy Tucker going to jail over Whitewater, "depends what is, is," the suspension of Mr. Clinton's law license. I mean, you don't even have to mention Lewinsky and Paula Jones to have a plateful of questionable activities.

So I'm not buying the witch-hunt deal. And remember, the worst attorney general in history, Janet Reno, killed most of the investigations into these problems.

Now Bill Clinton prefers to look at his accomplishments and uses those to rationalize the other stuff. That's a human trait—most of us rationalize in that way. So he's never going admit that his lack of personal discipline and his ruthless desire to win brought many of his ethical problems on himself.

Mr. Clinton should take comfort in knowing that millions of Americans still think he did a good job despite all the controversy. But the president's ego overrides that solace. He wants us to think he's a victim. Are you buying it?

And that's "The Memo."