Two years ago, Matt Maupin was a typical American young man.

He worked at Sam's Club.

He was attending college, majoring in nutritional science.

He worked out at Powerhouse Gym.

He had a dog named Fibi.

He drove a Mustang.

And in February, 2004, he was deployed to Iraq with the 724th Transportation Company.

Six weeks later, on April 9, 2004, he was guarding a civilian convoy that was ambushed by so-called insurgents -- terrorists, to call them by their proper name -- and was captured. He is the only American to have been captured in Iraq.

The Pittsburgh Times-Review has a great piece about the Maupin family and their experiences over the last year-and-a-half. I encourage you to read it.

I also encourage you to copy my little PhotoShop project above and put it on your site.

For we must never forget Matt Maupin, a typical American young man, who fell into the hands of the enemy while fighting for this country and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

And we must make sure that Sgt. Matt Maupin returns home with honor -- an American hero.

Posted by: Greg at 06:01 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Debbie Gamblin of the Clarion-Ledger offers her suggestion of what the author of the Declaration of Independence would think of the current state of America and the Crusade Against Islamist Terror.

As to the liberal columnist wondering what forefathers like Thomas Jefferson would think of America today, they would be horrified to think that nine unelected men and women have savaged our Constitution and distressed that the rhetoric being used by the terrorists and the Democrats in this country are virtually the same.

Finally, they would be proud that America has a strong leader in President George W. Bush who does not govern by polls, but by principles and conviction much like those on which America was founded.

Posted by: Greg at 04:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Let me begin by saying I have long been a fan of historian Niall Ferguson. Here is the sort of analysis that leads me to view him as such a gem, pulled from his critique of Nobel Literature Laureate Harold Pinter's recent anti-American screed.

Nobody pretends that the United States came through the Cold War with clean hands. But to pretend that its crimes were equivalent to those of its Communist opponents - and that they have been wilfully hushed up - is fatally to blur the distinction between truth and falsehood. That may be permissible on stage. I am afraid it is quite routine in diplomacy. But is unacceptable in serious historical discussion.

So stick to plays, Harold, and stop torturing history. Even if there was a Nobel Prize for it, you wouldn't stand a chance. Because in my profession, unlike yours - and unlike Condi's, too - there really are "hard distinctionsÂ… between what is true and what is false".

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberty points out the price of protesting against the government in Red China.

During the demonstration Tuesday in Dongzhou, a village in southern Guangdong province, thousands of people gathered to protest the amount of money offered by the government as compensation for land to be used to construct a wind power plant.

Police started firing into the crowd and killed several people, mostly men, villagers reached by telephone said Friday. The death toll ranged from two to 10, they said, and many remained missing.

For some reason the world is silent. I guess that being a repressive communist dictatorship means never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Would you be permitted to leave the store without paying sales tax on your purchases? No -- and the store would be prosecuted if it failed to collect the tax.

Will the gas station deduct all the taxes from your gasoline purchase and permit you to leave without paying the full price on the pump, just because you object> Again, no -- and you would be stopped if you tried to leave the station without paying.

And we won't even get into what would happen if your employer stopped taking out taxes from your paycheck and you refused to pay income taxes.

Why, then, is this allowed to continue?

For Seattle peace activist Bert Sacks, the monthly act of resistance adds up to only 59 cents. Symbolically, however, refusing to pay the "war tax" on his Qwest phone bill represents a pocketbook protest against what he sees as misuse of U.S. military power.

"I object to the U.S. government policy of using famine and epidemic as tools against civilian populations. That's wrong," says the retired engineer, who has fought for a decade to get economic sanctions against Iraq lifted.

Sacks is one of thousands of Americans believed to be refusing to pay the federal taxes attached to their monthly phone bills -- money that helps fund military operations overseas.

Many are taking the step as a protest against the war in Iraq. And in many cases, the phone companies are helping them do it.

"We oppose the policies of 'pre-emptive war' and an 'endless' war on terrorism, which led to the Iraq war, which violate human rights and international law, and which have cost us hundreds of billions of dollars while our states and cities face unprecedented deficits, and cutbacks of vital services and programs," reads the statement on a Web site called hanguponwar.org.

And yes, phone companies are actively participating by waiving the tax and dropping it from the bills of those who ask.

Qwest Communications International Inc., which provides local phone service to most of the Seattle area, thinks the excise tax is "a silly tax that should go away," company spokeswoman Shasha Richardson said.

The Denver-based company said it adjusts customers' bills to remove the excise tax. It then complies with IRS Publication No. 510, Richardson said.

That publication requires providers of local, toll or private communications services to impose and collect a 3 percent tax on services rendered. If customers fail to pay it, the companies must give the IRS a list of those customers' names and addresses, the services provided, the dates and the amounts the customers owed.

Some phone companies may repeatedly insist that the money is due. Others, such as Qwest, make it easy for the protester.

"We believe this is an illegal tax, and we would support any legislation that repeals it," said John Britton, a spokesman for AT&T.

He said AT&T will routinely eliminate federal excise taxes from customers' monthly bills if asked to do so in writing.

"We'll go into our system and make an adjustment," Britton said. "But we will have to report you to the government."

For its part, Cingular Wireless sends a letter to tax-resisting customers agreeing that the federal excise tax is "antiquated and discriminatory" and that it has "has far outlived its purpose."

"Please be aware, however," Cingular's letter warns, "that as required by law, Cingular Wireless will report your non-payment, and provide your name, address, amount of tax written off to the IRS."

Cingular, MCI and Verizon Wireless all say they adjust customers' monthly bills to write off the federal excise tax on a regular basis.

The companies above are clearly complicit in the criminal activity. Why are they not being prosecuted -- and in the case of the wireless companies, why are their frequencies not being taken back?

And what is this "illegal tax" garbage that is being put out by AT&T?

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that the government is also failing to go after those who refuse to pay. One woman reportedly has not paid since the Reagan Administration.

Tax evasion and conspiracy to evade taxes. Should be grounds for a nice long prison sentence -- and a fine that will more than cover back taxes and the cost of prosecution.

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 5 kb.

Sait appears that too many of those in positions of influence within the Democrat Party are more concerned about electoral success than the good of the nation.

Sen. Joe Lieberman's staunch stay-the-course defense of President Bush's Iraq policies isn't winning him any friends among fellow Democrats.

Lieberman's pro-war views may be winning him praise from a grateful White House, but some Democratic colleagues see him as undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.

"He's doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign," said Ken Dautrich, a University of Connecticut public policy professor. "It's Lieberman being Lieberman. And it's frustrating for people trying to put a Democratic strategy together."

Gee -- one politician's support for victory on the Iraqi front of the Crusade Against Islamist Terror hurts the party's chance of success? I take it, then, that the leadership is really seeking to cast the Democrats as the party of retreat and surrender

Posted by: Greg at 03:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not a big fan of zero-tolerance policies, but I see this one as spot-on. What these girls did not only broke school rules, but endangered themselves and others.

Six of the 10 varsity cheerleaders at Clear Lake High School have been removed from the squad for drinking alcohol and sent to an alternative education center.

The names of the cheerleaders were not released because of privacy laws, said Karen Permetti, spokeswoman for the Clear Creek school district.

Nancy Parker, who has served as an officer for the cheer squad's booster club, declined to comment.

While declining to discuss the specific incident, Kelly Worley, whose daughter Nicole remains on the cheerleading team, stressed, "Those removed from the squad were all really good girls. I know them personally. They are honor students from good families and did a lot for school leadership."

In addition, she said, the Clear Lake cheerleading team as a whole is a group of talented athletes whose dedication to hard work has earned them a national title.

Last year, the squad won the national championship in the Big Apple Classic in New York City and later was featured on CBS' The Early Morning Show, Permetti said.

I live in CCISD, and the local kids go to Clear Lake High School. The school board adopted a policy for those who represent the school, and I support it. If you want to be on the team or squad or other extracurricular, you have to conduct yourself properly at all times.

In support of its "zero tolerance" policy, the school board this year passed a code of conduct for extracurricular activities that expanded penalties for the use, sale or distribution of drugs or alcohol during school functions to even non-school related events off campus.

"There was a feeling that student leaders ought to be held to a standard or we ought not make them leaders. They need to accountable," said Joanna Baleson, an at-large district trustee.

The regulation requires that first offenders, such as the cheerleaders, be suspended from the squad and all other extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year or calendar year, which ever is longer.

A second offense would result in a permanent ban from such activities.

The regulation stipulates the offenders must be moved from the regular classroom to an alternative education center for 30 days. Such centers provide instruction and counseling outside of regular classes in a more strict, structured setting.

Now I might quibble about the alternative school placement. That is't appropriate for out-of-school conduct. Nut inthis case, the alcohol use isn't in a party setting.

The two cheerleading sponsors, Kathy Thiessen and Amy Lardie, were unaware that alcohol was consumed on a school bus before the Nov. 4 football game against Bellaire High School, authorities said.

An unidentified tipster alerted a high school administrator that some of the cheerleaders may have been "under the influence" during the Bellaire game.

The district wants to enforce an alcohol-free environment for cheerleaders who are performing potentially dangerous flips and lifts, authorities said.

They were drinking on a school bus on the way to a school event, and were consuming a substance that increased the risk of injury to themselves or their fellow cheerleaders. That is thoroughly unacceptable, and justifies a harsh action being taken.

I am curouos, though, how it was that the sponsors didn't know that the girls had been drinking. How well supervised were the girls? How closely were they observed before being permitted to perform?

In the end, I applaud those involved in this case for taking the right steps to carry out a an appropriate policy to maintain discipline and student safety.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

And yet we continue to welcome such folks in the Western world.

THE eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the "promiscuous" teenage girls.

MSK, 27, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that this was because the girls did not wear headscarves, were drinking alcohol and were unaccompanied when they went to his Ashfield home. MSK also blamed his intoxication, "cultural beliefs" and an undiagnosed mental disorder.

Lock him away for as long as you can -- he is clearly too dangerous to ever return to society.

Posted by: Greg at 05:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

These clueless Spaniards think that Cindy Sheehan is going to "shake" the US Embassy? Who do they think they are kiding?

US pacifist Cindy Sheehan, "Mother Courage," will participate, along with the Couso family, in a demonstration in front of the US embassy in Madrid, rally organizers said on Thursday.

The organization Colectivo de Hermanos, Amigos y Compañeros de José Couso in Madrid said in a communiqué sent to Prensa Latina that on December 16 and 20, Sheehan, Juan Torres, Beatriz Zaldívar and Pilar Manjón will participate in the protest held every week in front of the embassy.

Cindy Sheehan and other mothers of US soldiers killed in the war are the founders of the organization Gold Star Families for Peace. Sheehan lost her son Casey in Iraq in April 2004.

During her visit to Spain, adds the press release, Sheehan will take part in several public events, in some of which she will be accompanied by María Isabel Permuy, the mother of the Spanish TV cameraman José Couso, who was assassinated by a US tank in Baghdad in April 2003.

Also present at the events will be Juan Torres, the father of a US soldier killed in Afghanistan in July 2004, and Beatriz Zaldívar, the aunt of Daniel Torres, another US soldier killed in Iraq in February 2005.

Maribel Permuy, Cindy Sheehan, Juan Torres or Pilar Manjón, who lost a son in the terrorist attacks on Madrid on March 11, are united by the pain of losing their beloved ones and their determination to fight for Peace and Justice, says the communiqué.

The woman has nearly fallen off the radar in this country, and represented an extreme view even among the Left. Why on Earth will the Embassy even care if the woman shows up in Spain -- unless she needs to have her passport replace?

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

They did it again, shutting down freedom of speech on a college campus. The current victim (other than the US Constitution and the rights of every American citizen) was Ann Coulter, best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and mainstream political commentator.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.

Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several student groups. About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.

No, Eric you moron, you clearly do not encourage diverse opinion at UConn -- other wise you and your anti-civil -liberties goon-squad would have graciously permitted Ms. Coulter to say her piece. Instead, you carve out an exception to the notion that people have a right to speak on political and social issues by calling ideas you don't like "hate speech." What, exactly, was hateful? I doubt you could point to anything.

And what about the rights of Ms. Coulter and your fellow students to explore ideas with wich you disagree. You know, people like this classmate.

UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter.

"It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.

That's right, they don't count -- they are part of the problem of "hate speech" that you have to wipe out, even if it kills freedom of speech in the process.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

1 you can't be fucking serious, has anyone on the left said anything as horrific as Coulter the cunt? (as she is so lovingly called by The Rude Pundit) Maybe there have been some, but no one with the media exposure the this stupid tweat gets.

Posted by: I'm an effin left-wing traitor at Thu Dec 8 11:25:50 2005 (Sfcu+)

2 Actually, I haven't encountered anything "horrific" out of Ann COulter -- and even if I had, that would not negate her right to freedom of speech and the right of her audience to hear her.

As for the Left, I diret you to the hateful comments of Cindy Sheehan and Ward Connerly, for starters -- not to mention the current brouhaha in the Surrendercrat Party.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 11:37:12 2005 (uXfhz)

3 It's hard to imagine that anybody is more disgusted by Coulter and her brand of inflammatory attention-begging than I am, but I have to agree that IF this story has a shred of truth to it (a big IF wherever Coulter is involved), then the morons at UConn who participated deserve all the abuse you can dish out. But, somehow, I suspect the facts are not quite what is being spread right now.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 8 13:54:58 2005 (aSKj6)

4 Unless you think she managed to get to the wire-service to present the facts with a pro-Ann slant, I don't see how you can think there is some slanted version floating around.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 14:45:19 2005 (sC23U)

5 Well, reading the story you link to, it doesn't say that she was shouted down or that the students prevented her from doing her speech. If it's just a matter of a few boos, then who cares, and the people who are trying to make it into a bigger deal are getting fooled. But, I certainly wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 8 15:07:20 2005 (aSKj6)

6 http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-coulter1208.artdec08,0,2591762.story?&track=rss

This might provide a little more clarity for you regarding what was done to rape free expression at UConn. Wanna reevaluate now?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 22:58:43 2005 (HmynK)

7 Sure - that's a good article from a respectful source, and it sounds like they did shut down her speech, which was the wrong way to deal with her (though she was able to carry on with a Q&A - your choice of the word "rape" is a little overblown).

She is a hateful person, but shutting her message down is wrong. The UConn students who cranked the music should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 9 01:23:05 2005 (aSKj6)

8 I believe the real reason liberals don't like Ms. Coulter is the fact that the Republican/Conservative women are ALWAYS Prettier than the liberal women.

Pelosi/klinton/boxer/sheehan

compared to

Laura Bush/Coulter/Michelle Malkin

I mean come on, there is no comparison.

Ok, that aside, the truth is, if this happened on a conservative campus, not likely, the liberals would be screaming from every tree top about how their rights were oppressed.

Yet it seems it is fine for them to suppress the rights of those with which they disagree.

Seems communism/fascism is alive and well, but under a different political name, liberalism/progresiveness.

Posted by: Scubachris at Fri Dec 9 03:25:12 2005 (AktpP)

9 First and foremost, you are right in that there is such a thing as freedom of speech, and therefore anyone should be able to open their mouths and speak whatever trash they want. That said, allow me to point out some reasons why Coulter has built quite the hate following:

* To New York Observer reporter George Gurley on Oct. 22, 2002, Coulter said “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

* From a 2001 column in the National Review Online, with regards to muslims:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

* In January of 2002 to CPAC she equated being a liberal to being a traitor:
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

There are other examples out there if you wish to find them...

Posted by: Luke at Fri Dec 9 07:26:11 2005 (BHNvD)

10 Actually, I don't see anything wrong with any of those statements -- other than her preferred target.

I would have preferred to see McVeigh hit the UN.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 9 10:32:27 2005 (fI2Yv)

11 Sorry, RWR, you can only get away with talk like that if you're a decent looking whorish blonde who shows a lot of flesh. In other words, you're no Ann Coulter.

But you're kind of cute when you say outrageous things to beg for attention.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 9 16:40:23 2005 (aSKj6)

12 That's an outrage. How dare these students speak over the beautiful and wise Ann Coulter. Those morons must think the First Amendment applies to them as well.

I thought they were in college to educated and they don't realize that freedom of speech doesn't apply those who disagree with the Predisent. Pathetic.

Fortunately there are a few like that last student who understand. Booing and jeering isn't the way to create a respectful enviroment. If they want a respectful enviroment they need to approach things the way ms coulter did; by calling people buffoons and stupid.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 06:45:00 2005 (YAEN3)

13 Would you mind trolling somewhere else, dude? You've yet to make a significant contribution to this site.

And when people behave like stupid buffoons it is appropriate to point that out -- you stupid buffoon.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 10 07:32:28 2005 (YMzHW)

14 I agree! It's completely respectful to call someone a stupid buffoon. I mean, just think WWJD. That's what I do. You think Jesus would let somebody dare disagree with him without slapping them with an insult? OF COURSE NOT.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 08:14:34 2005 (YAEN3)

15 Actually, Jesus called folks fools and vipers on a number of occassions.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 10 09:22:06 2005 (YMzHW)

16 Well as I knew you would, you blew off the hateful Coulter/cunt comments as nothing to be upset about. You sir are a clueless fucktard conservative ass hat. Your opinions are not worth one ounce of the fecal matter that the Houston sanitation system flushes into the Gulf of Mexico. You refused to answer my previous question about your fellow clueless fucktard conservative Michael Steele. Maybe because you have no answer other than to denigrate those that disagree with you, and snidely call them "liberal" in as pejorative a manner as you can muster. So all in all, a big go fuck yourself from the blue states that provide your asses with the tax money from the federal government, that you use to keep state taxes low you fucking imbecile.

Posted by: effufuckface at Sun Dec 11 09:17:33 2005 (Sfcu+)

17 I think, Bubba, that you've proved all that needs to be proved about civility from the Left & Right.

You spew vile, hate-filled, intellectually vacant personal attacks.

I call folks "liberals" with a contemptuous tone.

Yet you claim that I am the hate-monger -- especially after referring to a mainstream political commentator and best-selling author with a misogynistic obscenity. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 11 11:38:27 2005 (2i8mE)

18 gxacfb ucjndbo hcou

Posted by: sex at Fri Jun 20 07:45:31 2008 (Fy7gw)

19 hzomjvi fvbrs

Posted by: large labia galleries at Fri Jun 27 23:35:05 2008 (OSZSF)

20 jbicwfa oydsgfr cdvlm calnfq

Posted by: teenies at Fri Jul 4 02:39:04 2008 (8212Q)

21 gqas ankgzs

Posted by: postyourgirls at Sat Jul 5 02:12:41 2008 (kzO74)

22 noicgax

Posted by: princess blueyez at Sun Jul 6 08:10:19 2008 (JcU0m)

23 frise sbdrph

Posted by: anime sex movies at Sun Jul 13 08:17:14 2008 (nVQ0q)

24 dalgv hkjbvts imogtv

Posted by: richardsrealm com at Fri Jul 18 19:36:10 2008 (Ofu1o)

25 ybofwvc aqco

Posted by: lightspeed university at Sat Jul 19 20:25:46 2008 (wMMRd)

26 ywbafne ivbyfx

Posted by: lesbian 69 at Sat Jul 26 14:22:43 2008 (cSTIi)

27 ikyep

Posted by: sex stories post at Sat Jul 26 19:47:07 2008 (MmEcy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A New York appelate court has overturned a lower court ruling that permitted homosexual marriage and ordered that gender specific terms in the state's marriage law be redefined in a manner contrary to legislative intent and their common meaning.

The appeals court judges said state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."

"The role of the courts is `to recognize rights that are supported by the constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes,"' the appeals court wrote, quoting a 2003 decision handed down by a Massachusetts state court.

Now such an argument is sure to upset liberals, who believe that law is whaqt the sours say it is and that a right is a right because liberals say it is.

Furthermore, the panel rejected the trial judge's fundamental re-writing of the state's marriage statute.

The court also criticized the way Ling-Cohan proceeded, saying, "we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."

Judges don't make constitutional law -- the people do.

Not only that, but the court laid out a legitimate state purpose in recognizing only heterosexual marriage.

"Society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing,'' the 55- page majority opinion says. "It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children.''

This is precisely what those of us who support traditional marriage have argued all along -- the recognition of heterosexual marriages only is based upon the experience of society over millenia and the biological connection to parenthood.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

He may not be going to jail, but terrorist supporting prof Sami al-Arian may be going somewhere. More to the point, he is likely to be leaving the US on order of the American government.

Al-Arian, 47, remains in jail, where he's been since his February 2003 indictment, while the federal government decides whether to retry him on the deadlocked charges, which include three key counts accusing him of conspiracy to support the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Officials say there is no timetable for a decision.

If the government decides to abandon the remaining charges, it's doubtful Al-Arian will be permitted to return to his previous life in Tampa. He had been a computer engineering professor at the University of South Florida, but was fired after his indictment.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding him on an immigration detainer and likely will try to deport him if he's released from jail. The agency can deport any foreign national it deems a terrorism risk and is held to a lower burden of proof than the criminal courts.

Al-Arian was born in Kuwait to Palestinian refugee parents and holds permanent residency status in the United States, where he has lived for three decades. He was raised mostly in Egypt. If he is deported it's not clear where he would be sent.

This guy is definitely an undesirable alien -- and as such, has no claim to stay in the US. Frankly, I don't care where he goes, as long as he never spends another free day in this country which he so clearly despises.

Posted by: Greg at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Times has decided to start printing some of the positive things that are going on in Iraq -- things that regularly get ignored or under-reported in this country.

If Washington seems increasingly pessimistic about Iraq these days, Iraqis themselves aren't. In fact, 47 percent of Iraqis surveyed by the International Republican Institute in October said that the country is headed in the right direction (37 percent said it wasn't). That's a higher percentage than last year, when 42 percent of Iraqis thought so (45 percent did not) -- despite the problematic ongoing security problems. Here are some of the underreported reasons why.

• Education. Primary-school enrollment has jumped 20 percent over the Saddam years, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index. In a country where 22 percent of adults never attended school, according to the International Monetary Fund, this is a momentous change. It's also a change going almost entirely unreported by U.S. news organizations. A Lexis-Nexis search for the terms "Iraq" and "school" or "schools" in the last month in the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle turns up 331 articles. None is about schools in Iraq. The terms "Iraq" and "Ministry of Education" show up only four times in the last year. Only one story covered the Iraqi education ministry.

• Gross Domestic Product. Iraq's GDP rebounded by an estimated 50 percent in 2004, according to the IMF, mostly due to increased oil revenues. About one-third of Iraqis are unemployed -- an alarming rate -- but this is sigificantly better than two years ago, when half or more of Iraqis were unemployed. A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the terms "Iraq" and "GDP" or "Gross Domestic Product" appeared together in the above papers in just 10 articles in the last month. Only two actually discussed Iraq's GDP.

None of which readers of major American newspapers would know unless they consult other sources.

Bravo for pointing out that the many of the biggest failures of the war in Iraq have very little to do with the policy of the Bush Administration or its implementation by the heroes in Iraq -- they are the repeated failures of the American media to fully and accurately report what is going on in that country and that the current policy is, essentially, a success.

Posted by: Greg at 04:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

When you put the government in charge, you are sure to get less than optimal results.

Take this as an example of what the British health system is like.

One of the most decorated British fighter pilots of the Second World War has sold his medals, diaries and other memorabilia partly to pay for a hip replacement operation for his wife who faced at least a six-month wait on the National Health Service.

Sqn Ldr Neville Duke, 83, the Royal Air Force's top-scoring ace in the Mediterranean theatre who set a world air speed record of 728 mph in 1953, put the collection up for auction rather than subject his wife Gwen to months of pain and discomfort while she waited for an operation.

The standard waiting time for hip replacements in the orthopaedic department at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, one of the nearest facilities to the Dukes' home, is six months.

The couple was told that the wait might be up to 15 months -- an eternity for those in serious pain.

So much for the thanks of a grateful nation.

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

The secularist war against Christmas continues.

Our first report is from the Tennessee front.

According to a statement from ADF, the controversy arose when Brandi Chambless, a member of the music ministry at Broadmoor Memphis Church, submitted an announcement for display on the library's community shelves regarding the church's upcoming Christmas show. Library officials accepted the announcement but told Chambless that she would have to remove the "inappropriate" figures of the baby Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the wise men from an accompanying nativity scene and limit it to farm animals alone.

"Now we've got a bunch of barnyard animals in our display. We've got a sheep, a goat, a cow," Chambless said last night on the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor." "We just think it's the most ridiculous thing."

Secularist forces scored two victories against pro-Christmas forces in Washington State public schools.

Two suburban school districts have had to do some backtracking over holiday religious issues, one for lunch menus with the words "Merry Christmas" and the other for a "giving tree."

In Federal Way, between Seattle and Tacoma, December lunch menus for all 23 elementary schools were recalled and reprinted with the words "Happy Holidays" at a cost of $494 after a new nutrition services employee mistakenly prepared them with the greeting "Merry Christmas," spokeswoman Diane Turner said.

The 11,500 misworded calendar-style menus were never distributed and were recycled, Turner added.

Using "Merry Christmas" on the menus violated school system policies because "it has a religious connotation for some people," Turner said.

"Our objective is to provide information to the diversity of the people that we have in our district," she said. "We try to respect each individuals point of view."

In tony Medina, east of Lake Washington, a Christmas-style tree bearing mittens labeled with gift ideas was up for about a week at Medina Elementary School before it was removed, office manager Chris Metzger said.

The idea was for pupils to take a mitten, get the listed gift, wrap it and bring it to school to be given to someone at Lake Hills Elementary School in a less well-off section of neighboring Bellevue.

Some parents had put up the spiral, lighted tree with a star at the top, but it was removed Monday after another parent complained that it had religious connotations, Metzger said. The mittens were transferred to a counter in the office so the gift program could continue.

"We covered the star and called it a giving tree. We hoped it would suffice, but it didn't," Metzger said. "Now we just have a giving counter."

Young children were saved from the the mention of the C-word on a school menu and the presence of a seasonal symbol that has been rled secular by the courts.

I'm curious -- how much more of this insanity will the 90% of Americans who mark Christmas take before fighting back against the forces of anti-Christian secularism?

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds more like a case of fraud than a case of assault?

A college professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he derided Christian conservatives said he was beaten by two men along a rural road early Monday.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said the men referred to the class when they beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object, the Lawrence Journal-World reported.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."
Messages left by the Associated Press on Mirecki's cell phone were not immediately returned.

Sheriff's Lt. Kari Wempe said Mirecki reported the attack just before 7 a.m.

The professor said he confronted the men after they were tailgating his vehicle along a road south of Lawrence. "I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he said.

Now tell me, how many folks stop their vehicles and get out in order to confront a tailgater? Very few – and none with even a modicum of common sense. You make way for them to pass – and call the police if their behavior is particularly outrageous.

No, this sounds like an ersatz “hate crime” designed to discredit Mirecki’s critics and bolster his own standing at a time when he is under fire from all sides.

UPDATE: Looks like I may not be alone inhaving some doubts about this case. Michelle Malkin has some documents related to the case and a few observations. Also commenting are Brainster's Blog, Sean Gleeson, The Moderate Voice, Classical Values, Telic Thoughts, Doc Rampage, Total Drek, Tony's Kansas City

UPDATE -- 12/10/05: More at Hennessy's View (four, in fact) and Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Greg at 08:44 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 3 kb.

One British paper is reporting that Harry Potter may die at the end of Book 7.

HARRY Potter may die in the next book in the series because author JK Rowling wants to kill him off, it was claimed last night.

Actor Jim Dale - the voice of the teenage wizard in the US audio books - believes the seventh and final instalment will spell the end for Harry.

He made the astonishing claim after meeting with the writer to discuss his characterisation of the parts.

The revelation will shock millions of die-hard Potter fans.

He said: "She's lived with Harry Potter so long she really wants to kill him off." Predictions about the fate of Harry in the seventh book have enthralled millions worldwide.

No name or publication date have yet been released, although it is expected by early 2007 at the latest.

I would hope that Rowling has the sense not to kill off her hero. Conan Doyle tried that, throwing Sherlock Holmes into the falls with Moriarty, only to contrive his return in the face of popular outrage. The boy wizard has captured the public imagination like no other fictional character in my lifetime – I would hope that Rowling would leave open the possibility of some sequel by letting Harry survive. Even if there is no sequel, the very act of allowing a “happily ever after” ending will keep alive the series’ underlying theme of home in the face of adversity.

On a ligheter (?) note, Captain Ed offers some insights into how the book might end in the hands of an author other than JK Rowling.

On the other hand, we could also explore what others might do to justify Harry's death. Suppose, for example, that Rowling let Howard Dean write the last volume. We could then get treated to Voldemort as a misunderstood victim, or perhaps a bad guy but no worse than the arrogant and arbitrary Albus Dumbledore, who tried to control the wizarding world just as surely as Tom Riddle. Why, Dumbledore taught Voldemort almost everything he knew! And the Ministry of Magic spent years denying Voldemort's danger, so obviously they are to blame for all that has happened, not the evil wizard (as if there is any such thing as evil). Harry, therefore, is little more than a fool that chose the wrong horse and got himself killed for it. Good thing, too, because if he survived, he would get blamed for all the deaths that occurred just because he found it necessary to oppose Voldemort.

Now that would make one creepy ending for a delightful series.

Yes, it would be creepy, Ed – But surely no one could be so lacking in moral fiber as to believe that the war between good and evil is lost simply because a modest but rising death toll accompanies each victory over the evildoers.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

I love how the Washington Post spun this one on its homepage.

Tex. Judge Upholds Key Charges Against DeLay

Interestingly enough, that isn't really true. The conspiracy charge, the easiest to prove under Texas law, has been thrown out. Not to mention that the excluded charge was the only charge that the grand jury which investigated the case brought. Those that remain are more difficult to prove and were part of Ronnie Earle's "do-over" strategy that involved grand jury shopping and tampering to shore up a case that has been collapsing since the original indictment was brought.

So what happened today?

A judge dismissed a conspiracy charge Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the far more serious allegations of money-laundering, dashing the congressman's hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

Texas Judge Pat Priest, who is presiding over the case against the Republican, issued the ruling after a hearing late last month in which DeLay's attorney argued that the indictment was fatally flawed.

***

The ruling means the case will move toward a trial next year, though other defense objections to the indictments remain to be heard by the judge.

Yes, the other motions could result in the dismissal of the remaining charges.

The judge has yet to rule on a defense bid to move DeLay's trial out of liberal, Democratic-leaning Austin and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. DeGuerin accused the district attorney of shopping the DeLay case around to different grand juries until he found one that would indict the congressman.

As I pointed out earlier, there is substantial basis for href="http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/124724.php">finding prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Ronnie Earle.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Lone Star Times,Martin's Musings, Conservative Outpost, Blogs for Bush, Super Fun Power Hour, Oblogatory Anecdotes, GOPBloggers, bRight and Early, Iowa Voice

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 4 kb.

I pass near to her each day, travelling to and from work.

I've seen her declining over the years.

Now there may be a way to save her.

She is the Bstate's last surviving veteran of both world wars

She is a welcome friend and a formidible foe.

She is a battleship.

She is USS Texas.

The Battleship Texas may soon win a battle that few warships survive.

The nearly century-old dreadnought could be raised from the water and displayed permanently in a dry berth to stop rust from eating its hull.

"Rust is the ship's enemy," said Barry Ward, director and curator of the Battleship Texas State Historic Site. "The drier it is, the better it is."

Commissioned in 1914 and a combat veteran of both world wars, the oft-decorated battlewagon rests at the confluence of Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto River near the Houston Ship Channel. It was moored there in 1948 after the U.S. Navy decommissioned it and gave it to the state.

It serves as a floating museum at the San Jacinto Battleground State Historical Park and is operated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Help save this piece of American maritime history.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

I live in Harris County, Texas, just outside of Houston. I work for a local school district, and pay property and sales taxes. I also pay a fair amount of cash each month for my district's healt insurance.

Imagine my anger when I came across this bit of information in a Houston Chronicle article on the difficulties faced by illegal immigrants who are in this country in violation of our laws. Look at the medical benefits they get!

For herself, Francisco, Ivonne and Gabriela, the family relies on the Harris County Hospital District's Gold Card for medical needs.

For every office visit they pay $5 and every emergency room visit $25.

It takes them awhile to get an appointment, but they are nevertheless grateful to at least have that.

It costs my wife and I $25 to see our general practitioner, and $45 to see a specialist. It costs us 30% of the ER charges if there is an emergency. And I have to wait for appointments, too. I'm willing to suspect that they pay less for prescriptions than we do, too.

Now tell me, is there somethign wrong with me for being outraged by the fact that a family of border-jumping immigration criminals has better and cheaper health care than I do -- especially since I pay for both mine and theirs?

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’d love to find out more about this case, which seems to recognize that the religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution is at least as important as statutory non-discrimination provisions protecting homosexuals.

A United States appeal court has backed two fertility doctors who refused to treat a lesbian patient because it would have violated their religious beliefs.

The woman, Guadalupe Benitez, sued the doctors after she was turned down for artificial insemination in 1999. She claimed that on her first visit to the women's clinic in a suburb of San Diego, California, one of the doctors, Christine Brody, told her that she would not perform the procedure on a lesbian because of her faith.

She was initially told that another doctor at the clinic would perform the procedure but after nearly a year of being put off, Ms Benitez alleges that Dr Brody told her nobody in the four-person clinic would treat her. The other doctor named in the suit is Douglas Fenton.

The appeal court ruling allows the doctors to use religious liberty as a defence in the anti-discrimination lawsuit. The decision overturned a lower court ruling.
The case has been closely watched across the US - testing as it does the overlapping rights of the increasingly political religious community and the gay community. The California Medical Association and the Christian Medical and Dental Association joined in the doctors' defence.

Now I do have some qualms here.

First, I do not like the way in which the Ms. Benitez was seemingly strung along. The practice should have been up-front about their position on the issue.

Second, I assume that the decision limits the right to refuse treatment to only elective procedures or non-critical treatments. There is a moral duty to protect life that would certainly override any religiously based preference to avoid treating individuals whose lifestyle contradicts one's beliefs.

But the broader point – that professionals do not surrender their rights under the First Amendment by accepting a license to engage in their profession – is an important one.

HERE'S MORE: From How Appealing.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

This sounds intriguing. Not only will Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff be anchoring the news for the network, but they are changing how news is delivered.

Westin also announced that beginning Jan. 3, the 6:30 p.m. ET, 8:30 p.m. ET (5:30 p.m. PT) and 9:30 p.m. ET (6:30 p.m. PT) feeds would all be anchored live each night by Vargas and Woodruff. In addition to the anchored portions, reporter packages will be updated with the latest news for each feed. The change means that for the first time viewers in major markets like Los Angeles and San Francisco will always see a live evening newscast.

Also beginning Jan. 3, "World News Tonight" will produce a live daily Webcast anchored by Vargas and Woodruff. The Webcast will include a brief update of the day's top stories with a preview of that evening's "World News Tonight" broadcast and will air live on ABC News Now, ABCNEWS.com and will be distributed wirelessly. This marks the first time an evening newscast has produced a unique program for the Internet audience.

"World News Tonight" will also significantly increase its presence on ABCNEWS.com with distinct content programmed specifically for the Internet audience. The redesigned World News Tonight section at wnt.abcnews.com will provide:

In a first, "World News Tonight" correspondents and anchors' reporting will be available throughout the day, even before the broadcast.

Interactive presentations, additional video and in-depth information relating to stories aired or airing on "World News Tonight," in the "Broadcast Plus" portion of the site.

Extended-play versions of select high-impact anchor packages and special reports.

Unaired portions of interviews with newsmakers and ABC News contributors.

Round-the-clock updates on the latest news.

The Blue Sheet — the broadcast's daily blog, with contributions from Vargas, Woodruff and WNT producers and writers, stimulating conversation, provoking thought, and demystifying the process of putting the broadcast together.

"Now 'World News Tonight' will always be on," said Jon Banner, executive producer of "World News Tonight." "We are revolutionizing the way the evening news is delivered — the broadcast will no longer be confined to the evening, no longer limited to television and now will be live to the West Coast."

Welcome to the neighborhood, folks.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

Howard Dean, whose medical deferment confined him to the ski slopes during Vietnam, has announced that the Democrats are coalescing around a “Cut-And-Run NOW!” policy in Iraq, because, after all, Iraq is just like Vietnam.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Or was it because Congressional Democrats didnÂ’t have the will to allow the President at the time to implement the strategies necessary to win the war?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Surely the Houston Texans couldn't blow a lead in the final seconds of a game two weeks in a row.

Could they?

A game filled with blunders, fumbles and penalties ended in familiar fashion for the Houston Texans.

Matt Stover kicked a 38-yard field goal with 6 seconds left, giving the Baltimore Ravens a 16-15 victory over the bumbling Texans today.

Kris Brown's fifth field goal with 1:08 to go to put Houston in position for its second win of the season. But for the second straight week, the Texans (1-11) let a seemingly certain victory get away.

Speaking as a guy with season tickets (Section 541, Row M), I hope Dom Capers is packing and that Casserly and McNair are already looking at how to use that #1 draft pick.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Columnist Vin Sprynowicz offers the following suggestion on how to end the all too common problem of cops shooting off duty cops -- especially black off-duty cops.

Instead of disarming off-duty cops so the police can continue to feel free to shoot anyone out of uniform who they see with a gun (especially if he's black), why not alter police training as follows?

"This is an armed nation. Twenty-five percent of your fellow 'civilians' own firearms, and have a God-given right to carry them around. Except for writing traffic tickets for revenue, they have just as much right to chase and apprehend a fleeing felon -- or to present a weapon in defense of themselves or others -- as you do. This includes black folks. Get used to it.

"So, even though it may initially seem to make our jobs harder, let's stop hassling people when we perceive they have guns. If a call comes in reporting a 'man with a gun,' let's ask whether the man is brandishing or threatening anyone, and otherwise advise the caller that being armed is not a crime.

"And, particularly, let's stop shooting people who draw their guns when they're being assaulted. Yes, pausing those extra few seconds may sometimes put your own life in danger. This is still a less-dangerous job than hard-rock mining or fishing in Alaska, and you volunteered for it."

The right to keep and bear arms has been present in the US Constitution for over two centuries. It is time for the police to quit treating those who exercise it like criminals.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

They cost $25 a pop and are available only at Walmart -- and have been flying off the shelves.

What are they?

The Garth Brooks boxed set.

The country's biggest- selling album is available at only one retailer, and it's being considered No. 1 only because the retailer says so.

Wal-Mart, which inked an exclusive deal with Garth Brooks this summer, says it sold half a million copies of the six-disc "Limited Series Boxed Set" through pre-orders and one day of store sales (Nov. 25), outpacing the disc that Nielsen SoundScan reported as the chart-topper, System of a Down's "Hypnotize."

Wal-Mart chose to bypass the SoundScan system entirely by not putting a scan code on the $25 boxed set.

SoundScan, the music industry's official sales tallying company since 1991, creates two charts weekly -- one that goes to Billboard magazine and does not include exclusives such as the Brooks box, and a "comprehensive" chart that includes all sales. An Alanis Morissette disc released this year at Starbucks first, for example, was not included in the Top 200 until it was available at multiple retailers.

Wal-Mart was rather dodgy with sales info about the Brooks "Limited Series Boxed Set," which comprises the albums "Sevens," "Scarecrow," "Double Live" and "The Lost Sessions" plus the DVD "All Access."

The retailer would not disclose the exact number sold nor the number of boxes available for sale, noting they don't give out sales figures for any merchandise. A company spokeswoman says the Brooks set became Wal-Mart's all-time top-selling music item after only three days of sales. Due to its limited run, it is quite possible the set will be sold out by the new year if not Christmas.

While the rest of music industry is aching for results that resemble those of Brooks and Wal-Mart, there's another degree of exclusivity that's helping keep sales limited to the stores: Brooks' tunes are not available for download.

I was there on the morning after Thanksgiving at 0300 hours -- and saw hardly a cart without one .

Garth, I know you promised the girls that you aren't going backout on the road -- but we really want you back, even if only in the form of recorded music and television specials. Country music needs you.

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Guns, Germs, and Moonbats by Right Wing Nut House, and The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005 by American Future.  Here are the full results of the vote.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

At least that was my thought when I first read this headline.

Arkansas Man Scales White House Fence

And may it never be his residence again.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

You have to ask the question, given the position taken by Murtha, Pelosi, and other opponents of the war in Iraq.

The war against terrorism, especially in Iraq, has caused many Americans to ask if the cost is worth it. They watch television and read the papers about the casualties and terrorist suicide attacks. The media report daily the number of soldiers killed in Iraq but rarely report the positive events.

What if these same Americans had been around in 1944 and 1945? In 1944, the Marines stormed Iwo Jima in the Pacific. In about five weeks, they had more than 6,000 Marines killed and more than 19,000 wounded. Shortly following that battle, U.S. forces attacked the island of Okinawa, where more than 12,000 military personnel died.

It was at Okinawa that the Japanese unleashed the kamikaze -- suicide attackers who sank or damaged numerous ships. More than 6,000 sailors died in those aerial attacks. I am sure the nation was concerned then, too, about how to deal with people who were intent on dying as long as they took many of their enemy with them.

Scenes of the D-Day landings and the Battle of the Bulge in "Saving Private Ryan" depict the gruesome aspects of combat in 1944-45 probably better than any other film. Our troops soldiered on because they accepted the overwhelming necessity for victory in a just cause.

After all, if 2100 deaths in nearly three years provokes such an outcry from our "Peace At Any Price" friends on the Left, how would they have reacted to Iwo Jima, Okniawa, or Normandy? And would they have demanded an exit strategy and a set withdrawal date had it been necessary to invade the Japanese home islands?

Posted by: Greg at 08:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post doesn't want any more discussion of focus on Democrat racism in the Maryland Senatorial campaign.

Maybe that was inevitable, given the candidacy of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an appealing, relatively conservative black Republican. Mr. Steele, the presumptive GOP nominee, has delighted Republicans and unnerved many Democrats for precisely the same reason -- the chance that he may shave off slices of the Democrats' traditionally solid base of African Americans, who make up more than a quarter of Maryland's electorate. Like black Republican candidates elsewhere, Mr. Steele has been attacked by some black Democrats who suggest -- outrageously -- that the fact of his party membership constitutes a betrayal and an affront to African Americans. As former NAACP chief and congressman Kweise Mfume, himself a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, pointed out in the Washington Times, "Black bigotry can be just as cruel and evil as white bigotry."

It would be naive to think race and racism would not be a factor in the campaign. Last month a liberal black blogger in New York posted a doctored image of Mr. Steele as a minstrel, demonstrating that nauseating racial taunts are alive and well in the blogosphere. In Maryland's 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Steele attended a debate at which Oreo cookies were distributed or tossed (accounts differ) as a slur directed at him. No one has forgotten that in 2001, when Mr. Steele chaired the state Republican Party, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) referred to him as an "Uncle Tom," thereby disgracing only himself; he later apologized for the remark. Moreover, a number of current Democratic candidates -- including Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin in the Senate race and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan in the gubernatorial race -- have, by refusing explicitly to condemn black Democrats for their poisonous comments about Mr. Steele, given the impression that racially tinged political rhetoric is within the bounds of civil debate. It is not.

Which is why, of course, the GOP is so concerned about exposing racism and eradicating it in American political life -- as has been the Party's policy, mandate, and mission since its founding inthe 1850s as a vehicle for stopping the spread of slavery and promoting the emancipation of slaves. It has been the mission of GOP to promote civil rights for African-Americans and promote their election to office, pushing through every major civil rights initiative in the nation's history and breaking ground as the only party to nominate and elect black candidates to national office for decades, until the days of FDR and beyond. It continues to be the mission of the GOP, as it cultivates and nominates highly qualified African-Americans as candidates and appointees to high office based upon their qualifications. And as they have done since the days of Jim Crow and the original nightriders of the KKK, Democrats seek to destroy any uppity Negro who dares align himself with the Republican Party and its platform of full inclusion for all Americans. Why wouldn't we expose real, tangible acts of racim and the racists who promote the ideology of hate?

Still, it would be equally naive to overlook the Republicans' evident satisfaction in keeping the debate focused on race rather than, say, party affiliation or ideological affinity, which can only hurt the GOP in a state where Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 advantage. The Republicans have not manufactured the current furor, but they are exploiting and perpetuating it. After all, it's not the candidates vying for statewide public office in Maryland who have played the race card.

Haven't they? Or rather, haven't their supporters? And given that some candidates for the Democrat nomination refuse to denounce the racist activities and rhetoric of their own supporters, is it not right and proper for that to be made an issue in the campaign? If that is exploitation and perpetuation of the race issue, then I am all for it!

The wisest way out of the racial morass is for all the talking heads to give it a rest. Let cool heads prevail and force the candidates to talk about the most pressing issues facing Maryland and the nation. The debate about Mr. Steele, as about his rivals for the Senate, should be about his record, his beliefs, his abilities and his vision. It should not be about his race. And politicians who insist or consent in making the election about race run the risk of punishment at the polls.

So what i hear you saying, then is that issues of race and racism are not pressing ones, and therefore should not be discussed. You are trying to tell me that the use of racist rhetoric and the hurling of terms like "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" at a candidate are not a concern to the Washington Post. That is rather striking to me.

But none of this is particularly surprising to me. The Washington Post has been little more than an in-house unit -- let's call it an outhouse unit -- of the DNC for years.

And since a continued focus on Democrat racism would be bad for the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow, discussion of racism has got to go.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, those who are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the DNC disagree with the Post.

"I would say to Michael Steele that he should continue to use the race issue to his advantage but not to simply use it the way it has been rolled out there, but to use it in creative ways that might help him to pick up that small group of African-Americans in the state that he's going to need to win," said Ronald Walters, a professor of at the University of Maryland and director of the African-American Leadership Institute.

Posted by: Greg at 07:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 987 words, total size 6 kb.

My latest troll, howard, seems to have fallen into the same trap that too many folks have fallen victim to over the years regarding the Voting Rights Act.

And by the way, have you explained to your students why part of their voting rights( the black ones off course) is going to expire in 2007( we are still talking about this TODAY!)

He is not the first I have met who has fallen under the spell of the seemingly-true urban legend, nor will he be the last. I've had a student in my college-level class wave a flyer distributed at her church in my face while wailing about "Bush wants to keep black people from voting...." I've had high school students engage in a rowdy oration about the issue during a discussion of the importance of voting. I've even received a copy of an email, forwarded to the entire school, from an otherwise level-headed colleague in another department. So I really do not think howard is mentally defective for mentioning this in one of his disjointed, race-baiting, Republican-hating rants. He is just misguided, misled, and misinformed.

Let's look at the claim in the form I've most often seen it, as archived at Snopes.com, that great site for debunking or confirming urban legends.

As everyone should be aware, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voters Rights Act. This was created to allow Blacks the right to vote.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed an amendment to extend this right for an additional twenty-five years. You guessed it . . . In 2007 (ten years from now), Congress will decide whether or not Blacks should retain the right to vote. In order for this to be passed, thirty-eight states will have to approve an extension. For me, as well as many others, this was the first time that we had heard this -- thus, bringing concern to all of us! What many Blacks before us fought and even died for as well as the milestones that we, as Blacks have achieved, this can be taken away from us . . . AGAIN!

If this issue has taken you by surprise as well, I encourage YOU to contact your Congressperson, alderperson, senator — anyone in government, that you put your vote behind and ask them what are they doing to — firstly, to get the extension and furthermore, make our right to vote a LAW. This has to become a law in order for our right to vote to no longer be up for discussion, review and/or evaluation. (Remember: Blacks are the only group of people who require permission under the United States Constitution to vote!)

As Black people, we cannot "drop the ball" on this one! We have come too far to be forced to take such a large step back. So, please let's push on and forward to continue to build the momentum towards gaining equality. Please pass this on to others, as I am sure that many more individuals are not aware of this.

Now this email carries in it a number of fundamental errors, mixed with just enough fact to make it plausible.

To begin with, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not grant any race or ethnicity the right to vote. That right is guaranteed in the Fifteenth Amendment.

AMENDMENT XV

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So you see, the right to vote is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a STATUTORY one. Clause 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment is the relevant section that guarantees that right.

Clause 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the right guaranteed by the preceeding clause. That is where the Voting Rights act of 1965 enters into the picture -- just not in the way the email would have folks believe.

We all know the sad history of race relaitions and oppression in the southern states where, under the rule of the racist Democrat Party, virtually all civil rights were denied to African-Americans for decades. Federal legislation protecting the voting rights of blacks was repealed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Grover Cleveland. In 1964, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment barred poll taxes, but left in place many of the other tactics used to deny the right to vote. As a result, legislation was passed in 1965 to allow for federal action to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment right to vote.

The measures contained in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fell into two categories. Portions of the legislation -- with no expiration date -- were intended to ensure that blacks (as well as other minority groups) could fully participate in the electoral system free from discrimination.

Other provisions were set to expire in five years. These were a set of truly heroic measures designed to force the registration of minority voters and their access to the polls, including authorizing the deputizing of federal voter registrars, the placement of federal election observers, and the requirement that jurisdictions with a history of racial discriminationin voting receive federal preclearance of any changes in voting districs or procedures. They were renewed in 1970, and permitted to expire by the Democrat-controlled Congress and Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1980. In 1982, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed a statute passed by a Congress with control divided between the two parties, extending the "temporary" provisions for another quarter century, until 2007, which leads us to the present situation and the falsehood circulating among many people of good-will, including my commenter.

Now I've already spoken to the issue of whether or not the provisions should be renewed in an earlier post.

Let them expire, or fix them to meet the realities of the present day.

I believe they should be allowed to expire as the authors of the statute intended -- or, barring that, extended to cover every jurisdiction in the United States and not just a few which denied the franchise a generation ago. The current two-tiered system of voting rights enforcement needs to be eliminated. We have, as a society, moved beyond the need for such special measures, despite the attempts of partisan activists to manufacture controversies to justify their own existance. And as the Justice Department points out, any one of the provisions of the VRA could be reinstituted in any area where there is proven contemporary discrimination. But what is clear is that this will in no way constitute the expiration of anyone's voting rights!

So howard, don't worry -- you'll still be able to vote in 2008 for a candidate of the party that enslaved your people and prevented your ancestors from voting or exercising their civil rights for a couple generations afterward, while heaping abuse upon the party that freed your ancestors and overwhelmingly supported every single major piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

LINKED TO: LaShawn Barber, Everyday Thoughts

Posted by: Greg at 06:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1205 words, total size 8 kb.

For the terrorist is the enemy of all humanity.

A little bit of good news on the terrorism front. Al-Qaeda's #3 leader has been killed by a laser-guided missle launched from a Predator drone in Pakistan.

The operational commander of al-Qaida and possibly the No. 3 official in the terrorist organization, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse in Pakistan, officials told NBC News.

Pakistan's president later confirmed the militant leader's death.

“Yes indeed, 200 percent. I think he was killed the day before yesterday if I’m not wrong,” President Pervez Musharraf told reporters as he arrived in Kuwait on an official visit on Saturday.

Whatever criticism I have of Pakistan and its regresive attitude towards the rights of Christians, the Musharraf government is working closely with the US to destroy the terrorist apparatus known as al-Qaeda.

This is not the first such attack seeking to take out Rabia -- several weeks ago an attack missed him but killed ight others, including Rabia's wife and children.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Stop The ACLU, The Jawa Report, Random Numbers, Martin's Musings, OpiniPundit, Ace of Spades, Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 05:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This makes what the twenty-third Al Quaeda # three killed sine lil'boots began his excellent Iraqui adventure?? MOre bullshit from the worst presidency in my 47 years of living.

Posted by: I'm an effin' idiot at Sat Dec 3 09:04:14 2005 (Sfcu+)

2 I've not kept track of the number of #3 al-Qaeda folks killed -- I'm just pleased that the job gives the holder a very short life expectancy.

And as for the "worst president" crap -- did you sleep through Johnson, Carter, AND Clinton? Or did you just drink the Kool-Aid?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 3 09:36:29 2005 (oprAZ)

3 This operation was carried out by Pakistani personnel and was based on Pakistani intelligence efforts, the Americans were limited to providing technical assistance.

Give credit where its due. The US is poor at finding and eliminating terrorists on its own, as Afghanistan and Iraq can demonstrate.

Posted by: Aamir Ali at Sat Dec 3 10:19:31 2005 (UULRx)

4 Well if you must know until this ass-clown was appointed in 2000, I ranked them from worst to least worst:
1) Nixon
2) LBJ
3) Ronzo/Poppy (tie)
5) Ford
6) Carter
7) Ike (even though he was only pres. for my first 36 months)
Bubba Clinton
9) JFK (despite his only being in office for 34 months

Lil' Boots has blown away the competition as far as I am concerned, giving tax breaks skewed to the top 5% of earners was just the first of many fuck-ups. And to think we have to suffer three more years of this imbecile, I said before the last "election" if you want to live in a banana republic just elect the squatter-in-chief.

Oh yeah before you and any of your conservatard readers goes into a hissy-fit, when there is a tie for # 3 there is no # 4 so the list would normally be: 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, and so-on. I was just lazy in making the list

Posted by: I'm an effing shiitehead at Sat Dec 3 10:28:28 2005 (Sfcu+)

5 Well, that proves you have very little historical understanding.

I'll leave Ile off the list -- I wasn't born until 1963 -- and rank them as follows (from worst to best)

1) Carter -- Good man, lousy president. Gave away the Canal and failed to act decisively in Iran.
2) Ford -- Snakebit from Day 1. The pardon of Nixon may, however, have been one of the great acts of courage in American history, as it saved the US from the trauma of a trial of a former president and the subsequent appeals/retrials, which would have impacted American electoral politics for the next decade at least.
3) Nixon -- A great president gone bad. Were it not for the paranoid act of hubris that was Watergate, he would rank much more highly. He has the makings of a Greek tragic hero like Oedipus -- brought low by his own unseen flaw.
4) JFK/LBJ -- Let's see -- Abandoned allies at the Bay of Pigs, nearly blew up the world in Cuba, allowed the Berlin Wall to be erected, got us into a full-scale war in Vietnam that we lacked the need or the will to win, and passed a series of programs that left us financially and socially bankrupt -- but diod get civil rights measures through due to JFK's death and substantial GOP help.
6) Clinton -- Only governed well because he had to follow the lead of a Republican Congress.
7) Bush 41 -- A pity he broke the tax pledge. Governed well otherwise, though reasonable folks can question the decision not to topple Saddam.
Reagan -- I certainly wish he had been able to implement all his platform -- America would be an even better place. As it was, he set the stage for the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I don't know yet where Dubya would fit -- probably on one side of the other of his father, but certainly not ahead of Reagan.

Oh, and I suggest that you read the US Constitution and the decision in Bush v. Gore to understand that Bush 43 was ELECTED, not APPOINTED -- no matter how often the Leftist meme to the contrary is repeated.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 3 11:16:19 2005 (oprAZ)

6 Aamir -- I've seen reports presented both ways.

I'll be quite happy to find out it was Pakastani personnel rather than US technology. Now if those same Pakistani personnel could just bring us Osama'shead on a platter -- with or without a rasher of bacon on the side.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 3 11:18:58 2005 (oprAZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thomas E. Dennely hits a homerun with his piece in todayÂ’s Newsday about the ACLU and Christmas.

As the holiday season gets into full swing - and as sure as the sun rises in the east - the American Civil Liberties Union will soon appear on the scene to remind Americans that there should be no display of religious symbols on public property, for to do so is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Presumably believing that the ACLU is the self-appointed guardian of religious freedom within our nation, it sees no inconsistency when the same ACLU legally supports the members of the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan in using public property to spew their venom. This graphic inconsistency should blow one's mind. It is thoroughly repugnant when the ACLU legally supports such hate mongers in their use of public property, while legally opposing both Christians and Jews doing likewise with Christmas and the Festival of Lights, for example.

Dennely then goes on to point to the many ways in which the very Founders that the ACLU claims would approve their actions took a strikingly different position on the issue of “separation of church and state”. I strongly encourage you to read his column.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

I can’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I canÂ’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Even the passing on of the Christian faith to children is an offense to the Islamists.

Approximately 30 Christian children fled in panic after a mob of Islamic militants raided and vandalized their Sunday school class, which was being held in a private home last weekend in Curug, Indonesia, according to a Christian group called Voice of the Martyrs (VOM).

The violence came less than a month after three teenaged Christian schoolgirls were attacked and beheaded as they walked through a cocoa plantation on their way to school. One girl's severed head was reportedly placed in front of a church, eight miles from where the bodies were found, in what locals viewed as a stark warning to Christians.

VOM reported that in the most recent incident, the mob "terrorized" the children at the Curug Sunday school class and destroyed several desks and chairs, guitars, a keyboard, organ and fan in the classroom. Voice of the Martyrs is a Christian organization that documents persecution of believers.

The children began to flee in panic, according to VOM, after which the mob then allegedly evicted the remaining adults and children from the home "by force" and "sealed" it by plastering posters denouncing the school over the doors of the building.

When will the government of Indonesia act to protect the human rights of its Christian citizens?

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

What other bits of information are school personnel not permitted to disclose to parents, and how are we to know?

A federal judge ruled that a lesbian student can sue her school district and her principal for revealing her homosexuality to her mother.
Charlene Nguon, 17, may go forward with her suit claiming violation of privacy rights, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna ruled in a decision dated Nov. 28 and announced Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Orange County's Garden Grove district had argued that Nguon openly kissed and hugged her girlfriend on campus and thus had no expectation of privacy.

However, the judge ruled that Nguon had "sufficiently alleged a legally protected privacy interest in information about her sexual orientation."

No trial date was set. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

"This is the first court ruling we're aware of where a judge has recognized that a student has a right not to have her sexual orientation disclosed to her parents, even if she is out of the closet at school," said Christine Sun, an ACLU attorney who brought the case.

Now this creates quite a quandary, in my opinion? How are we, as teachers, supposed to know what students have and have not disclosed to parents – especially when information is public in the school setting? After all, this girl was very public about her sexuality at school. And does this same measure of privacy also include other details of a sexual nature, such as a teacher becoming aware that a child is sexually active (but not being abused)? Where are the lines? This ruling leaves me very unsure.

MORE (AND DIVERSE) DISCUSSION AT: American Madness
, My Amusement Park, Boots and Sabers, Althouse, Right on the Left Coast, Pliwood Munkee, Education Wonks, Eyes of Faith, Digital Brownshirt, Left Turn On Rights, Just to the Left, New World Man, Right Side of the Rainbow, The Colossus of Rhodey.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

When an agency of the US government is acting to undermine the elected representatives of the American people, it is time for Congress to investigate, and perhaps abolish, that agency.

Especially when those within the agency -- which is charged with protecting national security and aiding the war effort -- are leaking national security information in a desperate attempt to undermine the war effort.

The Dec. 1 edition of The New York Times carried a story about the damage done to U.S. interests by the revelation that the CIA maintains a number of secret interrogation prisons for terrorists in Europe and elsewhere. ("Reports of Secret U.S. Prisons in Europe Draw Ire and Otherwise Red Faces.") Governments throughout the continent are now demanding explanations from the U.S. Department of State and otherwise strutting their outrage that the U.S. might be kidnapping suspected terrorists from European soil and transferring them to other nations.

How did this bit of classified information become public? It was a leak from within the CIA (to The Washington Post in that case) -- and a breathtaking one at that. Though the agency has been steadily leaking damaging stories about the Bush administration since 9/11, it has now crossed a new threshold with a leak that severely damages CIA activities and arguably harms national security -- all for the sake of crippling George W. Bush.

If the leaking of the name of a stateside non-covert CIA employeeÂ’s name merited investigation, how much more does this violation of national security coming from within the CIA itself?

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I have a little bit different take on the current flap over the military planting pro-American news stories in Iraqi papers. Some want this to be seen as proof that the war is going badly, and that “good news” must be bought.

Richard Edelman, CEO of the Edelman public relations firm, rips the practice as "utterly unacceptable behavior" and told the Poynter Institute that it is "a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media."

Here's a journalism lesson: If they're buying fake news, the real news must be really bad.

Others want to call it undermining journalistic ethics.

But I see it as a simple use of propaganda to help bring victory. If it were possible to slip some truthful coverage about the war into German newspapers in 1943, would it have been unethical to do so? Or would it have been one more means of undermining the enemy? Heck, what are Voice of America and Radio Marti?

Every bit of good news that brings support to the new Iraqi government also serves to undermine the terrorists. Every word is a bullet, every story a bomb, directed right at al-Zarqawi and his minions. Getting the good news out is key to winning the war. We should not refuse to use the truth as a weapon.

UPDATE: Captain Ed offers a different -- and much more extensive -- take on the story and how the military should have proceeded in this case. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he does have a good point.

This still comes back to building credibility with the Iraqi people. The free press in Iraq is a vitally important part of building the democratic structures necessary to make Iraq into a strong and free ally in the Middle East -- an example of how Arabs can lead themselves, without the traditional strong-man rule of dictator or emir. While exploiting newspapers to surreptitiously get out our point of view might seem like a smart tactical move to counter al-Qaeda propaganda, it's probably a huge mistake strategically in the long run. We're already teaching the Iraqis that their press is nothing more than paid mouthpieces for hidden Powers That Be, feeding into the common Arab predilection for grand conspiracies.

UPDATE 2: More interseting views from Dafydd at Big Lizards.

In other words, the huge "scandal" is that Coalition forces commissioned American soldiers to write "factual" accounts (nobody disputes that they were factual) of military engagements and rebuilding efforts, to counter the malicious lying by the terrorists and the American and international MSM. These accounts were handed to a third party in order to protect the Iraqi newspapers from reprisals by Zarqawi. The stories written by the soldiers were run as ads and paid commentary, which is a normal way to get your message out in Iraq; and they were supposed to have been identified as having been written by American soldiers.

But somehow, attribution didn't always get attached. Who could be responsible for that? Was it deliberate "propaganda," as the Associated Press has taken to calling it?

In fact, the Times even admitted that typically, the stories were identified as adverts, and were sometimes run in special fonts, typographies, and colors. But evidently, not every Iraqi stringer working for the Lincoln Group identified the purchaser as the Coalition when he sold the stories.

In other words, the LA Times even admits that the US military did nothing wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess I have a little bit different take on the current flap over the military planting pro-American news stories in Iraqi papers. Some want this to be seen as proof that the war is going badly, and that “good news” must be bought.

Richard Edelman, CEO of the Edelman public relations firm, rips the practice as "utterly unacceptable behavior" and told the Poynter Institute that it is "a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media."

Here's a journalism lesson: If they're buying fake news, the real news must be really bad.

Others want to call it undermining journalistic ethics.

But I see it as a simple use of propaganda to help bring victory. If it were possible to slip some truthful coverage about the war into German newspapers in 1943, would it have been unethical to do so? Or would it have been one more means of undermining the enemy? Heck, what are Voice of America and Radio Marti?

Every bit of good news that brings support to the new Iraqi government also serves to undermine the terrorists. Every word is a bullet, every story a bomb, directed right at al-Zarqawi and his minions. Getting the good news out is key to winning the war. We should not refuse to use the truth as a weapon.

UPDATE: Captain Ed offers a different -- and much more extensive -- take on the story and how the military should have proceeded in this case. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he does have a good point.

This still comes back to building credibility with the Iraqi people. The free press in Iraq is a vitally important part of building the democratic structures necessary to make Iraq into a strong and free ally in the Middle East -- an example of how Arabs can lead themselves, without the traditional strong-man rule of dictator or emir. While exploiting newspapers to surreptitiously get out our point of view might seem like a smart tactical move to counter al-Qaeda propaganda, it's probably a huge mistake strategically in the long run. We're already teaching the Iraqis that their press is nothing more than paid mouthpieces for hidden Powers That Be, feeding into the common Arab predilection for grand conspiracies.

UPDATE 2: More interseting views from Dafydd at Big Lizards.

In other words, the huge "scandal" is that Coalition forces commissioned American soldiers to write "factual" accounts (nobody disputes that they were factual) of military engagements and rebuilding efforts, to counter the malicious lying by the terrorists and the American and international MSM. These accounts were handed to a third party in order to protect the Iraqi newspapers from reprisals by Zarqawi. The stories written by the soldiers were run as ads and paid commentary, which is a normal way to get your message out in Iraq; and they were supposed to have been identified as having been written by American soldiers.

But somehow, attribution didn't always get attached. Who could be responsible for that? Was it deliberate "propaganda," as the Associated Press has taken to calling it?

In fact, the Times even admitted that typically, the stories were identified as adverts, and were sometimes run in special fonts, typographies, and colors. But evidently, not every Iraqi stringer working for the Lincoln Group identified the purchaser as the Coalition when he sold the stories.

In other words, the LA Times even admits that the US military did nothing wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.