Handing Power to Idiots

My "open letter" to Matee Ajavon and the women of the Rutger's Basketball Team.

Dear Ms. Ajavon,

Congratulations on a wonderful basketball season and to your overwhelming success. I'm sorry it has been overshadowed by this controversy.

A year or so ago the phrase "Speaking Truth to Power" was coined to praise those who dare to tell the truth to the established power, regardless of their personal risk. While I am uncertain who actually used the phrase first, Arianna Huffington used it often to heap accolades on those who dared to carry the anti-war message to the current administration and its enablers.Speaking Truth to Power. Words can have great power.

Sadly, today I'm watching a whole new twist on the speaking truth paradigm. I call it "Handing Power to Idiots."

You see words only have the power of the speaker. And that power is limited by the courage, integrity and moral authority of the speaker.

Does Don Imus have moral authority? Does he have integrity? Has he shown great courage?

He is, as I wrote yesterday in my blog, the real "nappy headed ho" in this story. Imus is an egomaniac who sells his celebrity to curry gifts and favors, money and fame from the rich and powerful.

So when I hear you say, "This has scarred me for life," I am deeply saddened.

Matee, I'm certainly in no position to tell you how you should feel, but I must tell you that Don Imus could call me anything imaginable, any name in the book and I wouldn't be scarred for 1 second. Because I would never give Don Imus that much power.

For Don Imus to scar me I would have to respect him. I would have to look to the I-man for my moral compass. I would actually have to give a rat's ass what he says. And I don't.

I fear that you and your Rutger's teammates are handing Don Imus way more power than he deserves.

I can't tell you what to do or how to act or react. I'm on your side regardless of any decisions you might make.

But, would you like my opinion? If you really want to hurt Don Imus then tell him the truth. Here, speaking the truth could rob him of any power.

Stand up and say, "Who the hell cares what Don Imus says? He is an idiot. I'm going to give him all the time and thought and respect he deserves.... none."

I feel there is one very interesting side note to all this. Years from now everyone will remember the 2007 Rutger's women's basketball team, not just for their great season, for also the courage you've shown today.

You have my best wishes for all your future success.

TECHNORATI TAGS: FREE SPEECH DON IMUS MATEE AJAVON

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

School Yard Bullies and Nappy Headed Ho's

I written often recently about the latest technique being used by various special interest groups to stifle free speech, or, more specifically, stifle speech with which they disagree. Here's just one example I'm chronicled recently.

The key technique used by the special interest group is to warn of some unspecified danger or threat, such as "protests" or "riots" or "boycotts" or "unfavorable press." If you let so and so speak, we can't guarantee the safety of persons attending the speech or the sanctity of the venue or the "reputation" you'll get for sponsoring this hateful (or evil or racist or militant or anti-religious or whatever) person.

A significant portion of the time these threats actually work. A speech is cancelled. A forum is closed. An art exhibit is removed from public view.

This technique has become so successful, it is now used almost every week. And it is used successfully by conservatives and liberals, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and virtually any group that seeks to enhance their position by eliminating competing ideas and all forms of criticism.

A variation of this technique is to attack the speaker or artist or performer with accusations of hate or, most often, religious, sexual, or racial prejudice. Usually the protesters demand the offender by fired, censored or muzzled.

Today the two latest victims are Rosie O'Donnell (offending the conservative right) and Don Imus (offending nearly everyone, but especially the black activist community).

My understanding of Don Imus racially charged remark stems from the fact that at one time or another and in one context or another "nappy headed" refers to the hair texture of many blacks and persons of color (and my ash blond mother-in-law).

"Ho" is easier to define as it is the frequently used slang term for whore, most often heard on literally dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of urban contemporary and rap songs. But "ho" is more complicated. It is also very often used as an alternative to "girlfriend," a slang tern showing some sort of possession and is sometimes used affectionately.

Don't believe me? Just listen to any urban radio station (or Wizard Radio).

In it's most common usage, a whore (or "ho") is someone who sells themselves for some sort of reward. In that sense of the word, Don Imus is a classic whore. He trades his name and good will for all sorts of treats and goodies and he brags about it daily. Someone gave him a flat panel television in exchange for a good mention. Anyone who has listened to Imus for the last 20 years has heard hundreds of such braggadocios claims by the I-man.

Imus is one proud "ho." In fact, looking at his hair, he is one "nappy headed ho."

I'm not here today to defend Don Imus. His free speech isn't threatened. And I love to watch the marketplace of public opinion work its magic. Imus might even lose his job. But he'll get another one.

I'm certainly not here to attack the horrible and obvious hypocrisy of Imus' attackers like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. I'll leave that to the acid tongued and incredibly prolific Mary over at Freedom Eden.

And I'm not even here to defend upside-down Rosie. She's a schoolyard bully riding roughshod over anyone who dares to challenge her unorthodox views on 9/11 or other U.S. conspiracies so secret only Rosie knows about them. But her frequent weird outbursts are driving up ratings for ABC and her free speech isn't threatened either.

But I'm a little worried about my free speech and yours. The attacks on Imus by the racially active left are a continuing step in setting up a "protected class." One group of people protected from most words, phrases or insults or even criticism because of the risk of a racial insult.

Non-blacks cannot use the word "N word" no matter how often they hear it on their favorite rap radio station. Now we all understand the racially charged background of the "N word" and it's use as a racial epithet

But I was appalled to read a blog this week by the civil rights activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson over on The Huffington Post. Hutchinson, in his entry "Why Imus Won't Go" raises the prohibited word barrier to nearly insurmountable heights.

Hutchinson sees racial slander under every rock and behind every tree. Among the code words Hutchinson fears are: "law and order," "crime in the streets," "permissive society," "welfare cheats," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived," "lack of family values," "crime prone," "war zone," "gang infested," "crack plagued," "drug turfs," "drug zombies," "violence scarred," "ghetto outcasts," "ghetto poverty syndrome," "hos," "welfare queens," and "baby makers."

To be certain, depending on the context they are used, any of these terms can characterize any group of people. Frankly, here in the South, I've heard every single term above, without exception, used to refer to whites. And don't forget "white trash."

While Hutchinson is defending the ladies from Rutgers, it seems to me these women are already among our best and brightest. I don't believe for one minute that these athlete scholars need any protection from the likes of Don Imus.

Imus was totally correct when he characterized these ladies as tough and aggressive. They don't need to be a protected class.

And we don't need to tread lightly, with great fear and trepidation, whenever we write or speak or characterize any group of people. Not blacks. Not Catholics. Not Muslims. Not Jews. Not gays. Not women.

I'm not condoning racism. Or any "ism." But I'd sure hate to not be able to use the words "law and order" or "crime in the streets" except when talking about middle aged white guys.

TECHNORATI TAGS: FREE SPEECH DON IMUS ROSIE O'DONNELL

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

71,000,000 Blogs, 0 Radio Stations

We are perhaps as little as 45 days away from losing one of the greatest treasures the world has ever known, Internet Radio.

Even as I write this blog entry hundreds of Internet Radio stations are shuttering their streams. Faced with retroactive royalties in the millions of dollars, many private enthusiasts are facing personal bankruptcy.

These are all music lovers who wanted to share (legally) their vast collections of music with like minded music fans around the world. And, as a general rule, they shared music that is otherwise totally unavailable to the public, except through the lifelong collection of music.

While you personally might not be interested in Polka music from the 1930's or authentic folk music from the Ozarks in the 1920's or the music created by small theaters (and often individual organists) to play during silent films, these are all treasures that today you can hear with the simple click of a mouse.

It's more likely you would enjoy a radio station of all Celtic and Irish music, or all dance/techno/trance tracks or all Christmas music (in April).

However, the RIAA and it's member major record labels see absolutely no value in any of these collections, except as perhaps a historical footnotes in a museum. And they greatly fear the exposure being gained by independent artists who can promote their own music on-line without the benevolent assistance of the RIAA.

The RIAA is outspoken in their desire to eliminate the small and independent broadcaster. The fact that they willing to kill an entire class of broadcasters is tragic. That they are able to do so through large Hollywood contributions to Senators and Congress members is frightening.


I want to encourage all my readers to go to the blog of legendary musician and Talking Head's frontman David Byrne and read his spirited assessment of the RIAA and their short sighted assault on Internet Radio: Your Government Working for You.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Byrne is a fellow broadcaster at LIVE365 which hosts my three Internet Radio Stations. Like me, Byrne might well be forced off the air by the Copyright Royalty Board decision.

I've edited Byrne's essay for both style, content and emphasis. I again urge you to read his essay as he wrote it on his web site. linked above.

Web radio is different than broadcast radio in that the hosting costs increase precisely as the listenership increases. With streaming web radio, information on the exact number of listeners accessing the stream at any given moment or period is available, and easy to obtain, unlike broadcast radio which is just out there and no one knows how many people are listening. The more listeners you have the more you pay in hard costs — some server’s gotta host the stream. Of course stations like mine and the network of NPR stations that have no commercial revenue eventually run into a financial wall once that audience figure reaches a certain amount. With royalties it gets more complicated. While traditional terrestrial radio does pay songwriter/publishing royalties for the musical work itself, in the U.S. they don’t pay performance royalties for the sound recording under the rationale that airplay promotes the songs, which benefits the copyright holders. Web radio, however, along with satellite and cable services, does pay performance royalties — these are the rates that are being raised now. (If this discrepancy sounds illogical, it’s because it is.) With the proposed changes the royalties can no longer be based on a percentage of revenue, but on a fee for each listening hour — how many folks are listening and for how long — and there will be a minimum fee per radio “channel”. So now there will be no distinction between a large-scale non-profit station (like KCRW or WXPN) and Z100. The threshold for non-profits is proposed to be 159,140 listening hours per month. Where did this bizarre number come from? For perspective, on my web radio I get an average of about 40,000 listener hours per month. At present I pay small mechanical royalty fees that go to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (presumably these dribble down to the artists whose songs I stream); performance royalties that get dispersed via a company called SoundExchange.... I pay about $2,000 a month, based on the above listening hours. That’s rent for an apartment for many people (at least in some cities.) I can afford it, I enjoy doing it, and people seem to like it, so it’s OK for me that I’m out of pocket. I do however realize that I am in a special position — not just anyone can afford to start a streaming web radio service if it has this many listeners. If this ruling goes through... It’s estimated that the per-play rates will put many webcasters out of business, all but the largest and most commercially successful. For NPR stations it is a different story as they have wider listenership than I and would pay the same royalty rates as commercial broadcasters. KCRW estimates roughly that as this ruling is retroactive they would owe $130,000 in additional fees for 2006 and $237,000 for 2007. WXPN in Philly estimates $1,000,000. In some worlds this is not a big deal but as one can imagine many of these stations barely eek by as it is, so this could very likely shut down the webcasting side of many of them. That would be a shame, as these stations are the only source of, well, good music, alternative sounds and innovative and informative programming in the U.S. It would be a loss for, well, democracy, as democracy depends on availability of many points of view untainted by commercial concerns and pressures. A truly informed populace, in other words. It points to another victory for the oligarchs — the big 5 record companies and the media companies that own them. Count one more for the big guys. Who is this agency that is proposing making this change? They are not an elected body — the Copyright Royalty Board is made up of a few people appointed by the Library of Congress Copyright Office. They used to be a group of arbitrators but since 2004 they are a group of judges. (I wonder if Gonzales, Cheney etc. have any pals in there?) The new rates are being appealed — to join a petition (against the rate changes) or learn more about this, go to SaveTheStreams.org.

It is exceptionally striking to me that one of the greatest strengths of the Internet has turned out to be the Seventy One Million ..... 71,000,000 .... voices of individuals around the world who write and publish their thoughts through blogs, journals, myspace and similar venues. That we would willingly lose the same diversity in radio broadcasting, trading it in for four or five huge corporate conglomerates like Clear Channel, is tragic.

TECHNORATI TAGS: INTERNET RADIO RADIO DAVID BYRNE TALKING HEADS RADIO AND INTERNET NEWS RIAA PERFORMANCE ROYALTIES FREE SPEECH MUSIC

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Turning the Other Cheek

A rather marvelous Easter essay has been written by Australian newspaper columnist, liberal and admitted agnostic, Andrew Bolt.....

We live in a society, founded on Christian principles, that guards our right to speak, and even to abuse things we should praise. We can now vilify Jesus and damn priests, and risk nothing but hard looks from a soft bishop, and a job offer from The Age. We dare all that because we do not actually fear what we condemn. We know Christians are taught not to punch our smarmy face, and we even count on it. Indeed, it is the very faith we mock that has made us so safe. This is one reason why I, an agnostic, will today do what I do every Easter, and play Bach’s divine St Matthew Passion while I sit for a while and give thanks. I will be thanking again not only a preacher of astonishing moral clarity and courage, but one who inspired a faith that has brought us unparalleled gifts – including the freedom to create even a chocolate Jesus in this most holy of weeks.

Read the entire essay here: Column - Kinder to our Christians. It's well worth your time to stop and think this Easter about a rather unexpected and often unnoticed gift of our shared judeo-christian heritage.

Naturally WiZARD RADIO will be playing Bach's St. Matthew Passion, Handel's Messiah, and a treaseure of contemporary and traditional Easter and Passover music from Gregorian Chant to Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar.

TECHNORATI TAGS: EASTER JESUS CHRIST CHRISTIANITY CHRISTIAN UNITARIAN AGNOSTIC ANDREW BOLT

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

The Ugliest American

"It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq." Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

Harry Reid's position is crystal clear. No more American Blood can be spilled in Iraq. Period.

Sadly, Senator Reid doesn't actually care if Iraqi blood is spilled. Drops? Pints? Quarts? Gallons? Rivers? He simply doesn't care.

Senator Harry Reid values American blood above all others.

Outcomes are of no interest to Senator Reid.

He doesn't care who rules Iraq in the future. He says that is up to the Iraqi's. In Senator Reid's fantasy world, if Americans leave, the entire world will take a hands off position on Iraq.

In the Harry Reid land of Oz, only a few hundred thousand will perish in a civil war. And Iraqi's deserve a civil war. It's their god given right.... errr.... Allah given right.

In Harry Reid's poppy field on the road to the Emerald City, Glenda, the good witch, will prevent al Qaeda or Iran or Turkey from intervening in the sectarian slaughter.

But in the real world, it is worse than naive to think no regional power won't step in and impose their will on the Iraqi state in the vacuum left by the American withdrawal.

But no American blood will be spilled. That is, after all, all that counts.

Senator Reid doesn't care if the Sunnis or Shiites or Iranians or al Qaede or Syria or Turkey or the Principality of Monte Carlo rules Iraq. It's all OK.

Harry is quite positive there will be no breeding ground for future terrorists. After, Harry will continue to fund fighting those silly terrorists over in Afghanistan. And those terrorists, they are so stupid. They certainly won't flee to the absolute safety of oil rich Iraq, where Senator Reid would prohibit pursuit.

Senator Reid certainly doesn't care if he betrays the Iraqi people. He doesn't care if millions of Iraqi's have their hopes and dreams of democracy shattered. After those false hopes were all promised by President Bush. How could those stupid Iraqi's have possibly believed an American President.

Bush lied about WMD. Those stupid Iraqi's must have known he was lying about helping them achieve Democracy

March of next year. Stick to the timetable.

Of course the Iraqi women will suffer the most.

Now, if the Iraqi women are really blessed, the resulting state will look a lot like Iran. Sadly it's terribly unlikely that women will have many, if any, rights.

I certainly hope Senator Reid doesn't support a woman's right to choose! Since they will likely be prohibited from choosing a husband, it's really unlikely that will be able to chose abortion.

You see, in Harry Reid's mind, abortion is a right only promised to American women. They have the sacred American blood. Women of Iraq have no rights.

In Iran women are unable to attend sporting events, like soccer. They are generally forbidden to go outside without the company of a male relative. They must be covered in veils or burkas. New laws prohibit women from walking on the same sidewalks as men.

In Iran, if a woman is raped, she is given ninety lashes and a lecture by a judge telling her to be grateful she wasn't put to death. Her rapists often go free.

But it might be worse, it could be like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Then women would be forbidden to have a educations, vote or receive any medical care.

Of course the current freedom of the press will be lost. Satellite television will be banned. In Iran it is illegal to listen to western music. The Internet is censored or blocked.

And, one thing is astonishingly clear, Senator Reid doesn't care if the Middle East is unstable. Nope. The timetable is all that matters. Out by next March. Out. Out. OUT.

That an American withdrawal might lead to regional war really doesn't matter to the Senator from Nevada.

It is now tragically clear to me why we cannot get Senator Reid to support even the slightest effort to aid the people of Darfur.

If you are unwilling to keep peacekeepers in Iraq in a role that shows such great promise (according to the ultra liberal National Public Radio), why would you engage in a mission in Darfur where the real risks are great.

Senator Reid is crystal clear.

My guess is that in Senator's Reid's accounting ledger, four hundred thousand (400,000) Darfurian deaths are not worth a single drop of American blood.

TECHNORATI TAGS: PRESIDENT BUSH WAR ON TERROR AL QAEDA HARRY REID BLOGGING IRAQ ISLAM FREE SPEECH NPR DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS AFGHANISTAN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

I Couldn't Have Said It Better

I couldn't have possibly said it better.... although, goodness knows, I've tried.

What We Call the News | Send To Friends | Funny Animations at JibJab

TECHNORATI TAGS: JIB JAB JIB-JAB CABLE NEWS FOX NEWS MSNBC CNN FREE SPEECH

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

One Small Voice

One small voice can change the world
One small voice can still be heard
In the darkest place on earth
Music and Lyrics by J. Brooks and A. Kasha

I've been reading a number of blogs from Iraq recently, not the least of which is Iraq the Model by the now famous Iraqi bloggers (and, by some accounts, conservative shills), Mohammed and Omar Fadhil. I've also been reading posts by soldiers and other Iraqi citizens. It's curious but most blogs seem to avoid politics. And most don't discuss the fighting. Perhaps they are just too weary.

Recently Mohammed and Omar caught a lot of flack in the "Progressive" blogosphere for posting that they were about to go enjoy some barbecue and beers with friends on a Friday night. These so-called liberals (and these writers are a lot of things and liberal isn't any of them) simply insist that in real life all Iraqi's are scraping for food, cowering in corners or planning their next heroic Che Guevara style attack on the American occupiers.

Guess what, it's just not true. Even on the worst day of sectarian violence, 95% of all Iraqis' are going about their daily lives that are not a whole lot different from all the rest of us around the world. And frankly a whole lot better than the displaced millions in Darfur.

Of course there are terrible hardships and discomforts cause by both the American occupation and the sectarian violence. And there is fear in many areas because of the risk of al Qaeda violence.

There are areas of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. where life and daily risks are comparable. That certainly doesn't make it right, and we need to fix both Iraq and the poverty stricken, gang infested parts of the United States, but real life does go on in both cases, barbecues and all.

This was really brought home to me because of the incredible success one young Iraqi
girl is having in bringing the entire country of Iraq together for two hours each Friday night. The young girl is Shada Hassoon (or Shatha Hassoun) and she seems to have more peace making ability than any member of the coalition or the Iraqi government.

The source of her incredible power? She is a contestant on a Middle Eastern version of American Idol, a television program called Star Academy, based in and broadcast from Lebanon.

When Shada made the Top Twelve contestants in the competition that includes singers from Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and throughout the Middle East, the Iraqi citizens were overjoyed. No Iraqi had ever made it that far in the four years of the television series.

When Shada performs all Iraq comes together as one. Like American Idol, contestants success comes from votes phoned in (by cell phone). Iraqi's buy extra cell phones so they can vote more and more often. And Shadamania crosses all sectarian divides with equal support from Shiites and Sunnis.

National Public Radio did a wonderful piece on her and the Star Academy phenomena Friday on Morning Edition. You can link to and listen to the broadcast here.

While I'm giving you links, here is a link to several You Tube videos and a link to a story about Shada in USA TODAY.

Viewers can use their cellphones to send text messages that scroll across the bottom of the TV during the show. On one recent program, messages included "The swords of Al Mujahedin are in the hands of Shada," and "Al Mahdi Army fighters support Shada." Sunni insurgents call themselves mujahedin, and the Mahdi Army militia is loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. At last, the warring factions seem to have found something they agree on. Recently, Hassoon prepared to sing Baghdad, a famous old song by the Lebanese singer Fairoz that describes a great city of moonlight, riches and beauty. She wept during the televised rehearsal. Text messages from viewers started scrolling across the TV screen. "Don't worry Shada," one said. "It will be beautiful again."

And the wonderful news today is that after all the outpouring of love and affection and all the purchases of extra cell phones and prepaid calling cards, Shada won the contest! Here's the news from REUTERS:

Shatha Hassoun, 26, fell on her knees on stage and wrapped the red, white and black Iraqi flag around her shoulders after learning she had garnered the biggest share of the public vote in the reality show, which is broadcast from Lebanon and is one of the most popular programs in the Middle East. The announcement came shortly before midnight in Iraq. In Baghdad, a power cut meant many who had been following Hassoun's fortunes over the past four months were unable to see her beat her three remaining classmates, from Lebanon, Tunisia and Egypt. But in those areas with power generators, cheering erupted from many homes along with the sound of celebratory gunfire, which began slowly at first and then intensified as the news swiftly spread by phone and text message. While Hassoun, the daughter of a Moroccan mother and an Iraqi father, lives in Morocco, many Iraqis saw in her an opportunity to forget their own troubles in the war-ravaged country and restore some national pride. "I voted for the government and they did nothing for us. She deserves the vote more than the government does," Um Farah, a store owner in Baghdad's dangerous, mainly Sunni Yarmouk district, told Reuters. In an emotional interview with Iraq's al-Sharqiya television station shortly after her win, Hassoun said: "I thank Baghdad and I thank Iraq." Members of both Sunni and Shi'ite sects claimed her as one of their own. "Her win is evidence of the unity of Iraqis supporting each other," said Hassan Kadim, a cosmetics shop owner in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, referring to the public vote by paid text message and telephone.

Perhaps one small voice can change the world. And perhaps we're not all that different from one another after all. Kelly Clarkson, Shada Hassoon, Fantasia Barrino.... it is a small world after all.

You can hear some of Shada's music on Wizard Radio and we're working hard to get more of her performances.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SHADA HASSOON SHATHA HASSOUN AL QAEDA EGYPT BLOGGING IRAQ THE MODEL STAR ACADEMY FREE SPEECH MOHAMMED FADHIL OMAR FADHIL SUNNI SHIITE IRAQ

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Is Iraq Really the Central Front in the War on Terror?

55 Million Blogs. President Bush was bound to like one fo them.

Cyberspace was abuzz today about President Bush's citing of two Iraqi bloggers in his most recent defense of his Iraqi strategy.

Here's the story from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - To back up his point that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, President Bush has quoted opinions from the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top U.S. general in Iraq—and now, two bloggers from Baghdad. Bush made a surprising reference to the blogosphere during a spirited defense of his war strategy on Wednesday. "They have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here," Bush told the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Then he began to quote: "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed." His point was that Iraqi people are seeing signs of progress—and what better example of their unbridled expression than blogs.

They have bloggers in Egypt, too. But if those bloggers are critical of Islam or of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak they are sent to prison. But I digress.

Actually Iraq is a real beacon freedom and free expression in the Middle East. Now if only the Iraqi government and the American forces can bring a reasonable amount of peace and security, Iraq might become the success we all desire it to be. God knows the Iraqi people deserve it. But, once again, I digress.

If the President felt he should quote these two bloggers from Bagdad, I thought I might take a look at their blog. You need to know know that these Iraqi blogging brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, are part of Pajamas Media. This tells you two things. First, they are quality writers with a quality product and second, they are on the conservative side of most issues.

This, finally, brings me to my point. I've always believed (and I still believe) that the Republican throw away line "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror" was just hyperbole to gather support for Bush's Adventures in Middle East Nation Building.

But in reading his blog, I discovered that Mohammad Fadhil has written one of the most intelligent and compelling arguments I've ever seen making a case for Iraq as the central front in the battle with al Qaeda. I urge you to read the entire post The Real Front in the War on Terror. Below is an abridged version with my highlights of key points.

"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets." My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror. I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on. I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq. There are greater examples than killing barbers of course so I'd like to include some more to remind those who try to naively oversimplify the issue in the context that the commanders of al-Qaeda are hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan far away from civilization. Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra! Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment? But why Iraq became the main front? Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda! Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan. Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then? Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists? The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago. An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then. It's true that what's happening in Iraq doesn't meet the ambitions of Iraqis or Americans and everyone admits that many mistakes were made. But abandoning this front or failing to recognize its priority is a terrible mistake that can lead to disastrous consequences to all of us.

I have two important observations. First, none of this would have ever happened if President Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and then totally destabilized the region. If everything Mohammad Fadhil said is true, the blame belongs squarely at President Bush's doorstep.

Second, this illustrates how very complex the situation in really Iraq is. Now is not the time for simplistic schoolyard solutions. We cannot simply take our ball home and refuse to play, as the Democrats in Congress propose.

The fact the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are building an exit strategy timetable based on nothing but whimsy, without consulting with our allies, without the support of, or even consultation with, General Petraeus and without any discussion with the government or people of Iraq, illustrates how disastrous this strategy might be.

TECHNORATI TAGS: PRESIDENT BUSH WAR ON TERROR AL QAEDA EGYPT BLOGGING IRAQ THE MODEL ISLAM FREE SPEECH MOHAMMED FADHIL KAREEM AMER DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS AFGHANISTAN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Potholes in Cyberspace

It's hard to believe this journal is over 11 years old. The word blog hadn't been invented. And few people ever published their thoughts on the Internet.

Email was just getting to be the next big thing. There were no instant messaging tools. AOL and their competitor Prodigy were largely non-web based publishing sites, a large compendium of information and tools for registered users only on proprietary software. AOL made the transition to the Internet as we know today, Prodigy did not.

The early Journal entries (many still available on-line) were about the new wonders of the Internet. Modern marvels. Many entries were actually programming hints, technical advice or links to new and wonderful websites.

Google didn't exist. And Yahoo only cataloged registered websites. It could take a month for Yahoo to add your website to their directory and, then, only if it met their editorial standards.

One of the first and most important objectives of this journal and my work on the web was to extend freedoms and rights that existed in the real world into the cyberworld. We needed to keep the Internet public and free. We needed free speech protection. Some web portals actually attempted to engage in censorship.

That was a long time ago... in cyberspace years.

Today, at least here in the United States, Free Speech is assured. The evolution of blogging has taken the list of those who publicly post their thoughts or ideas on the web from a few hundred to fifty five million. 55,000,000.

And the Internet provides a measure of anonymity. Most bloggers use pseudonyms or handles. It's just like the early days of CB radios, right Rubber Ducky?

And some actually are registered on blog sites like blogger with dozens of different user names. They even answer their own blogs! Sometimes even arguing with themselves! Schizophrenia in cyberspace.

The problem with blind, anonymous blogging and posting, combined with 55 million blogs, is that often no one listens. Most anonymous bloggers have little credibility. Their opinions just melt into the grand milieu.

So, in order to break through the clutter, they use attacks, foul language, graphic pictures or vile hatred. Occasionally such over the top language and graphic references work. But generally, as in the case of Amanda Marcotte, it only works if the blogger actually has something important to say.

However, some posted comments and many bloggers are caught in a never ending spiral of hyperbole that can only lead to the most vicious hate attacks and then even death threats.

Since every reader here is on a wide ranging Journey through Cyberspace, you know I'm now referring to today's NUMBER ONE topic in the blogosphere (as determined by Technorati searches), Kathy Sierra.

Kathy has been on the receiving end of a rapidly escalating barrage of hate mail, cross posted attacks, and x-rated, vile images that ultimately led to death threats so serious she has cancelled all public appearances and ceased writing in her blog. A technical computing blog!!

Could someone please explain to me how a technical blogger could become the object of such hatred? Those of us here in the Political blogosphere see such language and hate speech all the time. But we need to remember that Grandma always told us that neither politics nor religion was a topic of polite conversation.

But I've read Kathy's blog. What could she possibly have said? Back up your hard drive before leaving work?

I've discovered a blogger today who has captured my feeling exactly. The Blog is Graceful Flavor, and the blogger is certainly not anonymous. His name is Jeff Ventura.

I suggest you read his entire entry: Virtual life and real life share the same dark underbelly

Let’s talk about what happened to Kathy Sierra of Creating Passionate Users. She recently had a small group of people, some of whom are very well known, make some downright vulgar comments about her. Things got dangerous when they crossed the line into death threats. Yes, really. Before you read my post any further, read Kathy’s story (linked above). Go. Do it now. Read the comments to her post too. As sad and disturbing as this is, we bloggers have to face hard facts: We work in an Internet medium that offers others the perception of anonymity coupled, in most cases, by comment pages that allow allegedly-anonymous people to write and say whatever they want. In a medium this connected, this mature, and this instantaneous, the same shitty elements we deal with in real life can make their presence known more forcefully and quickly than in real life. In that sense, the Internet is a lens that can very quickly magnify both the good and bad regions of human behavior. The difference is real life that there is (a) no public forum where they can comment on her, and, more importantly (b) no anonymity. But it doesn’t mean those people aren’t out there feeling the same sentiments as they expressed against her on meankids.org. It doesn’t mean that, somehow, the deviant assholes don’t exist. In real life, the only thing that doesn’t exist is an anonymous feedback mechanism that allows underdeveloped cowards to be underdeveloped cowards.

TECHNORATI TAGS: AMANDA MARCOTTE KATHY SIERRA HATE SPEECH FREE SPEECH BLOGGING JEFF VENTURA DEATH THREATS TECHNORATI

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

One World

I believe this is one world. While there are diverse and varied local governments, local customs and local religions and regional languages, it is, in reality, one world.

And there is one human race. We are one people, separated only by those artificial barriers we have created, languages, customs, religions and governments. And fear.

No one person has greater worth than any other. An American life is not somehow greater, more valuable or more sacred than a Sudanese life, or an Iraqi life, or a Korean life.

From time to time we overcome our fears, we reach beyond our borders, we gaze past our religions and customs, and we ask our governments to recognize this universal truth.

December 10, 1948 was one of those rare moments. The destruction of the greater part of the world wrought by two world wars gave us a rare moment of sanity. The United Nations, in a really rare moment of accord, passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's entire text can be found at this link.

But indulge me as I repeat just a few of the rights to be honored by all people and all nations. It's an indulgence because, since December 10, 1948 virtually no nation has been willing to sacrifice its blood and treasure to defend or to assure these rights to others.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.

A strong.... no, an overwhelming case, can be made against President Bush's foolish, reckless and disastrous invasion of Iraq and his bungled occupation of the country.

But, regardless of the stupidity that lead the otherwise moral American forces into Iraq, could we please stop and think before we condemn the people of Iraq into a certain political slavery devoid of virtually all of the rights outlines above? Do we just walk out?

The goal of delivering a humiliating defeat to the political enemy here in the United States is not worth the future of Iraq.

If Bush violated many of the rights outlined above, and I believe he did, it simply is twice as wrong to now abandon the fledgling Iraqi state just so we can shackle the errant President.

Do we lack the vision and courage and human dignity to reign in the President without abandoning the Iraqi people?

Do we not have, somewhere in our country, a leader who can reach out to the world and bring safety and peace to a troubled region?

Or is our vision so narrow, so clouded with hatred for the President, we can only walk out on the people we victimized, we defeated, we humiliated, we stripped of pride, munitions, defenses and structures and allow them to fall victim to the strongest swords or most powerful neighbors in the middle east?

Do we not have the moral and ethical obligation to leave Iraq stronger, more free, more stable than we found it?

President Bush may have brought about this destruction, but where is our Roosevelt, our Truman or our Eisenhower who will lead us into a Marshall Plan for Iraq.

Obama? Edwards? Clinton? Giuliani? McCain? It's time for someone to speak up. America and Iraq are crying out for a real leader.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SAVE DARFUR BARACK OBAMA SUDAN IRAQ WOMEN'S RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS DARFUR UNITED NATIONS JOHN McCAIN RUDY GIULIANI HILLARY CLINTON JOHN EDWARDS EARTH FRANCE PRESIDENT BUSH UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us