What Happens in Cyberspace.........

Hell, I don't know where to draw the line.......

But I do know that if I mention Tamara Hoover (1st reference to Tamara) a number of times in this blog I'll quickly gain the largest readership the journal has had in it's 10 year history. In fact, if I mention Tamara Hoover (2nd reference) a large number of times I should be able to climb to the very PEAK of the technorati.com list of blogs.

And if I strategically say that I have the nude (1st reference to nude) pictures of Tamara Hoover (3rd reference) or even if I have links to the nude (2nd reference) pictures of Tamara Hoover (4th reference), I should shoot to the top of most visited site in the blogosphere.

I think it's possible to even increase my rankings by making sure I use all the possible variations of Tamara Hoover's (5th reference) name in conjunction with nude (3rd reference). Now I can't lose my credibility with my loyal readers, so here is a link to the one known remaining photo of the naked (4th reference) Tammy Hoover (6th reference).

Now, it's important I get all the mileage I can out of this link. So you need to CLICK HERE to see Tamara Hoover, (7th reference) naked (5th reference) from the waist up, covering her breast (adding to the naked appeal of the link, so I'll call this my 6th reference to nudity) This photo was in The Austin American Statesman, so you know that Tamara Hoover's (8th reference) photo is pretty tame.

Now if I question whether this nude (7th reference) photo of Tamara Hoover (9th reference) is pornography or art, it should even get this blog more hits.

In case you were somehow unaware, Tamara Hoover (10th reference) is the number one search term on technorati.com. Here's the story right from the Austin American Statesman LINK: CLICK HERE

An Austin High School art teacher who posed partially nude in photographs posted on the Web could soon be out of a job after the school board voted Monday to begin termination proceedings.

The teacher, Tamara Hoover, 29, has been on paid administrative leave since May 19 because "inappropriate material" was posted on a Web site, according to the district. A student notified school officials about the site's content, namely several portraits that show Hoover
nude from the waist up.

Austin High School art teacher Tamara Hoover says the photos of her posted online are 'artistic photography,' not pornography. This photo was among those on a Flickr Web site, a site some students looked at during class last month.

The district's attorney, Mel Waxler, said he could not comment, citing
personnel and legal concerns.

Hoover defended her actions in a blog by saying that the pictures are
not pornography but "artistic photography" and that she neither knew nor had any control over which photographs were posted by the photographer.

The school district's policies regarding employee behavior include a
moral turpitude clause that prohibits "base, vile, or depraved acts that are intended to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor."

I get my 11th and 12th references to Tamara Hoover (13th reference) for the above quoted article. And I get two more nude references, too, bringing my new total up to (10 references)!!

Of course this isn't what I really wanted to address in today's essay. I really wanted to discuss the different way's conservative and liberal blogs interpret the war in Iraq and, especially their reaction to the recent torture, mutation and murder of the two American soldiers at the hands of al Qaeda.

In a nutshell, conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin LINK: CLICK HERE have written extensively about the tragic deaths of Privates First Class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker. We know about them, their families and their lives. And conservatives roundly condemn their horrific deaths.

Conversely, liberal blogs like The Huffington Post LINK: CLICK HERE are virtually silent on the subject. Over the last few days Huffington has had multiple blogs about prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

I could only find one that even mentioned the murder and torture of Privates First Class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker and the point of that article by Norman Soloman LINK: CLICK HERE was to condemn the press for its failing to use the same graphic language when writing about the "cruelties inflicted by the U.S. military."

Of course bloggers are free to chose the subjects they address. But, in choosing our subjects, we do reveal our priorities. So, in order to gain readership and fame, I have chosen to address the nudity (12 reference) of Tamara Hoover (14th reference).

Now, in reality I don't have a lot to actually say about poor Tamara (15th reference) beyond the tragic double standards in our society. Tamara Hoover (16th reference) will likely lose her job as a highly honored art teacher in a public high school for some very tame, classy art house style photos.

Paris Hilton has sex on videotape that is all over the Internet and she is rewarded with television series, movie deals and a record contract.

Clearly I don't know where to draw the line. What is acceptable on the Internet and what is not. But I do know how to mention Tamara Hoover (17th reference).

Betrayal

I checked. My American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) dues are all paid and up to date. I'm ready to support this amazing group of lawyers, professors and other legal experts defend our constitutional rights.

I'm a long time supporter and some of the great fights taken on by the ACLU in defending America are legendary.

And I'm not burning my ACLU card.

But, I certainly feel betrayed not only by the ACLU's failure to defend High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb but by their actual attack on her free speech rights!

Damn! If I can't depend on the ACLU, who can I depend on?

Here's an excerpt from the story as written by Antonio Planas in the Las Vegas Review Journal. LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL LINK: CLICK HERE

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart. But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ. But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.

That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.

"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorian's thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."

In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.

File this one under "Speaking Truth to Power" but don't expect any support from the glitterari over at The Huffington Post. They used up their entire quota of commencement speaker defense on Jean Sara Rohe. LINK: CLICK HERE

Besides how could Huffington ever side with anyone named Brittany?

But I digress (again). The key here is that Brittany didn't cross any line. She didn't even come close to any line. She gave a heart felt 750 word commencement speech. If we really wanted to know what made this valedictorian tick, we were denied the chance.

My god!! Oh, wait that is the problem.....

Even though 99% of her high school football team gave credit to God after each football game, that was for sports. God forbid God should get credit for academic success. We're just too smart for that.

But the real tragedy is that the ACLU is so very wrong on this one. They are normally strong defenders of Student free speech. Check out the ACLU FREE STUDENT SPEECH LINK: CLICK HERE

Just this month the ACLU has won a major victory in West Palm Beach, Florida. The successfully struck down a law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

In Holland, Ohio they defended the free speech rights of a student to publish a parody of a school administrator on MySpace.com.

And let's not overlook their much heralded fight to allow 5 to 8 year olds were message t-shirts to school that say "Latinos Forever." All of Richmond, Virginia feels safer because of the ACLU intervention.

So why did the ACLU fail to defend and actually attack Brittany McComb?

If only she had refused to recite the Pledge and attacked the school administrators (and John McCain) while wearing her "Latino's Forever" t-shirt, I'll bet the ACLU would have been there for her.

Really Speaking Truth to Power

This short post is really just an indictment of the 200 plus "bloggers" who post regularly to The Huffington Post LINK: CLICK HERE.

Sadly Huffington's powerful who's who of Hollywood glitterati and liberal media pundants lack any perspective of right and wrong. And they seem to lack any agenda beyond using their celebrity to attack any available member of the Republican Party or any nearby quasi-conservative.

Once upon a time being a liberal activist actually meant have strong, heartfelt convictions you would defend at any and all cost. I always counted on liberals to defend the weak, the oppressed and the downtrodden. We (and I still consider myself a liberal) fought for racial equality and marched for the right to vote. We demanded that everyone be represented regardless of race, color or creed.

Our causes could not be corrupted. We demanded women's rights, equal pay for equal work and, more recently, for women's reproductive rights.

We fought along side atheists, Muslims, Jews and wiccans for freedom of religion and freedom from state sponsored religion.

And freedom of speech was one of our most sacred causes.

If there is any of this old style liberalism left, it's damned hard to find. And there's not an ounce of it left over at Huffington.

Today we need an army of good, old fashioned liberals to take up the cause of Oriana Fallaci, a seventy seven year old woman being attacked for "Speaking Truth to Power." As a feminist pioneer and journalist, Oriana Fallaci has earned and deserves our support.

Oriana Fallaci has been indicted by a judge and faces what, at her age and health, would likely be a death sentence in her native Italy for her published writings about the current culture clash in western Europe fueled by the immigration of adherents to the Muslim religion. A centerpiece of here writings is the Muslim religion's treatment of women.

Foolish me, I thought that "Speaking Truth to Power" was what Arianna Huffington was all about. After all, Arianna heaped praise all over Jean Sara Rohe for her brave assault on John McCain at a college commencement.

Arianna and dozens more of her bloggers praised Stephen Colbert for his incredible bravery in being a paid keynote speaker at black tie dinner.

And Arianna and her many bloggers have absolutely worshiped Cindy Sheehan for taking a six week vacation outside the President's ranch on Texas. "Speaking Truth to Power" is what it's all about.

Unless you're Oriana Fallaci and the "power" you speak to is the established Islamic religion. If you dare to speak truth to a religious power in Italy, you face a greater risk than the risk of bad chicken dinner faced by the brave Stephen Colbert.

Oriana Fallaci faces a trial and jail time for a book, "The Strength of Reason," that she wrote over a year ago about the challenges facing Europe as more and more Muslims move into Italy and western Europe. Several of her comments were interpreted by Muslim leaders as insulting to Islam. And insulting Islam is illegal in Italy.

Oriana Fallaci has spoken truth to power all her life. In the 1970's and 1980's she was one of the most famed and feared journalists on the planet. No one ever dared turn her down for an interview. Yasir Arafat, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Haile Selassie, Deng Xiaoping, Henry Kissinger, Qaddafi, the Shah of Iran and even Ayatollah Khomeini all granted interviews to the powerful Fallaci.

According to Margaret Talbot, writing in The New Yorker LINK: CLICK HERE Henry Kissinger has said that he had been flattered into granting it by the company he'd be keeping as part of Fallaci's "journalistic pantheon." But later Kissinger wrote that his 1972 interview with her was "the single most disastrous conversation I have ever had with any member of the press."

Indeed, Fallaci should be a hero to all women who fought for equality in the 1970's and 80's. But regardless of that, she certainly deserves our support in her exercising her journalist rights. No one, certainly not a fellow journalist or blogger, should be unwilling to stand in support of her rights against this tyranny.

Oriana Fallaci. A woman. A pioneer. For thirty years a "speaker of truth to power." Surely the calvary will come to this poor woman's aid.

But the hundreds of fine liberal glitterati at Huffington are much to busy assaulting Ann Coulter to even notice the trial that began today, June 12, 2006. While there are literally dozens upon dozens of columns in Huffington that condemn, assault and even threaten Coulter for Coulter's remarks about four New Jersey 9/11 widows, only one lone blogger has been able to muster one short sentence about Oriana Fallaci.

Eugene Volokh LINK: CLICK HERE wrote in Huffington, "It's a Crime to Harshly Criticize Islam in Italy: Leading Italian journalist and author Oriana Fallaci has discovered this -- she's being prosecuted for allegdedly libeling Islam."

That's it. One sentence. One of the world's leading journalists faces jail and jihad for speaking truth to real power and no one at Huffington can even be bothered to pay attention.

Isn't it a damn shame that Oriana Fallaci hasn't been insulted by Ann Coulter. Then poor Oriana could have 200 Huffington defenders riding to her aid.

Shared Values

"Success of this country has depended and will depend upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and help folks embrace our common identity as Americans."

"Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. As business owners and community leaders, you know that English is the key to unlocking the opportunity of America."

"English allows a newcomer to go from picking crops to opening a grocery store. English allows a newcomer from sweeping an office floor to running that office. English allows someone to go from a low- paying job to a diploma, a career, and home ownership."

"When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams. And as they do, they renew our spirit and they add to the unity of our country."

President George W. Bush
June 1, 2006 LINK: CLICK HERE

Well, this speech by President Bush to the United States Chamber of Commerce really set off the left wing bloggers, commentators and press over the edge. Heck, they don't even want to share President Bush's values, let along force new immigrants to share those values.

Liberals have spent years adding bilingual education to our school curriculum, adding bilingual forms and instructions to all government regulations, and adding bilingual ballots to each election.

Now President Bush, in an effort to appeal to his right wing supporters, makes a speech getting tough on immigrants. Learn English. Share our values.

The Liberals cry out, "Share Our Values? Why, that's almost un-American!

And Liberals do have a point. America is the great melting pot. Many of our values actually come from the past waves of immigrants.

However.... it's really easy for Liberals to protest imposing values when the immigrants in question are Catholic Christian Hispanics. These folks already share 90% of our values and heritage. Their brothers and sisters already represent a substantial minority of U.S. citizens.

Let's compare our situation with the one being faced in Europe and Canada. There, the massive wave of immigrants are Muslim Arabs. And they are pretty much refusing to share the values of their host countries.

Consider this report from National Public Radio this morning. Do yourself a giant favor and listen to this report by Brian Mann. LINK: CLICK HERE

In Canada language is not an issue. In many parts of Canada, English is aready a second language.

However... among the issues raised by the above linked report is equality of women and women's rights. The Muslim immigrants refuse to change their views on the status and position and rights of women. In fact they see the freedoms Canadians offer to women as barbaric and sinful.

As one Imam quoted in the NPR report said, "Many basic Canadian values are sinful, including the notion that women should be free to make choices independent of their fathers and husbands."

Are there, in fact, values that must be shared? Are their values that must be respected? What about individual human rights?

We need to be very careful in thinking these issues through. President Bush may be a lot more right than he is wrong.

Speaking Truth to Power. A Memorial Day Essay

"Fearlessness has a new name -- and it's Jean Sara Rohe."

So begins Arrianna Huffington in one of her many glowing tributes to the New York's New School graduate who managed to sideswipe (not really ambush) Senator John McCain who had been invited to give the Commencement Address for the 2006 Graduating Class. LINK TO ARRIANNA'S POST: CLICK HERE.

The entire Huffington Post roster of Hollywood glitterati has fallen head over heals in love with Jean Sara. She is, beyond doubt, a modern day Joan of Arc, both a prophet and a fearless leader.

It's as if Jean Sara had handily won the liberal politicos version of American Idol. And it only took one performance on stage.

If you would like to read Jean Sara Rohe's commencement speech and her reasons for making the speech, just read her guest blog entry in The Huffington Post. LINK: CLICK HERE

I am not going to comment on Jean Sara's remarks or her reasoning for making them. That isn't my point and I believe you can read her remarks and "decide for yourself."

But what I find absolutely astonishing and worthy of comment is the recent gushing of praise from the press, professional commentators and bloggers that Jean Sara and others should be lionized for bravery for speaking out publicly to an elected official in the United States.

Stephen Colbert has been similarly praised for his recent White House Correspondent's Dinner appearance. And of course, the bravest of all is Cindy Sheehan.

Today's catch phrase is "Speaking Truth to Power."

Huffington writes, "With the Senator, and likely 2008 presidential candidate, seated just a few feet away (shades of Stephen Colbert taking on Bush), Rohe said, 'The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded,' drawing cheers from the crowd."

"Can you imagine the courage that took? Not just to speak truth to power, but to do so in such a personal and public way?"

Actually, Arrianna, it took almost no courage at all. Not an ounce.

Jean Sara spoke to a very friendly audience and told them exactly what they wanted to hear. Her speech was met with "cheers from the crowd."

It might have taken an ounce of bravery to support McCain and support the Iraq war in front of that audience. The students would have booed her and turn their backs on her and tried to silence her. There would have been editorials against her in the student newspapers. Petitions would have been filed to keep her from exercising her rights to free speech. She would have been ostracized, a pariah on her own campus.

In other words, she might have been treated like John McCain.

And, likewise, it took no courage for Stephen Colbert to fulfill his appointed duties as the main speaker at the correspondent's dinner. Nor did that stint require any talent or humor, but I digress.

And what little courage it might have taken for Cindy Sheehan to begin her quest, it took almost none to continue it as she was surrounded by supporters, then sheltered and finally manipulated into becoming a spokesperson for the bizarre anti-corporate anti-Semitic conspiracy wing of the liberal movement.

No, it takes no courage at all to "speak truth to power" here in the United States. Jean Sara will go on to a great job, a better job because she did speak out. She has already become a left wing folk hero.

Stephen Colbert took no risks in turning his keynote speech into a diatribe against the President. There was absolutely no risk that he would disappear in the dark of night. A jail term was never a risk. Torture was out of the question.

Cindy Sheehan held a massive protest rally outside the President's Ranch in Texas for six full weeks. The only risk she took was the risk of sunburn.

Frankly it takes a hell of a lot more courage for Ann Coulter to speak at any of the Universities that idolize Jean Sara Rohe. Ann faces real physical risk. With courage and humor I might add.

This isn't Iran. It's certainly not Saddam's Iraq. This isn't North Korea. Or communist China. It's not the Sudan. Or Darfur. Or Saudi Arabia. Bravery is speaking truth to power in one of those places.

Compare the bravery of USA's Jean Sara Rohe to China's Hao Wu.

Hao had a blog called Beijing or Bust in which he wrote under the pseudonym of Beijing Loafer. He was also the North-East Asia editor of the website Global Voices, to which he contributed under the name of Tian Yi.

Hao was arrested on 22 February while preparing a report on China's underground protestant churches. According to the Chinese authorities, Hao is currently under "house arrest." He cannot receive visits or telephone his family. He has been denied access to a lawyer. The Chinese government is also still refusing to tell him or anyone why he has been arrested. LINK: CLICK HERE

But the good news for Hao is that he is not alone. Telling truth to power virtually always results in a jail term on China. At least for the lucky truth tellers. The rest disappear forever.

This Memorial Day we pay tribute to those who have gone before us. We will honor those who fought for our right to speak "Truth to Power" in complete safety, without fear, without the need for bravery. Thank goodness we have those rights.

So let's pay tribute to Jean Sara Rohe for she is a living example of the freedom, respect and honor with which the United States treats it's protestors. Through Jean Sara we can see that our veterans and all those who came before us built a great nation where we can all speak truth to power.

* * *

Wizard Radio has a big Memorial Day Special, all day, May 29, 2006. Wizard Radio can be heard on any Interent connection, world wide. There will be several Memorial Day tributes to our soldiers and all those who can before us in building this great nation. Patriotic music and Americana will be woven into a most enjoyable tapestry of eclectic music that is the trademark of Wizard Radio. From Jimmy Buffett to The Beach Boys to New Orleans style jazz, Wizard Radio brings you the perfect soundtrack for the kickoff to summer. I hope you'll join us. TO LISTEN TO WIZARD RADIO : CLICK HERE

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help

Long time readers of the Wizard, fkap Journal are at least aware that I operate three Internet Radio Stations. The links to those three stations are on the Links bar to the right of this essay. To say these stations are unique in quite an understatement. If you've never listened to Internet Radio you are in for a real treat. Click on one of the links and find out for yourself.

There is a real possibility that in the not too distant future that these three stations and thousands of other Internet radio stations like them will cease to exist. Why? Because the Federal Government is here to help! The same folks who have made FEMA such a monumental success want to enhance the listener experience in Internet Radio.

But they have a lot of help! Advising our Representatives and Senators are the major media companies like RCA, Sony, and more. The major record labels through their professional association, the Recording Industry Association of America (or the RIAA for short) are taking steps in several arenas that will actually make it impossible for Internet radio to survive in its current form!

Today's villain is called the PERFORM ACT, sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). This certainly proves the RIAA can effectively lobby both political parties. Or that they RIAA has the finest senators that money can buy!

The focus of the PERFORM ACT is on satellite radio, but it has significant implications for internet radio as well. If this act passes as currently written, internet radio stations would no longer be able to use the standard digital formats currently in use, but would instead be forced to adopt proprietary (i.e. more expensive) formats and rewrite their software to match. These actions would also have a by product of removing most creativity from Internet Radio Broadcasts. You can learn more about the PERFORM ACT from my friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Action Center.

Wizard Radio is a non-profit "hobby" station. There are thousands more just like us. We make no profit , but gladly pay hundreds or thousands of our own dollars in royalties and broadcasting expenses (like bandwidth, storage, and music acquisition).

In addition to the PERFORM ACT, we also face an effort by the RIAA to force Internet broadcasters to pay even higher royalties to recording artists and, much more importantly, to the recording labels themselves.

Internet Radio ALREADY PAYS THESE ROYALTIES and always has. Traditional AM/FM radio stations that broadcast over the PUBLIC AIRWAYS are exempt from paying royalties to artists or record labels. Only Internet Radio actually pays the artists for the music they have created!

There are actually two types of royalties that Internet broadcasters pay. The first set of royalties go to composers and lyricists and are paid through organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. It is these songwriter (composer) royalties that are also paid by AM/FM, and satellite radio as well as internet radio stations. The rates for composers are extremely fair and are applied equally to all media. No one objects to these royalties.

Ahhh, but the second set of royalties are those that go to the artists (performers) of the musical work (50%) and to the RECORD LABELS that sign the artists (the other 50%). AM/FM radio has always been exempt from paying these royalties. Only Satellite and Internet radio pay these royalties, but at different rates that put internet radio in the position of paying a much higher percentage of its revenues in royalties than satellite radio pays.

Have I confused you enough, yet? Stay with me, it gets worse.

The royalty rates are set via a process involving the Library of Congress. If the record labels get their way in this process, Internet Radio will pay huge rate increases that will make it absolutely impossible for anyone to broadcast, except...... you guessed it.... the actual RECORD LABELS THEMSELVES!!

What a neat trick. Pay royalties to yourself and it actually costs you nothing!!! And that is the RIAA goal.

The RIAA really hates Internet Radio because we play independent and unsigned artists. The RIAA (the big labels) gets no money from these independents and, worse yet, when you find a new artist you like on the Internet, you're less likely to buy the RIAA's latest dream act!

The RIAA wants you to be able to hear only the big artists and only the music they promote. If all you hear is Clive Davis' latest Idol, he or she are likely to be only CD you'll buy! What we really have here is legalized payola!!

What can you do? If you love Internet Radio and the endless variety we offer, please contact your Senators and Representative in Congress and tell them that you support internet radio.

Because many of our Senators and Representatives are not familiar with Internet Radio they have no idea that Internet Radio actually support artists by paying them royalties. And they are probably unaware that Internet Radio is promoting independents and emerging artists that has no outlet in corporate controlled AM/FM radio.

My guess is that the huge and well financed RIAA lobby is drowning the Senators and Representatives in misinformation. Your voice can help clarify the situation and you can help level the playing field.

Internet Radio Stations like Wizard Radio offer the one thing you can't get anywhere else: VARIETY!! We play hundreds of different genre's of music including international, classical, folk, jazz and musical theatre.

Let your Senators and Representatives know that you value what internet radio offers and that you want to see it supported and strengthened, not killed.

We need help. Hurricane RIAA is bearing down on our shores. Don't let the Senate send us the RIAA's version of FEMA.

Telling Truth to Power

From Breitbart.com through the resources of the AFP LINK: CLICK HERE

A US lawmaker and former Marine colonel accused US Marines of killing innocent Iraqi civilians after a Marine comrade had been killed by a roadside bomb

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," John Murtha told reporters. The November 19 incident occurred in Haditha, Iraq.

"There was no firefight" that led to the shootings at close range, the Vietnam war veteran said, denying early official accounts, which said that a roadside bomb had killed the Iraqis.

"There were no (roadside bombs) that killed these innocent people," he said.

Time magazine reported the shootings on March 27, based on an Iraqi human rights group and locals, who said that 15 unarmed Iraqis died, including women and children, when Marines barged into their home throwing grenades and shooting.

"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine," Murtha said.

This is really tragic. But the guilty will be brought to justice. In public. With the entire world's press reporting and investigating and commenting and exploiting. I'm betting that the New York Times will devote at least 50 front page stories to the Iraqi massacre.

Oh yes, the press will report. There will be so much sunlight, you could easily get sunburned. You will know the name, rank and serial number of every soldier remotely involved in the murder. And you'll meet their wives, girlfriends, ministers or priests and their third grade teachers.

Meanwhile Al Queda and the insurgents purposely target and kill women and children every day. Every day. Without exception. Children are killed by Al Queda every day.

And not by rogue troops. Not by out of control soldiers. Not by over-stressed or poorly trained National Guard units. But children are murdered by trained assassins acting under direct orders of leaders (usually religious leaders). It is no accident that Al Queda are targeting and murdering children every single day.

But unlike the US soldiers the insurgent assassins will never be arrested. They will never be tried. The world's press will never run their stories. There will never be marches or protests or strikes or even a modest editorial in the New York Times.

Of course there will be numerous posts in blogs that absolve Al Queda of blame and call them idealistic young freedom fighters. Telling truth to power.

My prayer... my hope... my dream.... is that every horrific crime on earth, every rape, every murder, every torture, all be done by US soldiers. That way the world would finally hold all victims and all perpetrators of violence equal instead of focusing 99.9999% of the press, the emotion and the hate on 0.0001% of the acts of violence.

I, for one, am in tears every day. I don't have to wait for John Murtha to tell me for whom I should shed a tear.

Moonbats vs. Vicious Mudslinging Thugs

I noticed with great interest this morning a direct frontal attack by conservative blog star (and fellow free speech advocate) Michelle Malkin on the "Moonbats of the Huffington Post" and one HuffPo buffoon in particular, Bob Burnett. LINK TO MALKIN'S POST: CLICK HERE

By referring to Bob Burnett as both a "moonbat" and a "buffoon," and never using his name, even when quoting him, Malkin did the one thing that seems to irritate liberals the most: name calling!

Bob Burnett is neither a moonbat nor is he a buffoon. He is a respected writer and technocrat, and one of the founders of Cisco Systems. Malkin actually knows all that.

But, any serious reader of Malkin (who doesn't just grab a few quotes entirely out of context), knows these cutsie names like moonbat are her form of satire. They are hardly serious and certainly not hateful.

Certainly Malkin does have a serious point to make about Burnett's essay. LINK TO BENNETS ESSAY: CLICK HERE

Burnett's views, if actually put into action, might actually endanger peoples lives and perhaps even the endanger the future of this country. And Burnett's stated objectives are about as stupid as anything I've read recently.

Malkin is satirical and often sarcastic. She is frequently funny. She is amazingly insightful. And she is always worth reading.

I bring all this up only because earlier this week I was looking really hard for some funny, satirical or sarcastic liberal comments. They are really hard to find. Liberals seems terribly serious.

Instead, you find their writings are really venom filled. The hatred pours from nearly every line. The Huffington Post itself is a boiling pot. But rarely is it funny.

Here is quote from an essay today by Tom Gilroy (the emphasis is mine). LINK TO GLIROY'S ESSAY: CLICK HERE

Tom Gilroy wrote:

Or so the story goes, if you listen to Karl Rove, Robert Novak, Peggy Noonan and the other shit-spinners who learned their chops at the feet of Reagan/Bush PR wunderkind Lee Atwater, a vicious mudslinging thug who died young of a brain tumor and renounced his scurrilous tactics on his deathbed---tactics that have made Karl Rove a household name.
.....
It was easy to look away from inconvenient historical facts of Christianity like the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the pedophilia of the priesthood when you could still see true people of faith marching for civil rights, working in soup kitchens, or bearing witness in Nicaragua as the Reagan-funded militias gunned down families of peasants.

But 'The Great Awakening' now brings us faith-based leaders promoting torture and war, who lie to us on a daily basis, and violate our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

HuffPo is also a must read. It is also insightful, provocative and informative. I read HuffPo everyday. It's just not funny (at least not often).

Thank goodness the liberals do have Al Franken and Steven Colbert (who used satire to great benefit last week at the Presidential Correspondent's Dinner).

So I'll leave it to you. Moonbats or Vicious Thugs? Buffoons or shit-spinners?

Those on the left feel that Malkin (and her fellow conservative commentators) call names and spew hate.

And those on the right feel Huffington and company call names and spew hate.

And neither side can see the truth.........

Where is Our Holy War?

This is a short essay, because I have only a question.... and I do not have a answer.

Here's the background. There is a news report in today's World Net Daily LINK: CLICK HERE that Muslim leaders have dispatched twelve terrorists to Denmark whose only task is to kill the twelve Danish cartoonists who drew the very controversial cartoons depicting Muhammad.

We all witnessed the massive demonstrations that paralyzed much of the Middle East and parts of Europe as Muslims protested the portrayal of Muhammad. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated and many died. Many leaders, most notably Osama bin Ladan, have declared a Holy War against the west and against Denmark in particular.

While most nations in Europe (and many newspapers) re-ran the cartoons in solidarity with the Danes, the U.S. has largely been silent. Either out of fear for their safety, or out of an effort to achieve political correctness, many universities have refused a traveling exhibit of the cartoons and a discussion of the issues involved.

Only a few U.S. newspapers have reprinted the cartoons. You can see all twelve cartoons here, courtesy of Michelle Malkin who has been a real leader in the Free Speech movement. LINK: CLICK HERE. On this same page you'll find links to Michelle's extensive coverage of this issue.

There is no doubt that true Muslims feel very strongly about this issue. To be certain most moderates stop well short of advocating murder of the cartoonists. But all feel very strongly about the portrayal of Muhammad. All images of Muhammad are forbidden by Mulim Holy Law as written in the Koran.

How will we feel if even on of the terrorists succeed and kill just one cartoonist? What will we say?

"He knew the risk."

He invited trouble."

"He deserved to die."

"He shouldn't have rocked the boat."

"He should have been sensitive to the Muslim religion."

Or will we feel this issue is much bigger? Will we feel that such an attack on our civilization DEMANDS justice?

Is this even important? What's one cartoonist, more or less? Where do we draw our line in the sand?

When do we say "This is our Holy War?"

Work Less = Worthless

Is it remotely possible that our very own US Congress could accomplish less?

"Congressional schedule-keepers had planned for a two-week sprint between vacations to produce weighty reforms on immigration, pensions and tax policy. But Friday, at the finish line, all of those measures were missing."

"As for those who wonder why Congress is taking a two-week vacation with such major legislation unfinished, 'They've got a point,' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."

"Lawmakers stumbled in the final stretch on big ticket items like tax cuts and whether to spend more or less on health and education programs."

"Legislation assuring millions of baby boomers that the pensions they were promised by employers will be there when they retire was supposed to have been on its way to President Bush. Lawmakers are not even close on that."

" 'Major things just don't get through here,' Durbin said. 'It does reflect the election year. It also reflects that we don't do things as often as we should in a bipartisan fashion.' " Associated Press CLICK HERE

We certainly pay our Senators and Congressmen more than enough. Not only are their salaries reaching stratospheric levels, benefits actually pay virtually every living expense.

And let's not even bring up the meals, trips and goodies they get from lobbyists. It's a huge scandal. And if you don't believe me, just ask the Senators and Congress members themselves.

But did any meaningful lobbying reform pass our congress yet? Don't make me laugh.

I think we are actually paying for pontificating. We get loads of pontificating. And defecating.

But, the purpose of my column today is to once again decry the pure political maneuvering by our very worst Senator, Harry Reid. Harry has now climbed to the very top of my "least respected politician" list.

Earlier this week, the senate almost did the impossible. They almost accomplished the people's work. Two of the Senators I most respect, Edward Kennedy and John McCain cobbled together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to pass an intelligent Immigration Reform Bill.

"Hailed as a bipartisan breakthrough earlier in the week, the immigration measure would have provided for stronger border security, regulated the future entry of foreign workers and created a complex new set of regulations for the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally." Associated Press CLICK HERE

The bill could have made it through the senate. Bill Frist is incompetent as majority leader and would have never stopped the bill. Alas, Harry Reid is not incompetent. He's just a classic pond scum politician.

So, through deft maneuvering through the arcane Senate rules, Reid stopped the bill in it's tracks.

Why did Reid stop the bill that he, in theory should have supported? He wanted to keep the issue alive as a fall campaign advantage for Democrats. Immigration Reform is a club he wanted to use to hammer Republican opponents.

"In private as well as public, Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who heads the party's campaign effort, said they did not want to expose rank-and-file Democrats to votes that would force them to choose between border security and immigrant rights."

" 'Politics got ahead of policy on this,' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lamented."

" 'It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,' asserted Senator Arlen Specter." Associated Press CLICK HERE

It's just so good to know we are paying for all this. And we are paying very well.

The Anti-Abortion Abortion

The current rates for abortion in the United States is an absolute crisis. We're killing babies (or fetuses, or embryos) at an alarming rate. And it's primarily knowledgeable 20 somethings who are riding the abortion express at an exploding rates, not the teens who presumably lack contraceptive knowledge and fear informing reactionary parents. It's likely that abstinence programs combined with birth control education are actually working.

But not for young adults. Abortion is the contraceptive of choice for hundreds of thousands nation wide. And right to life people are rightfully alarmed and saddened by the new life abortion itself has taken within the U.S.A.

Under the deft leadership of Karl Rove, George Bush has proven to be the most politically incompetent president in the entire history of the United States. One of the very few bright spots in the Bush presidency has been the appointment of two very intelligent, conservative Supreme Court Judges. Judges who, at least, actually stay awake during Supreme Court hearings.

So, is the right to life leadership moving forward to drastically reduce the numbers of abortions in the United States? Well, no.

In fact, the supposed leadership in the right to life movement is following a path that is absolutely guaranteed to enshrine Roe v. Wade forever without even the most remote possibility of repeal. The current strategy is designed to make certain that abortion will become more common, more frequent, easier to obtain and legally secure than it is even today.

We have today, with Bush's more conservative Supreme Court, the opportunity to place real and meaningful restrictions and limitations on abortion. Parental notification, bans on late term abortion, eliminating partial birth abortion, enforcing waiting periods before abortion and more are all within easy reach. We could reduce abortion in half with the full support of this court and with good public support, too.

But no. Instead the right to life leadership is attempting to power through an anti-abortion bill in South Dakota that couldn't possibly pass Supreme Court muster if Scalia and Thomas were the only two Supreme Court Justices.

The South Dakota bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest; it allows abortion only when it is deemed necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. The health of a mother is never considered. Worse yet, the South Dakota bill would put doctors who perform abortions in jail for up to five years with a fine of five thousand dollars.

In recent years the court has consistently overturned bills that don't carve out adequate protections for the mother's health. And the vast majority of American's will not support or even tolerate this type of criminalization of abortion.

"The only thing that asking for too much, too soon, produces is a further reaffirmation of Casey and Roe," says legal historian David Garrow, referring to a 1992 high-court case that reinforced the core holding of Roe. "As we heard countless times from Alito and Roberts at their [confirmation] hearings, every time a precedent is reendorsed, it is further strengthened." LINK: The Christian Science Monitor article by Linda Feldmann 3/2/2006

So what will happen if the South Dakota bill becomes law? The Supreme Court will strike it down with power and force that will, in effect, provide strong, nearly insurmountable support for Roe v. Wade. Yet again Roe v. Wade will be enshrined in precedent.

Our one shining opportunity for abortion to be regulated in a way that actually made abortion rare, reasonable, fair and safe will be lost. Killed in the womb by the anti-abortion fanatics.

Celebrating Failure and Betrayal

A few early thoughts on the State of the Union address tonight.

Overall, I thought this was one of George Bush's better speeches. His delivery was smooth and assured. He no longer stumbles over words and phrases. The speech was well written and well delivered. By and large, it was well received.

The low point tonight was delivered by the loyal opposition, the Democrats, who burst into great applause and cheers and laughter at the President's mention of the failure of the Congress to enact Social Security Reform.

It was an embarrassing moment on two levels. First, it was rude and disrespectful. Certainly it was inappropriate in this setting, during this speech. I'm guessing that most Americans were appalled by this display. I don't think it helped the Democrats in any way. At the very best, it was childish.

But there is a much deeper issue here. The Democrats were actually signaling their approval in their own total betrayal of the American people.

Not once last year did one Democrat offer a single idea, plan, concept or program to mitigate the coming collapse of our entitlement system. All any Democrat did was to ridicule and condemn the President's proposed set-aside of a small portion of Social Security tax into individual funds that could (at the taxpayer’s sole option) be invested in the stock market.

Perhaps the President's plan was bad. But no Democrat ever offered any alternative.

Tonight were heard Democrats cheer "We did nothing! We helped Social Security fail! Hurray! We condemned the seniors of tomorrow to poverty! We helped the system collapse!!"

If that's the only accomplishment the Democrats could cheer, they don't deserve to hold office. I think it's time for a new opposition party.

The Democrats have lost the right to hold that honorable position.