Lost in the News

Pick your fight. Take your stand.

What is your priority? Where do you invest time and money? Where is your heart and soul?

The Supreme Court Ruling on Partial Birth Abortion?

The Albert Gonzales/Bush Administration firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors?

The massacre at Virginia Tech and, now the deranged video tape of the killer, reaching out from the grave to exact the ultimate revenge on us all?

The massive suicide murders of 200 in Iraq yesterday? Think of it as Virginia Tech times Six! Twelve more killed today, by the way.

I could easily list twenty more stories. Or thirty. Or more.

They are all important. But please take a few moments of your day and consider the horror in Sudan and Darfur. I've compiled the story below from multiple press reports. All are linked at the end of this story:

Sudan's Youth Endure "Unspeakable Abuse" as the World Stands By Children in Sudan are press-ganged, coerced to join armed groups, raped and used as forced labor or sex slaves, according to a new report by humanitarian groups. The report, Sudan's Children at a Crossroads, concentrates mainly on Darfur, where a conflict has been raging for four years, and southern Sudan, emerging from 20 years of war. "Children in Sudan continue to endure some of the most inhumane treatment found anywhere in the world," said Kathleen Hunt, chair of the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, on Wednesday. "Despite the end of the war in the south and recent signs of hope for a strengthened peacekeeping force in Darfur, many Sudanese children are not faring any better than they were four years ago," Hunt told a news conference on the report, compiled by six humanitarian organizations. While Sudan's military continues to deny the presence of children in its ranks, the report said its representatives have acknowledged that youth from other armed groups have recently been incorporated into the government armed forces. In Darfur, most rebel and militia groups recruit children, including the pro-government Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, the rebel Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army. While reports of rape and maiming are prevalent in Darfur, Sudanese girls from other areas have been forced into prostitution or into domestic service in and out of Sudan. Boys as young as 4 or 5 years old "have been trafficked to Arab Gulf countries to work as camel jockeys and beggars," Watchlist said. In the latest violence, a rebel group accused Khartoum's troops and militia on Tuesday of killing scores of people in a cluster of north Darfur villages -- though the army denied the charge and blamed the fighting on "normal" tribal clashes. Meanwhile western powers pressed Sudan on Tuesday to allow a big U.N. peacekeeping force into violence-torn Darfur, but the United Nations was struggling to put together even a smaller unit that Khartoum has agreed to. The United States and Britain said that while Sudan's acceptance on Monday of an interim U.N. reinforcement of the African Union force in Darfur was important, many more peacekeepers were needed for a total strength of up to 20,000. At least 200,000 people have been killed since 2003 in ethnic and political conflict triggered by a rebellion in the western Sudanese region. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in Chad the African Union commander in Darfur had told him his 5,000 troops were not enough to police an area as big as France where rebels were battling Sudanese government forces and Janjaweed militias. At the United Nations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was encouraged by Sudan's acceptance of a "heavy support package" of 3,000 extra peacekeepers, but "the more important thing is how to implement these agreements into action". The United Nations and the African Union want to complete the interim package "and move on to the third phase, finally deploying a hybrid operation in Darfur," he told reporters after two days of talks with AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare. The proposed 20,000-strong force is known as a "hybrid." But even the 3,000 peacekeepers Sudan has agreed to accept, who would staff control centers but not join infantry units, may take six months to recruit and deploy, U.N. diplomats say. "I think there will be a real problem of timing ... It depends on who now comes forward as troop contributing countries," British Ambassador and current Security Council president Emyr Jones Parry told reporters. "That'll take a while to establish and then how soon can they get there? ... The hope is that the (peacekeepers) there will remain, but that others will come on board." Also unresolved is the question of funding. Cash will have to come from voluntary donations until the U.N. force arrives, at which time all U.N. members will be assessed for the financing. But first Sudan needs to allot land for camps and provide water needs. Britain's Blair said if Sudan did not agree to the U.N. package, "a strong resolution with sanctions" would be needed. The apparent deal on the interim package, however, has temporarily defused talk of sanctions and in New York, both Jones Parry and Wolff dodged questions on the issue.

In my opinion the actions by the world's so-called leaders amounts to nothing more than posturing and preening. China is chafing under the threats, mostly from French Presidential Candidates, to boycott the 2008 Bejing Olympics. But they still prevent any meaningful United Nations sanctions.

And while President Bush yesterday announce the strongest unilateral sanctions against Sudan, and has continued to place diplomatic pressure on Khartoum, economic leaders like Warren Buffett refuse to divest stock in the Chinese oil companies that fuel Sudan's continued genocide.

Is it progress that a few American politicians at least try to make the news with posturing speeches or congressional confrontations.

Perhaps.

Unless you're a six year old sex slave.

Resources: Reuters Alert Net and Yahoo News (via Reuters)

You can help to stop the Genocide in Darfur: Save Darfur

TECHNORATI TAGS: SAVE DARFUR BAN KI-MOON SUDAN CHAD WOMEN'S RIGHTS 2008 OLYMPICS HUMAN RIGHTS DARFUR GEORGE BUSH UNITED NATIONS WARREN BUFFETT BERKSHIRE-HATHAWAY

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Tragic Predictions.....

Remember when I wrote this......

Darfur: The Final Solution Someday soon Darfur will be a memory. A blight on our history. A sad moment we'll all look back upon and say "Why didn't somebody do something?" Maybe we will build a monument. Or a Darfur Genocide Museum. Maybe we'll have speeches and an annual "Remember Darfur" day. But one thing is certain. Darfur will be over. Genocides all eventually die. The people all die.

More to follow.... Maybe a monument or two.

But I still have a lot to say.

Watch this space.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SAVE DARFUR BAN KI-MOON SUDAN CHAD WOMEN'S RIGHTS POLITICS HUMAN RIGHTS DARFUR GEORGE BUSH UNITED NATIONS DEFEAT ANDREW NATSIOS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Our Prayers Are With You

We are all Hokies tonight......




TECHNORATI TAGS: SENSELESS GUN VIOLENCE

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

John McCain and Iraq

Below you will find my edit and my emphasis of the remarks made by Senator John McCain on April 11, 2007 at VMI. I am in agreement with both Senator McCain's analysis and approach to today's situation in Iraq.

The McCain plan for Iraq today (which basically endorses President Bush's "surge" plan) is the best plan for Iraq in this interim period until the next election.

In the 2008 election the American people will have a chance to choose a new Commander in Chief. I trust that we will be able make a reasoned, logical decision between two (or more) candidates who will offer clear direction to take in the middle east.

Between today and January, 2009, I want to place our trust with General Petraeus and the commanders on the ground in Iraq. I also do not want to weaken or usurp the powers entrusted to the President under the Constitution. I certainly don't want Nancy Pelosi as the Pretender in Chief.

To those who feel President Bush has betrayed that trust, then begin the steps necessary for impeachment. But, until you replace the President, you must allow the President and General Petraeus to do their jobs.

To read or to watch John McCain's complete speech, click here. Again, what follows below is highly edited to reflect my exact views, and all emphasis is mine.

It is the right strategy. General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency. He is a determined, resourceful and bold commander. Our troops, many of whom have served multiple tours in Iraq, are performing with great skill and bravery. But the hour is late and we should have no illusion that success is certain. But having been a critic of the way this war was fought and a proponent of the very strategy now being followed, it is my obligation to encourage Americans to give it a chance to succeed. To do otherwise would be contrary to the interests of my country and dishonorable. Many in Washington have called for an end to our involvement in Iraq. Yet they offer no opinion about the consequences of this course of action beyond a vague assurance that all will be well if the Iraqis are left to work out their differences themselves. It is obviously true that no military solution is capable of doing what the Iraqis won't do politically. But, my friends, no political solution has a chance to succeed when al Qaeda is free to foment civil war and Iraqis remain dependent on sectarian militias to protect their children from being murdered. America has a vital interest in preventing the emergence of Iraq as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11. By leaving Iraq before there is a stable Iraqi governing authority we risk precisely this, and the potential consequence of allowing terrorists sanctuary in Iraq is another 9/11 or worse. In Iraq today, terrorists have resorted to levels of barbarism that shock the world, and we should not be so naive as to believe their intentions are limited solely to the borders of that country. We Americans are their primary enemy, and we Americans are their ultimate target. A power vacuum in Iraq would invite further interference from Iran at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened enough to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel and America, and kidnap British sailors. If the government collapses in Iraq, which it surely will if we leave prematurely, Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt, will feel pressure to intervene on the side of their favored factions. This uncertain swirl of events could cause the region to explode and foreclose the opportunity for millions of Muslims and their children to achieve freedom. We could face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, the price of oil escalate dramatically and our economy decline, watch the terrorists establish new base camps or send American troops back to Iraq, with the odds against our success much worse than they are today. To enumerate the strategic interests at stake in Iraq does not address our moral obligation to a people we liberated from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I suspect many in this audience, and most members of Congress, look back at America's failure to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda with shame. I know I do. And yet I fear the potential for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq is even worse. The sectarian violence, the social divisions, the armaments, the weakened security apparatus of the state - all the ingredients are there. Unless we fight to prevent it, our withdrawal will be coupled with a genocide in which we are complicit. What struck me upon my return from Baghdad is the enormous gulf between the harsh but hopeful realities in Iraq, where politics is for many a matter of life and death, and the fanciful and self-interested debates about Iraq that substitute for statesmanship in Washington. In Iraq, American and Iraqi soldiers risk everything to hold the country together, to prevent it from becoming a terrorist sanctuary and the region from descending into the dangerous chaos of a widening war. In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country's interests. In Iraq, hope is a fragile thing, but all the more admirable for the courage and sacrifice necessary to nurture it. In Washington, cynicism appears to be the quality most prized by those who accept defeat but not the responsibility for its consequences. Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning not celebrating. And determining how the United States can avert such a disaster should encourage the most sober, public-spirited reasoning among our elected leaders not the giddy anticipation of the next election. Democrats who voted to authorize this war, and criticized the failed strategy that has led us to this perilous moment, have the same responsibility I do, to offer support when that failure is recognized and the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it or, at the least, to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality. Democrats argue we should redirect American resources to the real war on terror, of which Iraq is just a sideshow. But whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now, and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror. Today, al Qaeda terrorists are the ones preparing the car bombs, firing the Katyusha rockets, planting the IEDs. They maneuver in the midst of Iraq's sectarian conflict, sparking and fueling the horrendous violence, destroying efforts at political reconciliation, killing innocents on both sides in the hope of creating a conflagration that will cause Americans to lose heart and leave. Some argue the war in Iraq no longer has anything to do with us; that it is a hopelessly complicated mess of tribal warfare and sectarian conflict. The situation is complex, and very difficult. Yet from one perspective it is quite simple. We are engaged in a basic struggle: a struggle between humanity and inhumanity; between builders and destroyers. Consider our other strategic challenges in the region: preventing Iran from going nuclear; stabilizing Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban; the battle for the future of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others; protecting Israel's security; the struggle for Lebanon's independence. Does any honest observer believe those challenges will be easier to confront and at lesser cost in American blood and treasure if the United States accepts defeat in Iraq? We all agree a military solution alone will not solve the problems of Iraq. There must be a political agreement among Iraqis that allows all groups to participate in the building of their nation, to share in its resources and to live in peace with each other. But without greater security imposed by the United States military and the Iraqi Army, there can be no political solution. As Americans and Iraqis sacrifice to provide that security, Iraq's leaders must do the hard work of political reconciliation. We can help them get there, but we cannot assume their responsibilities. Unless they accept their own obligations to all Iraqis, we will all fail, and America, Iraq and the world will have to live with the terrible consequences. We are giving Iraq's leaders and people the chance to have a better future, but they must seize it. In the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, and unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. We are trying to do so now. I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just.

See also my essay from back on March 13, 2007: Arrogant Americans Determined To Go It Alone

TECHNORATI TAGS: JOHN MCCAIN NANCY PELOSI IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH AL QAEDA LT. GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Can We Let the Ho Go?

LANGUAGE WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS VILE, DISGUSTING HATE SPEECH AND NEARLY EVERY FOUL WORD YOU'VE EVER HEARD! If you're only reading this for the vile language just skip on down to the second set of boxed comments.

I really am working on two essays I feel are important. One concerns Iraq and the other Darfur. I hope to have them both posted within the next 24 hours. Sadly I am unable to accomplish as much in 24 hours as the fictional hero Jack Bauer on the television series "24."

But the Imus controversy has exposed a raw nerve. Are we going to have a protected group within our society? Are we happy with two sets of rules? Two sets of morality?

The answer is nowhere as simple as it might seem.

Don Imus is attacked and vilified and fired for a simple statement that is racist and misogynistic. Ill timed and poorly thought out as the statement was, the attack on Imus seems well out of proportion to the crime.

Imus is gone from at least MSNBC and that, in itself, is not the issue. I have no problem with his firing. Shows get cancelled and disk jockeys get fired every day. They have no union and there is no grievance committee.

But I have a great deal of a problem with the resulting theory that there are and should be two sets of rules regarding speech, especially racist and misogynistic speech or any other forms of hate speech. One set of rules for the rap stars (black and white) and one set of rules for the middle aged white men.

I don't buy Snoop Dog's explanation for one second.

"First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha-----as say we in the same league as him."

Now Snoop is absolutely right when he says that old white men can't know his life, his story, his path, his pain or his feelings. Snoop can, should and must write and perform what's in his mind. And, I must add, Snoop is a great talent.

But this isn't affirmative action for rappers. And multi-millionaire singers don't get additional rights denied to the rest of society. A ho is a ho is a ho is a ho.

We can't have one class of people protected from all criticism. Snoop should, can and must be allowed to write and sing what he feels. But attacks on women, the objectification of a sex, the hate speech directed at a race (and people who aren't absolutely physically beautiful and physically picture perfect)is not acceptable.

He can write it, but he must be subject to the same criticism as anyone who portrays similar disregard for the worth of another human being.

This gigantic hit for Snoop Dog and Ludacris, "Hoes in My Room," put literally millions of dollars in their pockets. Imus, in the worst day of his 40 year career never thought, mush less said, anything this disgusting:

EXCERPT FROM "HOES IN MY ROOM" by Snoop Dog and Ludacris Who in the hell let them booger bears out they cell (Not me) And what they doin' in ya' room? Nigga make 'em bail (Yeah) Got some fine bitches, dime bitches on they way (Okay) And told security, "Let 'em in, with no delay" (Ha Ha!) So when they get here, they'll probably be like half naked Don't mean to trip out, but bitch yall got to dip out (Dip Out!) Catch the elevator up one floor Presidential with the slidin' key for the door (Oh No!) What the fuck goin' on? Shit, all around the world Luda, then its the same song Them bitches was so ugly, I told 'em to go home [Chorus] Who let these hoes in my room? (Man who let these hoes in my room?) Who let these hoes in my room? (Oh no!) (Did you let 'em in?) Who let these hoes in my room? (Well who let 'em in then?) Who let these hoes in my room? (Get out!) [Verse 3 - Luda (Snoop)] Now, these chicks wouldn't leave, they was ready to clown One was 5'6 and weighed three hundred pounds (No she didn't come thru with a thong on She did for the hell of it, big fat whale of it) You can't separate me, Ima separate you Bitch ya' pussy smell like Pepe Le Pew (You filthy, nasty, sick in the head Sittin' in my dressin room with dick on ya' bread) She said "I want you to climb in this underwear, silly" But I was turned off by her tupper-ware titties (Fake bitches, break bitches, make bitches Kick rocks, when they fucked up in they face Tick-tock, you gots to get up out my space Hey Ludacris let's get the fuck up out this place, let's bounce) Then it got to my head, and somethin' reminded me I know who let 'em in, it was Bill O'Reilly (Faggot) (Ya' white bread, chicken-shit nigga!) LINK TO THE FULL LYRICS HERE: HOES IN MY ROOM

You gotta love the reference to Bill O'Reilly. I guess ole Ludacris and Snoop Dog told us a thing or two. Yep, they sure put them old white men in their place.

Say, my memory seems to be failing me... didn't Ann Coulter get in deep trouble for calling someone a faggot? Didn't she lose a bunch of newspaper columns? I guess Ann is not in the protected class. Only rap stars can call people faggots without any penalty.

We're talking about Ludacirs and Snoop Dog, two of the richest, most influential and powerful men on earth today. Men so powerful and so influential that they escape the fair and balanced criticism of leaders like Bruce Gordon and Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson.

They wrote this and they performed this piece of art and radio stations played it and they are getting rich from it.

But that nappy headed ho Imus got fired.


TECHNORATI TAGS: FREE SPEECH DON IMUS BRUCE GORDON MSNBC CBS SNOOP DOG LUDACRIS BILL O'REILLY ANN COULTER

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Hos and Hypocrisy

I'm deeply troubled by the seeming hypocrisy in the media and in the world of entertainment over the Don Imus quote.

The first shoe has just dropped as it has just been announced that MSNBC has made the decision to terminate Don Imus from the MSNBC schedule. I believe CBS will soon echo that decision.

In light of all that has gone on, I recommend that you read Michelle Malkin's dogged, determined and thorough research into the world of "Bitches, Niggas and Hos."

WARNING BEFORE YOU PROCEED! The language used in Malkin's post is about the most vile, disgusting and hateful you will ever read. And every word of it was written, not by Malkin, but by the urban contemporary Rap and Hip Hop stars who dominate the charts today. This is the music today's youth are drowning in.

Every word is from a music track being played this instant in the community where you live!

The language used to describe women and the overt abuse of women in this music makes Imus literally look like a saint! And while he got fired, these stars earn millions and win Grammy's.

Doesn't anybody besides me realize this is a double standard that turns every moral imperative on its head.

And, while I'm on a rant, let me tell you of my disappointment at the one sided actions of CBS Board member, and former NAACP President, Bruce Gordon. Gordon is on every venue calling for Imus to be fired from CBS radio. And yet CBS Radio owns about 180 radio stations. Nearly half of these stations play the music (the exact songs with the exact words) Malkin profiles in her blog.

Gordon states, "We must have a zero tolerance policy."

If Gordon had one ounce of moral integrity in his body he would DEMAND CBS IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL THIS MUSIC FROM EVERY CBS STATION. Is Gordon avoiding the issue and protecting the "integrity" of black music artists? Gordon has the power. Gordon has the moral authority. If Bruce Gordon spoke, the Hip Hop community would listen.

Or does "zero tolerance" only apply to middle aged white disk jockeys?

Here is the link to Malkin's blog entry into the musical landscape of hit radio: Imus vs. the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks Chart

Read it and weep.

TECHNORATI TAGS: FREE SPEECH DON IMUS BRUCE GORDON MSNBC CBS MICHELLE MALKIN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

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