When a Congresswoman Attacks

The story of Cynthia and the Cell Phone has more plot twists and intrigue than an episode of 24.

Wednesday, when the incident occurred, Rep. Cynthia McKinney posted the following statement on her official website:

(Washington, DC) - To the Members of the Capitol Hill Police:

Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer. It is traditional protocol that Capitol Hill Police Officers secure 535 Members of Congress, including 100 Senators. It is the expectation of most Members of Congress that Capitol Hill Police officers know who they are. I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.

I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.

Note that McKinney directs her comments and her praise to the Capitol Hill Police. Her statement was explanatory and apologetic.

Today, she did a complete 180. She was no longer braving the brave police force charged with securing the buildings and protecting the people on Capitol Hill. She was on the attack.

McKinney scheduled a flashy news conference Friday afternoon to condemn the Capitol Hill Police as racist. Her statement also included a vague reference that could be interpreted as an accusation of sexual assault.

From the Washington Post:

Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, said yesterday that the officer started the incident by "inappropriately touching and stopping" her after she walked past a security checkpoint.

McKinney, speaking at a news conference where she was joined by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Danny Glover, said she understands that a case against her may be referred for prosecution but declared that she will be exonerated.

"Let me be clear: This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman," McKinney said. "I deeply regret that this incident occurred."

...She and her two lawyers would not say whether she hit the officer or how he touched her inappropriately.

James W. Myart Jr., one of McKinney's attorneys, said he will seek an investigation against the officer, who has not been identified.

"Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin," he said.

Why did McKinney issue her statement commending the Capitol Hill Police on Wednesday if she felt that she had been victimized by them?

Is it inappropriate for an officer to stop a person refusing to cooperate with security and pass through the metal detector?

It's the officer's duty to make sure no one slips by a checkpoint. McKinney showed no respect whatsoever for the security process. She considered herself to be above the rules.

Instead of calmly reacting to the officer, she punched out the security process that's set in place to protect her. And now, one of her lawyers, Myart, is threatening action against the officer.

This is not the McKinney of Wednesday.


From CNN:

As U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, faces possible criminal charges for a Wednesday altercation with a Capitol Police officer, one of her lawyers said Friday that the real issues were "sex, race and Ms. McKinney's progressiveness."

I wonder. Do other women, African Americans, and liberals have the same problems that McKinney has? If so, I think they should come forward immediately to support McKinney's claims.

If sex, race, and progressiveness are the "real issues," let's find out just how pervasive the problem is.

How about a congressional hearing on the matter of racism and the Capitol Hill Police?

Better yet, how about a special counsel being appointed to investigate?

...The 51-year-old legislator was surrounded by more than two dozen supporters at the Friday news conference, some carrying handwritten placards that read "Recognize our congresswoman" and "Is Cynthia a target?"

Do McKinney and her troops realize that they are engaged in the harassment of the officer involved? They are actively disparaging his character.

Remember on Wednesday, McKinney gave no hint that the police were at fault.

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in
Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

McKinney was the one who threw the punch. If anyone was assaulted it was the officer.

"Placed in impending fear of her safety"? That's really goofy.

...Myart further called the incident racial profiling and said there was "no excuse" for Capitol Police not recognizing his client, and Raffauf said she was stopped solely because of her race, gender and politics.

"It is the job of the Capitol Police to protect members of Congress. As a part of that job, they are to know who those members are," he said. "Whenever you put a police officer out on the street, he is supposed to know his job."

Yeah, and McKinney is supposed to behave like an adult.

Members of Congress are allowed to bypass the metal detectors and security checkpoint. They are supposed to wear a lapel pin that identifies them as lawmakers. McKinney acknowledges she wasn't wearing one when she was stopped, but concurred with Myart that police should know who she is.

"The pin is not the issue," the six-time congresswoman said. "The issue is face recognition."

Why are members of Congress supposed to wear a lapel pin to identify themselves?

Apparently, Capitol Hill Police are not expected to recognize the lawmakers. They are expected to look for the pin.

This whole thing is really disgraceful.

As soon as rumors of an arrest warrant being issued for McKinney swirled, she rounded up lawyers, some Hollywood Lefty extremists, leaders of civil rights organizations, and school children holding signs saying, "God bless Cynthia."

What a shameful performance!

From FOX News:

Congressional sources told FOX News that the officer, Paul McKenna, signed an affidavit swearing that McKinney responded to what he described as standard security procedures by punching him in the chest with a cell phone in her hand.

Howard Pressley, president of NAACP Georgia, called the incident a tragedy and use of excessive force.

"The mistreatment of Cynthia McKinney at the hands of Capitol Hill Police is a tragedy of major proportion and points to the vigor of outright disrespect for women and people of color," Pressley said.

"A tragedy of major proportion"? With all due respect, that's insane.

Pressley and Myart also implied that McKinney's "progressive" politics may have made her a target for mistreatment.

An assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., witnessed the incident and gave a statement to Capitol Police, sources told FOX News. The witness, whose name is being withheld, told police that she saw McKinney hit a police officer. The witness was unaware that McKinney was a congresswoman.

McKinney was not wearing her congressional lapel pin during the altercation, which Capitol Police officers use to identify lawmakers and allow them to bypass security checks.

...Several Capitol Police officials have said the officer involved asked
McKinney three times to stop. When she did not, he placed a hand on her and she hit him, they said.

In a draft of a statement that McKinney did not release, she said the officer "bodyblocked" her during the incident, and she blamed his failure to recognize her on a recent makeover.

"It is ... a shame that while I conduct the country's business, I have to stop and call the police to tell them that I've changed my hairstyle so that I'm not harassed at work," McKinney said in the draft, which was obtained by WSB-TV of Atlanta and posted on its Web site.

An official close to McKinney said the statement was a "work product" never intended to be released.

So, the statement that was circulating on Wednesday night was legitimate.

Read it here.

It's interesting that this "work product" created on Wednesday was not supposed to become public. Instead, McKinney posted that statement of respect for the police and regret about the incident.

Then, on Friday, when threatened with the truth about her behavior, her strategy changed dramatically.

I think the Dem leadership was embarrassed by McKinney brawling with a Capitol Hill officer on the day that the Dems unveiled their "Bold Security Agenda."

Nancy Pelosi has been trying to dismiss the incident as insignificant, calling it "a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress." She said, "I would not make a big deal of this," and concluded that the officer was not at fault.

Looks like McKinney isn't following Pelosi's lead. McKinney is definitely making a big deal out of this and a fool out of herself.

I think every person standing in solidarity with McKinney and supporting her outrageous charges -- Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Howard Pressley -- should recall the 1998 murders of two Capitol policeman, John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut.

Perhaps they should think twice before besmirching Paul McKenna and the rest of the police force.

REMEMBERING FALLEN HEROES

VIVA NO SCHOOL

Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006.

From the Whittier Daily Press:

PICO RIVERA - A student protest that resulted in a Mexican flag being flown on top of an upside-down U.S. flag at a local school has prompted disciplinary action against one El Rancho High School student.

El Rancho Unified School District officials said the unnamed student was punished for being involved in the flag incident, which took place Monday at Montebello High School, about four miles east of El Rancho High School.

...The incident took place about noon Monday, when a group of about 1,000 students from the El Rancho and Whittier Union High school districts marched through Pico Rivera to Montebello High, where students had walked out of classes in the previous week to protest proposed immigration reform legislation.

By the time they reached Montebello High, the campus was on lockdown, district officials said.

That's when the protesters took to the flagpole, added the Mexican flag and turned the U.S. flag upside down. The school's California flag was stolen in the process, Henke said.

This week has been filled with high school students engaging in similar protests. I'm not surprised. Leaving school to march in protest of immigration laws is a lot better than sitting in a Calculus or American Lit class, or, God forbid, American History.

Actually, I'm surprised the number of protests and protesters hasn't been even greater. I'd expect some of the public school teachers to be encouraging walk-outs. That would seem fitting.

Today, there was another flag problem, this time at Apache Junction High School, in the Tucson area.

Tensions over immigration reform heightened in the Phoenix area's East Valley Thursday when students raised a Mexican flag over Apache Junction High School — and then other students yanked it down and burned it.

"I know (they) shouldn't have burned the Mexican flag," said Jacob Stewart, a 16-year-old sophomore. "I heard it was raised above the American flag and that just irked me."

He said the turbulence was tied to debates going on in the state Legislature and Congress...

...Freshman Chelsea Garcia, 15, and junior Brittany Ramage, 16, said the unrest had more to do with long-running racial tensions at the school.

The week's events might have sparked some anger, Ramage said, "but kids aren't too deep about that stuff."

Exactly, Brittany.

Kids aren't too deep about that stuff. Thousands of students don't feel compelled to take to the streets over immigration issues.

I'm sure that some do understand what the protests are about. Others are merely followers, eager to get out of school and join the party.

Some more stories of socially conscious, politically active students:

EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- Thousands of high school students clogged downtown streets Friday during a third day of protests against immigration proposals that call for a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Chanting "Viva Mexico!" and waving Mexican flags, the students converged on a downtown El Paso plaza to join a rally of several hundred others in honor of Cesar Chavez Day.

Boisterous teenagers, followed by Chavez supporters waving pictures of the famed union leader, marched through downtown El Paso to a migrant farm worker center near the Mexican border.

Oh, those boisterous teens!

SAN DIEGO -- An estimated 2,000 students skipped school and converged on Chicano Park in the Barrio Logan neighborhood for a rally today. Many of the students continued the march toward downtown San Diego.

Police followed the marchers but reported no arrests. Nor did police try to keep students from leaving their schools. In suburban Oceanside and Vista, schools were closed today because of fears of violence after an unruly incident at Oceanside High School earlier this week as police attempted to enforce a lockdown.

Another 1,000 high school students marched in Bakersfield, authorities said.

The operative words are "skipped school."

LAS VEGAS -- Students walked out at more than one dozen Las Vegas schools today in a renewal of protests over immigration policies being debated in Congress.

Police and school officials report at least 23-hundred students left after the morning bell at eleven Clark County high school and seven middle school campuses and the Community College of Southern Nevada.

This immigration debate is certainly a sweet deal for students looking for an excuse to get out of class.

Large protests were expected today because the late labor organizer Cesar Chavez was born on this day 79 years ago.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles and an immigration rights activist, called for students to commerate the anniversary of Chavez's birth by staying in school to honor his memory.

From the LA Times:

By the end of today — in Fresno, in Monterey Park, in San Diego — more than 40,000 students in California will have walked out of their schools to protest the proposed reforms.

There is little question that some students took advantage of the protests to ditch school. Some acknowledged they had little idea what all the fuss was about. Others took the opportunity to throw bottles at police and to shut down freeways. Law enforcement officials criticized them for diverting resources from more pressing needs, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told them to go back to school.

Although tens of thousands of students walked out of school this week, far too many did so for purely selfish reasons. They didn't act on principle. As a result, the numbers of students involved in the protests can't be said to indicate passion for the immigration movement.

The many that skipped school just to skip school tarnished the few that walked out with a purpose and protested with a real understanding of what they were doing.

However misguided, much smaller protests with students committed to the cause, perhaps demonstrations that took place on school grounds, would have been more impressive.

Instead, these displays, with their circus atmosphere and mob mentality, served to diminish the cause.

Here's another way to sully the purported nobility of the movement. This story comes from a small city in southeastern Wisconsin.

From the Burlington Standard Press:

Several Burlington businesses last week were the target of a graffiti tagger that police say could have a gang connection. Between the late evening hours of March 23 and the early morning of March 24, a total of six different properties were struck.

Among the things tagged with graffiti were several work vans, including those belonging to Schneider Electric and SBC, a garage at a home in the 300 block of Chestnut Street, a new camper parked in the 400 block of Herman Street and the 3D Construction building at 496 S. Pine St. Much of the graffiti was expletive filled, with the wording ranging from "f*** whites" in several instances to "Latino-Chicano pride" and "Viva la Mexico" in others.

...Estimates of damage caused by the graffiti and its subsequent removal has been placed in the thousands of dollars.

A word of advice to protesters:

Defacing property, flying the American flag upside down and below the Mexican flag, burning the American flag, and clogging up freeways and city streets so they become impassable, are not ways to win over the hearts and minds of tax-paying American citizens when it comes to immigration policy.

National Treasure Amiri Baraka

April is National Poetry Month!

Let's celebrate by examining the work of an American poet.



The Academy of American Poets highlights Amiri Baraka.

In 1968, he co-edited Black Fire: An Anthology of Afro-American Writing with Larry Neal and his play Home on the Range was performed as a benefit for the Black Panther party. That same year he became a Muslim, changing his name to Imamu Amiri Baraka. ("Imamu" means "spiritual leader.") He assumed leadership of his own black Muslim organization, Kawaida. From 1968 to 1975, Baraka was chairman of the Committee for Unified Newark, a black united front organization. In 1969 , his Great Goodness of Life became part of the successful "Black Quartet" off-Broadway, and his play Slave Ship was widely reviewed. Baraka was a founder and chairman of the Congress of African People, a national Pan-Africanist organization with chapters in 15 cities, and he was one of the chief organizers of the National Black Political Convention, which convened in Gary, Indiana, in 1972 to organize a more unified political stance for African-Americans.

In 1974 Baraka adopted a Marxist Leninist philosophy and dropped the spiritual title "Imamu." In 1983, he and Amina Baraka edited Confirmation: An Anthology of African-American Women, which won an American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation, and in 1987 they published The Music: Reflections on Jazz and Blues. The Autobiography of LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka was published in 1984.

Amiri Baraka's numerous literary prizes and honors include fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, the PEN/Faulkner Award, the Rockefeller Foundation Award for Drama, the Langston Hughes Award from The City College of New York, and a lifetime achievement award from the Before Columbus Foundation. He has taught poetry at the New School for Social Research in New York, literature at the University of Buffalo, and drama at Columbia University. He has also taught at
San Francisco State University, Yale University and George Washington University. Since 1985 he has been a professor of Africana Studies at the State University of New York in Stony Brook. He is co-director, with his wife, of Kimako's Blues People, a community arts space. Amiri and Amina Baraka live in Newark, New Jersey.

Clearly, based on his numerous awards and honors, Baraka is truly a national treasure.

For decades, Baraka has taught at the State University of New York in Stony Brook.

Not familiar with Baraka, formerly known as LeRoi Jones?

Learn more about Amiri Baraka. His website offers some of his enlightening works. Here's an example--

Somebody Blew up America

(Excerpts)

They say its some terrorist, some
barbaric
A Rab, in
Afghanistan
It wasn't our American terrorists
It wasn't the Klan or the Skin heads
Or the them that blows up nigger
Churches, or reincarnates us on Death Row
It wasn't Trent Lott
Or David Duke or Giuliani
Or Schundler, Helms retiring

It wasn't
the gonorrhea in costume
the white sheet diseases
That have murdered black people
Terrorized reason and sanity
Most of humanity, as they pleases

They say (who say? Who do the saying
Who is them paying
Who tell the lies
Who in disguise
Who had the slaves
Who got the bux out the Bucks

Who got fat from plantations
Who genocided Indians
Tried to waste the Black nation

Who live on Wall Street
The first plantation
Who cut your nuts off
Who rape your ma
Who lynched your pa

Who got the tar, who got the feathers
Who had the match, who set the fires
Who killed and hired
Who say they God & still be the Devil

...Who made Bush president
Who believe the confederate flag need to be flying
Who talk about democracy and be lying
WHO/ WHO/ WHOWHO/

Who the Beast in Revelations
Who 666
Who decide
Jesus get crucified

Who the Devil on the real side
Who got rich from Armenian genocide

Who the biggest terrorist
Who change the bible
Who killed the most people
Who do the most evil
Who don't worry about survival

Who have the colonies
Who stole the most land
Who rule the world
Who say they good but only do evil
Who the biggest executioner

...Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed
Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers
To stay home that day
Why did Sharon stay away?

...Who make money from war
Who make dough from fear and lies
Who want the world like it is
Who want the world to be ruled by imperialism and national oppression and terror
violence, and hunger and poverty.



Incredible, isn't it?

Baraka was the poet laureate of New Jersey, until the state legislature eliminated the position entirely. That move was taken because Baraka refused to resign at the request of Governor Jim McGreevey. As of July 2, 2003, patriot Baraka was no longer New Jersey's poet laureate (P.L.2003, c.123).

Tax dollars pay his salary at SUNY - Stony Brook.

Tax dollars, through the National Endowment for the Arts, subsidize Baraka's "art."

Unbelievable.

HAPPY NATIONAL POETRY MONTH!

Remembering Terri

One year ago today, Terri Schiavo died, after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live.

My heart broke for Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby.

They lost a beloved daughter and sister.

Although it had been fifteen years since Terri collapsed, suffering severe brain damage and becoming incapable of expressing herself the way she once did, I'm sure her death was no less painful and no less devastating for them because of her condition. She was still their Terri.

My grandmother died after a prolonged illness. Toward the end of her life, she was unable to recognize me. She couldn't speak or feed herself. None of that mattered.

Although ravaged by disease, she was still the woman I adored when I was a child. She was still the woman of great strength and wisdom that I cherished as a young adult. My love for her transcended what befell her physically.

Anyone who adheres to the notion that Terri's family really lost her on the night of her collapse is wrong.

The finality of death comes with a jolt, even when there is ample warning and the goodbye is long.

Terri did not die in 1990. That wasn't when she "departed this earth," as Michael Schiavo put on her grave marker.

Her death began on March 18, 2005, when Judge George Greer ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor and ordered that nutrition and hydration be withheld from Terri. They finished her execution on March 31.

If what I experienced with my grandmother is similar, I can say that Terri's physical condition in no way diminished the love her family has for her.

Their mourning was no less intense than if Terri had died fully cognizant. An illness or disability does not extinguish real love.

Tragically, a grave injustice was done in Terri's case. That must make her death, and this anniversary, so much more difficult for her loved ones.

As Father Frank Pavone said:

[Terri's] physical injuries and disabilities never made her less of a person. No amount of brain injury ever justifies denying a person proper humane care. That includes food and water.

A person with a 'profoundly atrophied' brain needs profound care and love. Terri did not die from an atrophied brain. She died from an atrophy of compassion on the part of her estranged husband and those who helped him to have her deliberately killed.

Simply put, Terri was betrayed by a husband, a judicial system, and a culture that brands certain lives worthless and condones withholding food and water from the ill and disabled.

It still makes me sick to think about what she endured.

I recognize the sanctity of all human life, at all its stages, and in all its conditions.

A year ago, President Bush said:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

As exhibited by the killing of Terri Schiavo, this goal is far from being reached.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a culture of death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting culture of life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

Especially on this first anniversary of her death, I pray that the Schindlers find comfort and peace knowing that while they can no longer hug Terri, she is embraced in God's arms.

Jill Carroll

Thankfully, American journalist Jill Carroll was released from captivity and she is safe.

Apparently, being held hostage by Brigades of Vengeance for three months wasn't all that bad.

Among the comments Carroll has made since her release:

"I was treated very well." (LA Times)

"They never hit me. They never even threatened to hit me." (LA Times)

"I was allowed to read a newspaper only once and watch the television once just to make me aware of what was happening outside." (Aljazeera.net)

"I had very good treatment. They never hit me. I was kept in a safe place with nice furniture, plenty of food. I was allowed to take showers." (Aljazeera.net)

"I was treated very well; it's important people know that. They never threatened me in any way." (New York Times)

"All I can say right now is I am very happy." (New York Times)

Here is the transcript of an interview conducted by Baghdad Television in Iraq. It aired on CNN. This interview is cited as the source for the quotes above.

I don't get her comment, "They never threatened me in any way."

Wasn't Carroll aware of the threats to kill her and all the deadlines?

Of course, today is a day of rejoicing. Carroll will be reunited with her family and friends.

I would expect her to be elated right now. I'm sure she's in a whirl.

Maybe after a while, she'll recall that not everything about her three months in captivity was hunky dory.

Flash back to January 30, 2006.

CAIRO, Egypt -- Al-Jazeera aired a new videotape Monday of kidnapped U.S. journalist Jill Carroll, showing her wearing a headscarf and weeping as she purportedly appealed for the release of female Iraqi prisoners.

...The video had no sound, but the Al-Jazeera newscaster said Carroll appealed to the U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry to free all women in their prisons and said this "would help in winning her release."

...If the date is correct, it would be the first sighting of Carroll since a Jan. 20 deadline her captors set in an earlier video, threatening to kill her if all Iraqi women weren’t released from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. The deadline passed with no word on her fate amid widespread calls from Iraqi and Islamic leaders for her to be freed.

At one point, Carroll’s cracking voice can be heard from behind the newscaster’s voice. All that can be heard is Carroll saying, "... hope for the families...." Al-Jazeera did not report that the video set any deadline or include any threats.

Did it look like Carroll was being treated "very well" in that video?

Sobbing and pleading, she seemed to be under extreme duress.

I found it terribly disturbing to watch her beg like that.

An editorial from the Boston Herald puts Carroll's kind words for her captors in perspective.

But no one should confuse her humane treatment - regular meals, use of the shower - to be compensation for the violent ambush that claimed the life of her translator, nor for the months her family and colleagues spent in agony while her captors puzzled over whether to make good on their threats to kill her.

No, Carroll’s captors get no points for not roughing her up, for not killing an innocent journalist - for using terror and violence to punish a woman whose personal commitment to bringing the stories of the Iraqi people to the world was well known.

Carroll said, "I was treated very well; it's important people know that. They never threatened me in any way."

In spite of the emphasis being placed on Carroll's wonderful treatment, I think it's important for people to remember what her captors are really about.

That's what is important for people to know.

The Kissing Bandit

October 2003



March 2006


Jacques Chirac's kissing diplomacy is nothing new.

Back in 1997, when Madeleine Albright was the Secretary of State, Chirac welcomed her warmly.

PARIS (AP) -- Chirac greeted Albright with a kiss on each cheek, and [Foreign Minister Herve] de Charette went one-up, kissing the U.S. secretary of state five times, according to State Department spokesperson Nicholas Burns, four times on the cheek and once on the hand.

"Our relationship is very solid and positive," Albright said.

"Solid"... Ok.



About to plant one on Tony Blair, 2002

I realize it's a cultural thing, but I think Chirac should show more restraint when it comes to using his lips.

A few kisses don't take away all of Chirac's past slaps.

Borders and Waldenbooks: Enemies of Free Speech

The powers that be at Borders and Waldenbooks are being held hostage by militant Muslims.

Buffalo, N.Y. (AP) -- Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

..."We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, said, "What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression. Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy."

He's right.

I can understand concern for customers and employees. However, that hasn't stopped Borders and Waldenbooks from carrying books and magazines that contain information that many people would find offensive and hateful.

For instance, Borders has no qualms about carrying the published works of illustrious authors like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden.

In April, Borders will carry a yet to be released book by Slobodan Milosevic, Defense Speaks: For History and the Future.

What is the late Milosevic's book about?

Description: This look at Slobodan Milosevic's defense statement -- regarding his country, his people, and himself -- accompanies a legal brief by a former U.S. attorney general. The brief suggests that the American government and its European allies exacerbated religious and ethnic differences in Yugoslavia in order to reduce the country to a group of easily colonized mini-states, while each of the NATO powers and their respective media lied to justify the aggression. Detractors of the recent experiences in Iraq who no longer believe the American government's spin on its foreign policy will find much to consider about the 1999 events in Yugoslavia.

That sounds pretty inflammatory, doesn't it? I suspect Milosevic's book could upset a lot of people.

In addition, Ward Churchill has 46 titles available online at Borders.

These are just a few examples of Borders offering explosive publications.

Clearly, Borders isn't afraid to carry controversial material. The stores' shelves are loaded with it.

BUT--

When it comes to a magazine that contains four of the twelve cartoons that were used by militant Muslims to justify massive rioting, destruction, and death, Borders backs down.

It appears that Borders Group Inc. has determined that militant Muslims are likely to respond violently to publications that they don't like.

In other words, Borders Group Inc. believes that Muslims can't be trusted to control themselves and behave in a civilized fashion when presented with images that challenge their beliefs. OK.

I really do understand why the decision to not carry this issue of Free Inquiry was made. Obviously, the cartoon riots have spooked the heads of the chain. A legitimate argument can be made that stocking a magazine that might put customers and employees in physical danger would be irresponsible.

However, for Borders Group, Inc. to shirk its responsibility to the First Amendment is also disturbing. It's censorship.

Do you feel that frequently cited chill wind that the libs are always talking about?

The reality is the Muhammad cartoons are not illegal in the United States. It's not like Borders would be hawking child pornography.

Equally disturbing is the fact that Borders Group Inc. doesn't hesitate to profit from publications containing material that many would deem offensive and dangerously controversial. It happens on a regular basis.

The bottom line:

In the name of protecting its customers, Borders Group Inc. is doing a disservice to its customers.

It is actively undermining cherished and fundamental rights of free people -- Freedom of Speech and Freeom of the Press.



See the other cartoons here.

NYT Exploits 911 Callers

The New York Times is framing this story as if it's engaged in a noble effort.

I think it's exploitative and hurtful. In other words, it's typical NYT fodder.

The Times went to court to get the names released of 911 callers trapped in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Naturally, there are family members that consider the publication of their loved ones' names to be an invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately for the families, on Wednesday, Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Richard F. Braun ruled in favor of the Times. The names are set to be released on Friday, along with 9/11 tapes and transcripts.

From the Associated Press:

Times lawyer David McCraw said the ruling involves 28 names mentioned in calls to 911 operators the day the World Trade Center was destroyed.

Courts had already directed the release of the operators' side of the calls, McCraw said. In some calls the operators spoke the callers' names, and those are the names the judge ordered released.

"We were pleased that the judge agreed with us," McCraw said. "Getting as full a picture as possible is important for historians, for family members, for reporters and for the public."

The Times is pleased. How nice!

What about the privacy of the families? Why was it so important to the Times that these names be made known?

Publicly revealing the names of the individuals can only cause more pain for the families.

The city law department said it would appeal the ruling immediately, saying that it intended to try to protect the privacy of the 911 callers and their families.

The Times is showing no respect for the families of these 9/11 victims. The city is trying to spare the families further anguish, but the Times doesn't care. For some inexplicable reason, it needs names.

Compare the AP's take on the matter, with the way the Times spins it.

After relaying one of the calls, Jim Dwyer of the Times writes:

Tomorrow, the city is scheduled to release all the calls from the towers, but with the voices of the callers erased, leaving only the operators' sides of the communications. The city won court approval for this approach by arguing that the privacy of the callers should be protected. Yesterday, acting on a request by The New York Times, a state judge in Manhattan said that the city must leave in the names of the callers if the operators mentioned them. The city plans to appeal.

"[A]cting on a request by The New York Times."

The paper sued for the information. The way Dwyer writes this, the "request" sounds more like a "pretty please" than a court battle.

Considering how bent out of shape the libs at the Times are about privacy and the government prying into people's lives, it is disgusting that they would fight the families of victims to get names.

For many of those closest to the day, the release of the tapes is yet another Sisyphean moment in the march away from Sept. 11, in which every step forward in time seems to be matched by one that sends them lurching back toward the day again.

Who sent them "lurching back" and off a healing path?

Doesn't Dwyer see how twisted and sick that is?

These libs are clueless and thoughtless and selfish.

Dwyer then presents more of the heart-wrenching 911 pleas for help.

This seems like such a violation to me. Having the names of the callers is not necessary for historians, or reporters, or the public. There is no reason to attach a victim's name to a call.

It adds no value to our understanding of what happened on 9/11.

It does have the potential to open wounds and cause more suffering for family members struggling to heal.

And for what?
__________________________________



April 1, 2006

To clarify:

I understand the relevance of public access to the tapes of the 911 calls placed on 9/11, for the purpose of addressing inadequacies in the emergency assistance system. It most definitely is an issue of public safety. In that sense, the NYT's lawsuit can be seen as having some merit in terms of the common good.

What I have a problem with, and what my post is about, is the fact that the NYT wants the NAMES of the callers. The paper is even appealing the temporary stay granted by a State Supreme Court judge to withhold the victims' names.

Although some families welcome the release of their loved one's name and 911 call, others do not want their names to be made public. They feel this is a violation of privacy.

Certainly, the names of the actual callers are not necessary to reveal the inadequacies in the system.

My concern is for the families' privacy.

Can You Hear Me Now?

There was a security breach on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

The frightening incident happened at Longworth House Office Building.

WXIA-TV Atlanta has the story.

According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.

Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.

The officer called out, "Ma’am, Ma’am," and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.

"Can you hear me now?"

...According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.

Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims."

No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.

According to an UNCONFIRMED statement from McKinney posted on the Internet, she charges that she is the target of harassment by Capitol Hill Police.

The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle.

"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement says.

And here we have the race card.

I'm shocked! If this is legitimate, Cynthia McKinney is playing the race card! Unbelievable!

The writer details the incident, saying, "I was rushing to my meeting when a white police officer yelled to me. He approached me, bodyblocked me, physically touching me. I used my arm to get him off of me. I told him not to touch me several times. He asked for my ID and I showed it to him. He then let me go and I proceeded to my meeting and I assume that the Police Officer resumed his duties. I have counseled with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Acting Assistant Chief Thompson several times before and counseled with them again on today's incident. I offered also to counsel with the offending police officer."

This comment from House Speaker Dennis Hastert's spokesman is priceless:

"On a day when the Democrats are promoting their national security agenda, it's probably not a good idea for them to allegedly strike police officers."

Where in the Dems' "Bold Security Agenda" is the section on bolting from an officer attempting to enforce security?

Would that be found in the part about getting more spies? Perhaps it's in the "eliminate Osama bin Laden" section?

There are no excuses for refusing to cooperate with an officer whose duty is to secure Capitol buildings and protect the occupants.

McKinney acts as if she's above the law.

I can understand that McKinney tires of having to identify herself, but that's too bad. She has to deal with it.

Would she tire of having the officers be lax about enforcing security policies? Would it bug her if someone got past a checkpoint with an explosive and detonated it?

How many other members of the House have been asked to show ID on occasion?

I'm sure it happens. McKinney can't be the only one who has been asked to prove her identity.

For example, on any given windy day, a Congressman's comb-over can change suddenly and dramatically, making him virtually unrecognizable. Think about it. The numbers of congressmen sporting comb-overs is enormous. Can we really expect the Capitol police to be able to keep up with these extreme changes in appearance, changes that occur as quickly as changes in the weather?

Could it be that balding Congressmen with shifting comb-overs are being harassed by officers with thick, luxurious locks?

Obviously, McKinney is trying to take attention off of her cell phone assault of the officer by crying racism.

McKinney is a magnet for controversy.

From October 29, 2005:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Election Commission said today that Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney must pay a $33,000 fine and reimburse as much as $72,000 to political donors after accepting excessive contributions in the 2002 election.

The fine alone exceeds the total amount in McKinney's campaign account through September 30. It was part of a conciliation agreement between the Georgia Democrat and the FEC.

The alleged illegal activity stems from McKinney's 2002 re-election campaign, which she lost in the Democratic primary to Denise Majette. McKinney was out of Congress for two years before winning the seat back in 2004 when Majette left to run for Senate.

...First elected to Congress in 1992, McKinney has seen her share of controversy as an elected official.

She once questioned the "Negro tolerance" of Democratic Vice President Al Gore. She also suggested on a radio show that Bush administration officials had advance knowledge of the September 11th terrorist attacks but kept quiet, suggesting a possible profit motive for defense contractors.

Read Jonah Goldberg's April 12, 2002 article,"Representative Awful."

Like McKinney herself, Goldberg pulls no punches.

He writes:

[T]here is ample evidence that Ms. McKinney is dumber than rock salt and more repugnant than Yasser Arafat's three-week-old underwear.

The idea that Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George Bush would start a war in order to get an additional few million when they have plenty of millions already, only makes sense to lefties who believe being rich is a sin (unless, of course, you're a rich liberal).

McKinney's hypocrisy is so concentrated it could eat through metal. The only politician I know of who actively tried to profit from Sept. 11, was Cynthia McKinney herself. She's the one who went whoring after Saudi Arabia's blood money after the attacks.

If Drudge is correct, and the entire incident is caught on tape, then we'll be able to determine who is telling the truth.

If McKinney is being accused of something she didn't do, if the tape shows that she behaved properly, then she is owed an apology by every person criticizing her for acting like a lunatic and abusing the officer.

However, given her history of unbalanced behavior and kooky statements, it seems highly unlikely that she deserves an apology.
__________________________________

The latest:

The Associated Press is giving the Capitol Hill incident the best spin possible, citing the existence of "conflicting accounts."

I imagine it's McKinney's account that's conflicting with all the other witnesses and the officer.

Here is the "Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on Capitol Hill Incident."

She writes:

(Washington, DC) - To the Members of the Capitol Hill Police:

Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer. It is traditional protocol that Capitol Hill Police Officers secure 535 Members of Congress, including 100 Senators. It is the expectation of most Members of Congress that Capitol Hill Police officers know who they are. I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.

I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.

This is a far cry from her previous charges of racism.

It sounds like a damage control mission to me, and AP is complicit in aiding the Dems.

McKinney's scuffle with the officer on the very day that the Dems' were highlighting security is really funny. Yes, Dems are tough on security but they refuse to walk through metal detectors or properly identify themselves.

It's been said so many times--

The only thing that saves the struggling Republicans are the hapless Dems.

ONCE A MEATHEAD, ALWAYS A MEATHEAD

Rob Reiner insisted that he did nothing wrong.

Only two weeks ago, at the Sacramento Press Club, he said, "Should I resign? Of course not. Everything I have done is completely legal."


He vowed not to leave his post as head of the First 5 California Children and Families Commission.

Today, Rob Reiner offered his letter of resignation to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.



SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) -- Legislators from both political parties said Reiner, an outspoken Democrat, improperly spent $23 million of commission funds to highlight preschool when he was promoting a referendum for the June 2006 ballot that would guarantee preschool for 4-year-olds.

"When you and I spoke over the weekend, we agreed we cannot let personal political attacks get in the way of doing the very best we can for California's children," Reiner said in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Uh...personal political attacks?

Is it personal when Democrats AND Republicans believe that someone has violated state law?

Reiner was caught doing something illegal. He spent public funds on campaign activities.

There's nothing personal about holding an individual accountable for wrongdoing.

Reiner is not a victim. He is a victimizer.



"Will you vacate the chair Meathead?"

--Archie Bunker

Update: The Dems' Security Plan

Here it is.

To use quote this week's cover of TIME--

BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has this to say to accompany the release of this long awaited "Bold Security Agenda":

The failed policies of President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have undermined the safety and security of our country and left Americans less safe. From their permanent commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq to a pre-9/11 mindset that has kept them from closing vital gaps in our homeland security, Republicans in Washington have proven to be dangerously incompetent when it comes to protecting the American people.

I sincerely believe that Dean has completely lost it.

Wisconsin Libs Mock Religion

When Republican Scott Walker dropped out of the race for governor of Wisconsin, a portion of his statement announcing his withdrawal referenced his faith.

Walker said:

"Early last year, we jumped into the race together after a great deal of prayer. I believe that it was God's will for me to run. After a great deal of prayer during the past week, it is clear that it is God's will for me to step out of the race."

Is it a surprise that some liberal Dems would jump on Walker's remarks and ridicule his faith?

Not at all.

This is indicative of the moral chasm that divides the state and the nation. On one hand, you have a faction that respects the deeply held religious beliefs of people. On the other hand, you have a group that derides people of faith.

Yesterday, Walker responded to those that chose to make fun of the role God plays in his life.

Walker explained:

Like any other important decision in my life, my family and my faith were the key. Last January, I looked at the facts, spoke with political advisors and then talked and prayed about the decision with my family. My conclusion was to get into the race for Governor.

Last week, after looking at the facts and speaking with our political advisors, I talked about it and then prayed about it with my family. My conclusion was to bow out of the race for Governor.

...Too often cynics like to blur the statements of believers into implying that we think that God chooses sides in elections. To me, God does not seem to pick sides in elections as much as He calls us to be on His side.

That's a lesson that applies to life far beyond the world of politics.

Once again, Walker reveals the quality of his character. He is a principled and admirable man.

Here's a sample of reaction to Walker's references to God:

Cory Liebmann, of Eye on Wisconsin, exhibits his lack of respect for Walker's religious beliefs, and people of faith in general.

He writes:

God Changes Mind, Endorses Doyle

...First of all, I’m shocked that God endorsed Walker in the first place. You would think that this endorsement would have made some news in his hometown paper that is usually fawning over him. Walker did not care to advise us as to why God changed his mind or whom he has now chosen for Governor. I’m going to assume that his choice is now Jim Doyle.

...It does not take long to know that I am by no means a Walker fan. I think that he is way too obsessed with his political future. I think that he only became County Executive to position himself for a run at governor. I think that he has helped to bring economic disaster to Milwaukee County.

...Conventional wisdom tells us that Walker getting out of the race is good for Green and the Republicans. This analysis is probably more true than false. However, one good thing about this development is that I now get to focus much more attention on Mark Green. Given his voting record, ties to indicted congressmen, and possible ties to a convicted lobbyist, I will likely need this extra time. Thanks Scott Walker, and thank you God!

Clearly, Liebmann unfairly characterizes what Walker said. He never claimed that "God endorsed" him.

I don't find humor in Liebmann's snide remarks about God's supposed change of heart regarding Walker's candidacy. I don't find his jibes about the lack of media of coverage on God's new choice for governor to be witty.

They are a tasteless affront to ALL people who pray and look to God.

Bill Christofferson, of The Xoff Files, seizes on Liebmann's jeers, highlighting the obnoxious post.

What we have here is a potent reminder of the great divide between conservatives and liberals when it comes to values.

The self-proclaimed enlightened, sophisticated liberal Dems are out of touch.

It's not in their best interests politically to draw attention to the fact that they are mockers of the faithful.

The Dems Pretend to Have a Plan

Finally!

The Dems are unveiling their plan on national security, a position paper outlining what they stand for.

It appears to be little more than the same old, same old. Empty promises. No substance. Lame rhetoric.

I imagine they are hoping that no one will notice their vacuousness.

How foolish!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

Let's not forget that the Dems had bin Laden. He was there for the taking and they blew it.

President of the Republic of the Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, offered bin Laden to Bill Clinton in 1997.

From the PBS program "Hunting Bin Laden," an installment on Frontline:

INTERVIEWER: The New York Times reported that in February of 1997 that you sent President Clinton a personal letter to allow US intelligence and counter-terrorism people to come here to the Sudan, to have access to anything they wanted, to stop terrorism.

BASHIR: That is true. I have sent a letter like this to President Clinton, until this moment we did not get any response to that.

INTERVIEWER: You have ambassadors in the United States. Have they asked?

BASHIR: It is our ambassador who took the letter and handed it there and tried to follow-up the matter with the White House ... . But nothing came and it was turned down.

So now we're to believe that the Dems will "eliminate" bin Laden. Yeah, right. That promise is guaranteed to be broken.

The Dems should have "eliminated" bin Laden when the president of Sudan asked Clinton to take him. Bin Laden was a known enemy of the U.S. and they failed to "eliminate" the threat he posed to Americans.

The elusive bin Laden was in the palm of Clinton's hand and he did NOTHING.

Their plan for troop redeployment seems as elusive as bin Laden.

The Dems obviously were too afraid to set a timeline, even though they keep pressuring the Bush Administration to present a timeline for withdrawal. The Dems also provide no deadline for American troops to be out of Iraq completely.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

First, I don't think the Dems are uniting. The likes of Feingold and Murtha certainly can't be happy with such a meaningless agenda.

Second, when it comes to national security, the Dems are not tough and they are not smart. (See Clinton's failure to deal with bin Laden.)

The safety of the American people should not be in the hands of Harry "We killed the Patriot Act" Reid.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction _ "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

The Dems have demonstrated over and over again that they are not the party of "real national security." It seems that at every turn they try to undermine the War on Terror, through their words and deeds.

..."The Democrats are going to take back the security issue," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Ah yes, Chuckie is the chair of the DSCC.

That would be the committee with staffer Lauren B. Weiner, the woman who illegally used the Social Security number of U.S. senate candidate Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to impersonate him and pry into his financial records. Weiner went so far as to set up a fake email account under Steele's name to access his private information.

I consider that to be domestic spying and definitely unconstitutional. Did Weiner have a warrant? Steele is no terrorist, but he is a strong Republican candidate. I guess to the Dems Steele is as threatening as a terrorist, so Weiner conducted a warrantless search. Maybe it would be more fitting to call it fraudulent.

Talk about eroding civil liberties!

The Dems don't have the security issue. The Dems are appeasers. They are weak on national security.

I know this is painful, but think of what Carter did to the country. Think of what Clinton did. The Dems cannot be trusted to protect America. It's as simple as that.

...Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."

It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.

The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's tired rhetoric. There's no plan from the Dems, only a history of making disastrous national security decisions.

Empty political rhetoric does not make Americans safer.

We don't need snake oil.
_______________________________

I saw this on the DNC website -- The Filthy Four.

After a weekend of buzzer beaters, blowouts, heartbreak, and euphoria, the "Unsweet Sixteen" has been whittled down to the "Filthy Four." There are no feel good cindarella stories in the field, just a collection of the corrupt. Here are the finalists and how they got there.



Read the details of the brackets.

It's so ugly and it's on the DNC site, not some wacko, Lefty blog.

The Dems are not the party of ideas.

They have a lot of anger. That's about it.

When Universes Collide

Liberal and conservative universes collided on Sunday night on WABC radio.

The scene of the clash was Brian Whitman's show. Alec Baldwin was scheduled to spend the better part of the two and a half hour show with Whitman -- a sort of on air audition for Baldwin, an "I'm not a talk show host, but I'll play one on the radio" thing.

It didn't go well. He got huffy and walked out of the studio after a dustup with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Rule #1 for success on radio: STAY IN THE STUDIO!

According to Sean Hannity, Baldwin's appearance with Whitman was to be preceded by an appearance on his radio show, but Baldwin backed out of the Hannity appearance.

That's the background. Here's part of what happened when Hannity and Mark Levin called in during Baldwin's guest-host stint with Whitman. This is not the entire exchange. Missing is the part where Baldwin called Hannity a "no talent whore."

Transcript, from NewsMax

HANNITY: Alec, I wanted to give you an official WABC welcome considering you were supposed to come on my program last week and you didn't show up. What happened?


BALDWIN: No, I wasn't supposed to come on your program, Sean Hannity.

HANNITY: No, actually you were supposed to come on the program because a deal was made with your agent that if you were going to come on with Brian, first you'd come on with me.

BALDWIN: I wouldn't dream of coming on your program, Sean Hannity. I'm here with Brian. I'm here with a really talented broadcaster.

HANNITY: [Crosstalk] that you are, you don't tell the truth.

BALDWIN: Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you?


HANNITY: Are you the guy that said of our vice president, while we're at war, while we're leading troops in harm's way - are you the reckless, third-rate Hollywood actor who said that Dick Cheney is a terrorist? Are you the guy . . .

BALDWIN: Yes I am.

HANNITY: ... who said to stone Henry Hyde to death? Are you the guy who said our president is a CIA mass murderer? I wanted you to come on the program and defend that, you gutless coward.

BALDWIN: At first I thought this was a joke. But you can hear all the acid venom spewing hatred. It is Sean Hannity. [END EXCERPT]

The exchange got even hotter when Mark Levin joined in.

LEVIN: We've only just begun - are you 40 or 50 pounds overweight now?

WHITMAN: Oh, C'mon now . . . .

HANNITY: Once and for all you need to be challenged. You want to call our vice president a terrorist - fine. You want to talk about stoning people to death, say it on my program. If you want to be irresponsible and call our president a mass murderer while he's at war leading troops in harm's way ...

BALDWIN: And what are you gonna do about it, Sean Hannity?

HANNITY: You don't have the courage to answer questions.

BALDWIN: And what are you gonna do? And what are you going to do about it, Sean Hannity. If I come on your program, what are you going to do?

LEVIN: He's going to show that you have a two digit IQ - that's what he's gonna do.

BALWIN: What are you going to do?

LEVIN: I just told you - you've got a two digit IQ.

BALDWIN: And who's that - who's your little cabin boy there with you.

LEVIN: I'm not a cabin boy, butt-boy.

BALDWIN: What are you doing there, cabin boy? ... I now dub you Sean Hannity's cabin boy.

LEVIN: And you know what you are? You're "Brokeback" Alec. [END EXCERPT]

The confrontation continued to spiral out of control, with Whitman intermittently trying to make peace and Baldwin repeatedly urging him to move on to other callers.

BALDWIN: Listen, Sean - you incredibly ignorant boob from Long Island ...

HANNITY: Oh, ouch, Alec.

BALDWIN: No, no, no, you've spoken, let me talk, Sean. Cause you've been spewing your ...

HANNITY: You're a third-rate Hollywood egomaniac.

BALDWIN: You're a no-talent, ignorant fool from Long Island. You should go back to building houses in Hempstead.

LEVIN: Why was your [former] wife [Kim Basinger] so pissed off at you, anyway?

WHITMAN: Now, c'mon guys.

BALDWIN: OK. We're done. [Gets up and leaves the studio]

WHITMAN: Come back. Come back. Alec? They're gone. Alec? Alec has walked out of the studio. Alec, please come back.

Clearly, punches were thrown by all parties involved. I think if Baldwin had been willing to rationally engage Hannity, things would never have become so heated, at least in terms of the name-calling.

But this was just the beginning. The feud is still raging.

Both Hannity and Levin have devoted a good deal of air time to discussing the Baldwin incident.

Baldwin is keeping the battle alive as well, and also doing some big time CYA. I suppose his publicist insisted that he do some damage control due to his seemingly derogatory statements about construction workers.

It's the blue collar Americans that go to movies or at least rent movies. For a prominent Hollywood lib to come off as even more out of touch with working men and women -- the backbone of America -- is bad for Hollywood. It's bad for Baldwin's image; and it's bad for the Dems who align themselves with the Hollywood crowd.

Today on his blog at Huffington Post, Baldwin addresses the incident.

In an attempt to present himself as fair and balanced, he heaps praise on Bill O'Reilly, calling him a "talented broadcaster."

Baldwin says, "He is telegenic in ways that most network anchors and cable hosts can only dream of. He is commanding and quick on his feet. He is inexhaustible and has an abundance of those simple skills that make for what used to be called 'Great Television.'"

When was the last time you heard a Hollywood lib compliment O'Reilly? When was the first time? I think this would be it.

On Sunday evening, at the suggestion of a friend of mine who works inside the NY radio broadcast community, I guest-hosted Brian Whitman's talk show on WABC radio, which was, ultimately, hijacked by talk-show host Sean Hannity, who called in and demanded to be heard. He was accompanied by another ABC Talk Radio host, Mark Levin, someone I had never heard of before that evening.

How could Baldwin be unfamiliar with Levin?

I would have thought that knowledge of popular syndicated radio host and best-selling author Mark Levin would have penetrated the Hollywood lib bubble by now.

After some back and forth between myself and Hannity, most of it predictable, Levin made a comment connected to my divorce proceedings. I turned to Whitman, who knew that I was due to depart the show no later than 8:30 PM New York time anyway, and told him I had to go. I thought that Levin, whoever he may be and whatever code he does or does not operate by, had crossed a line and I was under no obligation to continue in that vein.

Whitman was on Hannity's show today. He took issue with Baldwin saying that it was time for him to leave anyway. Whitman said that Baldwin's departure was in direct response to his exchange with Hannity and Levin.

Levin defended his comment, "Why was your wife so pissed off at you, anyway?" He noted that Baldwin has often publicly discussed his divorce. He didn't consider his rather innocuous question to have crossed a line.

Baldwin's suggestion that he felt it was inappropriate to bring family into the "debate" is somewhat disingenuous.

Is he forgetting his 1998 appearance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, when he said that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde should be stoned to death and his family killed?

Baldwin ranted:

"If we were living in another country, what we, all of us together, would go down to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death, stone him to death, stone him to death! Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the family, kill the children."

Oh, I don't know. Do you think that Baldwin's suggestion that Henry Hyde's family and children be stoned to death was a tad over the line? Just a little?

I have no problem with anything Hannity might say. Hannity, who lacks practically every skill that O'Reilly conveys so effortlessly, will always be doomed to do what he can with what little he has. But to suggest that I have any disrespect for any laborers of any kind in this country is plain wrong.

In terms of making the most of his skills, Hannity is second only to Rush Limbaugh in talk radio. Being completely objective, Hannity has achieved tremendous success. That's undeniable. It is very small of Baldwin to pretend that is not the case. He's being unrealistic, which discredits his commentary.

Moreover, if Baldwin has so much respect for construction workers, then why did he repeatedly belittle Hannity for having once worked in construction?

Hannity did what he does best: to artificially cast himself as the friend of the working man, and to attempt to frame me as the snobbish, distant limousine liberal who emanates all of his public-mindedness from his checkbook, while never knowing the business end of level, a hammer or a drill. Shame on you, Sean Hannity, you poor, ignorant fool. Everyone who knows me, and a wealth of people who actually don't, would never believe that characterization.

Let's be fair.

Hannity does not "artificially cast himself as the friend of the working man." That's patently false. For example, he has spent hours on the issue of eminent domain. He has personally assisted "working men" about to be forced off of their property.

Through hard work, Hannity is realizing his dreams. Anyone who knows his story, knows that he struggled economically and didn't have anything handed to him on a silver platter.

As far as Baldwin goes, I've heard him talk about his childhood. He wasn't born into privilege either.

That said, Baldwin did frame his comment about Hannity's past construction work as an insult. That's why people who heard it, especially construction workers, are so offended.

It would have been much wiser for Baldwin to acknowledge that his words could have been interpreted to mean that he looked down on the working man. He should have simply apologized for the misunderstanding and expressed that he did not consider blue collar workers to be inferior to high and mighty Hollywood celebrities.

Pornography is the lurid and detached exploitation of something that is essentially good, even necessary, in order to make money, while simultaneously shaming and disgracing all of those who are involved. Instead of the basic force of sex, "political pornographers" exploit the good and necessary love of country that men and women seek to express and exercise on both sides of the aisle. Hannity is such a pornographer. He taunts and goads his listenership to express their political views in lurid, yet detached, ways. They do it in anonymity. They stress themselves to reach out and touch people in their lurid and detached way who they do not even know. Like pornography, they exert themselves to reach a state that gives them the release that they consciously avoid through a healthier, more personal involvement. Like pornography.

Hannity is the Larry Flynt of talk-radio. And he has about as much influence in the world of American public affairs as Flynt. It must be hard for these rabid right-wing types to watch their heroes fall. Almost as hard for them as it is for those of us who saw through these people from the beginning.

In effect, Baldwin is stealing Bill Moyers' line about talk radio being "a freak show of political pornography: lies, distortions, and half-truths — half-truths being perhaps the blackest of all lies."

He, however, takes the pornography analogy to a new height, and slams the twelve million plus daily listeners of Hannity's radio show.

Actually, I think Baldwin's latest remarks are just as offensive as his berating of construction workers.

It's rather snobbish to cast Hannity's listeners as akin to consumers of pornography.

He can fight with Hannity. He can fight with Levin. But why would he want to fight with millions of hard-working, conservative Americans?

What could be more divisive than that?

In spite of Baldwin's politics and his dips into complete lunacy, I think he can be very funny.

I'm normally quite successful at compartmentalizing the political rants of lib celebrities. I can manage to put the partisan stuff aside and be entertained by them.

Even the Sunday feud on Whitman's show I think I could fence off and ignore. But Baldwin's blanket statements today attack so many good people in such an ugly way. That will be very hard to contain.

Baldwin says that he "knows what it's like to work hard, and to love your country, every day."

I'm sure Baldwin has worked hard. I'm sure he loves his country. The problem is there are millions and millions of his countrymen that he disdains.

A Felonious Trip to Disney World

"Jason Griffin, it's January. What are you going to do now?"

"I'm going to Disney World! And starve my dog to death."



This story is very disturbing.

RIVERHEAD, N.Y. (AP) -- He went on vacation, and left his dog to die.

A man who admitted that his dog starved to death in a basement closet while he took his 7-year-old daughter on a vacation to Disney World was sentenced Tuesday to one year in jail.

Jason Griffin, 27, received the maximum sentence for aggravated cruelty to animals after pleading guilty March 10 in Suffolk County Court in Riverhead, prosecutors said.

Griffin just left his labrador-pit bull mix without any food or water for over a week while he vacationed at Disney World.

The prosecutor in the case said that the dog "suffered unmeasurable pain." Because of his cruelty, Griffin was sentenced to a year in jail.

Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney Glenn Kurtzrock claims that he got more than one hundred letters from animal lovers all over the country and Canada, urging that Griffin receive a harsh penalty for his crime.

I think a year in jail is fitting.

Kurtzrock believes that Griffin's daughter is currently staying with relatives. That's good. Even after Griffin serves his jail time, I question whether a man who is willing to leave his dog without food or water for more than a week should be allowed to care for a child.

There's something disjointed about going to Disney World while killing your dog. The "Happiest Place on Earth" juxtaposed with a basement closet torture chamber is creepy.

I don't know if Griffin is a good dad or not, but he definitely is a horrible pet owner.

Under New York law, AGM, Article 26, § 353-a. Aggravated cruelty to animals:

1. A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, "aggravated cruelty" shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.

Under § 353. Overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance, a person who deprives "any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink" is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Obviously, New York has strict animal welfare laws; and at least in Griffin's case, they are enforced. Griffin was convicted of a felony for what he did to his dog.

I think that's appropriate. Torturing an animal runs counter to the values of our society. The way Griffin treated his dog was beyond cruel. It was barbaric. This does not pass for appropriate behavior among civilized people.

So, someone explain to me why it was acceptable to deprive Terri Schiavo of "necessary sustenance."

As a society, we will not tolerate the starvation and dehydration of a dog. Good.

As a society, how can we possibly tolerate the starvation and dehydration of a human being?

That's wrong. It's inhumane. It's morally repugnant.

I think of such treatment as a crime against humanity.