Jane Fonda

Back in July, Jane Fonda announced that she would be going on "a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq."

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," she said.

Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on "vegetable oil."

..."I've decided I'm coming out," she said...

"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

At the time I speculated that Hanoi Jane's decision to schedule her deja vu tour in March might coincide with the release of the paperback version of her book.

OK, I was a month off; but I still think I should get credit for being awfully close to the mark.

Fonda has cancelled her plans to tour the country to speak out against the war.

She hasn't cancelled plans to hawk the paperback version of her book.

Fonda was on Good Morning America on Monday, and explained that she would let Cindy Sheehan handle the protesting. Fonda backed out of her promise to travel the country on a vegetable oil-fueled bus.

ATLANTA (AP) -- Jane Fonda says she would like to tour the country and speak out against U.S. involvement in Iraq, but her controversial history of Vietnam War protests leaves her with "too much baggage."

"I wanted to do a tour like I did during the Vietnam War, a tour of the country," the Oscar-winning actress said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "But then Cindy Sheehan filled in the gap, and she is better at this than I am. I carry too much baggage."

So, instead of yapping about the war in Iraq, Fonda is talking about herself to sell some more books.

On Monday, she was interviewed by Barbara Walters on The Charlie Rose Show.



With Walters as her enabler, it was Fonda at her navel-gazing best.

"You can't have a real relationship until you have one with yourself."

Discussing her difficult relationship with her daughter, wiping away tears, Fonda said, "She is slowly realizing that I love her."

She went on, "It's never too late to be a parent." That sort of wisdom belongs in a Hallmark card.

Flashing a stack of papers, Walters said that she gets letters everyday bashing Fonda for her antics in Vietnam.

That's weird, so weird that it's hard to believe.

Anyway, Fonda said it was pathetic that people are still angry at her. She blamed the Right Wing for keeping the issue alive and fanning the flames because it suits their purpose.

That's weird, too. I don't think Fonda is at the top of the list of concerns among conservatives.

Fonda expressed her worries about Iran and cited the Seymour Hersh article in The New Yorker. She fears for the future and what Bush might do.

"I think just about everything coming out of this Administration is frightening."

Walters asked for Fonda's thoughts on the 2008 presidential race.

Fonda said, "I think Hillary's good. I think Feingold is good." But, they aren't perfect. There needs to be a grass roots movement to pressure them to move further Left according to Fonda.

OK, Jane.

Whatever you say.
_________________________________

Note: Walters did not ask Fonda what kind of tree she would be.

Much Ado About Absolutely NOTHING

This is such a non-story that I think it's worth noting for that reason alone.

WASHINGTON (AFP) -- US President George W. Bush and his wife Laura launched the annual White House Easter egg party while managing to avoid any awkward moments with dozens of gay couples and their children who attended the outdoor event.

...But gay groups joined the queue for tickets -- which were given out to families on a first-come, first served basis at the White House on Saturday.

Despite the opposition of conservative religious groups, Bush and his wife Laura chose not to prevent the gay parents from attending.

WHAT?

Of course, the President and Mrs. Bush "chose not to prevent gay parents from attending."

It's ridiculous to even imagine that they would consider such a cruel move as not allowing children of gay parents to join in the tradition.

The gay groups said their gesture was meant to make their presence felt in American society even though Bush opposes legalizing gay marriage.

I suppose the gesture was important to the gay parents in attendance. I think the majority of the other parents and children there could not have cared less. The day was not about gay marriage.

There were no confrontations or tense moments as the opening of the event was closed to the public, with the president and his wife meeting invited guests, including families of White House staff and volunteers.

Why would parents and children visiting the White House for the Easter Egg Roll be confrontational under any circumstances?

How goofy! The day was about family and fun, not creating tension.

The gay parents also chose a discreet approach without any explicit protest, identifying themselves with rainbow-coloured flowers.

Gee, I guess the heterosexual parents decided to take an even more discreet approach and not identify their sexual preferences at all.



This is really, really lame.

I don't know why this was even an issue.

This certainly isn't the first year that gay parents brought their children to the Easter Egg Roll.

I don't see why the gay parents felt the need to politicize the event and, in effect, use their children as pawns to make their statement.

What does the sexual orientation of the parents have to do with this Easter celebration?

It's completely irrelevant.

Mrs. Bush made it clear that "all families [were] welcome to attend the Easter egg roll."

Mrs. Bush's Remarks at the Easter Egg Roll

(Excerpt)

MRS. BUSH: Hello, everyone. Welcome to this happiest of traditions at the White House. I'm so thrilled you all are here. In Washington, we know that spring has arrived when the White House lawn is filled with children for the Easter Egg Hunt. I want to thank all of the children here today who brought their parents with them. Thank you for bringing adults. Have a wonderful time today. And thank you for bringing so much joy to the White House grounds. We hope all of you have a great time.

At no point in her relatively brief remarks did Mrs. Bush bring up the sexual proclivities of the adults present.

I suppose she didn't bring up the subject because it would have been an inappropriate topic for both children and adults in attendance, and because IT WAS TOTALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THE EASTER EGG ROLL.

From New York Blade Online:

"I think it's important to show people that we're ordinary just like them, and we have families and children who like Easter Egg rolls," Way said.

The idea seemed to have worked, according to Imirowicz.

"There was not one unkind word," Imirowicz said about the reaction from the straight parents. "They seemed to say that was a good thing — [that children of gay parents] deserved Easter Eggs as well as the other kids."

Why would anyone expect unkind words? The straight parents were at the White House to enjoy the tradition with their kids, not harass people.

I think the entire "gay and lesbian families storm the White House" thing was silly.

The best way to show how "ordinary" the gay parents and their children really are would have been to just go and enjoy the event.

If their families aren't different, why bother to wear rainbow-colored flowers to mark themselves?

Parents, gay or straight, love their children, and want to celebrate the joy of Easter.

It seems simple enough to me.

Consistency and the Culture of Life

Tim Russert tackled "Faith in America" on Meet the Press this Easter Sunday.

Among Russert's guests was Sister Joan Chittister of the Order of St. Benedict and author of Called to Question: A Spiritual Memoir.


Transcript

Certainly, a variety of opinions makes for an interesting discussion, but when the fringe voices are highlighted, it presents a misleading image of mainstream religious thought. Such is the case with Sister Chittister.

MR. RUSSERT: Sister Joan, you wrote an open letter when our new pope was selected: “Dear Pope,” and in it, “Do not make enemies of us.” Are you concerned that some Catholics do not feel welcome in their church because they have disagreements on issues like stem cell research or on gay rights or AIDS and condoms, or abortion or death penalty?

SISTER CHITTISTER: I, I’m simply asking that all of us realize that the answers we have right now in those arenas may well not be final answers. That we’re all struggling to find the best answers. We all say that, that life is, is our greatest value, but life has never been an absolute value. It’s not an absolute value in war, it’s not an absolute value in prisons, it’s not an absolute value in self-defense, for instance. So now all of a sudden you have a completely new set of life questions that some of us want to absolutize. I, I consider that a holy act. But another—others of us, out of a completely and equally sincere concern for life, answer those questions differently.

MR. RUSSERT: Abortion?

SISTER CHITTISTER: Anything. Stem cell research, abortion, any of those. At one time, for instance, the church was against dissection for the sake of, of medical research. We grew. I’m saying that this is a time of a lot of new questions. I’m agreeing that we’re in this together, that, that we have to see life as, as our basic value that we have. We’re politicizing religion. Having religion in the public arena is one thing, politicizing it is another. If we, if we do that, we’ll lose pluralism for Puritanism. We don’t want to do that. We’re risking the country at the same time.

The function of the church is to form and shape consciences. We have two different kinds of laws. We have laws that require and laws that permit. Nobody—when Catholics did not believe in divorce—do not believe in divorce.

We never asked the United States government to outlaw the divorce procedure. We never said that’s the only way this can be an honorable nation. Now we’re back into those kinds of questions. If we’re looking for, for, for a moral standard, we have to do something about looking at the national budget. Your national budget is theology walking. If we’re really a pro-life country and not a pro-birth country, we, we won’t be taking from all the life bodies in order to feed a war body. Somehow or other, we have got to be willing to live in our denominations the best we can in those denominations, growing—open to growing into answers that are coming to us from other people, other places, other sciences. That’s, that’s my great concern. I believe it’s you all come. I don’t want anybody in a, in a time of great newness and emerging ideas to say, “Everybody, but you.”

When Sister Chittister says, "The function of the church is to form and shape consciences," she sounds like a liberal professor rather than a Catholic nun.

She speaks of the mind in secular terms, rather than of the soul in spiritual terms.

I've heard many priests and nuns use their positions to promote a politically liberal agenda and to campaign against conservative politicians.

So often, while they condemn pro-lifers for lacking consistency in terms of their views, they fail to admit their own inconsistency; and worse, they claim moral superiority.

For instance, while condemning wars, they conveniently dismiss the torture and suffering of civilians under tyrannical regimes. Is it moral to stand idly by while witnessing atrocities and genocide?

They preach social justice, but at times are oblivious to fundamental teachings of the Church.

With all due respect, Chittister's use of the divorce example to argue that the Church needs to evolve in its stance on abortion is very weak.

Divorce is not on the same moral plane as abortion. Furthermore, Chittister gives a muddled explanation of divorce and the Catholic Church.

People can divorce, but they can't remarry, unless the first union is annulled. The Church hasn't altered its position as she implies.

I'm not surprised by her attempt to rationalize the Church's need to accept abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Sister Joan Chittister is a liberal activist within the Church.

Read her Address at the Women’s Ordination Worldwide conference in Dublin, June 30, 2001.

This exchange between Sister Chittister and Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, and author of Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy and the Splendor of Truth, is quite telling. It exhibits how extreme Chittister is.

Russert asks about the criticism that some Catholic U.S. Senators receive for not abiding by Catholic teaching and for working to write and support legislation that undermines it.

REV. NEUHAUS: ...[W]hen you have, for example, a Catholic senator or congressperson who stands up and persistently, publicly, unapologetically, defiantly, again and again, says, “I do not believe what the church believes with regards to the moral imperative of protecting innocent, unborn human life.”

If you have a senator who says, or a congressperson who says, “Yes, I agree that the goal is and, as a Catholic, I am convinced in conscience that the goal is every unborn child protected in law and welcomed in life, but I disagree with the bishops as to how we might get to that goal,” that is a different thing and their the—his or her relationship with the church is not compromised or impaired. But when you have, as we do have, many Catholic political figures persistently defying the very teaching of the church, the most fundamental teaching of the church with regard to the dignity of the human person at every stage of development and decline, then you have a problem where the bishop is required, because the bishop’s a pastor, is required to say to that person, “Hey, we better talk, because you are compromising your relationship with the church.” It’s not a political issue; it’s a ecclesial issue. It’s an issue with regard to the integrity of the life of the church.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that, Sister?

SISTER CHITTISTER: I, I, I think the distinction is a good one. I don’t think that it’s, it’s totally accurate. Fact of the matter is that a legislator can work very, very hard for these issues that, that mean so much to, to all of us; at the same time, have to work, as Father said later, differently in that arena. At the same time, you, you have parallel situations where it’s not being applied. You have Governor Kaine from Virginia, who is a Catholic, who says that he is opposed to capital punishment, but he will maintain the law. That...

REV. NEUHAUS: But, you know, Sister, capital punishment and abortion are not at the same level of teaching weight.

SISTER CHITTISTER: Well, I don’t know that, see. I think that...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh, really?

SISTER CHITTISTER: Yeah. I think they are at this...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh I, I—consult the catechism.

SISTER CHITTISTER: I think they, I think that they are not at the same level of teaching weight. I’m saying I’m not sure why.

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh.

SISTER CHITTISTER: I’m not sure why they’re not at the same level of teaching weight.

REV. NEUHAUS: Ah.

SISTER CHITTISTER: Because either, either life is of value or it’s not of value. Are we saying get them all born, but you can kill them anytime afterwards and it won’t mean as much? I doubt that. I think that this is part of what I said at the beginning. These are new issues emerging. We need a lot of these good conversations, and we need a lot of awareness that, somehow or other, we’re, we’re growing into both a new country and, and a new religious network.

It appears that Chittister has some issues with nuance and complexities.

I agree with her that we "need a lot of these good conversations" because they reveal just how radical and illogical some liberal proponents within the Catholic Church in America really are.

Although the Church is clearly opposed to the death penalty, I question how a Catholic nun can even begin to equate capitol punishment with abortion.

How is executing a convicted criminal, a murderer for example, equivalent to killing an innocent unborn baby?

As a Catholic nun, Chittister should be promoting consistency in the Culture of Life. Rather than exploiting capitol punishment as a justification for the Church to rethink its positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, she should be condemning the death penalty, as well as the targeting of civilians in war.

I can understand Chittister's anti-war position, and her activism for peace and non-violence, as it relates to Catholic teaching. I don't understand how her thinking allows her to reconcile abortion and the destruction of human life as an expression of either peace or non-violence.

It's inconsistent.
________________________________

Read more about Sister Chittister as a "notorious dissenter."

PEEPS

Peeps taste good, but they make bad role models.

Resurrection

Pope Benedict at the Easter Vigil

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI ushered in Easter services late Saturday with a dramatic, candlelit vigil in St. Peter's Basilica, saying Christ's resurrection was "the most crucial leap" in the history of mankind.

The bells of St. Peter's tolled across Rome as midnight approached to herald in Easter, when the faithful celebrate the resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion on Good Friday.

...At the start of Saturday night's lengthy vigil, Benedict entered the darkened basilica in silence, holding in front of him a single white candle. Its flame was then shared with others until slowly the whole basilica began to twinkle with candles held by the thousands of faithful gathered for the chant-filled service.

...During the service, Benedict baptized seven people — a rite he said was more than a simple washing or purification of the soul.

"It is truly death and resurrection, rebirth, transformation to a new life," he said.

I wasn't at St. Peter's for the Easter Vigil Mass.

I attended the service at my own parish church. Yes, it's a different continent, but the beliefs and the rituals are the same.

The Easter Vigil is not something that just happens in Vatican City. It happens all over the world, as Catholics celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.

The service is lengthy, but it doesn't seem long. It is packed with symbolism and beauty.

Just like at St. Peter's Basilica, the Easter Vigil begins in the dark, symbolizing the darkness of the world without Jesus. The priest lights the Paschal candle and that flame is passed from person to person, candle to candle, until the church is glowing with light -- hope.

Out of darkness, light.

In addition to the fire, there is the water of baptism, in which sins are washed away, and the faithful renew their baptismal vows.

Then, catechumens are confirmed.

It's a moving celebration of initiation, rebirth, and life.

Out of the sadness and death of Good Friday, comes Easter joy.

During the Vigil, I thought of the two missing Milwaukee boys, Quadrevion Henning and Purvis Parker, found drowned in the pond of a park. I thought of their short lives and the tragedy of their deaths.

I also thought of the military families that lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I thought of those struggling with illness of the body or the soul. So much suffering and grieving.

How can they be rejoicing this Easter?

I've found that at the lowest points in my life, my faith has been the strongest. For me, the message of Easter resonated more clearly than ever at those times. Rather than feeling abandoned or angry that I had challenges and my life was far from perfect, I still felt blessed.

I hope that this Easter, in the midst of their sorrow, the despairing are able to find comfort in their faith, and hope in the promise of the Resurrection.

The President Can't Take a Joke

I don't mean President Bush.

He manages to handle the daily barrage of jokes at his expense. I'm referring to the president of Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could take a few lessons from Bush.

Tehran, 14 April (AKI) -- Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has apparently been incensed by an anonymous text message suggesting he does not wash enough. Ahmadinejad has taken legal action over the offending text, has fired the president of a phone company and has had four people arrested and accused of colluding with the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, the anti-government website Rooz Online reports.

Poking fun at the president, the regime's senior figures and its policies, has reportedly become a national pastime in Iran. The Iranian authorities are paying particular attention to jokes comparing Iran's nuclear programme with sex. Several people are widely believed to have received court summonses for sending nuclear-related jokes, according to Rooz Online.

...The clampdown is in line with the authorities' uncompromising stance on Internet bloggers. Large numbers of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic. This apparently began in the run-up to the presidential election last June.

Next time someone complains, most likely a liberal, that the chill wind of censorship is blowing in America, that freedom of expression has been squelched under the Bush Administration, tell them about this.

Can you imagine what would happen if Bush threw in jail everyone blogging or text messaging jokes about him?

We wouldn't have prisons to handle such an influx of offenders.

Instead of using the Iranians' method to crackdown on criticism of the president, perhaps Bush could revoke jokesters' citizenship, forcing them to flee to Mexico.

If Russ Feingold were a member of the Iranian National Assembly, do you think he would introduce a resolution to censure Ahmadinejad for his warrantless monitoring?

Obviously, not all countries are created equal.

God bless the USA!
____________________________________

Here is some more news out of Iran.

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

..."I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Some of General Safavi's remarks sound as if they could have come out of General Zinni's mouth.

Scary.

Quadrevion and Purvis

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The families of two boys missing for almost a month said Saturday that their bodies had been recovered from a park lagoon near where they disappeared.

..."Honestly I don't think there was any foul play," said Dennis Frazier, Quadrevion's uncle. "That makes it kind of nice for the family that they weren't held against their own will."

Police did not immediately confirmed the identities. Autopsies were scheduled Saturday and police scheduled a news conference for later in the day.

Frazier said family members had identified Quadrevion from a photo that police showed them. Angela Virginia said she also identified her son, Purvis, from a photo.

Police have set a news conference for 3:00 pm.

It appears that the boys' deaths were accidental. For the sake of the families, I hope the autopsies reveal that to be the case.

Please pray for Quadrevion and Purvis, and pray for their loved ones.

NO "NO SNITCHING"

A sad discovery was made Good Friday night in Milwaukee.

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Police say two bodies were recovered tonight from a park lagoon in the area where two Milwaukee boys have been missing for almost month.

Police Chief Nan Hergerty told reporters two people walking through McGovern Park spotted the first body, which was floating in the lagoon.

She says the body couldn't be immediately identified ... and an autopsy will be done tomorrow morning.

Police confirmed that divers later recovered a second body from the same area.

If the bodies turn out to be those of Quadrevion Henning and Purvis Parker, it will mean closure for the families.

Although the weeks of uncertainty have been agonizing for the loved ones of Quadrevion and Purvis, what comfort would there be in learning that hope for the boys' safe return is lost?

Personally, I think "closure" is highly overrated.

Sadly, life can hand us excruciatingly painful experiences. We can't avoid these harsh realities. We can only do our best to persevere.

In cases like the disappearance of the boys, it's so important for people with information to come forward immediately.

From TMJ4:

Police believe someone in Milwaukee has information about missing boys Purvis Parker and Quadrevion Henning, but are refusing to come forward. There are new efforts to change the no-snitching mentality in Milwaukee.

...Police say people pushing for no snitching are using threats to keep others quiet. They say it's a fear of retaliation if people speak out. A new movement in the film and music industry isn't helping. Police say it's keeping people quiet by scaring them. One such DVD shows slumped over bodies shot and bloody, an apparent consequence of squealing to police.

A street code of silence is part of the problem in Milwaukee as police continue to search for the two missing boys. The MPD say the "no snitching" movement is hurting the investigation. That's why tomorrow an association of African American police officers, called the League of Martin, is having a conference to talk about crime in the city, including the problem of the no snitching movement.

The League of Martin believes the key to ending the stop snitching movement is by going into neighborhoods in Milwaukee and start rebuilding people's trust in the police department so they feel comfortable sharing information.

The Frank Jude beating trial verdicts are likely to hamper efforts to foster a better relationship between the police and the people uncomfortable with cooperating with them.

Nevertheless, I really don't understand how people's consciences allow them to withhold information. It's possible to give tips to police anonymously.

How can one with knowledge of a crime stay silent, especially when it relates to a child?

Everything is not relative. There are absolutes. Things are right, and things are wrong.

When it comes to crime and bettering a community, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Frank Jude, Jr. and Frustration

There were calls for peace in the city of Milwaukee late Friday night.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Jury finds 3 former officers not guilty

Late in their third day of deliberations, an all white jury found three former Milwaukee Police officers not guilty of beating Frank Jude Jr. at a 2004 Bay View house party.

Circuit Judge David A. Hansher read the verdict to a packed courtroom at 11:19 p.m., after the panel had been deliberating for more than 26 hours.

Andrew Spengler, Jon Bartlett and Daniel Masarik were all charged with substantial battery. Bartlett and Masarik also were charged with second-degree recklessly endangering safety. If convicted, Bartlett and Masarik had faced up to 22 1/2 and 13 1/2 years in prison, respectively, and Spengler up to 3 years. The jury returned findings of not guilty for each man, but reported a deadlock on one count, Bartlett's battery charge.

An angry Mayor Tom Barrett reacted, "This has been a long and troubling night for our community. I am absolutely shocked and outraged by these verdicts. Mr. Jude was beaten badly and we need to hold accountable those who are responsible. This is not over."

Barrett and District Attorney E. Michael McCann both believe that the case should be looked at by a federal prosecutor.

Now, obviously Jude was severely beaten, and at this point no one is being held responsible for the crime.



This is an outrage.

My question:

Who does the mayor blame for the acquittals?

Barrett was clear about being shocked and outraged, that he wanted convictions; but he also was very vague.

He didn't really blame the jury for the verdicts.

It's not the jury's fault if McCann was unable to present evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the former officers were guilty of the crime.

Is the mayor upset with the cops and their "code of silence" that McCann was complaining about?

That could be it.

Whatever, Barrett is convinced that the three former officers are guilty. He believes that the judicial system didn't work in Jude's case, but he didn't really indicate exactly where he thinks the breakdown occurred or exactly what leads him to that conclusion.

Let's put aside Barrett's incoherent response to the verdicts.

Was justice done in the Jude case?

The jury found that there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

Did the jury get it wrong?

I don't know. I didn't sit through the trial.

But, since there is absolutely no question that Jude was brutally and mercilessly beaten, until someone is held accountable for the beating, it cannot be said that there is justice in the case.

Jude, his family, and supporters have reason to be frustrated, and so do all the other victims of crime who don't see justice done because witnesses are not willing to come forward.

Apparently, the "Stop Snitch'n" movement permeates many sectors of the city of Milwaukee. It appears to be part of the culture of the central city and the police force.

Unless good people are willing to stand up to bad guys and hold them accountable for being the sociopaths that they are, justice will not be the norm.

That's frustrating.

I think that those unwilling to cooperate to achieve justice are behaving immorally.


We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good Friday

On the first Good Friday of his pontificate, Pope Benedict walked the Way of the Cross.

ROME (AP) -- Pope Benedict reflected on the suffering of Jesus and that of humanity throughout the ages as he led thousands of pilgrims and tourists in a torchlit, Way of the Cross procession at the Colosseum in Rome to mark Good Friday.

Opening the late-night procession with a prayer, Benedict said Jesus' suffering "is the whole of human history, a history where the good are humiliated, the meek assaulted, the honest crushed and the pure of heart roundly mocked."

But anticipating the joy Christians share on Easter Sunday in their belief Jesus rose from the dead, Benedict told the faithful in Jesus, "the good have already won" and the "meek have already triumphed."

..."Lord Jesus, tonight we walk once more the way of your cross, knowing that it is also our way," Benedict said.

Catholics in Baghdad light candles to observe Good Friday.

General Zinni

To provide some balance, let's take a closer look at Donald Rumsfeld critic General Anthony Zinni.

On December 31, 2003, Joel Mowbray wrote an interesting column that shows a different side of Zinni.

(Excerpts)

Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the Jews.

Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney—nor for that matter Zinni's old friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell—was to blame. It was the Jews. They "captured" both Bush and Cheney, and Powell was merely being a "good soldier."

Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say "Jews." He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: "neoconservatives." As the name implies, "neoconservative" was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90's, many people self-identified themselves as "neocons," but today that term has become synonymous with "Jews."

...Given that the "neocons" do not control the Departments of State or Defense nor the National Security Council—gentiles all head those agencies—and given that the White House is clearly run by non-Jews, how is it that Zinni claims that the "neocons" were responsible for the U.S. liberating Iraq? As he explains to the Post, "Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president."

And the Post piece uses dramatic language when discussing Zinni's views on the "neocons":

"The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand."

Zinni's comments are eerily similar to those made by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit this October. In a speech that drew a standing ovation from the leaders of Muslim nations in attendance, Mahathir remarked, "Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

...It's a shame that someone who so honorably served his nation for three decades would tarnish his legacy with such idiotic remarks. If he didn't mean to use "neocon" as a code word for "Jew," he should say so. But if he meant to, then he should just shut up.

Enlightening, isn't it?

Being elevated to a position of power at some point in one's life doesn't mean that one's opinion on a specific matter should be given more weight.

Many numbskulls have occupied high office. Jimmy Carter is a good example.

Everyone has a right to voice an opinion. Everyone also has the right to dismiss the opinions of others.

I think the libs in the media expose themselves as propagandists when they trot out Bush Administration attackers, and place them on a pedestal.

Because some generals have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, the media grant them star status. Why don't they highlight any generals that support Bush and his Secretary of Defense?

It's similar to the attention that "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan gets from the lib media, while the moms of other service members killed in Iraq are ignored.

Same thing with Joe Wilson. The lib media think he's a hero. In reality, he's a liar. Harsh? Yes. True? Yes.

The point is this:

Other than the foaming at the mouth Dems and the drooling lib media, who cares what Zinni thinks about Rumsfeld?

IN RUMMY WE TRUST

In effect, President Bush just told the libs in the media to wipe the drool off their chins.

President Bush Expresses Full Support, Appreciation for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld


Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror. I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation.

The Department of Defense has been tasked with many difficult missions. Upon assuming office, I asked Don to transform the largest department in our government. That kind of change is hard, but our Nation must have a military that is fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st century. Don and our military commanders have also been tasked to take the fight to the enemy abroad on multiple fronts.

I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions. Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.


In other words, the lib media should stop wasting their time speculating that the musings of retired generals on book tours can influence the President.

Bush is in charge.
_______________________________

Update:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six retired generals have called for Rumsfeld to resign, accusing him of mishandling the Iraq war, ignoring advice of field commanders and having an arrogant management style.

Rumsfeld has rejected all such calls, while noting that Bush had twice turned down his offers to resign.

Meanwhile, in an interview aired Friday on Al-Arabiya television, Rumsfeld said he intended to continue serving.

"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," Rumsfeld said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."
Six retired generals have called for Rumsfeld to resign, accusing him of mishandling the Iraq war, ignoring advice of field commanders and having an arrogant management style.

Rumsfeld has rejected all such calls, while noting that Bush had twice turned down his offers to resign.

Tom Raum, the writer of this hard news article did a little analysis, and assigned a motive to the announcement.

He speculates, "The timing of Bush's statement on Rumsfeld seemed designed to tamp down speculation, particularly in Sunday newspapers and on weekend television news shows, that Rumsfeld might be on his way out."

That will no doubt be the spin put on the President's by the lib media.

Brian Williams, most likely already in the make-up chair, is probably practicing his lines right now--

"The weakened, but stubborn, President Bush is struggling to keep Rummy around, heeding Cheney's advice."

"This embattled Administration is teetering on complete collapse."

"Blah, blah, blah."

Cherry-Picking Ahmadinejad

At the International Palestine Conference, April 14, 2006

The press coverage of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran is revealing.

Where the reporter of "the facts" comes from is key to understanding "the truth."

One could read an article covering comments by the Iranian president and be led to believe that he's a reasonable, responsible man.

From Khaleej Times Online:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday once again rejected a demand by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to suspend its uranium enrichment process.

"This is a legitimate and irrevocable right of the Iranian nation which we will decisively pursue regardless of threats and pressures," Ahmadinejad said on state-television during the last day of his visit to the north-eastern Khorassan province.

While terming uranium enrichment as a red line over which Iran would not compromise with anyone, the president proclaimed Thursday that Iran had already joined the world’s nuclear states "and there would be no way back."

Despite defying international demands to suspend uranium enrichment, Iran on Friday still hoped that the final report by the head of the to the United Nations Security Council would be "fair."

From Islamic Republic News Agency:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad played down on Friday latest comments of the US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice who has threatened to use force and economic sanctions against Iran.

"She is free to talk," Ahmadinejad told reporters after his address to the opening session of the International Conference on Holy Qods and Support For the Rights of the Palestinian People.

The two-day conference is being held in Tehran with participation of 16 parliament speakers of the Muslim World and large number of Muslim scholars.

"There is no problem with talking. She is free to talk this way as much as she whises. We do not attach any importance to this kind of words," Ahmadinejad stressed.

It sounds as though the big, bad West is bullying Iran, denying the country its right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program.

One gets a different impression of Iran and its leaders from Western media.

From AFP:

Iran's hardline leaders launched a string of vitriolic attacks against the United States and Israel, voicing "serious doubts" over the Holocaust and predicting the "elimination" of the Jewish state.

The Islamic republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also used a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran to rally support from Islamic nations for the cash-strapped, Hamas-led Palestinian government.

From AP:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

..."Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

...On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

Obviously, these accounts present Ahmadinejad in very different terms.

What the Islamic world sees as rational, many in the Western world perceive as dangerous.

Of course, I'm speaking in general terms; but overall, it's a definite culture clash.

I wonder if it's possible to peacefully address the differences held by Islam and the West, particularly when it comes to Israel and Palestine.
_________________________________

Read Ahmadinejad uncut, addressing the Palestine Conference.

Full Text of Ahmadinejad's address -- Part One

Full Text of Ahmadinejad's address -- Part Two

Full Text of Ahmadinejad's address -- Part Three

"Every Day Until We Get You"

Is Zacarias Moussaoui mentally ill? Is he sick?

That's what defense attorneys want the jury to believe.

The prosecution is arguing that Moussaoui is sane and knows exactly what he's doing. He and his cohorts intend to destroy America. In other words, they aren't pitiable victims of an illness. They choose to do evil.

ALEXANDRIA , Va. -- Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui insists he does not want to be executed, but for the second time he took the stand at his death- penalty trial and spouted off in a way that could eliminate any chance for mercy.

Moussaoui mocked the tearful testimony of 9/11 victims and their families and wished for similar attacks every day until America falls. He gave a detailed explanation of his hatred for America, flipping through a Quran on the witness stand trying to find justification for his views.

...the most visceral testimony came as Moussaoui again reveled in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, just one day after the jury concluded a week of gut- wrenching testimony from 9/11 families and victims.

Moussaoui called an Army officer who crawled on his belly to safety beneath searing smoke "pathetic" and ridiculed a Navy officer who wept as she described the loss of two colleagues.

"I think it was disgusting for a military person" to cry, Moussaoui said of the testimony of Navy Lt. Nancy McKeown. "She is military, she should expect people at war with her to want to kill her."

Asked if he was happy to hear her sobbing, he said, "Make my day."

Are these the statements of a person with a mental illness?

Are these the words of an evil individual?

Prosecutor Rob Spencer asked Moussaoui: "So you would be happy to see 9/11 again?"

"Every day until we get you," the 37-year-old Frenchman responded with enthusiasm.

...During his 2 1/2 hours on the stand, Moussaoui offered a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans. Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower, he said as he paged through the Quran.

"We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," Moussaoui said. "America is a superpower and you want to eradicate Islam."

He also criticized U.S. support for Israel, which he called "the Jewish state of Palestine." "Every child who has been killed in Palestine has been killed because of you," he said. Israel is "just a missing star in the American flag," he added.

The question really boils down to this: Is Moussaoui sick, or is he evil?

Is a mental illness responsible for his behavior, or is he?

Moussaoui paged through the Quran like it was his playbook. He believes that justification for 9/11 and any future attacks being plotted against the U.S. is found in its pages.

That must be horrible for moderate Muslims to see their holy book being used as an excuse to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. I know I would be horrified if someone used the Bible to justify murder.

When he says, "Every child who has been killed in Palestine has been killed because of you," and Israel is "just a missing star in the American flag," he sounds a lot like those on the far Left. Those could be lines from a Cindy Sheehan speech.

Is she mentally ill for espousing those views?

I don't think that the prosecution can claim that unless Moussaoui was suffering from a mental illness, he wouldn't say the things he has said, like wanting to see a 9/11 "every day until we get you."

If that's the case, then there are millions who are mentally ill like Moussaoui. All of those people must carry the label of being a victim of a diseased mind.

Are the Palestinians who voted for Hamas mentally ill?

Is Osama bin Laden mentally ill?

What about Saddam Hussein, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Are we prepared to diagnose all Muslim militants and their sympathizers as sick and in need of care?

Or, is it more appropriate to hold them responsible for the murder and the destruction that they gladly carry out?

I don't think we can maintain the resolve to fight the enemy and win the War on Terror if we can't even acknowledge that an enemy exists, an evil group that really does want to destroy us.

Corrector in Chief?

Poor Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas.

They have to deal with that nasty little correction that Patrick Fitzgerald was forced to make about that "key judgment."

Of course, "The Leaker in Chief?" was written before the overzealous Fitzgerald had to "clarify" with the court what he incorrectly designated as a "key judgment."

I assume Fitzgerald made an honest mistake. He couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to write something that could so easily be refuted.

Perhaps his carelessness was rooted in his wish to be at least a footnote in American history, for his role in bringing down a President and Vice President. If that was indeed his mindset, then it's quite ironic that it is leading to his downfall.

Fitzgerald's credibility has become questionable, as the case against Bush and Cheney continues to disintegrate.

Perhaps Isikoff and Thomas may have a similar fantasy of destroying the Administration, also known as "Woodward & Bernstein Envy."

Like Fitzgerald, they are equally misleading about the "key judgments" and the supposed sinister motives of the Bush Administration.

Fitzgerald was forced to make a correction.

Isikoff and Thomas need to do the same.

(Excerpt)

It is not clear how much Libby might have been freelancing and how much he was working under orders. According to the filing by the prosecutor, Libby told the grand jury that he had been authorized by Cheney to disclose the "key judgments" of the NIE. Libby further testified that Cheney told him he had "consulted" with Bush. A lawyer familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, told NEWSWEEK that the "president declassified the information and authorized and directed the vice president to get it out." But Bush "didn't get into how it would be done. He was not involved in selecting Scooter Libby or Judy Miller." Bush made the decision to put out the NIE material in late June, when the press was beginning to raise questions about the WMD but before Wilson published his op-ed piece. (Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure.)

RIGHT.

IT WAS BUSH’S FAULT.

GASP!

Bush got the ball rolling that led to the leak of a CIA employee whose status was NOT COVERT.

NOT COVERT.

Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.

"A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter" – What would an Isikoff story be WITHOUT a shadowy informant or unnamed source?

It might actually be newsworthy, as opposed to an agenda-driven propaganda piece.

PETA Mocks Christians

I have no respect for PETA.

Zero.

I do have respect for animals. As God’s creatures, I think they should be loved, treated with care, and spared cruelty.

I definitely would consider myself someone who supports the ethical treatment of animals. But I would never be affiliated with PETA, because promoting that cause isn’t what PETA is about.

PETA is all about PETA and grabbing headlines. The organization is extreme for the sake of being extreme.

Some of their protests, supposedly done in the name of raising awareness about the treatment of animals, are just goofy and relatively harmless.

This Good Friday protest goes beyond goofiness and treads into truly offensive territory.

Vienna -- A row erupted on Thursday over plans by animal protectionists to symbolically "crucify" three activists with animal masks in a Good Friday protest outside Vienna's St Stephan's Cathedral.

The militant pro-animal group PETA said the activists would be suspended from crosses with crowns of thorns on their heads.

The slogan of the protest action would be "We suffer and die for your sins of nourishment."

PETA said its aim was to catch the attention of consumers who ignored the suffering of animals.

...The Archdiocese of Vienna said: "It's a completely unacceptable falsification of the religious dimension of Good Friday.

As people will be gathering for Good Friday services, these nuts will be right outside the Cathedral, mocking the Christian faith.

How utterly tasteless!

Do the protesters really think that this is the way to win converts to their agenda?

On the very day that Christians observe the death of Jesus, PETA fanatics will be lampooning the Crucifixion of Christ, using symbols like the cross and the crown of thorns.

By the way, do you think riots will break out in Christendom because of this? Will Christians call for the deaths of PETA members?

Of course, that thought is silly, yet Christians are often characterized as extreme and dangerous.

But I digress.

When PETA pulls stunts like this, the organization does nothing to promote the ethical treatment of animals. Instead, they are exposed as being completely insensitive to human beings.

The bottom line:

If these protesters sincerely want people to care about animals, they must first show that they sincerely respect and care about people.

Condi, Watermelons, and Selective Outrage

HEY, DANNY GLOVER!

HARRY BELAFONTE!

JESSE JACKSON!

AL SHARPTON!

GET OUTRAGED!

YOUR SUPPORT IS NEEDED! ORGANIZE A PROTEST! QUICK!

At least call a news conference.

(Crickets chirping)

Here's more racist drivel directed toward a conservative African American, and it's being disseminated on a college campus.

From the Seattle Times:

Bellevue Community College President Jean Floten apologized Wednesday at an emotional open-campus meeting called after students complained about what they said was a racially offensive math question used on a practice test.

...The hour-and-a-half meeting, attended by more than 150 people, opened an important dialog, but more needs to be done, said Chelsey Richardson, one of the students who brought the issue to college officials.

When she felt her concerns weren't taken seriously, Richardson went to the media and to the Rev. Wayne Perryman, a Mercer Island civil-rights activist. Perryman sent out an e-mail to friends across the country, some of whom belong to conservative and civil-rights groups. Those friends forwarded the e-mail, creating a snowball effect. The college has since received hundreds of e-mails, said Bob Adams, spokesman for BCC.

I bet Al Gore sometimes kicks himself for taking "the initiative in creating the Internet."

An e-mail can be heard 'round the world.

...Richardson, 25, said she found the question on a practice test for a math final she was studying for in March. The question read, "Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second." The question went on to ask when the watermelon will hit the ground, based on a formula provided. The question propagates a racial stereotype and denigrates Secretary of State Rice, said Perryman. While Rice's last name wasn't mentioned, the reference was clear, he said.

Way to blow that whistle, Chelsey! Good job!

...The college declined to release the name of the teacher who wrote the question. Floten said the teacher has apologized and requested cultural-sensitivity training.

Oh, come on.

The only reason that teacher apologized is because he/she was caught. That request for cultural-sensitivity training is a joke.

This teacher isn't about to change his/her stripes. If a teacher would go so far as to put a question like that on a practice test, that individual will not suddenly transform into a tolerant, fair, decent person, fit to teach at a community college.

This is a PR move by Bellevue. It's damage control.

Insincere apologies are worthless. I can't stand them.

The test question was originally written with the name of a comedian, Gallagher, whose signature shtick was to smash a variety of objects, often watermelons. Later, the question was rewritten, and the name was changed to Condoleezza, Floten said.

The teacher went out of his/her way to change the question! The only possible motive was to take a swipe at the Secretary of State.

I think in addition to cultural-sensitivity training, the teacher could use an anger management class. Maybe a time-out is also in order.

In an e-mail to students, faculty and staff, Floten said she took "personal ownership that this act of institutional racism could happen despite a collegewide initiative pursued over many years to establish a safe and tolerant place for all to learn."

What does Floten mean by "personal ownership"?

I guess as the president, she holds herself accountable for the incident. It's great that she's not passing the buck, but how does she intend to hold the teacher accountable?

A slap on the wrist seems inadequate.

Why aren't activists like Glover, Belafonte, and Sharpton demanding more?

Why isn't the NAACP having a fit?

Why isn't Jesse Jackson organizing a boycott?

Why?

BECAUSE CONDI IS CONSERVATIVE.

Another Day, Another Threat

Still giddy over Iran's successful enrichment of uranium, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent the world another "rational" message today.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran won't back away from uranium enrichment and said the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power. The comments were made as Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran for talks aimed at defusing tensions over Iran's nuclear program.

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation (to enrich uranium)."

Didn't Kofi Annan make a call to tone down the heated rhetoric?

Yes, he did. Annan said yesterday, "I appeal to everyone to work more actively in search of a diplomatic solution and to cool down on the rhetoric and not to escalate."

"We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," isn't exactly taking it down a notch.

It's not like this is surprising. Ahmadinejad has shown that he doesn't pay much attention to the UN.

Mohamed ElBaradei is utterly clueless if he still believes that "the time [is] 'ripe' for a political solution."

Ripe?

It looks rotted to me.

The only hope for the Iran crisis to be solved without military action rests on complete and unequivocal statements of condemnation by a unified international community.

Russia and China cannot cut Ahmadinejad any slack whatsoever anymore.

If they do, they doom the possibility of a political solution.

Russia and China will be complicit in Iran's defiance unless they stand with the U.S. and our allies against Iran's nuclear program.

If they don't, the consequences could be dire.

Back Off, Tommy

Yesterday, Tommy Thompson hinted that he might toss his hat into the Wisconsin gubernatorial ring.

MADISON, Wis. -- Former Wisconsin governor and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said that he'll announce his political intentions at the state Republican Convention in Appleton in May.

Thompson, in a satellite interview from Columbus, Ohio, on Wednesday, continues to fuel speculation that he might run for governor again or the U.S. Senate, WISC-TV reported.

Although some of his closest advisors have expressed serious doubts about whether he'll run again this year, Thompson hasn't put the rumors to bed.

..."I'm ready for anything that's going to be thrown at me in this coming year," he said. "Whether it be governor, or U.S. senator or running for mayor of Elroy or just being a private citizen supporting other people."

"I'm going to be making a speech at the Republican Convention and I'll make a decision a little bit prior to that time, but will be announcing it at the Republican Convention."

Note to Tommy: If you care about getting Jim Doyle out of office, put the rumors to bed NOW. It is way past their bedtime.

Republicans need to unify behind Mark Green. Scott Walker gracefully bowed out of the race, allowing for the Green/pro-Republican and anti-Doyle/anti-Democrat contingents to organize. It is a distraction for Thompson to permit speculation about his possible candidacy to float out there. It's an irresponsible move by Thompson.

Thompson obviously responded to the question somewhat jokingly. He certainly isn't going to run for mayor of Elroy, but I do think it's a serious mistake for him to throw up any obstacles to the Green campaign.

It's possible that Thompson is considering challenging Herb Kohl for the Senate, something that I would welcome. It could be that by mentioning getting into the governor's race, he's trying to deflect attention from his true ambition of taking on Kohl.

If that's the case, keeping ANY rumors alive about running for governor again is terribly self-serving.

In any event, if Thompson truly hasn't decided on his future political path, it would be far better for Wisconsin for him to keep his mouth shut in the meantime, and not muddy the waters.

Milwaukee County's Culture of Corruption

These days, the "Culture of Corruption" is the Democrats' favorite catch phrase.

According to them, the Bush Administration and Republicans are steeped in corruption -- lies and secrecy and crimes.

Let's be fair. No political party has a monopoly on corruption; and it certainly isn't relegated to Washington.

It's nothing new. Some people in power are tempted to abuse their positions. They take missteps.

In a perfect world, these officials would pay for their misdeeds. Even in this imperfect world, we do see justice done.

On the Milwaukee County Board, corruption is part of business as usual.

County Board Chairman Lee Holloway has been battling dozens of ethics charges, and maneuvering to avoid accountability.

Rather than demand integrity from county government, some actually admire Holloway's evasion.

In "Holloway stays out of reach, not out of sight," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane dismisses Holloway's questionable dealings and commends him for playing the system.

As usual, Kane tosses in the race card, too. Kane points out that since two-thirds of the 90 ethics charges against Holloway were dropped, many were able to chalk up the investigation as simply "a witch hunt against a prominent African-American public official."

Kane acknowledges:

At the same time, Holloway was at a loss to defend himself against the most serious of the remaining charges. He conceded a group affiliated with OIC paid him $165,000 for a building it never took possession of. He didn't disclose that information, and he voted on OIC-related issues without acknowledging the potential for conflict of interest.

Despite the hearing examiner's ruling, fundamental ethical issues remain.

So, Kane admits that Holloway is corrupt, but he admires him nonetheless. That's a shining moment for Kane.

I must admit a grudging respect for the way Holloway has "played" the system. Rather than concede to what he perceived as an unfair investigation, Holloway put up a wall of successful legal maneuvers to frustrate his opponent.

It reminds me of the cartoons pitting Wile E. Coyote against the Road Runner. You know who always won that one.

For much of his public career, Holloway has managed to evade all sorts of traps and landmines, everything from failed recall movements to voter fraud investigations to angry confrontations with colleagues and citizens.

WHAT?

A corrupt politician playing the system is admirable?

Kane takes pleasure in Holloway's ability to frustrate those interested in holding the County Board Chairman responsible for ethics violations. He sees it as a game, a cartoon. It's Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner to Kane.

Not to me. It's Milwaukee County government, and it's contaminated with corrupt officials.

Worse yet, there are apologists for the crooks, citizens rooting for the bad guys to dodge the falling ACME anvils. There's something very troubling about that, or at least there should be.

Kane, as a member of the press, should be acting as a watchdog for the public, and exposing unethical politicians, not cheering them on.
____________________________

It looks like one of those anvils may hit Holloway after all.

A supervisor previously willing to aid Holloway's evasion scheme is now considering voting to fund the investigation.

Read more.

The best laid plans...

____________________________

Update: The full board voted to fund the ethics investigation into Holloway's activities.

I guess Holloway's "wall of successful legal maneuvers to frustrate his opponent" has some holes in it.

Kane must be a little disappointed this morning.

Beware of falling anvils!

Optimistic Mohamed ElBaradei

I think Mohamed ElBaradei needs to remove his rose-colored glasses.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Head of the UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei expressed optimism about his visit to Iran when he arrived in Tehran late Wednesday night to meet with officials about the country's controversial nuclear program.

"The time is right for a political solution and the way is negotiations," the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told journalists.

The time is always right for a political solution as opposed to a military solution if it's at all possible. Unfortunately, while the UN hemmed and hawed, Iran defied the international community.

Iran has shown it is not interested in cooperating. Instead, Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi huffed, "When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing can be done against them."

And he puffed, "The West can do nothing and is obliged to extend to us the hand of friendship."

Does this sound like a country interested in negotiating?

Iran seems to be looking to instigate trouble, not trying to avert it.

"I would like to see Iran come to terms with the requests of the international community," he said, explaining the purpose of his trip as being "to clarify remaining outstanding issues about Iran's nuclear program."

ElBaradei expressed hope that the visit would "bring Iran in line with the requests of the international community to take confidence-building measures regarding suspension of nuclear activities until outstanding issues are clarified."

What does ElBaradei think he is? A miracle worker?

Ahamdinejad and the Iranian government have made it clear that they have no intention of bowing down to any nation.

Iran isn't going to fall in line with any of the requests made by the international community regarding its nuclear program.

From the Associated Press:

Ahmadinejad repeated his call on foreign governments to "recognize and respect Iran's rights" -- presenting a fait accompli to Western powers which have been battling to prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear know-how.

The firebrand president has also called for a no-holds-barred acceleration of enrichment work.

Iran's nuclear milestone was achieved on Monday -- at a pilot plant of 164 centrifuges in Natanz -- with uranium enriched to 3.5 percent, or the purity required for civilian reactor fuel.

This, said Iranian vice president and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, "paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale" using an enormous 110 tonnes of UF6 feedstock gas already produced.

He also said Iran was "determined" to complete work within three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak -- which critics say which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

..."The nuclear fuel cycle is complete, the beginnings of a powerful Iran," the conservative Iranian daily Resalat trumpeted, calling for a week of "national celebration" and a new annual public holiday to mark the event.

Someone explain to me why ElBaradei is optimistic about his talks with Iran. I see no reason to be. None.

ElBaradei's optimism is ridiculous.

It's akin to Neville Chamberlain declaring that the Munich Pact assured "peace in our time."

Is Rove Right?

I wonder.

Would any Leftists argue with Karl Rove's assessment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iran problem?

HOUSTON (Reuters) -- Reaching a diplomatic solution over Iran's nuclear ambitions will be difficult because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "not a rational human being," a senior White House adviser said on Wednesday.

..."We are engaged in a diplomatic process with our European partners and the United Nations to keep them from developing such a weapon," Karl Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, told an audience of business people at the Houston Forum.

"It's going to be difficult. It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history," he said.

Rove said his characterization of Ahmadinejad was based on statements the Iranian president made after speaking to the United Nations.

"Ahmadinejad spoke to the United Nations and afterwards was quoted as saying that for the 23 minutes that he spoke, there was a halo around his head that transfixed the audience and caused them to be completely focused on his message," he said.

..."This guy (Ahmadinejad) had the sense that he was mystically empowered and as a result transfixed the audience -- that is not a rational human being to deal with," he said.

..."We're going to have to use every diplomatic tool with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and our partners in Europe to bring pressure to bear to stop this," Rove said.

Ahmadinejad is an extremist. Agreed?

He says some completely off the wall stuff, dangerous stuff. Agreed?

There's no question that dealing with Iran will be difficult. Agreed?

There's no question that the U.S. and the rest of the world intend to pursue diplomatic channels to find a solution to the threat that a nuclear Iran poses. Agreed?

I would think on this one the Left and the Right should be on the same page. Agreed?

United Airlines Flight 93

Transcript of the cockpit voice recorder

The following is a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder aboard United Airlines Flight 93. All times are in EDT on Sept. 11, 2001. Text in parentheses was translated from Arabic. "Unintelligible" indicates that the tape couldn't be transcribed.

(Excerpts)

09:31:57 — Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.

09:32:09 — Er, uh ... Calling Cleveland center ... You're unreadable. Say again slowly.

09:32:10 — Don't move. Shut up.

09:32:13 — Come on, come.

09:32:16 — Shut up.

09:32:17 — Don't move.

09:32:18 — Stop.

09:32:34 — Sit, sit, sit down.

09:32:39 — Sit down.

09:32:41 — Unintelligible ... (the brother.)

09:32:54 — Stop.

09:33:09 — No more. Sit down.

09:33:10 — (That's it, that's it, that's it), down, down.

09:33:14 — Shut up.

09:33:20 — Unintelligible

09:33:20 — We just, we didn't get it clear ... Is that United 93 calling?

09:33:30 — (Jassim.)

09:33:34 — (In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate.)

09:33:41 — Unintelligible.

09:33:43 — Finish, no more. No more.

09:33:49 — No. No, no, no, no.

09:33:53 — No, no, no, no.

09:34:00 — Go ahead, lie down. Lie down. Down, down, down.

09:34:06 — (There is someone ... Huh?)

09:34:12 — Down, down, down. Sit down. Come on, sit down. No, no, no, no, no. No.

09:34:16 — Down, down, down.

09:34:21 — Down.

09:34:25 — No more.

09:34:26 — No more. Down.

09:34:27 — Please, please, please ...

09:34:28 — Down.

09:34:29 — Please, please, don't hurt me ...

09:34:30 — Down. No more.

09:34:31 — Oh God.

09:34:32 — Down, down, down.

09:34:33 — Sit down.

09:34:34 — Shut up.

09:34:42 — No more.

09:34:46 — (This?)

09:34:47 — Yes.

09:34:47 — Unintelligible.

09:34:57 — (One moment, one moment.)

09:34:59 — Unintelligible.

09:35:03 — No more.

09:35:06 — Down, down, down, down.

09:35:09 — No, no, no, no, no, no...

09:35:10 — Unintelligible.

09:35:15 — Sit down, sit down, sit down.

09:35:17 — Down.

09:35:18 — (What's this?)

09:35:19 — Sit down. Sit down. You know, sit down.

09:35:24 — No, no, no.

09:35:30 — Down, down, down, down.

09:35:32 — Are you talking to me?

09:35:33 — No, no, no. Unintelligible.

09:35:35 — Down in the airport.

09:35:39 — Down, down.

09:35:40 — I don't want to die.

09:35:41 — No, no. Down, down.

09:35:42 — I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

09:35:44 — No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down.

09:35:47 — No, no, please.

09:35:57 — No.

09:37:06 — (That's it. Go back.)

09:37:06 — (That's it.) Sit down.

_________________________________

09:58:44 — (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.)

09:58:47 — Ugh. Ugh.

09:58:52 — Stay back.

09:58:55 — In the cockpit.

09:58:57 — In the cockpit.

09:58:57 — (They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold).

09:59:04 — Hold the door.

09:59:09 — Stop him.

09:59:11 — Sit down.

09:59:13 — Sit down.

09:59:15 — Sit down.

09:59:16 — Unintelligible.

09:59:17 — (What?)

09:59:18 — (There are some guys. All those guys.)

09:59:20 — Lets get them.

09:59:25 — Sit down.

09:59:29 — (What?)

09:59:30 — (What.)

09:59:31 — (What?)

09:59:36 — Unintelligible.

09:59:37 — (What?)

09:59:39 — Unintelligible.

09:59:41 — Unintelligible.

09:59:42 — (Trust in Allah, and in him.)

09:59:45 — Sit down.

09:59:47 — Unintelligible.

09:59:53 — Ahh.

09:59:55 — Unintelligible.

09:59:58 — Ahh.

10:00:06 — (There is nothing.)

10:00:07 — (Is that it? Shall we finish it off?)

10:00:08 — (No. Not yet.)

10:00:09 — (When they all come, we finish it off.)

10:00:11 — (There is nothing.)

10:00:13 — Unintelligible.

10:00:14 — Ahh.

10:00:15 — I'm injured.

10:00:16 — Unintelligible.

10:00:21 — Ahh.

10:00:22 — (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh gracious.)

10:00:25 — In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die.

10:00:29 — (Up, down. Up, down, in the) cockpit.

10:00:33 — (The) cockpit.

10:00:37 — (Up, down. Saeed, up, down.)

10:00:42 — Roll it.

10:00:55 — Unintelligible.

10:00:59 — (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:01:01 — Unintelligible.

10:01:08 — (Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?)

10:01:09 — (Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.)

10:01:10 — Unintelligible.

10:01:11 — (Saeed.)

10:01:12 — ... engine ...

10:01:13 — Unintelligible.

10:01:16 — (Cut off the oxygen.)

10:01:18 — (Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.)
__________________________

10:02:18 — (Down, down.)

10:02:23 — (Pull it down. Pull it down.)

10:02:25 — Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33 — (Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:35 — (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:37 — (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:40 — Unintelligible.

10:03:02 — (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:03 — (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:04 — (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:06 — (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:06 — (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:07 — No.

10:03:09 — (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:09 — (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)
__________________________

It's been said that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 were the first Americans to fight the first battle of the War on Terror.

I think that's true. Flight 93 never reached its target thanks to the brave Americans that fought back. Retreat and defeat was not an option. They won that battle for us. They are heroes.

Do you think the passengers and crew members that challenged the hijackers thought about political party affiliation when they stormed the cockpit?

They were fighting for their lives. They were united.

And the terrorists lost.

CENSORSHIP GOOGLE-STYLE

"Show me the money."

That's the bottom line.

Google is in the business of making money, not adhering to moral principles.

BEIJING -- Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday defended the search engine's cooperation with Chinese censorship as he announced the creation of a Beijing research center and unveiled a Chinese-language brand name.

Google is trying to raise its profile in China after waiting until January to launch its Chinese-language site Google.cn. Activists have criticized the company for blocking searches for material about Taiwan, Tibet, democracy and other sensitive issues on the site.

"We believe that the decision that we made to follow the law in China was absolutely the right one," Schmidt said at a news conference.

He said Google had to accept restrictions in order to serve China, which has the world's second-largest population of Internet users after the United States, with more than 111 million people online.

From a business standpoint, of course Eric Schmidt would say Google made the right decision. Google's money-making potential in China is enormous.

...Schmidt was speaking at a ceremony to announce Google's Chinese- language brand name _ "Gu Ge," or "Valley Song," which the company says draws on Chinese rural traditions to describe a fruitful and rewarding experience.

Talking to reporters later, Schmidt said Google's managers were stung by criticism that they accepted Chinese censorship, but said they haven't lobbied Beijing to change its rules.

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate," he said.

Asked whether Google might try to persuade Beijing to change its restrictions, Schmidt said he didn't rule anything out, but said it hasn't tried to change such limits elsewhere. He noted that Google's site in Germany is barred from linking to Nazi-oriented material.

"There are many cases where certain information is not available due to local law or local custom," he said.

Schmidt is a capitalist.

I'm pro-capitalism. I don't criticize him for seizing a new market. However, making money shouldn't blind one to principle.

Schmidt it trying to rationalize censoring "evils" such as Taiwan, Tibet, and democracy. In reality, he's promoting the Chinese "local custom" of oppressing people.

The Google CEO didn't help his cause by comparing the blocking of searches on democracy with Germany cracking down on Nazi-oriented material.

The world saw what Nazism wrought -- 62 million deaths, including the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, as well as Polish civilians, Russian prisoners of war and Russian civilians.

I think we can agree that there is global consensus that Nazism presents a danger.

Thus, any such blocks that Google provides in Germany is not the same as Google's willingness to block searches about Taiwan or democracy.

Schmidt is obviously trying to present a case that Google is fair and balanced. But, being fair is not the same as being immoral. Schmidt really is suggesting that Google operates in a moral vacuum.

Capitalist pursuits do not require the abandonment of principles.

The fact is Schmidt and Google put the dollar first. Is there anything they wouldn't do to increase profits?

I find the way Google Inc. chose to move into China to be dishonorable.

However, in the long run, I believe that when it comes to the Internet and censorship, the Chinese government is fighting a losing battle. It is virtually impossible to keep the Chinese people from having access to Western ideas. A block on "democracy" or "Taiwan" is a drop in the bucket.

As long as the Chinese have Internet access, there is no way that the oppressive Chinese can control the flow of ideas into the country.

In the end, the Google deal won't serve to discourage the desire for freedom in China.

What the Google deal does is prove Schmidt and his cohorts to be unscrupulous. That characteristic is a good thing among immoral capitalists; but human history shows that the moral way eventually conquers the immoral.

I do not believe that capitalism needs a moral vacuum to thrive.

Schmidt and I differ on that.