From the War Resisters League (WRL) website:

The Republicans have chosen to hold their convention in New York City to link George Bush and “Ground Zero.”

Once again, the leftists insist on making an issue out of this. What they never tell you is the Democrats were throwing around the idea of having their convention in New York, but balked when the Republicans decided to hold theirs in that city. But that’s not the main issue here.

The leftists (or whatever you choose to call them) are constantly criticizing Republicans for politicizing 9/11. Yet, one of today’s protest actions was this:

The Scenario. We encourage people to dress in white (representing mourning) to gather on Aug. 31, 2004, 3 pm at the site of the World Trade Center.

Is that not politicizing 9/11? Why is it fair game for the protesters to use Ground Zero as a point of interest in their actions, yet they can take the RNC to task for holding a convention miles away from that point with neither Bush nor Cheney even making a trip to the WTC site?

Well, I never claimed that the leftists had a monopoly on fair play. However, they do seem to have a monopoly on naivete.

In a way, I can sympathize with the lefties. All they want is a little peace, love and understanding. You know, just one big, happy planet where everyone works for the common good, where all people are of an equal class, where there’s a chicken in every pot, (both chicken and pot provided by the government) and where everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya before retiring for the evening.

Sounds blissful, no? Blissful, perhaps. But oh, so unrealistic.

End all war. Now there’s a powerful statement. If I could find the person who made that sign, I would take them aside and ask them one very simple question: Are you really that naive?

Judging from the sign-holder’s brothers-in-arms, I would venture to say that Miss End All Wars believes the onus to do such rests on the United States of America. The good old U.S. of A, aka the Evil Empire, aka Hitler’s Nation, aka Warmongers, Incorporated.

How in the world can we be expected to End All Wars if the rest of the uncivilized world does not want to comply with us? Even if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, what would that accomplish towards the end goal of world peace? Would that mean less buses blown up in Israel? Unlikely. Would that mean less planes blown up in Russia? Doubtful. Would the wars in other nations like Africa cease to exist? Hardly. Would the Iranian mullahs suddenly become trustworthy? Right, like that will ever happen.

That these people believe America can end all wars is just one of the basic problems with today’s protest movements. To paraphrase Homer, they believe that America is the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems. The USA is an evil empire that is poised to take over the world in order to make Dick Cheney rich beyond his wildest dreams, but that doesn’t stop them from constantly asking favors of this nefarious nation, like understanding the plight of the Palestinian suicide bomber or feeding people who have no desire to get off their asses and feed themselves. A chicken in every pot, a justification for every dead Jew.

Oh, there are other problems with the protest movement, not the least of which is their penchant for mashing issues together so one can never figure out just what the issue at hand is. Irony-challenged as they are, the lefties never quite figure out just what’s wrong with wrapping themselves in the garb of a terrorist mastermind while calling for an end to all wars.

They also seem rather surprised when they break the law (obstructing traffic) and then get arrested for it.

WED., Sept. 1, 10:00AM - Protest Appalling Detention Conditions for RNC Arrestees At Pier 57, “Guantanamo on the Hudson” (West Side Highway @ 15th Street)

Not only are they pissed at being arrested for something that’s illegal, but now they are demanding better holding conditions. Just like a leftist to want a better everything for criminals. A better world for the poor, oppressed people who raise their children to be terrorists. A better living arrangement for the murderers and rapists in our country’s prison system. A better understanding of what our enemies are all about - even after they kill 3,000 of us. A better quality of living for for those who choose to live life off of government handouts. Everyone deserves something better, right?

Well, except certain people. While terrorists, oppressors, cop murderers and usurpers get all the support from the activists, our soldiers get death wishes, our cities get, well, death wishes and the whole entire country gets, you guessed it, death wishes.

What do they want, anyhow? Damned if I know. And even if anyone did know, I doubt the protesters’ wishes could be delivered. While there’s nothing very funny about peace, love and understanding, the whole idea behind it is not very realistic when you want those things, but don’t want to fully understand what it takes to get them.

The Party of Peace Kicks Policeman Unconscious

One of the most bizarre things about leftists is that they consistently claim to have the moral high ground. They rant about peace and feeding the poor and saving the bunnies and duckies from chainsaws and bulldozers, but somehow, they end up imprisoned for violent crime at a much higher rate than conservatives, and they’re responsible for virtually every incident of politics-related violence that occurs in our country.

Their rank hypocrisy was obvious to political observers before the Republican National Convention started. We were anticipating violence and property destruction and nudity, long before the first delegates arrived in New York.

We got the nudity before the convention opened, in the form of a bunch of naked morons whining about AIDS. Now we’re getting the violence.

During a march by the “Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign,” which has that familiar Communist-front sound to it, plainclothes Detective William Sample was dragged off his scooter and kicked repeatedly in the head. He ended up in the hospital, in serious condition.

Thank you so much, liberal idiots. Thank you for delivering a message to voters which no convention speech can equal. Thank you for showing the world the kind of people Republicans are up against. Childish, impulsive, violent imbeciles who hate everything that reminds them of order and authority and harmony.

You weren’t even smart enough to pick a Republican delegate to beat on, although I’m sure that’s coming. You picked a cop who was there to protect you. A New York cop like the many New York cops who died when the World Trade Center collapsed. A man whose job symbolizes our struggle against terrorism. Next time, beat on a fireman, or if possible, kick a rescue dog who helped find 9/11 survivors.

The left’s objections to Bush have nothing to do with peace or social justice or the erosion of our rights. It’s just the left’s usual adolescent rebellion, striking out at anyone who reminds them of Mommy and Daddy. And while the Republicans are in New York, everyone who doesn’t look like a member of the cast of Hair is in danger.

I pray to God that someone interviews Detective Sample on national television when he recovers. I want to hear how he feels about the left’s gratitude for his offering up his life every day in order to keep them safe. I’d like to know who he and his friends plan to vote for.

This is only Tuesday. We’re going to see more violence before it’s over. I’m sure the DNC is making calls and so on, begging its affiliates to behave. But these are liberals we’re talking about. There is no way they’re going to listen to reason.

A while back, I criticized the Republicans for choosing the country’s largest hive of liberals for a convention site, but since then it has occurred to me that I was wrong. Leftists are going to behave so badly, showing their true nature, that the whole nation is going to be disgusted, and George Bush will profit from our revulsion. But I hate to see us win by turning Manhattan into a cross and ourselves and the sane residents of New York into martyrs.

Anyone reading this mistake me for a supporter of John F. Kerry?

Anyone not know that I consider the man to be the consumate politician, willing to say whatever is required to get himself elected regardless of the truth, and who has shown a consistent pattern of gross misjudgement when things get difficult?

Good.

I’ve had a critical look at the Bobbsey Kerry twins video, the one that shows them being both cheered (by the glitterati in the foreground) and booed (by seemingly everyone else in the house).

Unfortunately, their message was lost. The snippets I saw said basically, “Get out and Vote. It’s important. (And BTW please vote for Dad)”.

It would strain credulity to think that they wouldn’t put in the Good Word for their father. But that wasn’t the main theme, at least of the bit that I saw.

The first message that was lost was that, Yes, Virginia, it really is important that people get out and vote. Even the Lunar-Right who think the Masons and the Vatican are both Jew conspiracies against the White Race, and the Moonbat-Left who think that Zionazi Bush planned and executed 9/11 (do you see a pattern here?). Ok, maybe neither of those… but everyone else. Just think, your vote could cancel out one from someone with a shrine to Adolf Hitler in his Secret Shelter. Or someone who’s got a stash of weapons to use on the Imperialist JewBanker Pigs when the Revolution comes. And if you don’t vote, they have a say on who controls the world’s supreme military force, and you don’t.

If you honestly think ‘A Plague on Both Their Houses’, the Late, Great Robert Heinlein had this advice : Find a convenient neighbourhood Jerk. An Idiot. Someone whose loathsmeness is exceeded only by their ignorance. Find out who they’re voting for - then go and vote for an opponent. Any opponent. You’ll have done your duty.

The second message that was lost was about ‘Coolness under fire’.

When the boos suddenly started, the Bobbsey (stop doing that!) twins looked around. Heck, I would have done the same, especially if instead of boos inexplicably starting in the middle of what I was saying, cheers had erupted for no apparent reason. As the Mudville Gazette puts it :

Note the ladies glance backwards when the booing begins to see just who the object of that scorn may be. No doubt that was a chilling moment, when they realized for whom that bell tolled.

Unlike Alexandra though, I’m not sure I could have kept my cool and held a finger over my lips, while giving a (no doubt calculated) disarming smile and raised eyebrow. My own reaction would have likely been far less useful, something along the lines of “Let the Lady Speak, You Loutish Morons! What about Freedom of Speech, or even Respect for fellow Human Beings! Idiots!” only screamed at the top of my lungs. As I said, not useful.

I’ve seen this action described thus :

Notice that Alexandra takes after her haughty, French-looking father by instinctively shushing the little people in the crowd.

With respect, I disagree. Or as we in Australia say, “BULLSH..”, well, we say something else. Alexandra Kerry made a, um, Swift, (if you’ll pardon the expression) decision under extreme pressure, and gave a reasonable response. It may have been the best possible, it may not. But it wasn’t completely inappropriate.

Any professional person in the military will tell you that the sign of a Good leader is one who can make quick decisions under pressure. If the decisions are good ones, so much the better.

Now if only I wasn’t completely convinced that Alexandra’s father is a totally loose cannon who gets things consistently wrong under pressure, in Combat and in the Senate.

OK, she came over all haughty and pedagogical with her finger-waving a few seconds later, but that was almost certainly just a sign that she believed too strongly in what she was saying. And she did it to a large, unruly crowd that was jeering her, not a single Marine standing at Attention in a Wendy’s bar. One takes courage, the other merely arrogance.

I’ve also seen the jeers explained away by a misleading introduction : the great unwashed at the back really thought they were booing the Bush sisters. Since the name ‘Kerry’ wasn’t mentioned in the twins’ speech, this may even be true. Without seeing the whole thing, the reaction to the Video of the Bush sisters, and the Kerry ones speaking afterwards, I can’t tell. The excuse smells like spin to me, but I until I get further evidence one way or the other, it sounds plausible, and not improbable. Regardless of whether it’s true or not, this is a hideous embarressment for the Democratic Party. (And in my opinion they thoroughly deserve it).

But as for the Bobbsey (Right! BANG!) Kerry twins, Alexandra impressed me far more than her father ever did. Especially since at the same age he was testifying about mythical war crimes.

Oh yes, who am I voting for? I’m Australian, remember, and will be voting in October, not November (it’s compulsory here). Mark Latham (unlike the lugubrious Kerry) is an unsubtle, even brutal thug (as various people he’s violently assaulted can attest to) : but I don’t think he’d be quite as much of a disaster as Kerry would in office. Hopefully we’ll never have to find out in either case.

Why am I posting about the US elections? Because you, the US Voting public, get to have a say in something that affects the whole planet. The other Billions of us on this ball of rock just have to live with your decision, for good or ill. In some ways, you’re our unelected representatives, and I hope to pursuade you to take this unwanted, un-asked-for responsibility seriously. Please Think. Then Vote. Yes, even if it’s for Kerry.

Video Award Shoutdown Assures Castro Cabinet Post

I don’t watch award shows. As I have explained in the past, this is partly because I am neither female nor gay. But it’s also an integral part of my policy of being completely out of the loop.

I didn’t see the MTV Video Awards this weekend. In fact, I have no idea which night they ran. But I know two things. The show was filmed in Miami, and John Kerry’s daughters got booed off the stage.

I was wondering how that happened. The Kerry girls may be wacked-out moonbats with a chin for a father, but they’re reasonably hot, and the big one, Alexandra, was kind enough to show us her boobs at the Cannes Anti-American Hate Film Festival. In fact, the phrase “Film Festival” could be used to describe her dress.

Then I realized…Miami…that means CUBANS! Yes, my guess is that a whole bunch of Cuban kids started screaming when the spawn of Lurch appeared on the stage.

Cubans are wrong Hispanics. They have never figured out that they’re an oppressed minority, entitled to lie around sucking Uncle Sam’s nipple and being patronized by liberal politicians. So they’re generally conservative, although that becomes less true every year.

It’s always funny to see frustrated liberals come up against Cubans for the first time. A friend of mine went to Harvard for an interview—or maybe it was Yale—and some nut came up to her and said, “I just want you to know I sympathize with your people’s struggle.”

What struggle? The struggle to get property re-zoned “commercial” in Hialeah so they can build more malls? The struggle against mindless leftism? This lady had no idea what she was dealing with, but as is usually the case with liberals, she didn’t care. She saw a Hispanic, therefore she saw a fellow liberal, and an oppressed one at that.

Anyway, some Cubans have drifted away from the GOP lately, but they better come back now. If Stonewall Kerry gets elected, he’ll never forget how Miami’s Cubans treated his daughters. Look for Castro to receive a Cabinet position.

Another funny thing: apparently, the desire to stifle dissent runs in the family. Some photographer shot a picture of Alexandra Kerry holding a finger to her lips, telling the crowd to shut up. It didn’t work with the Swift Vets, and it didn’t work with the Awards crowd, either.

“Shh! Don’t boo my daddy!”

But maybe George Bush should try it in New York this week. “Shh! Stop screaming obscenities! Stop throwing cat litter on the police! Stop trying to confuse the bomb dogs!”

Nahhh. Let’s stick with tear gas and fire hoses.

Some thoughts kick around forever until some event or person provides a focal point. Thank you Mr. Raines.

Intelligence is not the sine qua non as a leadership credential. You can remember the smarty who, in school, would take either side of a question with assurance that he could win any debate. He may have had no convictions, but did he ever have all the answers. His name may not have been John F. Kerry, but there is a reasonable chance that it was.

LBJ was short term naval officer who got us up to our neck in Viet Nam, and it was the epitome of intellect, Robert McNamara who managed the only war we lost. Some look with pride on their contribution to our loss there but they turn a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands we abandoned to death or enslavement.

There was another super intellect naval officer who became President, Jimmy Carter.

There seems to be ample evidence of Kerry’s intelligence and his verbal nimbleness. He seems, forever on both sided of every question. He went to Nam with his 8MM camera and quickly got his ticket punched, and he scurried home in time to get in front of the anti-war movement.

Now then, that is a mark of an intelligent man positioning himself for a political career.

Intelligence is not synonymous with wisdom (or as it is sometimes disparaged, street smarts). Intelligence allows you to ‘nuance’ reports on reality so that you are proven right even if you were clearly wrong. In fact, frequently sheer intelligence is antithetical to wisdom. Wisdom is seldom that is figured out but rather the result of acknowledging and studying your errors. If you never made an error there is small chance that you have gained wisdom.

Of course I’d like a smart leader, but wisdom is far more important. President Bush is obviously intelligent, and he has surrounded himself with people who have earned their intellectual spurs, but more important they have demonstrated their wisdom.

This was originally posted by Mudge at Weekend Pundit.

Recent polls show the Cuban-American support for President Bush is waning. Down from an overwhelming 81% in 2000 to around 66% in this election cycle. The drop is blamed on the new remittance and travel restrictions against Cuba imposed earlier this year.

The polls may be correct. Many Cuban-Americans see the new restrictions as the US government further separating their families. Some noted Cubans, including Jose Basulto of Brothers to the Rescue and Ramon Raul Sanchez, head of the anti-Castro Democracy Movement have come out against the new policy stating that more contact with Cuban on the island is a necessary step in building bridges of communications once Castro is gone.

They may be right. But what if they are wrong? What if Cuban-Americans were allowed to travel freely to the island as before? Sure, they would be happy to see their family members still on the island. Sure, these family members could use the monetary help their exiled Cuban-Americans give them. Sure, they could use bars of soap and medicines and feminine napkins these people would bring them. But this help only serves the short run. What happens in the long run?

Every single cent that enters the island of Cuba ends up in the regimes hand in one way or another. Castro’s government owns everything. The hotels, the restaurants, the resorts, the dollar stores. Everything.

Cuba is an island where everything is for sale and it’s owned by a single proprietor.

You want to open a hotel in Cuba? Sure, no problem, you build it on my land with your own materials and once complete you manage it. I will supply the workforce to build it and charge you top dollar for the labor, whom, I will in turn pay out of my pocket in peanuts. You can manage the hotel once it’s built also, and I will supply the labor as well. For a doorman I’ll charge you $20 an hour and I will in turn pay him $20 a month. Ill do the same with the rest of the hotel staff, who will be more than happy to work there as it may get them the coveted dolares in tips.

The new restrictions are meant to lessen the flow of cash to the island. A flow of one billion dollars a year since the Clinton administration. One billion dollars a year. Thats one billion dollars more that Castro has to export his revolution - read:Venezuela, etal - throughout the Americas. That’s one billion dollars a year for propaganda. One bllion dollars a year to decry the evils of the imperialist yanquis. That’s one billion dollars a year Castro can use to build state of the art medical facilities for the purpose of treating foreigners with dollars. Cubans will still only get their polyclinics that open 4 hours a week.

Unfortunately, most of the Cuban-Americans that are against the new restrictions didn’t come here solely for political reasons. They came here to do precisely what the restrictions are now stopping: to work and send money to relatives. It’s hard to blame them of course. Who wants to be party to hurting someone’s family?

What the anti-restrictions folks fail to understand is that the restrictions are not meant to be permanent. They are meant to cause irreparable damage to Castro’s economy. To keep him from exporting communism. To keep him from further exploiting is people. To break down the two tier system of the island. To make Castro open up the market system in Cuba to allow Cubans to be individuals and create private enterprise.

As I have said before, for Cubans and Cuban-Americans, it’s all about sacrifice.

Cuban-Americans against Bush and his restrictions need to understand that it is not about them, but about us. About we as a people who have endured Castro’s hell for over 40 years. It’s not about a single Cuban but every single Cuban. The majority of Cubans do not have family abroad.

There’s no making deals with Fidel Castro because there’s no way to come out winning. History proves that. If he is still the culprit of his people’s oppression despite a bad economy, imagine the fate of the Cuban people, moreover, the fate of the Americas, with Castro at the helm of a strong and bulging economic state.

Think Fidel Castro is bad? Imagine him with money.

By Val Prieto - Babalu Blog

Then :

…I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony….

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Now

We, the undersigned members of the United States Senate call on you to specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry’s combat record in the Vietnam War. These false charges represent the worst kind of politics, and we agree with both Senator John McCain and Senator Kerry that a firmly established service record in the United States Military is fully above reproach. As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it.

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran’s record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned.

Along with This article, still up on the John Kerry website, attacking Bush’s service record.

Then there’s this article confirming that Kerry’s allegations of Vietnam Vets being self-confessed war-criminals were at least partly fraudulent :

Some will excuse VVAW’s actions and hyperbolic rhetoric as necessary tactics or as the work of people understandably disillusioned by an embittering war experience. But there is evidence suggesting that many of the atrocities routinely touted by VVAW were, well, made up.

An excerpt of historian Guenter Lewy’s book According to America posted on WinterSoldier.com discusses the results of a government investigation that attempted to corroborate the claims made at the VVAW event in Detroit. The investigators couldn’t.

According to Lewy, the VVAW had told its members not to cooperate with the government inquiry: a probe that was initiated by Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon in order to verify gruesome claims made at the VVAW-sponsored event. The historian also notes that government inspectors found veterans whose names had been used by people testifying in Detroit that were not actually there.

In other words, some of the “witnesses” in Detroit were impostors, tarnishing the names of real soldiers.

It appears that Kerry was also something of an impostor. During a massive rally in front of the U.S. Capitol, a number of veterans threw their medals over a high-wire fence. One was Kerry. Or at least so it appeared.

Under a section called “Busted by the historians” is an excerpt from Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett, Glenna Whitley. Money quote: “But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.”

As for ‘refusing to disavow attack ads’, there’s this…

The MoveOn.org ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler drew rebukes from Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe and liberal financier George Soros in January, but Sen. John Kerry never denounced the controversial ads at the time.

It took the Kerry campaign months to condemn the use of Hitler imagery in a political ad, yet an adviser to the Democrat presidential nominee suggested earlier this week that Kerry had been out in front with his condemnation.

“When these groups go over the line, like one of them did when they compared George Bush to Hitler, John Kerry said, ‘Foul. That’s wrong,’ ” spokesman Michael Meehan said on Sunday’s Scarborough Country on MSNBC.

But a search of newspaper articles and television appearances in January revealed no instance where Kerry or any of his surrogates denounced the ads comparing Bush to Hitler.

Spokesmen for the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee didn’t return calls Wednesday.

Finally, from WinterSoldier.com :

On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes that they had participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At the height of it, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry’s political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself — which John Kerry had helped moderate — turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, “packed with pretenders and liars.”

Massachusetts elected John Kerry to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Now he seeks the most powerful job in the world.

It can, and has, been argued that Kerry’s inconsistent and changing rebuttals of the SwiftVet’s claims are purely the result of faulty memory on both sides. But I can see no argument against the mountain of evidence that the man is a blatant, serial, and accomplished Hypocrite. The latest Letter to Bush is the capstone of his long and strangely undistinguished Senatorial career.

Cynics (like myself) would say that that makes him the Consumate Politician, and is a reasonable qualification for becoming President of the USA. But Cynics like myself disqualify him from consideration, because of repeated violations of the 11th Commandment:

Thou Shalt Not Get Caught

There’s also a personal matter : I don’t like being treated as a Fool, by an absurdly arrogant man who obviously despises the Sheeple. Bush’s ‘Simple Texan Cowboy’ Act is difficult enough to swallow, but again, it’s about par for a wiley, even sly politician. But Kerry’s Faux-Patriotism is positively nauseating. And in time of war, risky too.

Air America, the fledgling — and struggling — liberal talk show radio network today began a MAJOR market test that is being closely watched all over the country, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

There are several key reasons why:

(1) The programs, with comedian/activist Al Franken as the biggest name, will be going DIRECTLY against a conservative talk show radio slate. For instance, Franken’s show will air opposite Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

(2) The new-York based liberal network’s shows will be broadcast on a station owned by Texas=based Clear Channel Communications. A key executive of Clear Channel has been a big bucks contributor to George Bush’s campaigns and the communications mega-giant was in the news a few months ago from booting radio talk show host Howard Stern from its stations.

Why is Clear Channel airing the liberal slate of shows? The Union-Trib story says:

On the surface, the pairing of Clear Channel and Air America seems a case of politics making strange bedfellows.

Clear Channel and its executives have made more than $300,000 in political contributions since 2000, most of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Critics have accused the company of using its radio stations to sponsor “patriotic rallies” designed to win support for the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

And Clear Channel vice chairman Tom Hicks, a member of the Bush Pioneer club for big donors, bought the Texas Rangers baseball team from President Bush and other investors.

Last year, some Clear Channel country music stations refused to play songs by the Dixie Chicks after the group’s lead singer made an anti-Bush remark. And last month the company was accused by anti-war activists of backing out on a lease for a Times Square billboard that was critical of the war in Iraq.

Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University, downplayed political differences between Air America and Clear Channel. In America, he said, the marketplace usually trumps ideology.

“The Dixie Chicks don’t care if everyone loves them; only 1 million people loving them gives them a platinum album,” Thompson said. “And if Al Franken becomes a huge hit and delivers an enormous audience, then of course Clear Channel is going to run with it.”

So it is truly PURELY BUSINESS — the marketplace — which is progress for Air America. The network had become something of a running joke due to its slew of financial and station outlet problems. More from the story:

Air America’s local debut on media powerhouse Clear Channel Communication’s former KPOP 1360 AM station, now renamed KLSD, has been eagerly anticipated by industry insiders and liberal politicos as a key testing ground for the fledgling concept.

Conventional industry wisdom holds that liberal or “progressive” talk radio, which has been littered with failed programs that came off as whiny or milquetoast, can’t match the kind of winning ratings mix of right-wing ideology and vitriol perfected by radio veteran Rush Limbaugh.

But some experts say the time may be right for the left. And Air America, a New York-based company that began airing its style of liberal news and views on a scattering of stations in March, aims to prove it.

A word about KPOP: This station for years carried Golden Golden Oldies such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, but about a year ago updated its songbook with slightly more current tunes. If you follow music and the idea that at times singers don’t become unpopular but their audiences die out, this was a classic case of a radio station that was not in a growth position. So how will it serve Air America? Its frequency is not the strongest but it reaches throughout San Diego County.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that Clear Channel is airing its slate of shows in a clear cut business experiment — and that the shows’ appeal will starting tomorrow be IMMEDIATELY tested against the biggest national conservative talk show competitors in head-to-head competitions. There haven’t been too many markets like this, althoug theere have been somehave been some:

Air America met the challenge, and then some, in Portland, Ore., where Clear Channel first tested the progressive talk format in March at its KPOJ-AM station.

The station went from a 0.4 to a 3.7 market share for ages 12 and up in the spring Arbitron ratings. It hit the No. 3 listener slot with adults ages 25 to 54 – a demographic dear to the hearts of advertisers – up from No. 22 in the winter before the station flipped to progressive talk.

Still, the bottom line about talk radio (and blogs, for that matter) is noted by the newspaper at the end of its report:

“Liberal talk radio will always have a problem because liberals tend to want to see both sides of the picture and argue from there,” said Carl Luna, professor of political science at San Diego Mesa College. “Arch conservative AM hosts are good at simply presenting one side – theirs – and lambasting anything they don’t agree with, which their demographic likes.

“Most people listen to talk radio to only have their existing ideas reinforced, not challenged or expanded.”

KUDOS TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR for using the right term when defining ETA, in an unusually balanced article today, considering the precedents in the foreign media:

Compared with the ruinous attacks that struck Spain in March, the bombings over the past 14 days in the northern provinces might be expected to attract little notice: Seven weak explosives, wrapped in plastic bags, and weighing less than 300 grams, caused only slight injuries and minor property damage.

But in Spain, a country that has suffered domestic terrorism for the past 30 years, the explosions were an unnerving reminder that ETA, the Basque terrorist group, was still a threat.

(emphasis mine)

I have complained in the past that the foreign media still uses the stupidly incorrect “separatist group” as the label for a group guilty of more than 800 murders. And there hasn’t been a Franco to resist against for almost 30 years now.

(Crossposted at Barcepundit)

In reply to John Hawkins’ excellent article below, some possible, plausible answers:

1. Had I been able to continue my studies overseas, my increased knowledge of foreign languages would have been useful in my Military career. I had hoped to go into Intelligence, and a knowledge of French would be essential for service in Vietnam. The selective service people didn’t see it my way, and even now I think that was unfortunate. Lacking these additional skills, I thought the best way I could serve my country was to volunteer for the Navy, where my abilities in boating could be put to best use. That’s why I also volunteered for Swift Boat duty, rather than staying on a Cruiser. Next Question.

2. You know memory is a funny thing. We’ve already seen how the guys in my crew have directly contradicted other Swift Boat Vet’s recollections. I’m not saying any of them are lying, I’m saying that details blur after even a few days. Ask any Cop, and he’ll tell you that eyewitness accounts never match exactly, unless they’re all lying. Looking back on it, the celebration fire I took while in Cambodia was probably during Tet, rather than Christmas. That would make sense. But when I testified before Congress, I was convinced it was Christmas, and I was probably mistaken.

3. For OPSEC reasons - that’s Operational Security - I never did learn their names. I don’t even know if they made it out safely, I had no “Need To Know”. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no written record that the orders were given. You know, in those days “Mission Impossible” was no joke, we always knew that if we got into trouble, it was our ass in the sling, not the generals and admirals and politicians who ordered us in. It was our duty, and we did it.

4. I’ve already answered that one above. But I’ll expand on the issue, it’s important. It’s been well-documented that numerous helicopter insertions of Special Forces took place both before and after I sailed up the Mekong. Has anybody checked with those helicopter pilots about the names and records of every man they took in? No. And I’ll tell you why. They didn’t know. They might know a name or two, but those names may well be false. Why was a junior officer assigned to this perilous duty? Well, I wasn’t alone. You’d have to ask those in the Chain of Command who ordered it, and for their own reasons, they’re not saying. Or they’re long since deceased. At a guess, I’d say it was because a junior officer is expendable, and a cover story about some ‘navigational error’ by a Lieutenant or Ensign more plausible than if by a Lieutenant Commander. But I don’t know, I just did my job as ordered.

5. If that’s the best the Bush Front can do, I’m not worried. Arguing about grammar, and exact meanings of phrases.

6. I don’t remember who treated me, I wasn’t on a first-name basis with the medics. There were so many due to my numerous wounds, for which I received not one but three Purple Hearts remember, that if I ever knew his name, I’ve forgotten it. I certainly don’t remember the details of the treatment, just that it was a relatively light wound that enabled me to quickly re-join combat, and support my men.

7. I don’t know who put me in for a medal. You’re not allowed to write up yourself for one, so obviously it wasn’t me. But looking at the citation, it’s broadly in accordance with what I remember happened that day. As to who approved it, that should be in the records somewhere. Frankly, medals and so on just weren’t that important to me at the time, doing my duty for my crew and my country was.

8.There’s no discrepancy, the wound I got the Purple Heart for was from another cause. We didn’t just get them for minor scratches you know, despite what some are claiming now. The whole fuss demeans the brave men who fought in Vietnam, some of whom lost eyes, limbs, or their sanity. And now ‘National Guardsman’ Bush, hiding behind some Republican-Financed Front organisation just as he hid in the NG during Vietnam, is attacking those brave men who gave so much to our country. Has he no shame?

9. I can’t remember who did what, when. I have to rely on written notes taken at the time, or shortly thereafter. The other Swift boats may well have cleared the area of immediate danger, we often did that when a mine went off, as there’s often more than one. As I remember it, SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) was for one boat to stay behind rescuing casualties, while others raced around using tactical mobility and their weapons to provide suppressive firepower. All boats did their part, it was a team effort. Look, as far as I’m concerned, every man on those boats deserved a Silver Star, and I include the Swift Vets for Truth. I’m sorry they’re being manipulated by the Republicans, but one thing I’ve learnt in politics is that sometimes military men are just too darned honourable to believe they’re being used. I’m on the record as opposing our shameful tactics in Vietnam after the war, and to some, that makes me a traitor. But I wouldn’t have done it had I not loved my country then, as I do now.

10. All the records I have, have been released publicly, except for some medical ones which we disclosed to some reporters a few days ago. I’ll go check to make sure there aren’t any more, but the American Voter has all there is, as far as I can tell. And we know from the President’s sorry evasions about his National Guard days that some records are missing from the archives. That’s not the answer you wanted to hear, but it is the Truth.

Plausible, yes. True? Partially, probably. Did Kerry ever go to Cambodia? Personally, I doubt it. All we have is his unsupported word. and a mountain of circumstantial evidence against. We also have downright lies put out by his campaign team, which indicates incompetence, but not neccessarily falsehood by Kerry.

Or he could be a lying again and again and again, whenever he needs to sway an opinion, he makes stuff up. A few bits of truth, a few bits of unprovable assertion, and a few bits of evasion. Just like I did in the above… which is rather more plausible than anything so far put out by Team Kerry.

I’ll be interested to see if they adopt any of the complete Fantasy I came up with as the Official Story.

I won’t go in to some of the ‘dirty tricks’ I pulled in the above, for example, many of the infiltrators carried in by Helos were Montagnard Tribesmen, for whom there’d hardly be many military records.. let’s just say that I’ve tried to make the evasions and downright lies less than totally obvious to the casual observer. Or to the New York Times. And some of it may even be true. I’ve always been a critic of the way the Vietnam war was conducted, I’ve heard far too many first-person accounts of that monumental SNAFU to be completely sure that even the most improbable deeds were done. 99% yes, 100% no.

But my main criticism has always been that, at the time, far too many Officers in the US were more interested in their personal careers, FITREPs, Medals, and Body Counts than in winning the war, or doing their duty by their men. For a Lieutenant to be like this was unusual (but not unknown - quite a few got Fragged). For a Commander or Colonel, it was all too common. If what the Swift Vets say is true - and on the whole, I tend to believe most (not all) of what they claim - then Kerry would not have been alone in his attitudes. There was a lot of it going around, but usually higher-up the Chain of Command.

The mainstream media has done an extremely poor job of covering the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story.

When the group first formed in April, the media largely ignored their explosive charges despite the fact that many of the people involved are vets and war heroes who knew John Kerry in Vietnam. Even after the group’s book, “Unfit for Command,” started selling like wildfire & conservative bloggers and talk radio hosts started talking about the story daily, most of the mainstream media continued to treat the SBVFT as a non-story.

Only after John Kerry attacked the SBVFT did most of the “dead tree” media begin to cover the story, if you consider parroting the line taken by the Kerry campaign on the ads and smearing the Swiftees for Truth for daring to attack John Kerry’s war record “cover(ing) the story”.

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing of all has been that much of the mainstream media seems to be simply rejecting the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth out of hand without even bothering to familiarize themselves with many of the charges being made. For example, both Chris Matthews & Jim Lehrer seemed to be totally unaware that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are claiming that John Kerry received 2 Purple Hearts for accidentally self-inflicted wounds. That’s just embarrassing.

So, in an effort to help everyone out there, journalists, voters, bloggers, you name it, try to get a handle on this whole “Swift Boat Vets thing,” I put together a list of 10 questions for John Kerry prompted by things said by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. While this is by no means a comprehensive list, it covers most of the hot issues in the blogosphere. Moreover, I think you’ll find that these are important questions that John Kerry needs to answer if he’s going to prove the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth wrong when they claim he’s “Unfit for Command”.

1) Isn’t it true that you requested a year long deferment from your local draft board to study in France and only after you were turned down did you actually enlist in the military?

2) There have been numerous explanations of your trip or trips to Cambodia. In 1994, you said you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968 and were shot at by drunken Vietnamese who were celebrating Christmas. US News and World Report Reporter Kevin Whitelaw says you told him that you went on “clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces” in Cambodia. Carl Cameron from Fox News says he was told by your staff that you were never in Cambodia, you were just near the country. Now, the latest variation of this story told by Douglas Brinkley is that you went to Cambodia “three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.” Can you explain the discrepancies?

3) Assuming the latest story is the one you’re going with, can you provide any details that support your story? What were the dates of trips to Cambodia? Which Swift Boat Vets were with you on the boat? Who ordered you to go? What are the names of the SEALs or CIA agents you took into Cambodia? What happened on these trips that later led you to believe you were being shot at by your Vietnamese allies who were celebrating Christmas despite the fact that these trips were in January and February?

4) Back in 2003, you told Laura Blumenfield of the Washington Post that you had a “good luck hat” that you kept with you in a briefcase that was given to you by a “CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia”. What was the CIA guy’s name and can you give all the relevant details (dates, crewmen who were with you, etc) for that trip?

5) The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say that your first Purple Heart was obtained fraudulently. Their claim is that the tiny piece of shrapnel you had in your arm was not from enemy fire, but from an accidentally self-inflicted wound caused by firing your M-79 grenade launcher at a target that was too close. Interestingly enough, this passage which was written in your own biography, ‘Tour Of Duty’, nine days after the incident in which you won a Purple Heart, seems to support the Swift Boat Vets for Truth contention that you were not fired upon…

“They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, ‘A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn’t been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven’t been shot at are allowed to be cocky.”

Can you explain the discrepancy between your own biography and your account of how you won your first Purple Heart?

6) Did Louis Letson tend to the “wound” you received your first Purple Heart for and did he treat it with a band-aid as he claims?

7) Grant Hibbard, your commanding officer at the time you received your first Purple Heart, says he turned down your request for a medal because he said you were not under enemy fire that day and your “wound” was comparable to a scratch from a rose bush. Can you explain in detail who approved that Purple Heart, when they approved it, and on what basis they approved it after you’d already been turned down by your commanding officer?

8) Your third Purple Heart was based on “shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on (the) right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard”. The bruise on your arm alone would not have been enough to qualify you for a Purple Heart so without the wound to your the buttocks, you wouldn’t have received the medal. However, your own biography, “Tour of Duty,” seems to belie the idea that you received the wound in combat. Earlier in the day, you admitted that the wound to your buttocks was accidentally self-inflicted by grenades thrown at rice bins during a non-combat situation…

“I got a piece of small grenade in my @ss from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats.”

Can you explain the discrepancy?

9) A January 17, 2004 press release about the event in which you won your third Purple Heart and your Bronze Star says that the other boats fled the scene while your boat came to Jim Rassmann’s rescue,

“Rassmann, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassmann’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassmann.

This is the basis for the “No Man Left Behind” theme that your campaign has used.

However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said that you lied and that YOUR BOAT was the only one to leave the scene and then return. Moreover, the Washington Post, after doing some research and concluding that you and the SBVFT were wrong about some things, seems to favor the SBVT on this particular issue…

“It is unclear how far down the river Kerry’s boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from a few hundred yards to a mile.

O’Neill claims that Kerry “fled the scene” despite the absence of hostile fire. Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty,” maintains that he wanted to get his troops ashore “on the outskirts of the ambush.”

Could you clarify: Was your boat the only one to leave the scene or did all the other boats evacuate the area while your boat alone went back?

10) You claim that you’ve released your full military records already and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have said that you’re lying. However, after investigating, the Washington Post found that there apparently are large amounts of material in your records that have not been released…

“A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry’s records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.”

Why are you refusing to sign Pentagon’s Standard Form 180 which will allow the Pentagon release all of your records and can you explain why your campaign has said that all of your records have been released?

(*** Bonus Question ***) Why do you think it is that your former doctor, one of the men who served on your boat, the majority of crew members whose picture you used in a campaign commercial, every commanding officer you ever had in Vietnam, and large numbers of men who fought beside you in combat on other boats are all coming out and not just saying that they don’t support you, but that you’re telling lies about your war record? Is it just a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” or is there something else at work here?

P>There are at least two things that make it very difficult to accurately evaluate historical events. The first is that hindsight is 20/20. In other words, we tend to judge what happened in the past without taking into account all of the knowledge that we have acquired after the fact. For example, when we look back at WW2, not only do we know how everything turned out, but we have decades of extensive research to rely on that the actors on the world stage during that conflict did not have access to.

Furthermore, we as human beings often look at historical events through the prism of today’s conditions and standards. Put another way, it’s hard for those of us who live in the world’s most prosperous and powerful nation to truly imagine what life was actually like back in World War 2. We may THINK we know, but there are many things of import that we are wont to discount or shrug off simply because they’re no longer of concern.

Which brings us to the Japanese internment during WW2.

Until recently, there has scarcely even been any public debate about the issue. The Japanese Internment has been written off by most people as another sad, racist, chapter of our history that was wholly without merit.

However, Michelle Malkin argues in her new book, “In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War 2 and the War on Terror,” that things are not as black and white as we’ve been led to believe. To the contrary, Malkin argues that “the national security measures taken during World War 2 were justifiable, given what was known and not known at the time”.

In order to prove this assertion, Malkin paints a picture, quite effectively I might add, of a situation in which the Japanese internment is one of several not very pleasant options that Roosevelt had to choose between. Here’s what I consider to be the crux of the case that Malkin makes….

— The attack on Pearl Harbor severely damaged our Pacific forces and brought America into WW2 - on the side that was currently losing. And this was not like the Gulf War or Vietnam, we could not simply choose to “go home” and end the war. Losing would have likely meant — at some point — marauding Axis armies marching through the countryside raping, murdering, and pillaging everything in their path. The stakes don’t get any higher than they were in a conflict like World War 2.

— On December 11th of 1941, the freighter SS Lahaina was sunk by a Japanese sub off of Honolulu. Another Japanese sub sank the SS Manini in Hawaiian waters 6 days later. On December 18th, another sub sank the SS Prusa near the “big island”. Several other December attacks occurred within 20 miles of the California and Oregon coastlines. On February 23rd, a Japanese sub shelled the Ellwood oil fields in Goleta, California. At least one “high ranking Japanese military official—Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi…was eager to carry the war to the U.S. mainland”.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson also wrote this in his diary on February 10, 1942

“…I think it is quite within the bounds of possibility that if the Japanese should get naval dominance in the Pacific they would try an invasion of this country; and, if they did, we would have a tough job meeting them.”

In other words, Japanese forces were close and the danger to our homeland was very real.

— Richard Kotoshirodo, a Japanese American and John Mikami, who was Japanese, gathered extensive amounts of information while they were spying that was very helpful to the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor. Japanese-Americans (Yoshio and Irene Harada) aided a Japanese pilot who landed at Niihau island, Hawaii after being shot down while attacking Pearl Harbor.

Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,

“We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials…”

That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.

A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, “‘there can be no doubt that’ most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations “continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast”.

So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.

— While we clearly couldn’t trust citizens of Japan (or other Axis nations) to run around unsupervised while we were in the middle of a fight to the finish with their home-countries (hence the 11,229 Japanese citizens, 10,905 German citizens, 3,728 Italian citizens and a few others who were rounded up and interned), American born citizens were of course a different matter. Certainly, most of them were loyal. Curtis Munson who was been sent to investigate the issue, estimated that 90-98% of Japanese-Americans could be trusted (although he had his doubts about 9000 Kibei — Japanese-Americans schooled in Japan).

However, Munson also noted that even a very small number of saboteurs could do a cataclysmic damage to the war effort,

“…The harbor at San Pedro could be razed by fire completely by four men with grenades and a little study in one night. Dams could be blown and half of lower California might actually die of thirst. One railway bridge at the exit from the mountains in some cases could tie up three or four main railroads…”

Here’s more on the damage that could be caused by saboteurs from Provost Marshal General Allen Gullion,

“If production for war is seriously delayed by sabotage in the West Coastal states, we very possibly shall lose the war….from reliable reports from military and other sources, the danger of Japanese-inspired espionage is great.”

— America and other nations traditionally interned “enemy aliens” during wars. For example, in World War 1 more than 6300 “European-born civilians” were interned. Moreover, Mexico and Canada both chose to move ethnic Japanese away from their coasts. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that interning Japanese citizens was constitutional.

— Furthermore, Malkin revealed that in 1944, disturbingly “28 percent (of draft age Japanese-American evacuees) refused to swear allegiance to their country or forswear allegiance to the emperor of Japan” and when given the opportunity, 5,620 Japanese-Americans chose to abandon their U.S. citizenship.

— Last but not least, there were no easy options for dealing with the situation. Mere monitoring of suspect Japanese citizens would have likely be too difficult given the number of people involved, the consequences of failure, and the demands of a world war. Criminal prosecutions of suspected spies would have been nearly impossible because intelligence sources couldn’t be revealed and it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove someone who was say simply watching ship movements (so they could later report them) was committing a crime. Another possibility would have been some sort of “quasi-judicial military tribunal,” but there would have been constitutional questions about that and it couldn’t possibly be as effective as evacuating and/or interning Japanese-Americans along the West Coast.

In a nutshell, that’s the dilemma that Malkin is trying to put in front of people with this book. Was it worth causing great inconvenience & infringing on the civil liberties of the Japanese-Americans who were interned, most of whom were loyal, patriotic, Americans, in order to stop the potential loss of countless American lives as a result of the actions of comparatively small numbers of disloyal Japanese-American saboteurs & spies?

In today’s world, even in the context of the war on terrorism, that’s an easy question to answer and indeed Malkin specifically states that she does not support rounding up Arabs or Muslims and putting them in camps. But, given the circumstances we faced in World War 2, Malkin argues that there was justification for interning of Japanese-Americans during World War 2. After reading her book, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that she’s right.

(NOTE: This was posted on Dean’s World, where Joe Gandelman was Guest Blogger this weekend)

You can see some signs of the backlash by reading Jeff Jarvis here and Walter Swann here.

In the past 72 hours two Republicans have told me the same thing (one said she switched to the Democratic party). And my own position — which is akin to Jarvis’ — has been posted on my blog The Moderate Voice (just scroll down and down) many times before. It’s this:

I do not care about George Bush’s military record — so you Democrats are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about John Kerry’s military record — so you Republicans are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about the Vietnam war in this election.

If anything, each day I am finding myself reacting more and more like Jarvis and Swann and find this whole thing reprehensible. (Because there is huge interest in this issue on Dean’s World, I post more here than I do on my own blog on it. I also did NOT post much at all on the Bush military record controversy when that was raging).

Bush hatred is mirrored by Kerry hatred which seemingly drips from radio talk shows, emails and blogs. So both sides can stop wasting everyone’s time with arguments about which side hates the most: BOTH hate the other candidate with equal passion. Bush hatred and Clinton hatred are also the same animals. It’s amazing to hear someone (Democrats and Republicans) say “No I don’t hate so and so” then launch into a rage-filled, name-calling denunciation — and you hear this all the time.

Operatives and supporters on both sides should admit it: hate feels good, it motivates many voters and it gets people on both sides to the polls. It’s also a way for both sides to use some of a campaign’s limited time talking about something other than prickly issues that may lose them votes and be more complex than good guy/bad guy.

In the case of the Vietnam issue, maybe the only way for this country to return to issues is for all of us Baby Boomers to die off or to put all of our energy into getting new face lifts or making sure the Viagra dosage works — and stop reliving past glories and pursuing undying grudges.

And, in November, for some independent voters (like me), the deciding factor often becomes which party ran the less personal campaign. You hold your nose and vote for the candidate that seemed more focused on issues. Right now it appears as if both sides are only at the starting point of one of the most personal campaigns ever. And no matter who wins, the country loses.

(NOTE: This was posted this weekend on Dean’s World, where Joe Gandelman was Guest Blogger)

The Department of Homeland security continues to be the big butt (the latter phrase does not refer to Rosie O’Donnell) of late night comedians’ jokes due to a mini-controversy that emerged when Ted Kennedy was stopped from flying several times for security reasons.

It turned out the Massachusetts Senator — hardly a newcomer to public life and definitely not fitting the profile of a terrorist (they don’t have red noses) - stopped because a name similar to his appeared on the government’s no-fly list of terror suspects.

So Ted Kennedy was on a No-Fly list (versus Bill Clinton who is on a Uses-Fly list). It happened several times so the Senator got a taste of bureaucracy and Big Government at its Best/Worst (Republicans and Democrats: circle the word to make this post a fair one to you, a new feature here..):

Kennedy said he was stopped at airports in Washington, D.C., and Boston three times last March. Airline agents told him he would not be sold a ticket because his name was on a list.

When he asked the agent why, he was told, “We can’t tell you.”

Each time, a supervisor recognized Kennedy and got him on the flight. But after the third incident, Kennedy’s staff called the Transportation Security Administration and asked to clear up the confusion.

That agency said a name similar to Kennedy’s was on the watch list. The agency also said that the airlines did not handle the matter properly.

But twice after contacting the agency, Kennedy was stopped again at the airline counter.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed lawsuits in San Francisco and Seattle over this issue, demanding that the government explain how wrongly flagged travelers can get off the lists.

But maybe there’s something we don’t know.

Why was Kennedy stopped? Perhaps they have a new rule on people suspected of carrying flasks. More:

“If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans, who are getting caught up in this thing, how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?” Kennedy asked the official, Asa Hutchinson, under secretary of homeland security.

Kennedy said he’d been misidentified on the watch list when he tried to board airliners between Washington and Boston. He said he was stopped five times as he tried to board US Airways shuttles because a name similar to his appeared on a list or his name popped up for additional screening.

Hutchinson, who apologized for “any inconvenience” to the senator, testified Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the need for the federal government to take over the watch lists, which are administered by the airlines.

Each time, a supervisor recognized Kennedy and got him on the flight. But after the third incident, Kennedy’s staff called the Transportation Security Administration and asked to clear up the confusion.

But Kennedy is NOT alone:

A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he’s been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.

Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on border security Thursday that he’s been stopped several times because his name appeared on an airline watch list.

Lewis contacted the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security and executives at various airlines in a so-far fruitless effort to get his name off the list, said spokeswoman Brenda Jones.

Instead, Lewis got a letter from the Transportation Security Administration that he can present to ticket agents indicating he has cleared an identity check with the agency. But the letter warns he might still be subject to extra security checks before being allowed to fly.

Wait…maybe the new list has a profile that screens passengers for veracity and sincerity. That would explain why politicians are being stopped — and why the candidates and staffs of the two presidential candidates use private jets. (Don’t look for them to be flying commercial too soon…)

(NOTE: This was posted on Dean’s World, where Joe Gandelman was Guest Blogger this weekend)

France is quickly emerging as the most anti-semitic country in the non Islamic world. The latest act:

Arsonists have set fire to a Jewish soup kitchen in central and daubed Nazi symbols on the building, police say, in the latest anti-Semitic act in France.

President Jacques Chirac vowed to pursue those responsible and severely punish them.
Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said the perpetrators could face up to 20 years in prison or even life imprisonment under a new anti-racism measure in France.

“The country’s forces are mobilised that criminals who carry out such acts are rapidly arrested and severely punished,” he told reporters at the burned-out building where anti-Semitic symbols, including a swatiska in red felt pen, were drawn on the walls.

These proclamations are impressive, except for a couple of things. For one thing, these hate crimes are now nearly commonplace there:

It was the second anti-Semitic act in the French capital in about a week after vandals last Saturday drew a swastika and wrote “death to the Jews” on a low wall in front of Paris’s Notre Dame cathedral early on Saturday.

A wave of such attacks have hit eastern France, with more than 300 tombs or graves desecrated since April — many in Jewish cemeteries but also some Muslim and a few Christian graves.

“There’s no doubt about the stupid and criminal motivations of those who burn down a soup kitchen while inscribing anti-Semitic graffiti,” a spokesman for the Jewish representative council in France (CRIF) said.

“It’s definitely Jewish hatred which inspires them. The CRIF asks the authorities to promptly arrest and sanction in an exemplary manner the perpetrators of this odious act which besmirches France,” he added.

Indeed, several Jewish leaders in recent months have urged French Jews to get out of the country — a country with a large and growing Muslim population with increasing political clout.

(NOTE: This appeared on Dean’s World this weekend, where Joe Gandelman was Guest Blogger)

Here is yet another sign of why we never can let our guard down in the war against terrorism. We face an enemy that is unrelenting — and constantly on the move.

The AP reports:

MONTERREY, Mexico - Governments throughout Mexico and Central America are on alert as evidence grows that al-Qaida members are traveling in the region and looking for recruits to carry out attacks in Latin America — the potential last frontier for international terrorism.

The territory could be a perfect staging ground for Osama bin Laden’s militants, with homegrown rebel groups, drug and people smugglers, and corrupt governments. U.S. officials have long feared al-Qaida could launch an attack from south of the border, and they have been paying closer attention as the number of terrorism-related incidents has increased since last year.

This is one reason why our present immigration set-up along the U.S. Mexico border is so dangerous. The U.S. is caught in a dilemma on that one — no matter what it does, there is a price. But now the scale appears to be tipping on the side of a tougher clamp down — for U.S. security reasons. Read on:

The strongest possible al-Qaida link is Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a 29-year-old Saudi pilot suspected of being a terrorist cell leader. The FBI issued a border-wide alert earlier this month for Shukrijumah, saying he may try to cross into Arizona or Texas.

In June, Honduran officials said Shukrijumah was spotted earlier this year at an Internet cafe in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. Panamanian officials say the pilot and alleged bombmaker passed through their country before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in May singled out Shukrijumah as one of seven especially dangerous al-Qaida-linked terrorist figures wanted by the government, which fears a new al-Qaida attack. A $5 million reward is posted for information leading to his capture.

Mexican and U.S. border officials have been on extra alert, checking foreign passports and arresting any illegal migrants. In a sign of a growing Mexican crackdown, eight people from Armenia, Iran and Iraq were arrested Thursday in Mexicali on charges they may have entered Mexico with false documents, although they did not appear to have any terrorist ties.

I live about 2 hours from Mexicali and have visited it. The Mexicali/Calexico crossing area tends to be less publicized and a bit more sedate than the San Diego-Tijuana crossing (which is about 20 minutes from my door). All the more reason to keep an eye on what goes on there.

Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, Mexico’s top anti-crime prosecutor, said Mexican officials have no evidence that Shukrijumah — or any other al-Qaida operatives — are in Mexico. But Mexican authorities are investigating and keeping a close eye on the airports and borders.

“The alert has been sounded,” Vasconcelos told The Associated Press last month.

And there’s more (read the whole thing) include:

In Central America, Honduran Security Minister Oscar Alvarez said officials have uncovered evidence that terrorists, likely from al-Qaida, may be trying to recruit Hondurans to carry out attacks in Central America. He did not offer details.”

El Salvador authorities last week reinforced security at the country’s international airport and along the borders after purported al-Qaida threats appeared on the Internet against their country for supporting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. President Tony Saca, undeterred, is sending the country’s third peacekeeping unit — 380 troops — to Iraq.

Terrorists have struck in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the United States. Latin America could be next, analysts say, especially as it becomes harder to operate elsewhere.

Meanwhile, there are fears the Panama Canal could be a likely target. And there have been suspicions about Paraguay’s border with Brazil and Argentina being used “as an area for Islamic terrorist fund-raising” due to a Muslim community that popped up there in the 1970s.

But the immediate concern for the U.S. is the U.S. Mexico border, “a porous, 2,000-mile border with the United States and is the home to widespread organized crime.”

Some Aeromexico flights were cancelled and forced to turn around in December after takeoff due to terrorism concerns in Mexico. Why? “United States, Canada and Interpol told Mexico that officials suspected terrorists might be using Mexican soil to plan an attack, Vasconcelos said.”

Indeed, a flight from Tijuana could reach the San Diego area — or the San Onofre Nuclear Plant just a brief flying distance up the coast — in very little time.

Mexico is a highly popular travel destination for people trying to sneak in to the U.S., partly because it’s so easy to get in. At the same time, Muslims have trouble legally getting into Mexico. Since 911 Mexico has made it virtually impossible for people from Muslim countries to get visas to come in.

Why is it considered easy to get in? The bottom line is that traditionally BOTH parties have factored in political considerations (read that: making sure they don’t lose or can even gain Hispanic votes) in making not just immigration policy but border policy.

And, although security has clearly gotten tougher, the U.S. Mexico border, for all intents and purposes, remains a loophole for terrorists.

A military journal in Saudi Arabia, that country that is such an anchor to U.S. interests — part of the Middle East that is in America’s interests to defend — has published a mega-anti-semitic article. Isn’t it great that we’re allied with and tacitly defending comments like these?

The majority of revolutions, coups d’etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the ‘Protocols [of the Elders of Zion’], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.

“In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. They own property and gold and they control the banks and other financial institutions, which [in turn] control the economies of the powerful countries. In this way they controlled the most [influential] people in the world, in whose power it was to entangle their countries in wars that resulted in benefits only for the Jews. Among the enticements [which the Jews used] were: 1) cash incentives; 2) offering jobs; 3) the introduction of religious elements into terrorism.

Hey, I’m Jewish. Where’s the bank I can control? The only religious elements intrduced into terrorism I experienced was the chopped herring and eggplant at my bar mitzvah. Take my circumcision — please…

We don’t want to give these folks more space here with this essay but here are a few points from Ma’ashu Muhammad’s article titled “The Jews in the Modern Era” published in a journal titled “Al-Jundi Al-Muslim” (The Muslim Soldier). It is put out by the Religious Affairs Department of the Saudi armed forces and it appeared in its “Know Your Enemy” section:

—-“”World Jewry has Established a Shadow Government Run by 300 Satans Who Call Themselves ‘Elders’”
And they’re all shouting “GET OFF MY LAWN” as they rush to the airport to catch the next plane to Branson.

—“‘The Jews Caused the Outbreak of World War I and World War II’
Maybe their real goal was to get to China to get more Chinese food. (There is BC — Before Christ — and the Jewish calender BCF — Before Chinese Food)

—“The Jews and the Islamic Caliphate”
Really? I don’t care what these two groups do sexually…

—“The Jews Created Every Scientific or Philosophical Principle or School”
Even the Montessori Schools? How about schools of fish? And is that TRUE about philosophy? So the JEWS were responsible for that boring crap I had to read at Colgate University in my 8 am Philosophy and Religion class?? Then I’ll convert!

—“The Jews and the Arab League”
Cool! What are the names of the baseball teams in both leagues?

Wait — are you accusing us of not taking this seriously? We do. The joke is how the U.S. turns the other way constantly in the case of Saudi Arabia when we denounce the same kinds of sentiments in other non-allied countries.

Now the New York Times has entered the fray with a major story on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad — as have other “mainstream” newspapers — so now let’s step back and look at how the media works.

What follows isn’t entirely opinion: I got my masters in journalism, wrote from India, Spain and Bangladesh for nearly five years, and worked on the staff as a reporter for two newspapers owned by major newspaper chains (Knight-Ridder and Copley Press). This does NOT make all of this the final word, but it really is more than just guess work. When I was overseas I had to anticipate news cycles and hot stories to get my stories and features in the newspapers (I wrote for the old Chicago Daily News, the Christian Science Monitor, self-syndicated to newspapers in Europe, the Middle East, Australia and Canada). I worked with LOTS of editors — and most of them were highly professional and struggled over when and how to run certain stories (quite a few remain close friends of mine).

SO CONSIDER THIS:

(1) Every breaking news story (versus features in general magazines) has a rythm. It may start locally, then slowly spread. One reporter does something on it. Another, then another. Now you have the blogosphere. Blogs can INITIATE a story.

(2) What has been written previously (errors and all in many cases) becomes part of the conventional wisdom and is passed on to future reporters when they hurriedly look at what has been written before. What has been written before provides a context.

(3) Editors read other papers and watch network and cable news. So they know what’s going on. Oftentimes a newspaper or wire service’s criteria is tougher than it’d be for a talk show, cable show or even cable news show.

(4) You almost never can get a political news story in by insisting the paper or broadcast outlet run it. That smacks of politics and editors will feel as if they are being asked to be used as political operatives.. Similarly, you usually can’t get a feature in by saying: “Give me some publicity.” Editors don’t want to be p.r. people (even if lots of what papers and cable/broadcast people run can qualify as positive image stories for corporations and people).

(5)When you think about the press, just think about CAT PSYCHOLOGY. A cat will usually come and jump in your lap. But try and put it in your lap, and it’ll sometimes jump down, because a cat feels it must decide this for itself. Also, many cats decide each minute whether they like you or not; the same with editors and reporters working on stories. They are constantly evaluating credibility. They will call it as they see it (and not always be correct).

(6) If a complex but not massively breaking story is bubbling under the surface and reaches a point where a paper can write what one editor used to tell me was an “upsummer” (sum it all up), they will wait and do it as long weekender since that’s when they have the most space. Or, in the case of a broadcast show such as 60 Minutes, use it to garner ratings with heavy promotion. One of the few papers that will devote huge amounts of space is the Los Angeles Times, which is why its earlier story was so long — and a classic “upsummer” …but it angered many since it seemed to take an immediate political position early in the story (against the Swift Boat vets).

(7) If you notice, the Washington Times can do many stories on some political topics but they won’t hit the biggest newspapers. Why? The Washington Times is perceived by many other papers as paper with an agenda editorially and in its selection of stories (just what Washington Times readers think about the New York Times). BUT: it can help publicize a story until a WIRE SERVICE begins to do a lot on it.

(8) If a wire service picks it up more stories can follow from the big papers.

(9) So in the case of this story, once it hit the L.A. Times and the Washington Post, the New York Times had to run a long piece on it. One editor once called these kinds of follow ups “advancing the story” as in:”So, this story is still alive. What can we do now to advance the story?”

(10) Once a story hits the “big media” the next step is the news media in fierce competition not to be beaten on new twists. That explains the stories now emerging going after the Swift Boat vets: this is a NEW twist, since the other stuff now has a “been there-done that” quality to it. The fear of being beaten on a story is a HUGE FACTOR motivating what news you’re offered to read, see and hear. If it’s a big enough story, careers can be built — and destroyed — on who got what first. Even by minutes.

(11) Everyone involved in a major story like this is fair game. Because if there is something that provides a new twist, it’s a good story.

(12) When one outlet runs a new twist, then the hunt is on by others to make sure they cover that aspect — and find their OWN new twist, so others can cover what they’ve written.

(13) Reporters are paid to ask questions that may make sources and even some readers or viewers detest them.

(14) The Gold Standard for the Conventional Wisdom in the U.S. media remains — for all of its MANY flaws, diminished reputation, and what many contend is an undisguised political bias — the New York Times. How the Times frames a story influences the media and elite consensus. Of course, if a New Twist is discovered by someone else, that changes the conventional wisdom — and the Times will report on that…with it’s “New Twist.’

(15) All stories (except Michael Jackson) eventually peter out. There is a beginning, middle and an end to how a story moves. It’s kind of like doing body boarding or surfing: you wait for the wave, it comes, you ride the wave for as long as you can, then it’s over.

(16) Remember that in bodyboarding and surfing there are accidents and occasionally people are hurt, or even die. In a major news story, every person and institution involved is subject to the most stringent scrutiny — and it can be brutal. The person at the center of the story is one aspect; other key actors in the story are another…and sometimes they’re note prepared for that.

(17) Most reporters aren’t out to “get” a person as much as “get” some material to frame a story, which is almost like an old bedtime story since it has a structure. That may mean asking provocative questions, calling experts all over the country, using inflammatory or highly emotional quotes not only in the story but in interviewing people ….to provoke a heated response (get a good quote).

(17) Once a story is in the mainstream media it takes on a life of its own. The outcome really can’t be stage managed by either side in a controversy.

(18) The news media has an attention deficit problem. A huge story can vanish almost immediately if another one comes up, or if editors si