The war of the cable news networks

When you look at the various pundits on cable news these days, you get the feeling that there is a war going on. Not the events in Afghanistan, or Iraq, but in the cable networks themselves. Not a new idea, but recently it went to a new level.

Recently Sean Hannity, of Fox News, made a statement that he would endure waterboarding for the benefit of U.S. military troops. While this was a statement made somewhat lightheartedly, Hannity is a strong supporter of waterboarding as a means of gaining information from terrorists, it was heard in every newsroom across the airwaves.

Thus Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC, took it upon himself to make that comment a reality. He has offered an $1000 to be donated for every second that Hannity endures the interrogation technique. And the far-left loved the visage of the event.

But Olbermann missed something in this. Whether it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes, Hannity will break. That's not a victory for Olbermann or MSNBC. Nor for the far-left. Because all that proves is that waterboarding is effective.

As much as the far-left, the major media in general, and President Obama want to state that tough interrogations are ineffective the fact is that they work. Even as the President has refused to reveal any information that he has available to him that proves waterboarding has saved American lives (though he is quick to divulge that it was used among other techniques) the fact remains clear as day.

This is only a small part of the war being held in the 24-hour news networks everyday. With the lines drawn such that MSNBC is to the furthest left, and Fox News in the center and thus seeming far right. That is not to say that some people on both networks are at different points in the political spectrum, even to extreme. Hannity is hardly a centrist, just as Olbermann is not.

Still this all leaves me with a big question. Where is the real news?

When any news organization is actively taking a political position, the overall information being given is inevitably altered. When that news is political and will shape the American life, then there is a problem.

Take this minor example. MSNBC praises President Obama and the Congress. This has led them to emphasize coverage of the Obama Administration budget on the fact that it has pledged to lower the national debt by 50% in 4 years. But to cover just that portion of the impact of the budget is to lie to the American public.

The fact is, under the best scenario given by the Obama Administration, the budget will absolutely increase the national debt in 10 years. That is the ultimate outcome of his budget. In fact in the 5th year the deficit will be slightly larger than it is today. That's just 1 year after it would have been whitewashed to look lower for a year. That's polispeak.

Or how about the New York Times, questioning President Obama about how he feels as President. Not that questions about the economy (none were asked), nukes in Pakistan, the war effort in Afghanistan, or the impending release of Gitmo detainees into America are even slightly more important. Do you really care if President feels elated, if you just lost your job?

I realize that I am picking on the left in my examples. Other examples of the same kind of insanity from the right exists abundantly across the net. But the examples are real. And the net effect is damage to the public.

Were it up to me, I'd like to see all the executives at the cable news networks waterboarded. Perhaps that would remind them that the news, and honest critique of politicians (in both Parties), is their job. Not ratings or political agendas. That's what America cares about.

So if Olbermann wants to cover waterboarding, let him do an expose that covers the pros and cons of the issue. Which means admitting it worked, and explaining its failures. Anything else is just trying to grab a bigger television rating (which MSNBC needs - given). Which is not a benefit to America.

And by the way, Olbermann, why not just donate several thousand dollars to the families of the troops that are ensuring that you can get on the air and say whatever you believe. Without them you would be like Cuba or China, just reading whatever the Government tells you to.

Jazz gift idea - The Jazz Ear

It's the holiday season and everyone is searching for the perfect gift for everyone on their list. Considering that I decided to see what might be of interest out there for Jazz music enthusiasts. But I also wanted to see if I could find something that was a bit different than a favorite album or video of a favored artist. So I went to books, which to me often encompass the innovation that is Jazz music.

To that end I have seen nothing but positive reviews for The Jazz Ear by Ben Ratliff. Mr. Ratliff has been reviewing jazz for the New York Times for some 10 or so years now, so yu would expect a respectful and knowledgeable book. But this is different.

Unlike books that interview various artists about their inspirations and motivations, Ratliff sought a different path. To understand the artists via the music that they listen to and to discuss that. In such a manner we get more of the soul of the artists, in a more relaxed manner than traditional interviews might provide.

As I stated the book is held to be an accomplishment worthy of the subject matter and those involved.

The book has been on sale for a while now, and can be found among numerous online retailers. The cost is hardly prohibitive for the hardcopy, even in this economy. And I think this is something that any jazz enthusiast might find enjoyable. Perhaps even taking the time to sit back and listen to the songs that are selected by the musicians interviewed even before reading their thoughts.

Interviewees include Sonny Rollins, Ornette Coleman, Branford Marsalis, Dianne Reeves, Wayne Shorter, Joshua Redman, Pat Methany and more.

For an original gift idea I think you could do far worse, and this will likely bring the smile you were hoping for.

Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink, Berkley, and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

NASCAR, Mauricia Grant, and my opinion

In the 1920’s the Old South was renown for its relaxed pace of life, good weather, Jim Crow laws, and criminal moonshine bootlegger races. Inbetween the massacre of Rosewood and unknown numbers of lynchings southerners of the time would rally together under the confederate flag to watch the intermittent Sunday races of these speedy criminals. The popularity of these races grew over the decades until in 1947 NASCAR was born.

But the South was unable to captivate the nation with this new sports league as it was busy segregating it’s schools, diners, buses, and life in general. With the Confederate Flag never far the late 50’s and 60’s were filled with Civil Rights protests and marches – and police and firemen using fire hoses and dogs to attack these peaceful demonstrations. And even more lynchings, with an occasional murder of northern White activists.

Then in 1979, after the attention of the nation had been focused on Viet Nam and assumed all the ills of discrimination were absolved by the end of segregation (but not prejudice or discrimination), broadcast television presented the nation a new image of the Old South. In that year the Dukes of Hazzard aired on television.

The Dukes of Hazzard was a mix of old ideas about the South in a more modern package. As I recall the show was as segregated as most all television shows (including the majority of those on-air today) without a single Black character ever crossing the screen. The focus of the show was a family of criminals, moonshine runners, their conflicts with the corrupt but exceptionally familiar authorities, and a NASCAR-esque car featuring the confederate flag. In fact the show was so focused on the car, and the short cutoff jeans of the only female character, that NASCAR grew in attention and prominence.

Jumping forward 3 decades we reach today. A majority of television shows still lack any non-White characters [or present just one so they can claim they are being fair – though I think most cities these shows are based in have more than just the handful of non-Whites the programs insinuate] the Confederate Flag still flies across the South and on government buildings, and NASCAR is more popular than ever. While NASCAR is not directly segregated (there has been African American drivers, and there are non-Whites in the pit crews and support staff) it is blatantly worse than television in its diversity.

Of course many in the South and across the nation would not believe this single northern Black Puerto Rican when I point all this out. God knows they have sent me the letters and comments to tell me so. But then the New York Times, Associated Press, San Jose Mercury News, Fox News and many others presented a news story that goes right to my points.

They all are reporting on a lawsuit by a Black woman that was a former NASCAR official. I say former because when she complained about the sexual and racial and gender abuse and discrimination she was receiving she was fired. Which is against the law and NASCAR rules as I understand.

Mauricia Grant was hired in 2005 to work as a technical inspector on the Nationwide series. In the 22 months that she was employed she was called “Queen Sheba” “Nappy head Mo”, told to hide from the crowds of spectators, called a lesbian, asked to perform sex acts, told she works on “colored people time”, and provided multiple disturbing references to the Klu Klux Klan. That’s just a few of the things she had to deal with. When she filed a complaint, to Nationwide Series director Joe Balash he joined in on the merriment.

Ms. Grant is suing for $225 million.

Of course she will not get that amount. But that is not the issue. Nor is my obvious disdain for the Old South and the romanticized selective rememberances of its past and present. The issue is that in 50 years parts of America have successfully refused to alter their views on human beings. And the nation as a whole willfully accepts this with our collective heads in the sand.

I would like to believe that NASCAR as a whole is not like the allegations that have been leveled against them. I would like to believe that the fans of NASCAR do not share such beliefs. But I am hard pressed to believe that.

Were NASCAR to present the various trophies swaddled in a confederate flag, I would not be surprised. Nor would multitudes of the fans who carry their own flags, cars adorned ala the General Lee (name of the Dukes of Hazzard car), and robed in confederate flags made into shirts, shorts, pants and more. Were NASCAR to have a KKK night, handing out white robes to fans and lighting the track with burning torches, I would be mildly shocked. Not because they did it, but that inevitiably it would be televised. I’m sure some of the NASCAR fans dream of such a night.

I don’t find NASCAR interesting. Because it is a symbol of the Old South and what that factually represents. But fans should wonder about what NASCAR represents today, because the allegations leveled speak to an attitude that is more backward and brain-adled than virtually any stereotype or mockery of the South.

Darfur vs. political poll numbers

When I think of Darfur I am reminded of a quote,

“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” – Dr. Martin Luther King.

Back in June I noted that there had not been a single candidate that had spoken about the atrocity in Darfur. Today that genocide in Darfur continues, Congress has not acted, and the Presidential candidates continue to turn a blind eye. Not only that, but the major news media continues to have a blackout of any information on this issue, going so far as to be silent on even the recent Don Cheadle film on this subject.

Yes, there was a film about Darfur that came out in November. Did you hear a single review? Did you read about it in your newspaper? Highly unlikely, just as it’s unlikely that you will hear a single candidate discuss this issue while they argue about who has more experience in international matters.

How can we believe ANY candidate has international experience when they cannot mention and seem to be unaware of a massive, 4 year long genocide? The candidates running for the Presidency can even figure out the national level of concern in that they have not done anything on HR 180 IH. That is the title of the resolution in Congress all year that has received scant attention.

“The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.”

Now some may say I am being unfair. They will note that during a YouTube debate several candidates spoke about Darfur. And they may note that Senators Dodd and Obama also have a resolution. I will counter that empty soundbites and resolutions that sit and do nothing are just the equivalent of eye candy. It’s fluff to look busy and important without the substance of conviction.

“As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.”

Congress has been so busy trying to find ways of taking down President Bush and his administration that they have failed to even notice the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. Presidential candidates are so busy puffing themselves up they can’t even commit to divesting their personal holdings in companies that are supporting the Sudan and the genocide in Darfur.

It is a n international embarrassment that the U.N. has more backbone than our nation on this issue. The fact that the U.N. has committed 26,000 troops to protecting lives in that region is paltry, but at least an attempt at something.

“And politicians can take the simple amount of time it takes to act on HR 180 IH, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, forcing companies to admit if they are supporting the regime that is murdering women and children for no reason beyond the fact they exist. I dare even one politician to provide a reason that is logical that explains why this has not passed yet. To explain why this simple act has yet to be passed after 7 months seems inplausible to me. That only 151 Representaives have backed this is sad. How many lives will it take to move forward and act?”

We are America. We can do better. We can do more. And that action starts and ends with out political leaders. We elect them to do our bidding. They are there to enrich our nation, our world, and the lives of everyone we influence. And the influence of America is virtually inarguably massive.

"It is up to citizens in these early primary states to determine the agenda of the presidential candidates," New York Times journalist, Nick Kristof, said at an event at Drake University in Des Moines [...]. "Iowans, specifically, can use their voice during the caucuses to bring Darfur to the attention of the presidential candidates."

Think of this. If we can turn a blind eye to the suffering and death of millions of people, that we can help end, how long until we turn a blind eye to Robert A. Hawkins, and all the others that commit mass murders in our malls and schools. How long before we accept the suffering of those in our nation that suffer from hurricanes, earthquakes and floods? How long before we become so inhumane as to allow murders of anyone not exactly like us, that us being an individual determination?

And how long will it be before we realize that there is no difference between turning a blind eye to this genocide and committing the murders ourselves?

Sesame Street, the real danger to our children. Are you serious? Part 3

Concluded from Sesame Street, the real danger to our children. Are you serious? Part 2...



Hmmm… Learning the alphabet, with humor. Expressing love and presenting diversity and tolerance. Compassion. Patience. Are all these qualities we want our kids to avoid today?

Yes life is jaded today. Today we teach kids to fear strangers, family members and television shows. There aren’t just monsters under the bed; they are everywhere the child goes. Kids don’t go outside and play, burning off the cookie or 3 they just had as a snack, anymore. They sit and play video games, surf the net, and listen to iPods while eating a box of whatever Sugar Bomb Pops is handy, washing it down with a liter of some name brand soda.

Kids get to watch cartoons 24/7 now. There is no mere 3 hours of animated shows after school ends and just 5 hours on Saturday morning. No kids today don’t have to wait. They have it all the time on demand. Screw patience and learning time management skills, they have 500 channels of HDTV, Tivo, DVD’s, and YouTube. Why bother going outside and interacting with others building social networks and skills. They can text message or IM people they know and don’t know.

Diversity? If you mean being able to get in touch with masses of unseen, unknown people separated merely by screen names, in a cold and emotionless medium that conveys little to no context, then I suppose they get more now.

Seriously, the issue is not that Sesame Street is fictional or filled with “limited possibilities and fixed identities”. The issue is that some are so obsessed with seeking out flaws, resolving issues with drugs (like Prozac), and avoiding the fact that kids are not miniature adults that they miss the point. Life between 2-5 should be simple and filled with love and care. It isn’t always, but do we really need to force that reality on minds that are still trying to learn the alphabet and 2+2=4?

Sesame Street, the real danger to our children. Are you serious? Part 2

Continued from Sesame Street, the real danger to our children. Are you serious? Part 1...

I have to pause to give an example of the ‘junkie’ Cookie Monster in action. I use this video clip specifically because when I spoke with a friend of mine about this article, the song C is for Cookie was mentioned. Without pause or thought, I rattled of the main chorus of the song perfectly.



Now I wonder, how terrible is Cookie Monster? In using a snack that all young children are familiar with, presented by an obviously non-human fuzzy creature more reminiscent of a Teddy bear than a monster, he helps kids learn letters in the alphabet, introduces the concept of planets and astronomy (i.e. the moon), provide the thought of equality and diversity (the monsters in the chorus in the background), spatial geometry (the similar shapes), and the benefit of having an imagination. And he then eats a cookie. Then again he is a cookie monster. The horror. You just can’t let kids see that.

But that is not the only problem with Sesame Street according to this article.

“People on “Sesame Street” had limited possibilities and fixed identities, and (the best part) you weren’t expected to change much. The harshness of existence was a given, and no one was proposing that numbers and letters would lead you “out” of your inner city to Elysian suburbs. Instead, “Sesame Street” suggested that learning might merely make our days more bearable, more interesting, funnier. It encouraged us, above all, to be nice to our neighbors and to cultivate the safer pleasures that take the edge off — taking baths, eating cookies, reading. Don’t tell the kids.”

Let me show you a common example of the “harshness of existence” exemplified on this television program that I recall from my early years.

Concluded in part 3...

Sesame Street, the real danger to our children. Are you serious?

America we are in trouble. I mean serious and deep trouble. It’s not because of an eventual attack from fanatical extremists, or the potential of duplicitous individuals being elected to political office. It has nothing to do with the definite problems to the economy that are fueled by growing costs for oil and the expanding number of homes being foreclosed. No, this insidious virus comes from a small place in America, called Sesame Street. At least that’s what some would like you to believe.

This is incredulous. The degree of idiocy that causes some to propose that the early programs of Sesame Street are ‘inappropriate’ for children and that it should be ‘adults-only’ staggers my mind. In my opinion, anyone that could hold such a view first has never seen the show as a child and second has serious issues.

Of the programs on television in my lifetime, if not before it as well, I think only the Electric Company and the animated Charlie Brown and Dr. Seuss specials match the quality and sincerity found at Sesame Street. No violence, no bad language, real people (mostly but quite a few monsters that are as scary as Teddy bears), adults that are involved and not stupid, a diversity of cultures races and ethnicities that is unmatched anywhere in the real world. A dedication to provide kids with an interest in education, and helping them with the building blocks. And above all an understanding that children are not dumb or mindless and treats them with respect.

But for all that, and the millions that watched Sesame Street we now have what I would call ‘idiots with titles’ trying to keep the show from our children.

Virginia Heffernan wrote a piece on the Sesame Street DVD that is now available. Initially I thought this was a satirical commentary. I hope that I have misread her context. But you can decide for your self.

“What they did to us was hard-core. Man, was that scene rough. The masonry on the dingy brownstone at 123 Sesame Street, where the closeted Ernie and Bert shared a dismal basement apartment, was deteriorating. Cookie Monster was on a fast track to diabetes. Oscar’s depression was untreated. Prozacky Elmo didn’t exist.”

Sounds sarcastic right? But she goes on to say

“Originally designed by Jim Henson for use in commercials for General Foods International and Frito-Lay, Cookie Monster was never a righteous figure. His controversial conversion to a more diverse diet wouldn’t come until 2005, and in the early seasons he comes across a Child’s First Addict.”

Now if I read that second quote correctly Cookie Monster was just called a junkie. Hell, how did everyone from 45 to 22 not become a crack addict? Well maybe not everyone since according to the 1979 New York Times the program was targeted to, shudder at the thought, “4-year-old inner-city black youngster[s]”.

Continued in Part 2...

We have different laws down here

**This post and others can be found at All American Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

As I post various thoughts over the last several years I’ve come to a couple of understandings. One of the most prominent is the fact that there is a huge disparity between what African Americans and Whites think of the legal system. While both respect the police, there is also an obvious distrust of them among Blacks. And few Whites truly understand the reason why, in my experience.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the police are in general good people, doing a difficult job, with the best intentions. But as the quote goes

The path to hell is pave with good intentions.

I say that because I’ve lived through too many situations were officers have approached me, with little or no cause, with guns drawn. I have watched as officers have allowed crack houses to exist without interruption. I have seen the use of violence in response to legitimate questions of what officers are doing. And I am not nearly alone in this.

But perhaps the difference in how officers react when they are not dealing with a White person is the experience that Mr. Solomon Moore recently had. His article was reported in the New York Times on Sep 30, 2007. The experience came to him in a small town Salisbury, N.C.

Mr. Moore is a reporter for the NY Times, 37, drives a Volvo station wagon, and has 2 children in soccer leagues. Perhaps the one element that makes Mr. Moore appear like a gang member is the fact that he is Black. That is, looking like a gang member to police officers. The actual gang members thought he was a cop.

What happened is directly connected to the fact that a gang member might wear a T-shirt and jeans, but it is just as likely a Black guy in a shirt that is blue, is not because he’s a member of the Crips, but because he’s a Dodgers fan.

Mr. Moore was investigating anti-gang measures being taken in the nation. As a reporter he went to speak with actual gang members in North Carolina since it had instituted strong anti-gang laws. He met the gang members at night, when they are out in the open, and where they were actively selling drugs. He observed the drug sales prior to speaking with them. It was that obvious.

The next thing that happens is not what you might expect. The police arrived as this reporter was trying to convince the youths he was not a cop. In his own words

“Without so much as a question, the officer shoved my face down on the sheet metal and cuffed me so tightly that my fingertips tingled.

“They’re on too tight!” I protested.

“They’re not meant for comfort,” he replied.“

This minor experience is nothing new. I’ve had similar experiences as have my brother, friends, and often most African Americans I’ve spoken to since I was a teenager. But when I speak to my White friends, regardless of age, they stand amazed. Even worse are the one or 2 times that I was treated in a similar manner in front of my White friends, because I was deemed a threat to them by police officers of their own volition. They were stupefied to imagine that people can be treated in such a manner. And I honestly was annoyed at their naïveté.

Of course cases like Rodney King, or Amidou Diallo, or Sean Bell garner some news. But many feel those are extreme situations. Unique things that sometimes happen in big cities. Mr. Moore, who was released without an apology or explanation, was in a town of 30,000. No one was arrested. The police just went away. And the gang members stated

“Man, you know what would have happened to one of us if we talked to them that way?” said one disbelieving man as he walked away from me and my blank notebook. “We’d be in jail right now.”

We need to realize that this is not unique. It happens often, daily. It happens in big communities and small ones. It happens near your front door as much as it happens in Los Angeles and Chicago. And it adds to the problem, not resolves it.

As long as the following kind of conversation can occur there will be inequality in America.

“This is America,” I said angrily, in that moment supremely unconcerned about whether this was standard police procedure or a useful law enforcement tool or whatever anybody else wanted to call it. “I have a right to talk to anyone I like, wherever I like.”

The female officer trumped my naïve soliloquy, though: “Sir, this is the South. We have different laws down here.”

That benefits no one. But now that you know, what will you do?

MoveOn.org - repost from 1800blogger - 9.11.2007.2

Some of you may be aware that in addition to my own blogs, I also write to and for several other blogs. A few of those blogs are owned by a friend and colleague of mine. While our opinions differ on what exactly to do about the war in Iraq we do agree about Moveon.org. As such I will repost his comments (any emphasis made is my own) about the article Moveon had in the New York Times. You can also find this post at 1800blogger.com:


The beautiful thing about blogging is that eliminates the saying, “It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.” Hopefully, you hold this blog post worthy enough for your righteous asses to read it.

People always ask me whether I’m liberal or conservative and I always pause before I answer. Then I reply, “I’m not sure, it depends on the topic.” I answer that way because that’s how I feel. The one thing that I truly do believe in is that I need to respect some things in life, whether it’s a person or a religion because it’s just the right thing to do. Generals, religious views, old ladies, old men, clergymen... just to name a few.

Think about a General’s life. For as long as they can remember, they pledged allegiance to The Flag of the United States of America. It’s a calling - the same calling experienced by a rabbi or a priest. I really believe that. You make a decision to pursue a position in life not based on economic gain or most other material things but just because its something that you feel you should be doing. For 20 or 30 years, you give everything to this country not to get the title of General. In fact, most ranks in the military come as a by-product of exemplary dedication and hard work. And after you give everything you have for 20 or 30 years, you are awarded the distinction of being called General. I would guarantee you this. Some General sometime over the past 200 years gave their life so you could do what you’re doing today. Personally, I disagree with the war. In life, a smart man cuts his losses and a foolish man stays the course. In 2008, I will have the opportunity to vote and probably vote against any Republican who doesn’t have a plan to end this war because a smart man cuts his losses. This may be the good fight but it’s not the right fight.

Then, I come to your ad in the New York Times. Although, you probably believe in your cause, I often wonder who funds causes like this. Well, I know the answer. People like George Soros and the people who have an agenda. There are millions of people dying in this world and we have diseases such as aids, cancer, heart disease and diabetes killing millions, and your organization made a decision to pay for and display this ad in the New York Times.

General Petraeus or General Betray Us.

So what you did is that little boy who had a calling so many years ago that your work and dedication to our freedom was worth the ad in The New York Times.

One year ago, I contacted a father who lost his 2 boys in 9/11. One was a fireman, one was a policeman. He had no other children. When I saw your ad, I thought of that man. Before running another ad like that, why don’t you think of him too?

For all the people that I personally knew who perished on September 11, 2001, this company, this blog and the World will never forget. Neither should you MoveOn.org.

So allow me to apologize for you.

Dear General Petraeus:

We’re sorry.

Respectfully,

Our former righteous ass