Iraqis show their courage by voting, much to the dismay of terrorists and Democrats

The elections are over in Iraq.

Here’s an overview. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men and women – much braver than I would have previously given them credit for, based on my limited experience – literally took their lives in their hands yesterday to make their voices heard for the first time in their own country.

President George W. Bush said, basically, “This is a good thing.” Makes sense, he’s got a lot riding on this. If it fails, American troops are going to be there longer.

Would-be president John “sore loser” Kerry was quick to pipe up with, “Whoa, there, let’s not ‘overhype’ this.” That’s not an actual quote, except for the “overhype” part.

I bet the Iraqis, who have never until this point seen a ballot with more than one person on it, and who faced a very serious chance of getting blown up for voting, don’t think anyone is “overhyping” anything.

It was difficult to tell if it was sarcasm or the Associated Press was being serious when it accompanied its story about the elections with four nearly identical (by the way, don’t ever use the phrase “nearly identical,” it doesn’t make sense) photos of John Kerry talking to NBC’s “Meet the Press” and one photo of Condoleezza Rice talking to CBS’ “Face the Nation” about the election.

It is certain though that nearly half the headlines focused more on Kerry’s skepticism than on the huge landmark this wounded country has just achieved.

“It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can’t vote and doesn’t vote,” (portions doesn’t?) Kerry said. The story didn’t clarify whether he was talking about the Iraq elections or his loss to Bush.

After all, at somewhere between 60 and 72 percent, the voter turnout in Iraq was higher than that the U.S.’s barely 60 percent.

It seems you can’t hold an election in any country anymore without John Kerry yelling, “It’s not fair! It doesn’t count!” before the final vote is in.

I wonder exactly what Kerry would be doing right now were he in the White House. If he had arranged for the election, instead of Bush, would it then be legit? Who knows? He never told anyone what his “plan” was. That’s why he lost the election.

In fact, an unrelated story quoted George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to his campaign, as saying Kerry lost because he was a flawed candidate who “did not actually offer a credible and coherent alternative.” Well, that’s true. But I digress.

I recall watching the news during the last election in Iraq, in which every station’s anchor said (with a straight face, nonetheless) “Saddam Hussein won by a landslide today” as if he were not the only person on the ballot and as if voting against him wouldn’t result in whole families disappearing.

So why was that one “legitimate,” while this one is “cautiously welcomed,” and “overhyped”?

Now are you going to tell me there is no media bias going on here? Or that it only takes place on the part of Fox News, the “partisan arm of the Republican National Committee”? Please.

The Iraqis stood up to the terrorists in an astonishing show of courage – for which I applaud them. And the Democrats can whine about voter suppression and unfairly distributed polling machines all day, but until someone tries to blow them up at the polling stations, I don’t want to hear it.

Yay God - I'll get back to the 'loony left' next week maybe

For the sake of my sanity (and Fnord’s) I have chosen not to criticize anyone today – in this article that is – or whine about the declining state of our nation and the raving lunatics on the left.

Instead, I’m doing a traditional good ole’ count-yer-blessings list of some of the things I am extremely thankful for.

I think it’s important to remember that God is good and God is in control, so even when the crazies like Turner and Churchill expose their incapacity to form coherent thought, and even when every single news agency on the planet tops its headlines with, “bloodiest day,” we still have cause to rejoice.

I’m still allowed to pray whenever I want and put a Christian bumper sticker on my car (much to the dismay of my roommates), even though the ACLU would argue that my doing so while in the Army constitutes “government endorsement” of my religion.

No one is talking about President John Kerry on the news, for which I say to God, “Thank you,” and also “woohoo!”

I’ve been delivered completely from smoking - which I did for seven years, on and off – since May.

Tonight when I go to bed it will actually be a bed and not a cot with a mosquito net over it. It is unlikely that I will wake up on the floor of an apartment in a foreign country, with my temperature at nearly 108º, or a hospital where I am convinced my limbs belong to someone else (believe me, having an arm that belongs to some woman the doctor says “isn’t there” can cause a considerable amount of angst).

I’m free to pursue a higher education, practice my faith, dress how I please, and write whatever I want about the people who disagree with me. The people who speak out against President Bush would do well to be thankful they don’t live in pre-“unjust” war Iraq, where to criticize the president could get you landed in a mass grave with your whole family (or in a prison where they know what “torture” really means).

I am free to travel without being accompanied by a husband, brother or father, which is nice. Can you imagine having to be accompanied by a man to “supervise” you wherever you went?

I have been assured that my friend, who is in the most dangerous neighborhood in Baghdad, Haifa Street, will return safely, and I trust God to keep that promise. Although He wasn’t specific about what he meant by “safely,” (i.e. “alive, or “alive with all limbs in tact…”) so I keep praying.

I have a completely functional family, in which both parents and all 400 children love each other deeply. Perhaps the parents love each other a little too much, hence the 400 children (this is not the actual number, it’s just I can’t count higher than seven for some reason.)

I have a savior who died for me and would have done so if I were the only person in the world. Hard for me to understand, but important for me to remember is that He would also have done so if Stuart was the only person in the world.

Yay God.

Logic challenged, America-hating professor should be banished

Republicans and Democrats alike were devastated, angry, frightened and sorrowful on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked our nation and killed thousands of its citizens.

But not Ward L. Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who wrote an essay titled, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.”

The essays title comes from Malcolm X’s comment that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was a case of “chickens coming home to roost,” according to the Rocky Mountain News.

Among the inflammatory statements Churchill made, were the assertion that the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center were in fact not terrorists at all, but “combat teams,” and that the people killed in the Pentagon were “military targets.”

Churchill claimed the Sept. 11 attacks were retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. Bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Gulf War.

Oddly, a freelance cameraman working for Fox News told me the same thing while I was serving in Iraq.

"The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course," the essay said. It described victims as “little Eichmanns,” comparing them to Adolph Eichmann, who helped plan and execute the attempted termination of the Jews during World War II.

"As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break," Churchill said.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind.”

He said the attacks were “a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

So let’s look at these points one by one.

First of all we’ve been told repeatedly by those who oppose the “unjust” war in Iraq that there is no Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. And if there is a connection, there is certainly no connection between Iraq and the 2001 Al Qaeda attack on our nation, they pipe. That’s why our attacking Iraq is tyrannical and unjust. So if there is no connection, why would Al Qaeda attack us in retaliation for injuries done against Iraq?

Also, as my father pointed out, they storm and protest that "war is not the answer." What is the answer, you ask? Sanctions of course. But wait. Churchill says we were attacked because children starved to death because of our sanctions - never mind that if children did starve, it was because Saddam Hussein - whom we should have left alone, poor thing - was pocketing the Oil for Food money, instead of using it to provide for his people. He murdered more of his own citizens than a U.S. bombing raid could ever hope to. Saddam, not America, was the oppressor of Iraq. So why didn't Al Qaeda fly an airplane into his palace?

Secondly, I don’t call defending the tiny country of Kuwait against an insane dictator, “imposing our will on other countries” or dispensing death and injustice as a matter of course. I do, however think that if our will is for other countries not to harbor or be led by terrorists who want to kill us, we should impose that will on them.

Third, does he really think he can compare the victims of the attacks to genocidal maniacs? If his argument is to be believed, than I and my comrades deserve death far more than the civilians in the World Trade Center.

But where in the Geneva Convention does it state that “combat teams,” hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into buildings full of civilians with no warning and certainly no declaration of war, is an acceptable rule of engagement?

It would appear that Ward Churchill, even more than Michael Moore, deeply hates America. And unlike the Democrats who have threatened to move to Canada – and to whom I say good riddance – I think Churchill ought to be banished from America, and forced to live in France or some other country where patriotism is not a virtue, cowardice is not frowned upon, and cold-hearted disdain is warmly accepted.

If people like you more than me, it's probably because you're a nazi

Ted Turner can’t get Hitler out of his head.

In 1996, he apologized to the Anti-Defamation League for a comment comparing Fox News head Rupert Murdoch to Adolph Hitler, according to the Drudge Report.

He then let the comment hibernate for a while, only to bring it out again at the National Association for Television Programming Executive’s opening season in Las Vegas.

Turner said that while Fox News may be the largest network, it’s not the best. After all, he pointed out, Hitler was elected by popular vote to run Germany prior to World War II.

Of course! Why didn’t I see the truth before? By that logic, everyone and everything elected by popular vote is like Hitler. That includes Bush, Al Gore (if you listen to the democrats’ incessant whining about the 2000 election), Bill Clinton, and The Aviator.

Turner said Fox is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is ‘dumbed down,’ leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff.”

Note his use of the word “voters,” not “viewers.”

Oddly, Turner’s network, CNN, being the propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee does not cause any problems for our democracy.

A Fox spokesperson responded, quite appropriately if you ask me, “Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind – we wish him well.”

Normally I hate to do research, which is why I am still a mediocre journalist, but for this case I made an exception. I went to both the CNN and Fox Web sites to compare their coverage of different issues. Here is what I found.

On Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation as secretary of state:
CNN – “Condoleezza Rice won Senate confirmation as secretary of state on Wednesday, after hours of sometimes-bitter debate Tuesday that focused largely on the war in Iraq.”

The story then named some of the 13 Democratic senators who voted against Rice, and one of the 85 who voted for her. It devoted seven paragraphs out of 16 to concerns and quotes opposing Rice’s confirmation and two paragraphs containing quotes or viewpoints supporting Rice.

Fox - Despite Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and elsewhere, Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday won the confirmation of the Senate as the next secretary of state.

The story went on to point out in the bridge that the 85-13 vote was the largest vote against a secretary of state nominee since Al Haig was confirmed in 1981 with six votes against him. It went into a little more detail, quoting first the president, followed by alternating quotes and viewpoints from seven Republicans and seven Democrats (including two who supported Rice). It also named the 13 senators who voted against her, and 10 who voted for her.

Of 27 paragraphs, 11 contained quotes or viewpoints that supported Rice and seven mentioned concerns or quotes opposing her confirmation

Other stories covered by both, showed little or no evidence of bias on either side. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

So far I’ve heard Ted Turner, Bill Moyers and a few others blast Fox for being Bush’s propaganda machine, and a partisan arm of the Republican National Committee, but I have yet to see one example of proved unfair reporting on their part.

On the other hand, there are several examples demonstrating liberal bias on the part of dozens of other news agencies.

Take Rathergate or Memogate or whatever you want to call it.

Take Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times, criticizing Bush in her column for spending so much on his inauguration when it could go to Tsunami victims. This is the same Maureen Dowd who complimented Clinton in her column in 1993, after he spent $25 million on his inauguration week – not day – in the midst of some of the worst crises in Mexico, Somalia and Angola (see Ann Coulter’s “It’s our party, you can cry if you want to.”)

If you can find an example of outright bias on the part of Fox news as specific as either of these, please bring it to my attention.

For more examples go to www.mediaresearch.org, or www.fairpress.org. If you think these sites ironically biased, go to Google, and type in “media bias.” Then see how many times the word “liberal” appears before the phrase in the results. Note how many times the word “conservative” appears in the same context.

Maybe Americans aren’t stupid after all, Michael Moore. Maybe we’re catching on.

I don't need to be smarter than everyone ... just you

Stuart told me last night that men are obviously superior to women.

I was too impressed by his correct use of the word “superior” to say anything in return. It’s by far the biggest word I’ve ever heard him use in the correct context.

We were watching the final episode of “Battle of the Sexes” in which the girl team lost miserably to the boy team for the thirteenth and final time. The loss was more humiliating in that the last of the girls’ three wins occurred only because the boys strategically threw the game, one of them heroically sacrificing himself for the rest, so as to make sure they would face the weakest girls in the final round.

It’s not the first time this subject has come up. Trisha, one of the only other girls in the building, fresh out of high school and brand new to dealing with Army men, started an argument about whether girls are dumb. She wasn’t trying to prove that we are smarter than men, just equally smart.

Stuart’s argument: I don’t know any girls who can run as fast as I can, or do as many pushups …

Trisha’s argument: Kate, help.

Joe: It’s true, men are stronger than women.

My argument (and sole contribution to the dispute): I thought we were talking about brains. What does how fast you run have to do with your IQ?

Trisha: Oh yeah! We were talking about how women aren’t dumb!

Stuart: Name one female CEO of a billion dollar company. And don’t say Martha Stewart because I hate that b****. Don’t say Oprah either. I hate her.

Finding it difficult to debate that brilliant line of reasoning, I chose to remain an observer for the remainder of the conversation, which lasted only a few more seconds as Trisha conceded – suddenly realizing she was unwise to engage at all - and Stuart gloated.

For the record, Carly Fiorina is considered smart by many of the employees at Hewlett-Packard, of which she is CEO, and Marie Curie discovered radium. I could go on, but it would quickly become boring.

I actually have no problem conceding that men are built differently than women and that the majority of them are stronger and more physically capable. There are women out there who could run Stuart into the ground, but my self esteem doesn’t suffer from not being one of them. (Although when I do compete with men, I practically kill myself to keep up. I admit, like many female soldiers, I often feel I have to prove myself).

I also have difficulty taking offense to his statement that I’m dumb. This is mostly because any quarrel can be quickly ended when I use a word he doesn’t understand, and not wanting to give away his ignorance, he lets his eyes glaze over for a second, then leaves the room or changes the subject.

Stuart: Kate, you’re an idiot.

Kate: Stuart, why all this animosity between us? Why this angst?

Stuart: Hey does anyone want pizza?

I almost feel bad. It’s like making fun of handicapped people. But I must defend myself.

Let me make myself clear. I am not saying that I or women in general, are smarter than men. I think some men are brilliant. I am simply saying that I and women in general, are smarter than Stuart.

Also, based on the class of women I personally know him to spend time with I can hardly blame him for thinking little of the fairer sex. When I drove one of said women home from the bar one night, I wanted to jump out the window after five minutes.

Anyway, this all goes back to my point about feminism, from a few months ago. We should not be trying to prove that we are equal to men in all ways by trying to become them. We should celebrate our differences.

For instance I daily celebrate the difference between my intellect and Stuart’s.

Seriously though, I’m not trying to be snobbish. I like Stuart. If he were smarter it would be difficult to like him, but something about the depth of his stupidity makes him lovable. He’s like a big dumb monkey.

There, I’ve defended myself.

I'm not that guy with the beard and the sandwich board sign prophecying the end

This is just a quick clarification of the praying in public article, due to the wealth of responses.

I saw a lot of good, albeit long-winded, points brought up. The few things I think are important are: I do not have a defeatiest attitude, I am not simply sitting around begging Jesus to come back, and I did not mean to imply that the end of the world is tomorrow, next week, next year or next generation.

Perhaps I should work on my writing skills a bit more. My point was actually that we must not give up hope. That the end times did begin a long time ago, and may be a long time from being over. That we mustn't allow ourselves to become depressed or overly anxious over the growing push to make Christianity an unmentionable, but that we must continue to do Christ's work in anticipation of his return.

When I brought up the "end is near" issue, it was merely to point out that - at some point - every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.

Whatever future generations will think of us, I doubt they (the believing ones) will think us silly for believing that we are in the midst of the "wars and rumors of wars" that were prophecied. As rkid#1 pointed out, God's time is not ours. In fact, he is completely outside of time.

My point is simply that, as she put it, we must keep the end-game in mind - not to proclaim doom and destruction, but to keep our hopes and others alive instead of getting caught up in the troubles of the moment.

For crying out loud, let it go

John Kerry wanted to honor Martin Luther King Jr., on the day set aside for honoring him (whether he deserves to be honored is not the topic, my dear Washington readers), so he spoke at a breakfast in Boston Monday.

The topic of his speech? What else? Voter suppression and its role in the election, of course! After all, we all know that whatever his faults, King would have voted for Kerry … wait.

Anyway, Kerry blames “suppressed” voters for his loss in the election.

I, on the other hand, blame voter suppression for his coming so close to winning in the first place.

Kerry said voting machines were distributed unevenly. In democratic districts, voters had to wait in line for hours while republicans got to vote in 10 minutes, he said. “Same voting machines, same process, our America.”

Dare I suggest – just based on evidence from the 2000 election – that delays could have been caused by democrats’ lack of ability to understand how the voting machines worked? I mean seriously, if you can’t figure out how to draw an arrow pointing at the candidate you want to vote for, how are you supposed to figure out a machine with a lever? Maybe each one just stood there waiting for something to happen.

It’s like that episode of “The Simpsons” where they build a giant escalator to nowhere and then people just ride to the top and fall off one at a time. Okay, it’s nothing like that. But that was a funny episode.

Anyway, I don’t really think democrats are stupid. Not all of them are. But I thought crazed Kerry supporters shooting at Republican Party headquarters, breaking into them, forcing staff to hide in closets, stealing Bush signs, vandalizing cars and property – I thought that looked kind of like voter suppression.

I thought standing outside voting booths asking people who they were voting for, then shouting at and harassing those who voted for Bush was kind of like voter intimidation.

But seriously, is anyone surprised? I mean it’s not like we’ve never seen a liberal accuse a conservative of insane behavior merely to draw attention away from his own engagement in that exact behavior.

Am I saying Republicans were innocent of trying to influence the outcome of the election? Of course not. Every party has its scoundrels. We just have fewer of them.

Kerry also mentioned that we can hardly bring democracy to Iraq when we don’t even have it here. Of course it goes without saying that if Kerry had won the election, we would have democracy here. It’s also quite likely that if he were in the White House we wouldn’t hear quite as much from him about the electoral reform he’s been championing.

Here is my advice to liberals. Do what your own Web site suggests. Move on. It’s over, you lost, build a bridge and get over it, as they said in kindergarten.

Also, next time try hiring a campaign manager who has something better than a 0-8 record for winning presidential campaigns. Just a thought.

So far, we're still allowed to pray in public

Michael Newdow claimed that a prayer at President George W. Bush’s inauguration would violate the constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Chief Justice William Rhenquist disagreed, so for now a prayer will be included in the inauguration.

Two lower courts also rejected Newdows request to ban prayer, according to Yahoo! News, stating that he could not prove actual injury by hearing the prayer.

People never cease to amaze me.

In what way does Bush’s freedom to express his own beliefs at his own inauguration force Newdow to accept unwanted beliefs?

I don't think people mocking God in more and more TV shows and movies is forcing me to accept unwanted beliefs. Despite barely being able to watch anything that doesn't insult my intelligence for believing in God, I manage to maintain my beliefs just fine.

Newdow's belief system must be pretty weak if the simple act of hearing someone pray - which is optional by the way. It's not like you're chained to the TV - will force him to accept anything.

Before I get a comment from my totally unbiased reader, Toad734 - who hates my columns so much he finds the time to read every one of them – let me just say this. If we ever elect a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or atheistic president, then I will be more than happy to let him pray to whomever he chooses and in whatever fashion (unless it includes stoning me for not having my hair covered) without claiming he is forcing my conversion.

I will also not accuse him of trying to establish a theocracy (that is unless makes Islam the national religion, in which case I won’t have much say anyway – I’ll be too busy trying to raise 10 kids from under my veil, while splitting chores with my husband’s other two wives).

Really that’s not the point of this article though. I’ve come to a realization.

We will win a few points for our religious freedom, and our opponents will win a few points in their quest to stifle it.

People will continue to do cruel, tragic things to other people. People in general, however, will continue to love good. Insane people will still win sometimes, no matter how illogical or tyrannical their arguments may be. The world will continue on its path to destruction.

I sincerely believe that in the near future one of two things will happen. One by one we will lose our religious rights – therefore weeding out those of us who are not serious about our faith, and awakening others to its importance – or there will be a huge revival.

And then we will lose our religious rights. We’ve already seen that it only takes a few to suppress thousands. It doesn’t matter that much what the majority thinks.

We’re nearing the end, and in the end, Newdow’s knee will bow right along with the rest of us. But he will be having considerably different feelings than I will at that time I imagine.

So what do we do in the meantime?

We must continue to strive for revival, reach out to the lost, gather the harvest and above all love each other deeply, for love covers over a multitude of sins.

A 'literal' case of writer's block becomes a lecture

I have scoured the internet, my imagination and the news - and have found nothing to write about today.

This could be because by "scoured" I mean "performed a cursory search with little or no enthusiasm."

Perhaps I'm just under the weather - literally. If you are a Washington resident, you are probably aware that I swam to work today. Okay not literally.

But while we're on the subject, let's discuss the use - and misuse - of the word "literal" in our vocabularies (look at that, a subject just appeared out of nowhere!)

Some definitions of "literal": free from exaggeration or embellishment; actual; exact; adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. Basically the implication, when you say, "literally" is that you are not exaggerating. So why do we continue to use it when we are, in fact, exaggerating?

Allow me to elaborate.

A preacher last week in my church back home, while describing an experience he had, said it was "literally hell." By using the word "literal" he inadvertently assured the congregation he had actually visited hell.

Of course that's not what he meant, but the American language is rife with similar examples.

A friend tells you he is "literally freezing to death." An acquaintance tells you he is "starving. literally." A co-worker tells you it would "literally take an act of Congress" to get a task done.

If any of these speakers are to be taken at their word, an appropriate response to the first two would be shock, horror, and emergency measures. You can assume the third is trying to get something passed in Congress.

Oddly, we use the word to add credibility to our sentences - to emphasize our point - and in so doing make an innocent exaggeration into, quite literally, a lie.

Perhaps you should provide some suggestions for tomorrow's topic. Otherwise we will discuss the word "myself" and why it's almost never appropriate to use it.

Who's the greater fool?

Two men in Mepstead, N.Y. were arrested for telling lawyer jokes outside a courthouse.

Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera are the founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group that monitors courts and pushes for more access for the public. However, the only actual activity the Associated Press story mentioned was the duo’s habit of standing outside court houses and mocking lawyers.

While this is admittedly childish, and while they are guilty of telling at least one over-used lawyer joke instead of coming up with new ones (How do you tell when a lawyer’s lying? His lips are moving! Har Har) I don’t know if that’s really grounds for an arrest.

Basically, the two were standing in a long line waiting to get into the courthouse – not to monitor it and push for greater access, but because Kash was due to answer for drunken driving charges – and cracking wise about lawyers.

One lawyer also standing in the line took it personally, reported the two to courthouse personnel and watched happily as the two were arrested for disorderly conduct.

They will have to go to court for that later.

This brings one question to mind. You got it. What happens if they retain a defense attorney? That defense would be interesting, don’t you think? I can see it now.

Your honor this clearly violates my clients’ first amendment rights. They were simply making a few harmless jokes … for which I am charging them an extra $100 per hour.

Objection!

Mr. Kash, you can’t object to your attorney.

What do you think got me here in the first place, your honor?

Anyway, I really think the stuffed shirt of a lawyer who turned them in might have redeemed the crowd’s opinion of him had he giggled right along with them, instead of calling the cops. Everyone loves someone who can laugh at himself.

Besides, if I got everyone arrested who made fun of me, (or sued for sexual harassment every time I had just cause to do so) half the people I know would be in jail. And while this would free up the job market a little for me, I wouldn’t have many friends, would I?

That being said, what are two grown men doing spending all their time outside courthouses acting like obnoxious jerks?

I think there’s actually a proverb for both the petty sides of this argument.

“If you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.” Proverbs 9:12

And, “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.” Proverbs 12:16

Another point for tyranny of the minority ... but not really

"If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also." - John 15:20

More than 2000 parents in Cobb County, Ga., complained that their children’s textbooks taught evolution as a fact, never mentioning that there were opposing viewpoints.

But when the school added a sticker to the textbooks with the disclaimer, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered," it only took five parents to get it removed, according Associated Press and CNN.

Atlanta Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the stickers violated the “constitutionally mandated separation between church and state.” The framers must be spinning in their graves.

I can see how the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” and the idea that Christian children should be forced to struggle with direct opposition between what their teachers tell them and what their parents and Bibles tell them are somehow related, can’t you?

“…the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case,” Cooper wrote in his ruling.

Basically, teaching evolution – which has not been proven – with a tiny disclaimer that allows children to not feel singled out for having different beliefs, is the school board siding with the religious parents. Obviously their ultimate goal is to establish a national theocracy, and they’re only a hair away from teaching creation instead of evolution. They must be stopped!

“By adopting this specific language, even at the direction of the counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals,” Cooper wrote. The sticker is apparently a “message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists.”

The school board defended its decision using the only sane argument in the entire case, that the stickers were placed in the books for the sake of religious tolerance, not religious activism. School district attorney Linwood Gunn said they were simply an attempt to get past the conflict between science and religion – which are not mutually exclusive, Gunn claimed – and teach good science.

But Michael Manely, an attorney for the five parents, said, “The Cobb County School Board is doing more than accommodating religion. They are promoting religious dogma to all the students.”

Wait a minute. What you’re telling me is that a sticker that says not one solitary word about religion, but simply accommodates children who do not wish to conform to anti-religious beliefs, is promoting religious dogma to the other children?

That argument was just insane enough for Judge Cooper – a Clinton appointee, by the way – to agree.

So why is it that everybody except “religiously motivated individuals” should be tolerated? Why should people whose motivation is solely to stifle religion be accommodated?

I don’t believe for one second that these parents were concerned their children’s education would suffer because they were allowed to form their own opinions about an unproven theory.

If I wasn’t previously an advocate of home schooling, (which I was) I am now.

When I started this commentary I was so furious I could barely speak. But I've calmed down and realized a few things. The world is becoming more and more threatened by our faith. But my God has already overcome the world. He holds in his hands the completion of what we now strive for.

The day of His return is quickly approaching. So while we wait, "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." -Hebrews 12:2

I'm not surprised it happened, I'm just surprised they got caught

I have discovered that I am the only journalist, blogger or general citizen on the planet not to have addressed the issue of “Memogate” as they are calling the CBS fiasco in which Dan Rather narrated a shoddily researched story about the president’s military service prior to the election.

So I will address it. But don’t expect to hear anything new.

Here’s the background. The CBS “news” show 60 Minutes, aired a story about documents that supposedly proved shortcomings in President Bush’s military service while in the Texas National Guard. At least I'm relatively sure that's what happened.

Approximately four seconds later, some other guys proved the documents had been forged. Scandal ensued. Ratings dropped. The American public struggled desperately to cope with its mixed emotions of rage at being lied to and satisfaction at being handed the one thing it truly loves – a good scandal. CBS defended its story with the stubborn vigor of a husband who comes home at 3 a.m. with lipstick on his collar and demands, “why don’t you trust me?”

So after an investigation and a 224-page report by some other people, presumably people who matter, four employees involved in the story were “asked” to resign, and another was fired. Rather kept his job.

The one who got fired, the story’s primary producer Mary Mapes, threw a temper tantrum as she left – probably infuriated that Rather still works at CBS – and said if a crime was committed, it wasn’t by her. Of course, we all know the producer has nothing to do with what airs. She’s just there for the food or something. Never mind that she practically begged her source for the story. Don’t worry, Mary, Dan may still have his job, but he’ll never repair his reputation.

Dan’s response to the whole thing, paraphrased of course, was, “It’s too bad those four people had to leave the network over this, but if it makes you guys feel any better – I thought you did a great job. Also I still think those documents are true.”

He also said he’d keep this incident in mind in the future, but qualified it, so it was clear what he meant – “I’m right. Leave me alone.”

Well, what have I always said about the media? They are not to be trusted. This only proves me right.

What I found interesting was that the important people I spoke of earlier – former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press Chief Executive Officer Louis D. Boccardi – did not find evidence that Rather or anyone else had any political bias when they broadcast this story.

Funny – I found evidence of political bias when Dan Rather broadcast any story. Not just Dan Rather mind you. The media bent over backwards trying to get John Kerry in the White House. They were willing to sacrifice all pretense of non-partisanism, and just barely stopped short of screaming campaign slogans at the end of their newscasts.

So what’s everyone so surprised about?

Hopefully this will be the beginning. Perhaps reporters will watch their step when they begin to tread into areas where their personal opinions may slant their news-reporting. But I really doubt it.

How's this for fair and balanced?

Okay, I don’t want to get everyone up in arms again about how I acknowledge people in the hallway, so let’s take the focus off me for a while.

I’m a journalist right? So in the spirit of modern journalism, I have decided to report to you the news I feel you should read and salt it liberally with my opinion wherever I feel there is a danger of you forming your own.

It was unclear, reading the headline of the Google News story (from the Los Angeles Daily News) “Ogre and the ass take the spoils” whether it was referring to Shrek and his donkey or Michael Moore and …. the rest of Michael Moore. Some might disagree, but I didn’t really feel the actual story - which was about the People’s Choice Awards, in case you were confused – cleared it up that much.

I found it noteworthy that, 1) the New York Times dedicated an entire news story to the fact that Moore managed to take a bath, wear a suit, and trade in his homeless bum beard for a goatee for the event, and 2) Moore’s “favorite movie” award for Fahrenheit 9/11 met with lots of cheering and “some catcalls” while Mel Gibson got a standing ovation when he accepted his award for The Passion of the Christ as favorite drama. Moore was also kind enough to dedicate his award to the troops in Iraq and threatened to make lots more movies.

In other news, Austin Aitken is suing NBC for $2.5 million, according to Associated Press, because an episode of Fear Factor in which contestants had to eat rats mixed in a blender made him throw up. Also he ran into a door. This caused him great injury and pain, according to his handwritten lawsuit. I’ll be the first to agree that “Fear Factor” often goes overboard with their eating-gross-things stunts. For instance, when contestants had to dip their heads in a large tank of blood and pull out numerous rings with their mouths. Silly naïve little me, I just turned off the TV. Why didn’t I think of suing for 50 times what the actual contestants won for performing the stunts, because of the agony watching them caused me?

Apparently you can sue anybody for anything. I’m going out right now and find somebody to sue. How about McDonalds? Oops, already done. Several times. Maybe I’ll sue the state of Washington for the pain and suffering driving on I-5 causes me.

A Pearland, Texas couple, Steven and Susan Manis, got their 13-year-old daughter, Jessica Dunkley, to school late six times in October and November when their van wouldn’t start, according an Associated Press story in the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. So when the school insisted Jessica spend an hour in detention for her tardiness, Steven and Susan did the time too. Since it was their fault their daughter was late, they wouldn’t let her bear the punishment alone. While in detention, the family copied two pages from a school book about pillars of good citizenship, the story said.

That’s awesome. In a typical public school move, the administration handed out punishment without trying to actually solve the problem, so the parents decided to take the rap too.

Someone in the census bureau has renamed Bevis Lake, which is near Seattle, “Butthead Lake,” proving that you don’t have to have a sophisticated education – or even a good sense of humor – to get certain jobs. In the words of the great Jerry Seinfeld, “I’m pretty sure all you need is a face.” Of course he was talking about the requirements to become a New York taxi driver, but whatever.

Billy Hawse finally returned his library book, a national parks volume which was borrowed from an Ohio library in 1927. After 78 years, the late fee was about $549, but the library will not require Hawse to pay it. This serves as a lesson to us all. If you wait long enough, the late fees go away. This does not apply at Blockbuster, which, until recently when it got rid of late fees, would first turn you over to a collection agency, then send thugs to break your kneecaps if you didn’t return to pay your fees within a month.

I could go on forever, but that would bore me. Also (believe it or not) I have a job. If you want more weird news, do the research yourself. But if you can’t handle reading the news without knowing my opinion of it (which I find highly unlikely) send me an email. I’ll by happy to comment on any news story you come up with, provided you can find my email address.

'Working hard, or hardly working?'

Never heard that before!

One of my numerous roommates recently found me sitting in the kitchen reading my Bible (which I’ve been known to do, much to the inexplicable distress of said roommates).

After greeting me, he launched into an extensive account of his search for tires for his wife’s car the previous day. Glancing around the kitchen and discovering there was no one else present, I concluded he must be talking to me, so I smiled, made a general comment of acknowledgement, then continued my reading.

Not to be put off, and apparently taking no note at all of the fact that I was not participating in the conversation, my guest pulled up a chair and continued his narrative. I offered an obligatory chuckle, thinking he must be nearing the end.

He poured himself a cup of coffee and branched out into a different subject. No longer even bothering to grunt acknowledgement, I studiously ignored him while reading the same paragraph over and over without ever really processing it, and become more and more irritated.

I don’t understand some people. I am never, upon entering a room and finding its occupant - barely even an acquaintance - buried in a book (although that rarely happens where I live), compelled to provide him with a banal update of my life.

I never look at someone and think, “Wow, he looks like he’s really concentrating. Probably he wants to hear about the new shoes I bought this weekend”

I also never have a burning desire when I pass people in the hallway to inquire whether they’re “having fun yet” and I will never understand why other people do.

It’s not funny. But the recipient of the comment is forced by common courtesy to laugh anyway, or offer some equally mundane and not-funny comment in return, despite both parties being aware that it’s not at all funny.

In what way does this enrich our lives? Why can’t we just smile and say “how are you today?” Why are we inclined to fill every last millisecond of awkward silence with clichés?

In case you’re interested in hearing me whine a little more, here’s another one. I’ll be reading a book and someone who just can’t get over the fact that I read (why is that so perplexing?) will ask me, “What are you reading?”

I hold up the book, and they have invariably never heard of it (despite my having held it up to them the previous day). “Huh. Never heard of it,” they reply. “You know what you should read? You should read …” and they proceed to tell me the entire plot of every book they’ve ever read. Unfortunately I discover at this point they’ve read much more than I would have given them credit for.

“Or, alternatively, I could read what I’m already reading or I could if you would leave,” I want to shout but, alas, don’t.

I know this sounds snobby, and it’s not intended to. The men I work with are great Soldiers, war heroes and good men in general. See, I told you I’d include something good in every article.

I’ll just have to do my reading at the coffee shop and continue explaining again and again that “Of course, I’m having fun, har har. How could I not, what with you insisting on asking me if I am every time you see me?”

The Hussein brothers had excellent taste in suits

My favorite columnist, Ann Coulter, once said (roughly) “there is some good in everybody. Hitler didn’t smoke for example.”

My boss, whenever anyone refers to his ex-wife in any capacity, answers, “She’s a wonderful mother.” Unwilling to say anything bad about her, he says the only good thing he can say with a clear conscience.

In this spirit, I have decided to start looking for the good in people and have met with some degree of success. It turns out there is always something good to say about everyone, whether you like them or not. Here are some examples of good things about people who have been previously subject to criticism in some of my articles.

John Kerry: he was an altar boy

The American Civil Liberties Union: It has a very professional Web site

My friend Stuart: He doesn’t smell bad

Jeremy Hinzman (deserter from 82nd Airborne Division): He seems like a good father, kind of (unless you count setting an example for your children as good parenting).

British people: They make excellent tea.

All the guys I live with: They’ve never murdered anyone (that I’m aware of).

Spc. Marquise J. Roberts (got shot in the leg to avoid deployment): He’s got an interesting name.

Feminists: Uhhh … give me some time, I’ll think of something.

Muslim extremist terrorists: They are skilled with explosives.

Journalists: They … can … write stuff?

Canada: It is large

Florida: There is a very nice restaurant somewhere in Orlando.

Ivana from “The Apprentice”: She has nice legs.

Well, okay, perhaps I’m better at criticism than compliments. But I am to some extent striving to see people in a better light and to remember that Jesus died for them as well as for me. Rees Howells said, “You don’t love your savior one bit more than you love the least person he died for.”

That’s a rough message and I have a long way to go. How can I sacrifice the cynicism I so cherish?

This doesn’t mean you will no longer see criticism of others in my column. Only that I will, as I point out their obvious flaws, try to remain aware of my own. And I will attempt to include one good point about each person I write about.

A painfully insignificant number of Brits find Israel annoying

In an online survey conducted by the Telegraph, 2,058 British people with very little to do have ranked Israel ‘not good’ as far as countries go.

The survey, conducted over three days in December, asked a series of trite questions in which Britons agreed for the most part that Israel is not good at all (although Russia actually scored lower overall), according to The Jerusalem Post.

Despite being God’s chosen, apparently Israel is the country most Britons would least prefer to live in or visit for holidays. This is similar to how they felt during their occupation of it some time ago.

Israel is also, apparently, the least friendly, just under France and Germany. It is the least democratic country, and the least deserving of international respect.

In a separate survey, Muslim extremists voted Israel the best country in which to blow oneself up in order to receive a martyr’s reward in heaven. Not surprisingly, Iraq was second on the list.

Britons also agreed Israel was the least beautiful country.

Oddly, Israel was not ranked the least safe country. That prize was given to America.

When someone mentioned to Israel’s ambassador to England, Zvi Hefetz, that British people were not fond of his country, he replied correctly that the poll was “no big deal.”

“Other polls show that 49 percent of Britons wouldn’t even want to live in their own country,” he pointed out helpfully.

Jerusalem Post readers responded similarly to the poll, presumably after expressing irritation at such a ridiculous and insignificant poll making the news at all.

David Cohen, of Tel Aviv, noted that the three countries Britons preferred overall (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) were “three of their aging empire’s gems” and that most of the people surveyed had probably gotten no closer to any of the countries than a few photographs. In all fairness, neither have I.

Shane Loughton, a British gentleman from Birmingham, UK, pointed out that not all Britons are shallow and biased. He said Israel is his favorite place on earth, but mentioned that reluctance to live there might be related to the fact that “it is well known that extremist Muslim terrorists are constantly firing rockets and blowing up their children in Israel.” He also said the news rarely broadcasts stories about the beauty of the Negev, so the Britons had little information to go from on that front.

I personally would like to vote Iraq the least beautiful country in the world, with Kuwait running a close second, in case anyone is interested. I’d also like to vote Britain’s media as “no better than America’s” (which is not a nice thing to say, in case you’re not aware of my views on the media), having worked with several British news organizations in Iraq. However, I would vote French media the “least friendly.”

I can’t mock this poll too much, as I am responsible for similar surveys, such as “Should Florida secede from the union?” but at least I had the good sense to poll only myself.

I'm back from vacation, unfortunately

The trip back caused me some angst, I have to admit. As usual, a large snowstorm hit the day I was scheduled to leave.

In order to get ahead of the bad weather, I worried about what to do until several hours after my planned departure time. Eventually I decided it would have been a good idea to have left several hours earlier. Especially since road closures forced me to go 150 miles out of my way to get to I-5.

Fortunately, it only took me nine hours to drive that 150 miles and start making positive progress. The mountain pass I took required snow chains, so I had to buy some. Then a nice (and reasonably non-serial-killer-like) man in a cowboy hat put them on for me.

I called my mother at about noon, and then told her I should get off the phone since there was a chain checkpoint four miles ahead. I joked that it should only take me an hour to get there at the rate traffic was inching along.

Two hours later, and thinking the situation considerably less funny – especially in light of the 800 miles I had left to go – I finally arrived at the chain checkpoint. I knew I was there because quite suddenly, all four lanes of traffic became one and a gentleman in an orange vest waved me through.

I called my mother again, ecstatic. “I’m going 45 miles an hour!” I exclaimed. “Really? Be careful going that fast on those chains,” mother exhorted. “Don’t worry, I’m down to 35 now … 25 … 15 …. and, I’m stopped.” Oh good. Traffic on the other side of the checkpoint had sped up not at all.

Finally I made it to I-5, where it was smooth sailing until about 10 p.m., when I had to put my chains back on to go over the mountain pass. I got them halfway on before realizing they couldn’t be latched properly because they were backward. I took them off, flipped them over, and started over. It took me at least 20 minutes to get them on. Fortunately there were several truckers in the vicinity, also putting chains on, who helpfully ignored me. At least it wasn’t freezing cold and raining … oh wait. Yes it was.

Earlier I had called my mother and gushed about how easy the new cable chains are to install. I felt it important to correct myself (despite being a journalist, I still have a small aversion to misinformation) so I called her back.

“I just wanted you to know that when I said the chains were easy to put on, I meant they are easy to watch a man in a cowboy hat put on,” I informed her.

About 3 a.m., when the Red Bull was no longer enough to jolt me into semi-consciousness, I pulled over and checked into a hotel, whose greasy night clerk told me the cheapest room was $60 and proceeded to charge me $70 for it. I slept until 6 and got back on the road, but not before ordering the largest coffee I could find and asking them to put an extra shot of espresso in it.

“That’s five shots,” the coffee girl warned me.

“Oh that’s it? Well, it’ll have to do.”

Finally, 25 hours after I’d started, I reached my destination. All things considered it wasn’t that bad a trip. Anyway it wasn’t as bad as when the wheel fell off our humvee in the middle of Kuwait. There was also that trip back from Korea on a litter with an IV in my neck.

So anyway, I’m back.