Last week, malcontents of all stripes gathered across the nation to protest the Obama tax cuts, the stimulus bill, the bailout bills, the president, Hitler, and to do so in a peaceful manner as organized by the corporate lobbying groups who started the whole thing with the help of Fox News Channel as its public relations department.

Unfortunately, I think the impact of the modern day tea party was somewhat lessened by the fact that it in no way resembled the tea party of 1773 (well, a few guys showed up in period clothing and played the town idiot by carrying misspelled signs with poor grammar, so there was that).

The reason why they fail to have the full impact wasn't that they didn't throw enough tea, have a single purpose in mind or that they weren't dressed in funny enough clothing. Their problem is a lack of understanding of the type of protest tactic used in 1773.

The Boston Tea Party was not merely a case of a few drink-sodden men running off to the harbor to toss any old tea to the waters to "stick it to the man". It was a direct action protest; that is, the participants weren't merely protesting to be heard (they were heard, though), but rather to directly solve a problem by cutting out all the middlemen and bureaucracy.

Then, as today, asking really nicely for the same bureaucrats who caused your problems to solve them is about as useful as breast implants on a corpse--it might make for good PR and it might make someone look better, but it's fleeting and ultimately futile.

Standing around throwing little teabags you paid for is not just futile, it's part of the system; it's expected and it only continues to fuel the alienation individuals feel from their own political power. As well, it's the complete opposite of what the Boston Tea Party of 1773's participants did.

See, in 1773, the tea being thrown in the harbor was not something they bought with their own money and threw into the harbor in disgust. The destruction of the tea was the destruction of property belonging to the East India Company. The participants of this iconic rebellious action did not care, because the problem of taxation without representation was too great.

In 2009, people protesting a president who was fairly elected by a legitimate process purchased tea at a local store (most commonly Wal-Mart, if the pictures of the events are to be believed) to throw it around and mail it to elected officials. [...]

So, while these teabagging types were running around with their Wal-Mart teabags, waving signs that accused President Obama of not being an American citizen (after all, where's his birth certificate; it's not like his mother was born in America, or anything) and reminding us that "Descent is the highest form of patriotic" (yes, someone actually went into public with a sign like that), Wal-Mart used the proceeds of their purchases to continue funding China's economic recovery.

A modest request from this writer: why not emulate a great old fashioned protest from about forty or fifty years ago, when a gang of individuals dressed up in nice suits, stuffed their pockets full of $1 bills and walked into the trading house of the New York Stock Exchange. When stopped on their way into the observation room overlooking the trading floor, the guards said they looked like a bunch of hippies in suits.

The leader of this merry band exclaimed, "We're not hippies, we're Jews!" (their leader was Jewish), and convinced of their loyalty to the sanctity of the market, the guards let them in. One inside, they waited until the trading got started. Once it heated up, they began tossing $1 bills onto the floor of the stock exchange.

Spotting the deluge of cash flying in from above, the stock traders, who make insanely high amounts of money every day, dropped what they were doing and began chasing their filthy lucre. The stock market crashed to a halt and trading fell dramatically. That night, accompanying stories of the financial drop, people around the country were treated with images of exceedingly wealthy men willing to destroy the nation's economy over a few dollars.

Some of us don't need visuals to see that it's the case even today; the stock brokers, mortgage companies, banks and other institutions are run by individuals who would not so much as blink about bringing this country to the brink of collaps if it meant making a few more dollars in the process--after all, while us poor plebes have to stay here and rebuild after they ruin us, they have enough wealth to go anywhere in the world and live very well. They are in no way invested in the well-being of our nation.

And just about everyone at those tea parties would do well to remember that.

--article written by Cass C. Carter

[src=The West Georgian]

i just finished watching this documentary, and i figured i would share its existence with the melo community...this film is about tolerance, open-mindedness, & acceptance and those who oppose it...it describes the college campus machine and the lengths that it goes to silence opposition...i think it's important to see this video just to know what is going on, regardless of whether you're a liberal or conservative

click here to go to this documentary's home page where you can find information about the film and view the trailer

or click here to get started watching the movie in 10 part installments on youtube

thanks to dbiispoorldaerr for posting it first

*i would also like to note that, by posting this video, i am not advocating mccain

**Updated**

stuff about the video that i didn't like:

the first one was when he says he and mccain are like "this" on the issues...then he says he's a "pro-life, pro-second amendment, tax-cutting, christian conservative...yada yada"...and forgets that, even though being that's all well and good, mccain is not all those things

he also says that his family is brainwashing level #1 for democrats...and that his state is brainwashing level #2 for democrats...but he says it as if it doesn't work the same for republicans...lol

the last thing i'll bring up is his "powers that be" (ptb) portion...he says that the ptb have liberals...which i could agree with...but he makes it seem like voting republican is somehow the foundation of free-thinking...the problem i have is, if you're going to claim an existing ptb, then you would logically have to admit the republicans are just the other side of the coin...and i'm not saying his views on the issues are flawed...just his faith in the republicans

i've decided i won't vote republican in this election...i told everyone from the beginning that i will not vote for mccain...i've never liked him...if the gop can't nominate an electable candidate, then i won't just partisanly support it...and i'm definitely not voting for obama...i always vote conservative, but i won't vote major parties if neither candidate is conservative...so, this november, i'm voting constitution party...mostly because i like their candidate the best of all of them...but also as a protest vote against the republican party...i think that if the republicans want support from its conservative base, it should nominate a conservative candidate...so, baldwin '08!

Miss Teen USA contestant Lauren Caitlin Upton
Everyone is having a good belly laugh at the expense of Lauren Caitlin Upton, the contestant in the Miss Teen USA pageant who imploded in a painful display of verbal and intellectual chaos in response to a question about geographically challenged Americans.

While everyone is fixated on the answer, no one has taken time to respond to the question the way it needs to be answered.

"Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

How would a product of the government school system to blame for this travesty be expected to diagnose the problem? No, it's not a map shortage, as Miss Upton surmised. It's not a problem in South Africa or Iraq, as she hinted. In effect, the contestant herself illustrated the problem – personified it. It's not a problem limited to geographic illiteracy. It is a crisis of ignorance afflicting generations of younger Americans.

Unfortunately, it is not a laughing matter.

I wouldn't be surprised if Miss Upton is among the top 10 percent of 18-year-old Americans in general education and communication skills. That's a scary thought.

Miss Upton completed her government schooling and received high grades – a 3.50 GPA. She was an honor student. She completed all the qualifications and did so admirably. She didn't finish at the bottom of the class or even in the middle. She finished at the top.

Was her inability to answer the question coherently just the result of a temporary mental meltdown? Or, do you suspect, as I do, that few if any of her classmates would have been able to do much better?[...]

I'm convinced the purpose of government schooling is to dumb down the populace and turn them into serfs and subjects rather than citizens capable of reason and equipped with a sense of morality.

Why can't Americans pick out the U.S. on a map of the world? Why can't Lauren Caitlin Upton and her friends answer the question? This is what they've been programmed to do – or not to do.

What's the solution? It certainly isn't stay in school. It certainly isn't more of the same. It certainly isn't spending more taxpayer dollars on the problem.

The solution is obvious, though only a few million Americans have figured it out. The solution is to drop out. It's time for parents to wake up and do what is in the best interest of their kids – pull them out of these horrible institutions of non-learning.

Think about what does go on inside those hollow halls:

--Kids are taught techniques of aberrant sexual behavior.

--They are taught in a million ways that God is irrelevant to their education.

--They are taught pseudo-science cloaked in the "good citizenship" of environmentalism.

And they are intentionally denied the basic tools of self-government – knowledge of history, geography, and good reading and learning habits.
In days gone by, we would convince each other the way to respond to the problems we see in American society is to "get involved." We would persuade our friends and family members and neighbors to vote, to join the PTA, to work on behalf of some politician, to give money to a political campaign.

The bad news is those ideas don't work anymore. We're in such an advanced state of cultural and political decay that our efforts will only leave us disenchanted, discouraged, and demoralized. The good news is there's perhaps an easier way to achieve our objectives. We need to do what the Russians did when they ended 70 years of Soviet oppression. We need to just say no.

Saying "no" means pulling your kids out of those brainwashing hubs. Imagine what would happen if several hundred thousand parents did that this year – joining the growing millions who have already made that choice. Not only will you bring direct benefits to your kids – protecting them and providing them with the chance for a real education – but you will also be dropping out of the system, becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Homeschooling is the best option. The next best choice is a worthy private institution. The important thing is getting your kids out of the grip of these government institutions of non-learning. Stop pretending. It will be the best choice you ever made for your children.

There are a thousand reasons for this decision. Think of the recently concluded Miss Teen USA Pageant as 1,001.

--joseph farah [src="WND"]

Christiane Amanpour of "God's Warriors"
A CNN special series airing this week entitled "God's Warriors" – produced and anchored by the network's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour – is "one of the most grossly distorted programs" ever aired on mainstream American television, according to a media watchdog report.

"God's Warriors" takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week, airing in three parts at 9 p.m. EST. It started Tuesday and concludes tonight.

The first part of the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," compared Jewish and Christian "radicals" to Muslim supporters of suicide terror, presented anti-Israel commentators with no counterbalance, falsely labeled the West Bank as Palestinian land, and minimized Jewish rights to the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site, the critics said.

During Tuesday's program, Amanpour also conducted a friendly interview about Israel with former President Jimmy Carter, whose most recent book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid," criticized the Jewish state's treatment of Palestinians. The book was slammed for a series of falsehoods and was widely labeled anti-Israeli by multiple media critics.

"[The CNN series] is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-murder. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns under way across the globe," stated the report by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. [CAMERA] [...]

Tuesday's segment started off comparing "Jewish terrorists" to that of Muslims, specifically focusing on the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously motivated Jews against Muslims. [...]

States the CAMERA report: "While in reality Jewish 'terrorism' is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of [Jewish] violence" comparing it to "violent jihadist Muslim campaigns" when indeed there is no such comparison "either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought."

[Amanpour also claims that martyrdom is, indeed, quite noble, and that pro-israel lobbies against US interest; the documentary goes on to misrepresent Ronald Reagan, and minimize Jewish rights to the temple mount.]

--Aaron Klein

[read full article at World Net Daily]

It Has Always Been the Soldier
I'd like to use this entry, not simply to state how much I love my country, but to honor and thank every soldier that has ever served in any branch of the armed forces. Whatever your political affiliation; whatever partisanship; whatever race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. This isn't about politics, partisanship, or opinions of war; this is about honoring and respecting those that have put their lives on the line so that we may enjoy the freedoms we have in this great country. May we not ever forget those that are serving in the military right now, nor may we forget those that have served in previous years, and especially not those that have given their life for America. As a proud American, I honor and salute you.



"Wait. So we're in Iraq fighting for American freedom? That's why I should respect and honor anyone in the war?"
--soscottsdale (melo username)

as far as i go to make sure these kinds of things are not about politics, somehow i knew some liberal was going to politicize this entry...so there it is

In anticipation of a political conference in Rome, I recently compared prices of airlines flying out of LAX and quickly zeroed in on Swiss Air, with a low price and only one stopover in Zurich. Plus, I theorized, what terrorist is going to attack a Swiss plane? What, would they think they could provoke a war with Switzerland?

All in all, a pretty safe bet.

A similar train of thought probably went through the minds of Iran's seafaring Revolutionary Guards in the Shatt al-Arab waterway week before last. If you're going to grab some troops the eve of the U.N. Security Council passing more sanctions over your unapologetic nuclear "energy" program, why grab Americans when they'll get all cowboy and actually fight back? Go for the Brits. It's not like they'll go all Falklands on you anymore.

After all, Iran pulled this Shatt al-Arab hostage nonsense back in 2004, and the only weapon wielded at the mullahs was terse, haughty language. In that incident, three British patrol boats carrying eight Royal Navy sailors were seized by the Iranians. The soldiers were paraded blindfolded on TV, but were released three days later.

Iran fired its shot across the bow, and came away unscathed.


3 of the 15 captured British sailors
Since seizing 15 British sailors and marines again on the river March 23, Iran has aired clip after clip of the bunch supposedly confessing to the alleged aquatic trespassing. Britain called Iran's latest version of reality TV "propaganda" and "outrageous."

Furthermore, Iran has aired the videos on their Arabic-language channel rather than Farsi in a clear attempt to stir the passions of anti-West Arabs across the region. Once they see Iran prove Britain's prowess to be pass they'll begin to feel all shiny and new again, undoubtedly having renewed confidence in the probability of jihad's success.


British servicemen Nathan Thomas Summers, one of the captured Britons
Suffice to say it's no longer 1921, when the British Empire was grand pooh-bah over a quarter of the world's population. "Britain's hegemonic power has passed," Iranian member of parliament Hossein Eslami boldly declared last week, when he also stated the sailors should be tried. But a shriveled empire shouldn't be enough to make Iran think that it can easily have its way with the United Kingdom.

History is enough. Is Britain now choosing to be the U.S. circa 1979, when radicals stormed the American embassy in Tehran and held hostages for 444 days as Jimmy Carter just wished the crisis would end on its own accord?

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Saturday. "What we want is a way out of it."

This position arose because somewhere along the way from Waterloo to Operation Musketeer and beyond, the Brits learned to embrace political correctness at the expense of the kingdom's warrior reputation. And as the current standoff drags on, the picture only gets darker. The more placid on-air "confessions" from seamen or quiet concessions that may come from the British government, the more enemies of the West can confirm that the once-mighty U.K. is now easy to push around. And the spread of that mentality won't just stop on the other side of the pond. Britain needs to realize that pussyfooting around in this perilous situation is putting her allies and "special relationship" partner in danger as well.

Because here's the deal with the Iranian regime: They're already screwed at the Security Council. They don't plan on abandoning their nuclear "energy" (cough cough) program, and therefore risk nothing in bargaining power (because they, er, don't care to bargain) at the U.N. by means of their aggressive action against the U.K. They gain prestige and allies among rabid haters of the West, the same folks who jumped up and down in glee when the Twin Towers came crashing to the ground. Small victories beef up grander schemes, such as a Tehran-style mullahocracy in Iraq.

And there is still a possibility that the 15 Brits will be tried for spying, charges under which they could face the death penalty. Every time Iran pulls in talks with Britain representatives, they push even harder the next minute, loudly accusing the U.K. of not wanting to take responsibility for "illegal entry."

"Another day, another chance for Iran to heap on the humiliation," an Evening Standard headline dryly read on Friday.

The British military may currently be 15 sailors and marines short in the gulf, but the losses for the once-mighty empire and the security of her allies may be immeasurable the longer this farce drags on.

--article by Bridget Johnson

[src="LA Daily News"]

Added:

Despised U.S. plows to rescue -- again by Charles Krauthammer
IRAN has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and subsequent release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the utter futility of all those transnational institutions — most prominently the European Union and the United Nations — that pretend to maintain international order. (Read More)

story: we all know of the overwhelming approval and support hollywood has given to al gore's "an inconvenient truth", which won an acadamy award for best documentary...however, now it seems that his scientific audience is arguing that "gore's central points are exaggerated or erroneous"...criticism has come from not only conservative groups, but also from many scientists as well...the article gives Don Easterbrook as an example, who told his peers he has "no political axe to grind"...about the documentary, he claims that "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing"...Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the center of science and technology policy research at the university of colorado believed gore's presentations were "overselling our certainty about knowing the future"...also, James Hansen, an environmental scientist and director of nasa's goddard institute for space studies and a top advisor to gore, says that gore does a "good job of seeing the forest for the trees" but that his work still has "imperfections" and "technical flaws"...the question is not whether or not global warming actually exists, nor is it about whether or not human production is to blame...the question is whether or not "gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence"...gore, of course, has supporters among a few leading scientists, some who claim only minor inaccuracies that they say are dismissable for a politician
[src="AJC 3/13/07 pg A5"]

my opinion: i cannot actually tell you if i think global warming exists or not...because i don't know...but if it does, i do not believe, with all the many factors that go into determining climate, that humans are going to be able to cause as much effect on it as gore wants us to believe...what i think we have here with 'an inconvenient truth' is a politician initiating a classic scare campaign, in the form of a documentary, to win support for his politics

opposing opinion: (leave a good opposing opinion in my gspot and i may place it here)

click here to read "the gods are laughing" by tom harris...a similar, more interesting article

"Scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. This is not just because the ex-vice-president commits numerous basic science mistakes. They are also concerned that many in the media and public will fail to realize that this film amounts to little more than science fiction." [excerpt from 'the gods are laughing']

Imagine that the public school you're enrolled in is failing. Education quality is decreasing. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it, because you're zoned into that school. This is a sad situation that could remove any hope of succeeding from the students enrolled at that school. Wouldn't you like to know that there was a way you could get out of the failing school and attend a school with a better academic record? I propose the enactment of a government-sponsored voucher program, a program to give more educational choice and opportunity to the individual. A voucher, also known as a scholarship redirects the flow of education funding to families rather than school districts. I would like for you to be aware of the need for this program.

Many problems with today's public education have caused a need for this kind of action. There has been a bad trend of education quality: A 71% decrease in education productivity since 1960.

A few more facts you may find alarming:
-- In the 3rd National Math and Science Series, 12th graders scored behind every other nation save Cypris and South Africa (19th out of 21) and the Asian countries didn't even participate. And while scoring at the bottom, students in the U.S. are still receiving A's in classes due to blinding grade inflations.
-- According to Achieve Incorporated, a bipartisan, nonprofit education organization formed by governors and prominent business leaders, high school diploma tests require only middle school knowledge. And according to the same organization, math graduation tests measure only what students in other countries learn in the 7th grade.
-- On average, home-schoolers score 70% higher on standardized tests than public-schoolers.
-- The January 22, 1999 edition of "The Economist" reported that 40% of all American 10-year-olds cannot pass a basic reading test. The January 29th edition from the same year reported that 40,000 Texan 9 and 10 year olds failed the state's standardized test, but 90% were promoted anyway.
-- Houston high schoolers who failed core subjects, such as English or math, can now move on to the next grade under a proposal adopted to try and reduce the drop-out rate.
-- In September 2004, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute reported that more than 25% of public school teachers send their child to a private school. And in some places this number is higher than 40%. [src="The Washington Times"]
-- In February of 2005, The American Association for the Advancement of Science reported more than 90% of science text books were unacceptable.
[src="Grandfather Education Report"]

It's obvious from the previous facts that the public school system is failing. According to the Washington Post, 24,470 public school (27% of the national total) failed to meet federal requirements in the '04-'05 school year.

I believe that the previous problems are a result of the public school system not having any accountability. There is no competition. For too long, public schools have been able to exist with little or no accountability. Since it is the only subsidized education, it is a monopoly.

I propose the enactment of a government-sponsored voucher system to allow parents with children in failing public schools to have the opportunity to send their child to a private institution of their choice. The first step necessary is to pass a law enacting the use of school vouchers. This law would allow parents to apply for a school voucher if their child's local public school does not meet federal requirements. It would give parents more control over their child's education. Second, a system would have to be made to determine what constitutes as a failing school and what the federal requirements are.

As an example as to the effect of this system, we should look to the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, or the CSTP. For the '96-'97 school year, Cleveland enacted the first voucher program in the country. This program gave vouchers to 1,996 students from low-income families to use at any of the participating private schools in Cleveland. The scholarships reached up to $2,250 and paid for up to 90% of the private school tuition. As for the results, children who used the scholarships to attend a private school made educational gains. After one year, students scored, on average, 5.4 percentile points higher on the reading test than those in the public schools and 15 percentile points higher on the math concepts test. Inner city schools performance fell by 1 to 2%. A similar program was enacted in Milwaukee with similar results.
[src="An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program"]

Enacting School Vouchers will take a step in the direction of fixing the education system in America. Despite what we hear all the time from politicians, the main problem with our public schools is not due to lack of funding. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. spends more on primary and secondary education than most developed countries: approximately $12,000 per student per year, based on 2003 figures. The main problem with the public school system is the mismanagement of funds and the lack of accountability. School vouchers will stimulate competition in the education market and force public schools to compete with private schools for students and funding, creating the much-needed accountability of public schools. It will also give parents more control over the education their child receives. In the Cleveland scholarship example, according to a survey conducted by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance, many parents were happy not only with the academic standing of their chosen school, but also with the new ability to send their child to a school that taught moral values.

There are a few voices of opposition to this program and I think the ideas in their claims are worth looking at. The first common opposition argument is that a voucher program would violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment because vouchers could be used at religious schools. There are two interpretations of the Establishment Clause. The first is the separatist interpretation. The separatist belief is that the clause prohibits the funding of religion by the government in all situations. The second interpretation is the accommodationist interpretation. The accommodationist believes that the clause prohibits only the preference of one religion over another, but the government can intervene to protect the Free Exercise clause. [src="Exploring Constitutional Conflicts"]

Neither interpretation is being violated because the vouchers will be given to private individuals and the choice of a religious or secular school left up to them. The government is not being forced to fund any particular religion. And since no religious school is being favored over another by the voucher program, the Establishment Clause is not being violated under either interpretation.

The second common argument is that vouchers take funds from already under-funded schools. The truth is that there is rarely a case of a school being under-funded; a school's failing results from mismanaged funds. Referring back to the Cleveland scholarship program: Cleveland spends approximately $7,000 per student per year. Even if a voucher was a full payout of the money spent on that student (in this instance, $7,000) the fact the student is no longer in that school balances out the missing funds. Despite that fact, the vouchers in Cleveland were only $2,250. That means that the public school actually gained $4,750 each time a student chose to accept a voucher. And even in the most extreme cases, if all the students left a public school, the building could be sold or leased; creating even more revenue if you add that to the $4,750 gained for each student participating in the voucher program from that school.
[src="An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program"]

There have been a few other solutions proposed to help repair the broken machine known as our public education. One of the most prominent of these solutions is to increase funding. Anytime we hear about a problem in the public school system, politicians try to convince us that we need to raise taxes in order increase funding to education. According to the Department of Education, spending on public education has increased significantly and dramatically while the impact it has on the quality of education remains stagnant. [src="The Grandfather Education Report"] As Brookings Institution scholars John Chubb and Terry Moe said, "As for money, the relationship between it and effective schools has been studied to death. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no connection between school funding and school performance."

Alright, returning to the hypothetical situation I created at the beginning of the speech: Imagine once again that the public school you're enrolled in is failing. Without the institution of school vouchers, there's nothing you can do about it because you're from a low-income family and cannot afford the tuitions of a private school. Your hope for succeeding is eliminated as you're forced to go down with the school. However, with a government sponsored voucher program, you would be able to ditch the failing school to attend the private school of your choice and be able to pick a school that meets up to your academic standards.

Think about it. You would not continue to pour water into a bucket if you noticed that the bucket was full of holes. You would not remain on a ship that was going down when there are perfectly good life rafts available. And you wouldn't continue to increase funding to programs that have already proven to be ineffective. It's time to take a step in a new direction. Sen. John Kerry once said and I'll end with this, "Shame on us for not realizing that there are parents in this country who . . . today support vouchers not because they are enamored with private schools but because they want a choice for their children."

(left) 10th church aftermath. (right) Remains of Beaverton Freewill Baptist Church.
On February 3, 2006, 5 churches were burned in an apparent "arson spree," as the article calls it, where they believe the arsonists "drove as fast as they could drive from one location to the next." Four days later, 4 more churches were set ablaze. February 11th: another church was "heavily damaged" by arsonists. That totals to 10 arsons against 10 small-town, baptist churches within a time period of eight days. Among the churches were five predominantly white congregations and five predominantly black congregations. It seems obvious that this information would lead to a conclusion that the attacks were meant as an act against Christianity. However, FBI Special Agent Charles Regan believes that an investigation is in order to "make sure this is not a hate crime," because the evidence is evidently not proof enough in itself. "If 10 Brooklyn synagogues went up in flames in a little over a week, wouldn't investigators start from the assumption that the arson was motivated by hatred of Jews? If 10 Cuban-American shops and restaurants in Miami were deliberately burned to the ground, wouldn't the obvious presumption be that anti-Cuban animus was involved?" asks Jeff Jacoby in his article titled The Flames of Hate in Alabama. He goes on to say that "apparently, baptist churches are different." [link to full article can be found at end of entry]


As if that was not sickening enough, major news outlets are trying to create reasons as to why they are burning churches and avoiding the only reason that seems blatantly obvious. Jim Cavanaugh of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--according to CNN--said of the arsonists, "there's probably some stressors in their life: Family, relationships, work, the economy. The region's been devastated by a hurricane, there's a war in Iraq, there's a lot of terrible things going on." Right, there are plenty of reasons that sympathizers can fabricate, but the idea that someone is relentlessly burning churches out of hate against the church is completely ignored.

I think the real story, besides the fact that houses of worship are being torched, is that the media are frantically searching for something else to blame it on. In virtually every article, we are reminded of church burnings in 1996 where (according to KOTV) "race was a factor in a series of arsons that damaged rural black churches in Alabama and elsewhere." The media were, and still are, trying to paint Christians as victimizers rather than victims. What was actually found out about the '96 fires, was that there was no racist intentions because 8 of the 18 arrested were black themselves. Not only that, but, according to the USA Today, "there were 45 arsons against white churches and 27 against black ones in the surveyed states."

In the words of Jeff Jacoby, "The burning of a church is a hateful act regardless of the congregants' skin color. That some people bend over backward not to say so is a disgrace."
[Read Jacoby's full article here]

Gov. Sonny Perdue
Story: after many, many hours of debate about racism and politics, the Georgia Voter ID bill (SB 84) was approved. The bill requires that Georgians offer a goverment-issued picture ID when going to vote. Of course, the bill still needs to go to Gov. Perdue and the US Department of Justice; both places are expected to approve. As all bills, this one also has many critics who say that the bill targets the poor, minorities, and senior citizens who, they claim, are incapable of obtaining these IDs. The rhetoric being heard throughout these debates is hardly something new. Last year, an earlier voting ID bill (HB 244) had been passed sucessfully; however, a federal judge ruled the bill unconstitutional, stating it was akin to a poll tax since it required people to purchase a photo ID. SB 84, instead, has a measure that would allow voters to obtain a free photo ID and also requires all 159 counties in Georgia to have and maintain a place to have the photo IDs made.
[src=the ajc front page]

my opinion: i recognize the concern of those who spoke against HB 244, and actually agree with its critics, but the new SB 84 addresses those concerns: anyone can obtain a photo ID from their own county for free...believing this bill will restrict voting rights to the poor is just ignorant...the driving force to the opposition of this bill is purely partisan politics...the democrats know that this bill will cut down on their number of votes because a pretty big chunk of them come from the deceased, multiple-time voters, illegal aliens and convicted criminals

opposing opinion: (leave a good opposing opinion in my gspot and i may place it here)