WITHOUT A DOUBT, PROJECTION (AS IN SHIFTING TO OTHERS BLAME FOR WHAT MAY BE THEIR OWN UNDOING) is a common propaganda tactic in the conservative prolefeed machine.

As in blaming "liberal elements" (with "liberal" being subtle anti-Semitic code, perchance) for "reckless and utter disregard for truth" in the media when, in fact, such is commonplace among conservative-leaning media channels. And, come to think of it, see Truth as a subjective, to be perverted and manipulated as required to serve the Greater Conservative Agenda.

Put another way, Joe Sixpack should not be expected to handle the truth "lest such lead to error."

In any case, the following BBC News Online story illustrating how reporters for Chinese state broadcaster CCTV were "advised" to handle certain "sensitive" news items recently may be insightful for what sort of "journalistic standards and ethics" conservatives would like to see imposed for service to their own warped agenda, let alone Truth:

When journalists at China's national broadcaster CCTV log on, one of the first things that pops up on screen is a notice about what not to report.

These notices are often short and seldom say who has authorised them, but they all contain strict instructions about how to report a story.

Journalists were recently warned off a health scandal, told how to report the death of Benazir Bhutto and had to steer clear of a Hollywood film story.

Censorship has been an everyday feature of news reporting in China for as long as the Chinese Communist Party has been in power.

But this wide range of so-called sensitive stories shows that, in China, any story on any subject at any time can still fall foul of the censor's red pen.

No explanation

As 2007 came to a close, it was three very different stories that received particular attention from censors working at China Central Television (CCTV).

On 19 December, journalists received a notice banning them from carrying reports about the death of a pregnant migrant worker.

The news had previously been widely reported in the Chinese media.

The saga began when the woman was rushed to a Beijing hospital with what her husband said was a simple cold.

But doctors said she was suffering from pneumonia and needed an emergency caesarean.

Her husband, believing the hospital wanted to charge him for an expensive and unnecessary operation, refused. Three hours later his wife was dead.

The terse notice banning CCTV journalists from reporting this story did not say why it was sensitive, but health is a hot topic for ordinary Chinese people.

Many suspect doctors prescribe expensive drugs and order unnecessary tests and treatment to boost their salaries.

Two days later, the CCTV censors were worried about another story - reports that China had banned some Hollywood films from Chinese cinemas.

Censors decided this story could not be reported at all.

Again, the notice did not say why, but there has been trade friction between China and the US for some time.

Perhaps the government did not want to add to the tension by talking about another potential trade dispute between the two sides.

'Avoid drawing fire'

The third story that caused problems was the death of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto two days after Christmas.

China and Pakistan are close allies, and the government presumably did not want to cause a friend unnecessary trouble.

Of course, it would have been hard to simply ignore the assassination, so on 28 December CCTV journalists received explicit instructions on how to report the killing.

Reporters were told to stick to the facts and not connect the incident with Pakistan's internal turmoil or mention the possibility of terrorism.

"Avoid drawing fire against ourselves. Avoid being drawn into Pakistan's internal contradictions," the notice read.

And this time journalists were told exactly who had authorised this order - the party's Central Propaganda Department.

These three stories are just the tip of the iceberg, according to David Bandurski, a researcher with the Hong Kong-based China Media Project, which monitors the media in China.

"There are all kinds of bans and missives against all kinds of stories for different reasons," he says.

Certain subjects are always out of bounds in China, such as speculation about China's national leaders.

Other issues, such as health, education and inflation, are closely monitored because they are potentially controversial.

CCTV journalists were recently told to follow the lead of Xinhua, China's national news agency, when writing reports about fuel price rises.

Sometimes even innocent stories can become sensitive, such as a recent debate about digital TV, because it touched on the issue of consumer rights.

'Wriggle room'

Despite the obstacles, Mr Bandurski says many Chinese journalists are keen to push the boundaries of what is allowed.

"The media is becoming savvy about which stories are completely taboo and which stories have some wriggle room, even for a short time," he says.

The media was not always so strictly controlled in China.

Zhan Jiang, a journalism professor at Beijing's China Youth University for Political Science, says there was more freedom to report political issues in the 1980s.

But that relatively relaxed period came to an abrupt end in 1989 with the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protesters.

The professor is not optimistic that things will improve in the short term for Chinese journalists.

"On one hand, (Chinese President) Hu Jintao suggests goals to aim for, such as democracy and the rule of law," says Mr Zhan.

"But, on the other hand, the forces that oppose democracy, the rule of law and particularly freedom of speech are powerful."

=============

STAYING WITH MUCH THE SAME MATTER FOR THE NONCE, KUDOS ARE DUE MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA for exposing to air and sunshine the sort of issues which the forces of conservative Zealotry and True Belief as control the mainstream news media "behind the scenes," as it were, want avoided for the sake of "protecting readers from serious error of judgement"--as in expecting Joe Sixpack to not handle the Truth.

Case in point, from last week's Media Matters roundup, as addressed how the Establishment Media is handling John McCain's campaign vis-a-vis certain sensitive standpoints--in this case, his associations with weird and unwholesome religious as were addressed in this recent Open Letter for starters:

Given intense media scrutiny of controversial comments made by a religious leader with ties to Barack Obama, many--including Media Matters--have wondered when news organizations will devote the same attention to John McCain's ties to Rod Parsley and John Hagee.

In February, shortly before the Ohio primary, John McCain stood with Rod Parsley in Cincinnati, declaring him a "spiritual guide." Parsley returned the compliment with his endorsement of McCain, who he praised as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." Parsley has written that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed." As David Corn has explained, "Parsley, who refers to himself as a 'Christocrat,' is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis." He has suggested that the U.S. government was complicit in facilitating black genocide.

McCain won another key endorsement in February: John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.

Hagee has said of Hurricane Katrina, "[W]hen you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Hagee later defended his comment by saying, "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are--were recipients of the judgment of God for that. ... there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. ... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Hagee has written, "I encourage every person who has biblical beliefs to contact their congressman and their senator on a regular basis and implore them to pass this constitutional amendment recognizing only the marriage between a man and a woman. If we fail to achieve this, the gates of hell will be opened. It will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Hagee once announced plans to hold a "slave sale" to raise money. According to the San Antonio Express-News, "Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin ... The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone' and ended with 'Make plans to come and go home with a slave.' " And Hagee has written "Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist" and "only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. ...The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home."

According to Hagee, McCain actively sought his endorsement.

But despite McCain's embrace of Hagee and Parsley, their controversial views have not drawn the media scrutiny that has been given to Obama's relationship with his pastor.

Time's Michael Scherer actually claimed the McCain-Hagee connection has gotten extensive media coverage: "With rare exception, the press errs on the side of making a big deal out of anything that can be considered a 'scandal.' McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage."

"Lots" of "network news coverage"? The names "Hagee" and "McCain" have been mentioned in the same news report exactly one time on ABC--in a comment by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. CBS has covered the matter in two brief reports. NBC has mentioned the endorsement one time, in a report that referred only vaguely to the fact that "some of the televangelist's public remarks have offended Catholics."

"Lots" of "negative newspaper" coverage? The New York Times has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in two articles. Both times, the Hagee mention was buried at the end of an article about another topic; combined, the two passages totaled only 251 words. Neither made any mention of Hagee's comments about Katrina, or gays, or women. The Washington Post has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in only two brief blurbs, only one of which noted any controversy surrounding the endorsement--and, like the Times, that one mentioned only Hagee's comments about Catholics. Post columnist E. J. Dionne did briefly criticize McCain for not distancing himself from Hagee--but he, too, ignored Hagee's comments about Katrina, gays, and women.

Scherer's claim that "McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage" was simply false; the endorsement has been all but ignored by the three networks and the nation's two most important newspapers.

By contrast, a Nexis search for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright" reveals 22 hits ... in The Washington Post alone. And 25 more in The New York Times (22 for "Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright" and three for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright.") And 15 hits in the NBC transcript database--all since March 14. Fifteen more in the CBS database since March 14. Twenty-two more in the ABC database since March 13. That is "lots of negative coverage." And that is a huge imbalance.

While Scherer falsely claimed that McCain's ties to Hagee have gotten "lots" of attention, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took another approach: claiming that McCain's embrace of Hagee is utterly unremarkable.

On the March 19 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, Rachel Maddow pointed out the "double standard" in the media's coverage of the situations. Scarborough responded by claiming, "This is not a serious argument. ... This is a ridiculous argument when you consider that Barack Obama is talking about his spiritual adviser for 20 years. Hagee didn't baptize McCain's kids. Hagee didn't marry McCain. John McCain's first book wasn't based on a sermon by Hagee."

Scarborough's argument might seem to make sense--there is no doubt that Obama has closer ties to Jeremiah Wright than John McCain does to John Hagee. But this argument is backwards. Wright is Obama's pastor; their relationship is presumably far more personal than political. Indeed, it may not be political at all. McCain, on the other hand, sought Hagee's support solely for political purposes. His relationship with Hagee is nothing but political. Hagee's political views, therefore, are much more relevant than Jeremiah Wright's, as they are the entire basis for the McCain-Hagee relationship.

(Purely personal piffle: How do we know Rod Parsley's notions on "moral clarity" didn't exactly come by way of Al Cohol, Mary Jane, Old Lady Snow and/or Sally D?)

THECAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE, BY WAY OF THINK PROGRESS, would like to call your timely attention to another reason why John McCain is undeserving of your electoral support in Indecision 2008:

As America's war in Iraq enters its sixth year, Sen. John McCain is hoping that his long effort to send thousands more U.S. troops--a "surge" that has helped lower casualties--will propel him into the White House.

But McCain's record on Iraq is decidedly mixed. If the Arizona Republican proved prescient in his calls for a military buildup, many of his other predictions and prescriptions turned out wrong.

Before the war, McCain predicted a quick and easy victory, not a vicious insurgency. He issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction but didn't read the full 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that showed gaps in the intelligence.

Soon after the March 2003 invasion, however, he began criticizing the Bush administration's management in Iraq and clashed repeatedly with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In mid-2003, he started advocating a larger U.S. force to battle the insurgency, a strategy the White House finally approved last year.

McCain did not publicly embrace or join the hard-core neoconservatives who pushed hardest to unleash the U.S. military against Baghdad before the war. But McCain backed many of the same policies.

He repeatedly urged backing Iraqi emigre groups, internal dissidents and other proxy forces to overthrow Hussein. His hawkish views carried weight as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon.

In 1998, he was among the cosponsors of the Iraq Liberation Act. The law set "regime change" in Baghdad as U.S. policy and mandated support to opposition groups seeking to overthrow the dictator.

Among the major beneficiaries was the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

The CIA had initially sponsored the group but broke with the controversial leader in 1997, saying he could not be trusted. Under the new law, Chalabi's group received almost $33 million from the State Department, until U.S. officials found financial improprieties and ended the arrangement.

McCain and Chalabi met several times but were not close allies, aides to both men said. "Sen. McCain wasn't pushing one group over another," said Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor.

Asked by The Times this month if he regretted backing the 1998 law, which produced few discernible results other than bolstering Chalabi, McCain said he did not. Chalabi, though initially touted by neoconservatives as a future leader of Iraq, failed to garner significant support in elections.

McCain said that by 1998, U.N. sanctions against Iraq were "breaking down" and Hussein had defied numerous Security Council resolutions. "Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction," he added. "The policy was not successful."

McCain cited the same reasoning when asked why he and nine other congressional leaders urged President Bush in a letter dated Dec. 6, 2001, to next target Iraq since the Taliban regime had collapsed in Afghanistan.

It is "imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq," the lawmakers wrote. "We believe that we must directly confront Saddam sooner rather than later."

Later that day, McCain told MSNBC that it is "possible, if not probable, that internal opposition forces can prevail over time." Asked if it wouldn't require 100,000 U.S. soldiers as occupation troops, McCain demurred. "Oh, no," he said. "I don't think so at all."

Those predictions proved inaccurate. Worse, U.S. forces and local militias then were searching in vain for Osama bin Laden in the Tora Bora redoubts of eastern Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence later concluded that Bin Laden had escaped the dragnet in early December, prompting criticism that the White House ignored the Al Qaeda chief to focus on Hussein.

McCain doesn't buy it.

"I know of no one who believes attention to Iraq at that point diverted our attention from Tora Bora," McCain said, when asked about the timing of the letter. "We should have put more boots on the ground there to apprehend [Bin Laden]. Everyone agrees. But I have no reason to believe that because we urged attention to Iraq, it had any tactical effect on the battleground."

No Al Qaeda link

By the following fall, McCain offered unstinting support to the Bush administration as it sought to rally the nation for war. In September 2002, McCain told CNN that he expected "an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."

But McCain openly disputed Bush administration claims that Hussein appeared linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "I doubt seriously if there's this close relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," he told CBS News in September 2002.

Postwar investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a report this month financed by the Pentagon, found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.

In October 2002 McCain again rose to back the Bush administration when it sought congressional approval for a resolution to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq. The Iraqi tyrant, McCain repeatedly warned his colleagues, was "a clear and present danger" to U.S. security.

"He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times," McCain said, according to the Congressional Record. "He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage."

Like all but a few members of Congress, McCain read only the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate sent to Congress that month, according to longtime aide Mark Salter. Asked why, Salter said in an e-mail that the summary was "pretty informative."

The summary, which was later declassified, warned with "high confidence" that Saddam was building a fierce array of illicit weapons. But CIA officials say the full classified text contained numerous caveats about the intelligence.

In fact, none of the weapons existed. After the invasion, the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Hussein had abandoned or destroyed his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a dozen years earlier.

When the invasion began, McCain told MSNBC that he had "no doubt" U.S. forces "will be welcomed as liberators" in Baghdad. But he changed his views after his first visit to Baghdad, in August 2003, as the insurgency was beginning.

Returning home, McCain began calling for the deployment of thousands more troops. The policy set him sharply at odds with the White House, his party and military commanders. Virtually alone in Congress, McCain pushed for a larger force with growing urgency over the next 3 1/2 years as casualties mounted and public support plummeted.

The Bush administration finally agreed to send nearly 30,000 additional troops early last year, bringing the current total to about 155,000. The so-called surge has helped curb both the sectarian slaughter and anti-U.S. attacks, according to the Pentagon.

"I give the guy a lot of credit on this issue," said Kenneth Pollack, who headed Persian Gulf affairs in the Clinton White House and now works at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution in Washington. "He figured out the right answer. And the administration was dead set against it."

Expertise challenged

But McCain's claim to expertise came under attack Tuesday after he had completed a two-day visit to Iraq, his eighth tour of the war zone. During a news conference and in a separate radio interview, he charged that Iran was training Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. He quickly apologized after he was advised that the Teheran regime supports militant Shiite groups, not the rival Sunnis who make up Al Qaeda. "I'm sorry," McCain said. "The Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."

McCain's aides said he merely misspoke when he mixed up America's adversaries, but the Democratic National Committee immediately challenged his supposed knowledge and judgment on Iraq.

Democrats contend that McCain's support for Bush's unpopular war policies outweighs any differences he has had with them. In New Hampshire this month several dozen protesters loudly chanted "Bush, McCain, more of the same" when the presumptive Republican nominee arrived for a town-hall meeting in Exeter.

U.S. troops must remain until Iraq is secure, no matter how long that takes, McCain told the crowd. He ridiculed promises by his Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to quickly pull troops out. "A date for withdrawal would be a date for surrender," he said.

The key to victory--and probably the White House next fall--McCain said, is whether American casualties start to rise again. If the surge is seen as failing, McCain warned, support for the war will evaporate.

"I am confident about this strategy," he declared. "I will stick with it under any circumstances. But I don't know if the American people will stick with it."

THERE ARE NO DOUBT GOING TO BE TIMES GALORE, ESPECIALLY SO OVER THE SUMMER VACATION PERIOD, WHEN PARENTS will ask the children to leave the house after  breakfast and not return home until @ least the supper hour.

In other words, "get lost."

And to be thus for the sake of the parents, perhaps out of fear they might "suffer a nervous breakdown" or somesuch if they keep hanging around the house all day and "waste time needlessly" or otherwise "take up valuable space" lying around, watching TV, playing video games or surfing the Internet.

The thinking, perhaps, being they would be better off "making wise use of their time" @ the local mall, nearby playgrounds, amusement or waterslide parks (especially if season passes are on offer, the better to give parents a good way to get their kids out of the way), community fairs, that sort of thing, while the parents engage in things they're afraid the kids will find out about.

Like perousing kinderporn online.

And having that nagging sort of paranoia that the police will find out--especially if there turns out being a loud and chaotic police raid on their house just as the kids come home from their day out ahead of the dinner hour.

Not to mention the parents cooking up all form and manner of patsies for the kids to use in case the likes of security guards @ the mall or ride attendants @ amusement parks start asking questions or otherwise get suspicious, even expecting them to memorise such "just in case."

Yet, you have to ask why parents would want to do such a sick thing anyway @ the expense of their kids, even if the desire is to get them to "make the most of their time," "get some exercise, fresh air and sunshine" or otherwise "leave [the parents] alone." Sometimes, even adding all manner of potentially anecdotal, "friend-of-a-friend" (FOAF) stories about the summer recreation programmes @ the local Community Centre not to be trusted as "safe places" because of the counsellors and supervisors being "crazy people" or otherwise "dangerous" (as in their being, perhaps, pedophiles or child pornographers lying below radar) in contrast to the food court @ the local mall.

The same, I suppose, likely to apply where the family has a summer beach house "down the shore" or somesuch--only in such an instance, the "advice" would include spending "quality time" in town (especially along the local Boardwalk or equivalent) or on the beach.

All in all, you have to ask yourselves why parents would allow themselves to go to such depths, all the while risking charges of Child Neglect, Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, Failure to Exercise Responsibility for their Children, usw., in such otherwise well-intentioned requests. And, when the time comes, what sort of excuses the parents will resort to in the courts, especially when the Child Welfare intervenes to have the parents declared Morally Unfit and the children removed into foster care in spite of incredible "horror stories" the parents will resort to spreading as a scare tactic.

Let alone the judge alluding to Peter and Lois Griffin (per Family Guy) in taking exception to the parents' acts, deeds and exploits vis-a-vis their children--and the "notoriety" such brought upon the community.

"Think about it"

IN THE WAKE OF THE THEN-SOVIET UNION'S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN IN LATE 1979/EARLY 1980, A NUMBER OF NATIONS, AMONG THEM THE UNITED STATES, elected to boycott the Moscow Summer Olympic Games in 1980 as a show of protest.

As if in reprisal, the then-Soviet Union and several of its Warsaw Pact/COMECON satellites (with the notable exception of Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games in 1984, prompting the Soviets to offer up a counter to the Olympics which they called "the Friendship Games" for those so boycotting.

Now, it seems as if hints are being dropped in certain circles suggesting that a few soverign nations may consider ignoring the Call to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing this summer in response to China's late crackdown in Tibet, with varying accounts on the number of casualties (Beijing officially claiming 16 dead, whereas the Tibetan Government-in-Exile contends the figure is closer to 130) and Beijing's "show no mercy" mentalities on the "ringleaders" behind the late ultraviolence in Lhasa.

And there are still ripple effects from what happened in Tibet recently:

• This morning's Olympic Torch Lighting ceremonies on the Plains of Olympia, outside Athens, were briefly disrupted when a protester displaying a "Free Tibet" banner briefly made an appearence before Greek security forces subdued the protester.
• Pro-Tibetan sympathisers in the Nepali capital of Kathmandu (including a few Buddhist priests) have held protests which were all too often met with police baton charges and scuffles; one such yesterday saw six killed and twenty Buddhist priests detained.

Too, you also have concerns as to whether Beijing's official categorical pledges on controlling air-pollution levels during the Olympics will remain empty such, still putting pressure on some nations as to whether such may also be an excuse to boycott.

Not to mention Chinese police authorities banning broadcasters covering the Beijing Olympic Games doing reports from Tiananmen Square in central Beijing, fearing the likelihood of "China's image being seriously compromised" in case, say, human-rights protesters unfurled banners before the cameras with the Forbidden City in the background.

*************

HOW HIS FRAUDULENCY'S GREAT WITHIN AS ARE INVOLVED IN THE UR-RAHOWA AGAINST INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM will look upon newly-elected Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani (Pakistan People's Party/P3) as a credible ally in the aforementioned ur-RAHOWA is anybody's guess.

Especially considering where Prime Minister Gillani has pledged to order the release from detention of such lawyers as were detained under predecessor Perez Musharaf's period of emergency rule following Benazhir Bhutto's assaination. That, and an international enquiry into the circumstances behind the aforementioned assaination under United Nations control.

One reason why the Great Within needs to be all the more watchful is because of the P3's coalition with the Muslim League, which may not be quite familiar to the Great Within when it comes to terrorism-related issues and matters of interest to the "inside of the inside."

*************

TRY IMAGINING INDECISION 2008'S ISSUES INCLUDING SOMETHING ABOUT "GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS" BEING MAINTAINED as necessary to national identity and cohesion.

Yet in the remote Himalayan mountain kingdom of Bhutan, "gross national happiness" is used to describe the belief of balancing socioeconomic development with respect for traditional values and the environment. And such is the guiding principle in their first-ever legislative elections today for a 47-seat National Assembly as marks the end for the last absolute hereditary monarchy among the world's soverign nations.

Bhutan's current monarch, King Jigme Khesar Namgyang Wangchuck, is expected to remain as, more or less, a symbolic figurehead; but then again, expect considerable support across the desolate kingdom to remain for the monarchy, even if horses and pack mules had to be used to deliver ballot boxes and electoral materials to remote villages and many returning to their native villages from the Bhutani capital of Thimpu to cast ballots--one widely-reported example being that of a woman walking some 370 miles over two weeks from Thimpu back to her native village just to help write history.

Something worth thinking about in the greater debate heading into Indecision 2008.

*************

HIS FRAUDULENCY'S GREAT WITHIN, AND THEIR PRO-WAR DROOGS, AREN'T GOING TO LIKE THE LATEST MILESTONE IN THE IRAQI THEATER of the ur-RAHOWA Against International Terrorism: Videlicet, the 4,000th American casualty in the five years of misadventure so ensuing, so averaging about 800 troop casualties a year.

Let's just hope news of the 5,000th such coincides with the proximity to Indecision 2008--THAT alone should be enough to make the balloting even more seriously drawn-out, and then some....

*************

THE CLOSET APOLOGISTS FOR APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA AND THEIR ARCHITECTS, DIE AFRIKANER VOLK, are not amused @ last week's address by Democratic Presidential wannabe Barack Obama on the interrelationship between race and Presidential qualifications, as People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch blog thus notes:

A few voices on the Right have expressed partial praise for Barack Obama’s speech on race, but by and large, right-wing commentators have stuck to the script, picking over the parts where Obama mentioned the country’s racial wounds, excoriating him for failing to disavow affirmative action or liberal economic policies, and generally promoting the idea that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who secretly hates both America and white people.

But if Obama hoped to start a national conversation about race, he succeeded, in a way. Many right-wing commentators have proved willing to redirect their attacks on Obama to a discussion of their views on African Americans in general. Cal Thomas opined that “black people should be listening to” Bill Cosby, not Rev. Wright. Ann Coulter announced that she had had enough of blacks talking about racism:

But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people? …

We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

Unfortunately, the online videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church appear to be the first exposure some on the Right have had to blacks or the African American church. Human Events reporter Ericka Anderson admitted as much: “Those of us outside the black community lack any deep knowledge of black churches. The only black minister we are very familiar with was Martin Luther King, Jr.” Anderson added, “He never damned America.”

George Neumayr, editor of the Catholic World Report, was apparently scandalized by what he described as the “feverish” church-goers in the videos “hopping up and down like hyperactive children” as they follow their “buffoonish[],” “sashaying” pastor.

Perhaps we should leave the final word to Pat Buchanan, who has made a career out of claiming that “white America” is under constant threat from other ethnicities. Before Obama’s speech, Buchanan pined for the “Negroes” of the 1950s:

That Wright is a revered preacher in black America also tells us that, far from coming together, we Americans are further apart than we were in the 1950s, when Negroes could be described as Christian, conservative and patriotic. Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad did not speak for black America then. Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young and Dr. Martin Luther King did. But Jeremiah Wright makes Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown sound like the Mills Brothers.

After the speech, Buchanan was more blunt, writing that “Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.”

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."

Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said--that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard.

(Purely personal piffle, especially regarding mein emphasis on the preceding: Methinks Pat Buchanan won't be satisfied unless White America's response is nothing less than a return to the likes of Jim Crow and apartheid--especially among such scions of "the Silent Majority" as are poor, undereducated or homeschooled and easily-influenced, let alone holding down menial positions with little or no real advancement potential and traditional prime targets for recruitment by the weird and unwholesome who take unscrupulous advantage of "white trash" elements.)

glitter-graphics.com