Air Force Voices

Pewgate: 2nd/3rd Order Effects

Willliam A. Schambra has an excellent article in Chronicle of Philanthropy (HT: Democracy Project).  The article references the huge changes that are happening to once-insular worlds of government, media, and now charity organizations. 

The article references "Pewgate" and the large-scale deception behind so-called Campaign Finance Reform the McCain-Feingold BCRA (see previous posts).

My favorite passage in Schambra's article (emphasis added):

Bloggers are scrappy, radically individualistic insurgents. They like nothing better than to take on tottering institutional empires, where arrogant, insulated leaders have escaped accountability for their lethargy and corruption by virtue of the fear they have instilled within the respectable, established commentariat. So it is just a matter of time before serious blogging comes to philanthropy. But we need bloggers who are veterans of the field, and who know how to interpret the opaque, impenetrable jargon and stylized, empty ceremonies of that world. By mercilessly critiquing the foundation world's "official" literature and rituals, actual transparency might be encouraged.

Bloggers should also do shoe-leather reporting and investigating. Hollow, exaggerated claims for a foundation program's success could quickly be deflated by behind-the-scenes reports on what is really happening on the ground.

Blogs will also be available for back-channel contributions from foundation staff members who wish to report squandered resources, dishonest publicity, or overbearing leadership.

Similar calls could benefit an similarly insulated world like the Pentagon (specifically the E-Ring)...read the boldface above and apply this to the Department of Defense.  No wonder OSD/PA hasn't quite figured out what to do about bloggers (see "Slow to the Fight").  It will be a while before any credible policy is created and disseminated throughout the ranks.

OPSEC considerations have nothing to do with reporting fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA), or dishonest publicity and the usual micromanagers/bad bosses.  "Maintaining Good Order and Discipline" is valid in some instances...but it still should be used as a shield. 

Right now Milblogging is mostly about what is happening on the battlefield (and I am thankful for that)...however, mark my words...it is only a matter of time before the power of this new medium exposes the crass politics, political pandering and wholesale cynicism that resides in the offices and cubby holes in what is affectionately known as "the Building." 

Talk about actual transparency (see underlined above)...my guess is no one will see this coming (again, see "Slow to the Fight").

God Help Us

Let the Air Force Academy witch hunts begin...

Last night there were several comments on God and Country.  I agree, a couple of knuckle-heads probably offended some folks with aggressive Bible-thumping.  If so, this needs to stop.  However, this morning, Aim Points released more troubling information.

Here is what I gleaned from the article...the scope of the allegations appears to be extending to the entire Air Force...soon it will get into the other services...God help us.

From the Aim Points release...read the threat from the AUSCS (emphasis added):

“I’d have to hope the Air Force doesn’t try to whitewash this task force, and if they do, that will become obvious and we will act accordingly,” said Americans United spokesman Rob Boston. “We are counting on the Air Force to do this job right. If they do a cursory examination, it’s only going to make matters worse.”

Boston also said his organization has received e-mails in the past week from active-duty and former members of the Air Force, other service academies and government agencies “complaining of similar problems at military bases.”

“This may be a wider problem than some misunderstandings at the academy,” he said, and Americans United will investigate if the complaints appear to be serious.

Hmmm...what does that mean?  Who are these active-duty and former members of the Air Force?  Who gets to decide if the Air Force does a more or less cursory examination?  Sounds like AUSCS has already decided (duh).  You bet they will widen their witch hunt.

No doubt, the Air Force has set itself up to fail.  How much time is the Air Force going to waste on these silly witch hunts?  It is sad that the Air Force has allowed a small group of left-wing idealogues (see the AUSCS website...lots of left-wing anti-Christian rhetoric) to send it on this wild goose chase.

I'll make it easy so we can get back to fighting the War on Terror.  Here is what AUSCS will find across the services (see A Force For Good Indeed).  I have added emphasis to make my point:

This is a great op-ed from the NYT's Robert D. Kaplan.  (HT: RealClearPolitics)  We need to hear this more and more...here is my favorite passage:

"Liberal democratic societies have commonly been defended by conservative military establishments, whose members often lack the sensitivities and social graces of the elites whom they protect...I've learned that marines swear all the time out of habit, and love to be in on a fight, or otherwise they would not have joined the Marine Corps."

"Yet those same swearing marines are capable of a self-discipline and humanitarian compassion - drawn, often, from an absolute belief in the Almighty - that would stun the average civilian...In Iraq, there was nothing more natural for marines (and soldiers, too) than to go from close-quarters urban combat to providing food and medicine, and back again."

Guilty as charged.  I am all for religious tolerance...just not the religious intolerance the AUSCS is promoting under the guise of "religious freedom."

If my core value of "Integrity First" offends anyone that is unfortunate.  I just need to label AUSCS for what it is and what it is trying to do. 

It is hard to to put "Service Over Self" and achieve "Excellence In All We Do" when you strike at the core of "Integrity."  Religion has a big part to do with "Integrity" and the whole person concept.

Oh yeah...folks need to be watching the back door.  While we are blogging about religious intolerance (seemingly distracted)...watch what else is happening in terms of policy, legislation, acquisition, reorganization, and the QDR.  {Hopefully this time we won't be too focused on wearing a Bus Driver uniform while we reorganizing into composite wings or implementing a RIF like we did in the early 90's...Air Force veterans know what I am talking about}

UPDATE:  I was finally able to download the entire report.  Frankly, I see both points of view (HT: No Angst Zone...the truth lies somewhere in the middle).

Indeed, there were some knuckle-headed acts that should be cleaned up (and not in a tongue in cheek manner).  However, the charges of

"flagrant and egregious violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as a general climate of religious coercion and official hostility toward those who do not practice evangelical Christianity"

seem a bit overboard to me.  Especially since sources are not named in the report.  How do I know AUSCS isn't embellishing or maybe even making things up? 

Also, I know lots of non-Christians in the Air Force...many of them Academy grads.  All good people with great careers.

Clearly, what is really under attack is Christianity itself.  Plain and simple.  Just visit the AUSCS home page and it practically tells you what the motivation behind the report is.

UPDATE II: CDR Salamander makes some more great points...particularly with the AAR for Cadet BCT II as well as the background of its signers.  However, here is my favorite passage:

One or two things happened here: (1)-No one in a blue Army suit did their homework on Ms. Leslie and YDS, or (2) the people who did bring them in knew exactly what they were bringing in, agreed with the bias coming their way, and wanted this outcome. Either way, the good people in blue better clean house, or they are going to live under a PC anti-religious dictat that will make a Soviet Political Officer proud.

I believe both things happened...worse, the Air Force is a sucker for anything that has "Yale" or "Harvard" attached to it...as if the name makes a biased report any better.  Somebody (or a group of somebodies) was definitely steamrolled and has set the service up for failure...can anybody guess what the AUSCS opinion on the investigation board results will be?  Duh.

MAAP cell is engaged...thanks for standing by.

God and Country

I sure am glad I don't live in a Godless communist state...whoa...wait an minute...

Greyhawk posted something that caught my eye...and upset me quite frankly...

You have to read Hugh Hewitt's column in the Daily Standard as well as his blog HughHewitt.com.  Here is an excerpt from the column:

Barry Lynn is the top guy at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a cartoonish presence on talking head television, ever-ready to declare the imminent threat of theocracy in the land. It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that the organization Lynn leads last week leveled a series of very serious charges against almost everyone at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The report, available here in PDF, is among the worst examples of McCarthyism since Joe McCarthy stood up on February 9, 1950, and declared that "I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department."...

...Unfortunately, the acting secretary of the Air Force quickly established a task force to investigate the report's allegations before considering whether the group issuing it was worthy of trust on such a matter, whether the specific charges can be considered to have risen to a level worthy of further investigation, and whether the appropriate response might not have been a demand of Americans United for their sources before launching such a high-profile, well, we can't quite call it a "witch hunt," can we?

Even a cursory review of AU's "report" reveals it is built on multiple levels of undocumented hearsay. Over and over again the phrase "we have been informed" introduces an allegation of misconduct, or "we have received a host of reports" leads to a serious charge. There are zero footnotes and zero affidavits attached to the report...

Hugh Hewitt makes the following recommendation:

...Put the task force on hold, and ask for the back-up. If there are credible assertions, determined as such by credible third parties skilled in Establishment and Free Exercise Clause doctrine, then quietly empanel an investigation. Asking "how high" when Barry Lynn says jump is a terrible decision.

The Air Force leadership at the Academy deserve the benefit of the doubt...not baseless accusations and a witch hunt on who is more politically correct under the guise of diversity.

Previously, Greyhawk posted a chilling quote taken from the archives of the Belmont Club.  Here is the quote:

For one, Hitler would have taken a very dim view of Jesusland, a country which George Bush is said to be in the process of founding, whose geographic location is to the immediate south of the United States of Canada. Martin Bormann said, "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." Hitler, according to Klaus Fischer's Nazi Germany stated that "one day we want to be in a position where only complete idiots stand in the pulpit and preach to old women." In a concession to popular feeling, however, the Nazis offered the public certain acceptable 'faith traditions' including something called "Gottglaubig", a dished-up creed heavily overladen with ancient Germanic pagan beliefs with versions of rituals for birth, marriage and death. "By 1938, carols and nativity plays were were forbidden in the schools, and the words 'Christmas' itself was replaced by the word 'Yuletide'." 

I shudder to think of all the great men and women who died to secure the blessings of liberty for our country...they had a strong belief in God and would no doubt be equally as upset to see what is happening today.

Finally, I agree with Greyhawk...how long before we are forced to bulldoze this building?

Notice the ominous clouds above the spires...what a great metaphor for the storm brewing at the Academy.

Or, could this represent the beginnings of of a mini-blogswarm in response to the witch hunts taking place at this great institution?  Hmmm...

UPDATE: CDR Salamander has a great post on this subject.  Here is an excerpt and an equally stunning photograph:

The military does not push religion on anyone, it gets out of the way. There is a lot of religion is the military though. Being shot at will do that to a man. This has always been true in our military, and we have a great history of being tolerant of each other's proclivities - religious wise. If you want to destroy this history of allowing a person to demonstrate their faith while in service, then I recommend you start by getting a chisel and hammer.

Well said...from a "pretty boy in blue."

The Menace Continues

The MSM/DNC is at it again...trying to eliminate a level playing field so they can control your thoughts and tell you how to vote (HT: Captain's Quarters).

Brian Faler of the WaPo has a provocative article in today's paper.  He writes about upcoming Congressional action that would exempt bloggers from proposed FEC rules on the Internet (i.e., restriction of First Amendment rights).  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

You could almost hear the blogosphere sigh with relief earlier this spring when federal election officials indicated that they did not plan to crack down on bloggers who write about politics.

The Federal Election Commission, which has been considering issuing new regulations on a range of political activities on the Internet -- and was said by some to be contemplating taking a tough stance on the online commentators -- revealed in late March that it intends to be much less aggressive than many had feared. But now some observers are wondering whether the FEC is not being aggressive enough when it comes to one category of bloggers: those who take money from political campaigns.

Question is...who are these "observers" who wonder about an "aggressive" FEC?  Hmmm.  Read on...

Those who want additional disclosure requirements said they fear that [putting bloggers on campaign payrolls] will become increasingly common as politicians become more sophisticated in using the Internet, as blogs attract larger audiences and as more mainstream news outlets report on -- and amplify -- what the blogosphere is saying.

True...further acknowledgment of the power of blogs.

Faler tries to achieve some balance (though it is at the end of the article) and points out (emphasis added):

But their complaints are meeting skepticism from those who say additional reporting requirements are not only unnecessary but would be legally suspect and difficult to enforce.

Some said, for example, that campaigns routinely take a magnifying glass to their opponents' finance reports -- and can be relied upon to publicize any unannounced payments to bloggers. And some said such requirements would impose obligations on bloggers that are not expected of anyone else who takes money from campaigns and then sounds off on them in other media, such as letters to newspapers or calls to radio shows.

Exactly...you could also include respondents to snap polls, members of a live studio audience, or people/families featured in a news report.  Too bad the article quickly concludes before we can explore these traditional MSM/DNC tricks.

So what is the basis of this article?  Captain Ed' makes a great point is his appraisal (emphasis added):

This article wants to scare people, and Congress, into fighting the proposed exemption for bloggers by creating a strawman of rampant corruption in the blogosphere that doesn't exist. Even if campaigns decided to start "buying" bloggers, it would only reflect their ignorance of the marketplace. After all, why buy what one can get for free? Most of us write for our own purposes, not that of a candidate or party, and what revenue we need to justify our expense and time we generate through advertising. Buying a blogger might be more arguable for disclosure simply as a sign of cluelessness.

The so-called reformers reveal themselves again as more frightened of the power of free speech and the inability of former media elites toe control the information flow. They want to regulate us into silence and clear the field for the Exempt Media to once again tell people what to believe. Fortunately for the rest of us, those days have long since gone by.

Indeed.  Again, this is another attempt by the MSM/DNC under the guise of "campaign finance reform" to use the federal government to control our access to information.  For more information on the history of "campaign finance reform" and the assault on free speech...see previous posts.

Protect the First Amendment

Our Constitution used to be enough to guarantee basic rights to all American citizens.  Yet, it seems federal regulations, if not explicitly denounced by law, can overrule the Constitution.

Mike Krempasky at RedState has some very good news to report.  Here is an excerpt:

First, in the House - HR 1606, introduced by Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling can not only boast a few co-sponsors - the better news is this - Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan has become the first bipartisan cosponsor of the legislation. As you can imagine, getting leaders from both sides of the aisle on a bill early is key.

But frankly, I have to say - the news in the Senate is the real gem. S 678, introduced by Minority Leader Harry Reid, has been waiting for a Republican to step up - and one has. And of all the Members that provide...um, political balance for Senator Reid - how about RedState favorite Dr. Tom Coburn? (his cosponsorship is not listed in Thomas yet, but Coburn's office has already contacted Reid's.)

Perhaps our Senators and Congressional Representatives need a little encouragement.

There is an online petition sponsored by DownsizeDC that Air Force Voices highly recommends.  The petition encourages Members of Congress to co-sponsor and sign the bills and is a call to all patriots sworn to defend the Constitution.  This is not a partisan issue...it is a fundamental American issue.

I got involved.  Here were my personal comments:

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
___ Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
_____ Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ________
United States House of Representatives
_____ Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-

Freedom of speech is an important part of everyday life in America.  America has always cherished this right since its inception. 

It can be said that the United States of America was the first country ever to be argued into existence...men like Paine, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (among others) started making their case for independence long before the shooting started.  As a result, the First Amendment stands as a monument to their efforts. 

Many Americans have died defending the First Amendment as well as other rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  I believe deeply in these rights and honor the sacrifices made by these brave Americans.

Yet, it seems the Constitution no longer guarantees basic rights afforded to all Americans.  Incredibly, regulations carry the force of law if they are not explicitly denounced by law.  Hence, passage of this bill honors the sacrifices of those who serve to defend the Constitution and further guarantees freedom of speech for all Americans.

Your favorable action on this matter is a call to duty. Again, please co-sponsor and pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

Signed,

Air Force Voices

I encourage you to participate and sign the petition.  See previous posts for more information.

A Gathering Menace

Freedom of speech is an important part of everyday life in America.  America has always cherished this right since its inception. 

It can be said that the United States of America was the first country ever to be argued into existence...men like Paine, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (among others) started making their case for independence long before the shooting started.  As a result, the First Amendment stands as a monument to their efforts. 

Many Americans have died defending the First Amendment as well as other rights guaranteed in our constitution.  I believe deeply in these rights and honor the sacrifices made by these brave Americans.

I have quoted Neil Postman (author of Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology) before.  Yet, his words seem especially fitting today (emphasis added):

“There is not a single line written by Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Hamilton, or Franklin that does not take for granted that when information is made available to citizens they are capable of managing it. This is not to say that the Founding Fathers believed information could not be false, misleading, or irrelevant. But they believed that the marketplace of information and ideas was sufficiently ordered so that citizens could make sense of what they read and heard and through reason, judge its usefulness to their lives."

“We need not hesitate to claim that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a monument to the ideological biases of print.”

Unfortunately, there are growing indications the marketplace of information and ideas is under attack by the MSM/DNC.  The latest gambit involves legislative efforts to resurrect the FCC's "Fairness" Doctrine so liberals can silence people with different views. 

Need proof?  There are several disturbing posts today: one written by Winfield Myers another by Mark Tapscott and finally one by Jeff Jarvis.  These posts warn of a gathering menace that threatens Freedom of Speech as we know it.

Jarvis reports:

Next month, there's a National Conference for Media Reform with all sorts of odd bedfellows: FCC censor-freaks Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, Al Franken, Seattle Times owner Frank Blethen, David Brock of Media Matter, folks from Fair and the Newspaper Guild and Consumers Union, and so on...

...They want to "increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector."

The keyword there: "policies." Policies come from government. Government media policies equal government media control.

Notice the embedded propaganda technique in the Conference for Media Reform's passage?  They want to:

• "increase informed public participation"
• "produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system"

Sounds good...however, who are these people and why are they suddenly interested "crucial media policy debates?" 

Mark Tapscott has another related post that shows there is nothing "odd" about these "bedfellows."  {Here is a hint:  they are former aides to prominent Democrats...and they are tired of losing elections}

So what is their strategy and who are they really targeting?

Winfield Myers writes (emphasis added):

Those efforts are geared toward preventing bloggers, in particular, from exercising their First Amendment rights. But bloggers aren't the only group of pests who are undermining the old MSM's ability to manipulate the news to their liking. Before blogging, there was talk radio, and it's now stronger than ever. That's why a new initiative is under way to bring back one of the most odious forms of censorship of political speech this country has ever employed: the Fairness Doctrine...

...From this, we're to assume that the failure of liberal talk radio is a direct result of the choice made by the majority of talk radio listeners to tune in to conservative shows. That's the real issue here, after all: Americans are choosing conservative talk radio, just as many of its consumers of political news and commentary are choosing the Net. So they're both a target of liberals in Congress, who can't defeat our arguments, and would just as soon take us down by any means necessary.

These liberals have no interest in letting you decide where you get your news. 

Mark Tapscott warns us to beware of the MSM/DNC (emphasis added):

They have numerous allies in the Mainstream Media, which is losing audience and influence as a result of new media like Talk Radio, Christian broadcasters and the Internet’s Blogosphere. Those of all points on the political and spiritual spectrum who love the First Amendment, the right of unfettered religious expression and an independent, free press had better take notice before its too late.

This is a wake-up call to America...if we fail to stop these attempts, despotism isn't far behind (see previous posts here, here, and here).

Air Force Voices salutes Winfield Myers, Mark Tapscott, and Jeff Jarvis for their vigilance on exposing these efforts.  It is good to have men like you who take defending the Constitution as seriously as I do.

Publication Ban Partially Lifted

CTV is reporting the Canadian publication has been lifted (HT: MikeyMike and Captain's Quarters).  Here is an excerpt:

"The publication ban on testimony at the Gomery inquiry has been partially lifted and damaging allegations made by ad executive Jean Brault can now be reported."

"'I'm of the opinion that almost all of Mr. Brault's testimony and the documentation filed as part of his evidence, have little to do with the accusations of fraud that he is facing. It is in the public interest that this evidence, with only a few exceptions, be made available to the public,' Justice John Gomery said."

"Thunderous reaction from the Opposition came minutes after Gomery lifted the ban."

"Conservative Deputy Leader Peter MacKay said in the House of Commons there's now evidence that Liberals are involved in a "criminal conspiracy" on a scale never before seen in Canada."

Here is another twist from The Sudden Sage.  It appears the testimony may never have been available if Judge Gomery had not opted for a temporary ban. 

I am no expert in Canadian Law...however, there is no "pleading the 5th Amendment" in Canada.  The Sudden Sage writes:

"What many bloggers, especially American ones (understandably), often miss here is that these witnesses in this case can't be compelled to testify regarding matters related to their charges as long as it can be argued under law that their constitutional right to a fair trial (s 7 Charter) may be in danger. With a ban in place, these witnesses have to testify as the ban dismisses this constitutional concern. Without a ban, they don't have to testify, and I suspect wouldn't unless the Supreme Court ordered them to. The Supreme Court, however, wouldn't order them to testify without a temporary ban enacted..."

"...In America, these guys would never have testified. They'd just plead the fifth. Here, we're getting the testimony, and can still move forward and try them in criminal court.

So here's the irony: In this case, the temporary ban is what got us the testimony."

Another irony (catch-22)...without a removal of the ban...Canadians would not have been able to learn of the story and eventually hold their government accountable (before a snap election).  If not for the quick actions of Captain Ed...who knows if the story would ever become front-page material.

In any case, Judge Gomery is "of the opinion that almost all of Mr. Brault's testimony and documentation filed have little to do with the accusations of fraud and conspiracy that he is facing'' so a partial removal of the ban makes sense.  Judge Gomery made the right call in both cases.

Canadian government officials can no longer hide behind the law and keep its citizens in the dark.  The Canadian public is now able to learn of the story.

Finally, this story has generated additional interest due to the specific actions of Captain Ed and the dynamics of the blogosphere in general.  To quote one of Captain Ed's readers ("mtaheny"):

"The real story here isn't the corruption...that happens all the time everywhere. It's the lightening speed with which it was uncovered and circulated. This will prove to be a profound instrument in the future."

Air Force Voices couldn't agree more!

Canadian Publication Ban

Will the majority of Canadians finally learn what their government was doing with their tax money?

Allison Dunfield of Globe and Mail reports the judge in the Canadian scandal (aka Adscam) has delayed his decision on whether to lift the publication ban (HT: Captain Quarters)

"Mr. Justice John Gomery decided late in the day Wednesday that he needed more time to consider whether to allow the testimony of Mr. Brault to be reported in the media after Mr. Brault completed his time on the stand.

Judge Gomery is to make a decision Thursday morning.

If he lifts the ban, it may start the ball rolling for opposition parties to pose a non-confidence motion in the Liberals and potentially bring the government down. Opposition parties believe that Mr. Brault's testimony is extremely damaging to the Liberal Party."

Captain Ed continues to follow the story.  He finishes his latest post with the following:

"If the ban gets lifted, expect the media to explode with information. Based on a few conversations I've had with some Canadian journalists, they cannot wait to tell you this story."

I agree...then momentum will really build and who knows what else will be revealed.  If not for Captain Ed and his ground breaking news...who can say if this scandal would ever have seen the light of day?

I am writing about it because my research on weblogs has to do with shaping public opinion.  Weblogs are powerful...Captain Ed is helping to prove my hypothesis. 

The fact they are indeed powerful instruments is probably why politicians and elite media want to regulate them. 

UPDATE: Captain Ed has an update:

"It does indeed appear that money spent on convincing the Quebecois not to secede from Canada went into the pockets of the very separatists it was meant to oppose."

Also, a decision on the publication ban is expected today.

Canadian Cover-up?

Need further evidence of blogs exposing corruption and their power to shape public opinion?

Go see Winds of Change and Captain's Quarters and learn of the explosive story (also known as ADSCAM) regarding corruption at the highest levels of Canadian government. 

The Canadian government doesn't want its citizens to know what is going on.  Blogs are keeping the story alive (in some cases at their own peril).  That is right, the Canadian government is seeking to prosecute bloggers for reporting the story and journalists for mentioning these websites.

I wonder what would happen if our government tried the same thing...oh yeah, that is what the BCRA is attempting to do. 

Both are a threat to democracy.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive update including the publication ban and its effect on bloggers here and in Canada. 

UPDATE II:  Captain Ed explains why the Canadian ban on publication of this issue is a farce.  He sums it up beautifully:

"In order for a citizenry to remain at liberty, they have to know what their government is doing, and the press needs to report it without fear of government reprisal. The notion that Brault's rights had to be protected over the rights of all Canadian citizens is not only ludicrous but a false choice at its heart."

I'll say this...part of my research on blogs led me to Neil Postman's book: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.  Though he was no fan of technology, Postman said something very interesting on page 66 and 67 in his book.

Postman wrote that America was the "first nation ever to be argued into existence in print."  He cites Paines’ Common Sense and The Rights of Man, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers which were all written and printed in a valiant effort to make the American experiment appear reasonable to the people.

“There is not a single line written by Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Hamilton, or Franklin that does not take for granted that when information is made available to citizens they are capable of managing it. This is not to say that the Founding Fathers believed information could not be false, misleading, or irrelevant. But they believed that the marketplace of information and ideas was sufficiently ordered so that citizens could make sense of what they read and heard and through reason, judge its usefulness to their lives."

“We need not hesitate to claim that the first Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a monument to the ideological biases of print.”

Postman was a student of a very famous Canadian named Marshall McLuhan (a famous professor at the University of Toronto).

Captain Ed...you are a true patriot at heart...keep up the great work!

Trickle-Down Despotism

Mark Tapscott introduces a new term called "Trickle-Down Despotism" in his latest post (HT: Democracy Project). 

"Boy, the Speech Police aren't wasting any time in spreading McCain-Feingold's campaign finance reform regulatory nonsense. Not only has it spread to the state level, now we see it on the local level. Wouldn't you know the first local government to propose regulating political speech on the Internet would be San Francisco?"

I agree.  If limits on free speech continue to go unchecked...despotism isn't far behind. 

K. Daniel Glover has an article in the National Journal this morning that details the fight to keep internet speech free from restrictions (HT: Democracy Project).

Finally, Mike Krempasky of RedState reflects on his appearance at a Congressional panel on McCain-Feingold in Cyberspace.  Read through the comments as well.

Krempasky also recommends a book titled: Monopoly Politics by James C. Miller III.  The book describes a political system that overwhelmingly stacks the rules in favor of congressional incumbents that challengers have little or no hope of defeating them at the ballot box.  I'll have to read the book.