Exclusive Update! Joseph Farah has Lost His Mind!

© 2003 Shrubbloggers.com

Joseph Farah is still dishing it out.

In Hollywood blacklist redux, Mr. Farah lists a virtual cornucopia of traitorous entertainers we should all feel morally obligated to boycott. Included in the list are:

Jessica "I despise him [G.W. Bush]" Lange

Sean "[Bush] seems to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world" Penn

John "The war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration" Cusak

Mike "Our leaders in Washington are out of step with millions of Americans. Inspections work. War won't" Farrell

Dustin "I believe the administration has taken the events of 9-11 and has manipulated the grief of the country" Hoffman

Richard "Bush's plans for war are a bizarre bad dream" Gere

Spike "the German and French governments should be commended" Lee

Among others.

Dissent is the cornerstone of our Republic right? The marketplace of ideas reigns supreme in a well educated, free society right? Honest men can disagree honestly right? Ho ho, not if you dare speak ill of either President Bush, his foreign policy or the war effort. Especially if you are an entertainer. Why, if some entertainer did that, they would be evil. Or so according to Mr. Farah.

If we support these leeches, we contribute to the surrender of our culture to an anti-American value system.

We have to fight back. That means confrontation.

Each individual action may seem too insignificant to trifle with, yet, as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

A quote that is most often used at the end of movies dealing with the Holocaust or genocide is now being uttered to smear entertainers (or anyone else for that matter) who do not fall in line with Mr. Farah's ideology. Nice. A nice little phrase that, up until this point, has been used sparingly by educated historians to worn and teach society that good men can indeed conquer evil, has now been put into play by liberty hating war mongers.

But oh, that's not all! Deviating completely from the these entertainers and what they say on their own time, Mr. Farah suggests what the movie industry needs is some good old fashioned purification...by the church.

There was a time, not long ago, in this country when the church played a powerful role in influencing the entertainment industry. From 1933 until the late 1960s, every major Hollywood studio submitted its scripts for approval to the Protestant Film Office and the Roman Catholic Church's Legion of Decency. When the churches abandoned Hollywood (not the other way around, by the way), the negative result was both predictable and dramatic.

Ok, ok. If you don't want to go to the movies, for the love of G-d, don't go. If you don't want your kids to go, don't let them. But, Mr. Farah, and I don't know how to say this so I'll quote my favorite character in literature, as the inexorable John Galt would say:

Mr. Farah, "get the hell out of my way".

Justin M. Stoddard's quasi syndicated column originates at shrubbloggers.com, where he serves as a self described guardian of liberty.

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has posted an article entitled More Shame on WorldNetDaily in response to the current hubbub between libertarians and WorldNet Daily:

Moreover, at the time that WND published Mercer’s false, baseless, and insidious insinuation regarding Sheldon, both she and the executives at WND knew full well that there have been people whose professional careers and lives have been ruined because of their association with Holocaust revisionism. Out of all the national and international persons and organizations that supposedly share Sheldon’s position on the land issue in Israel, what would motivate Mercer and WND to pick the one that would be most likely to damage him - along with the organizations and publications with which he is associated - the most? Only Mercer and WND can answer that question.

This is a must read.

Exclusive! Joseph Farah is a Useful Idiot!

© 2003 Shrubbloggers.com

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily is at it again.

The last time I read an "exclusive" commentary by Farah, he was singing the praises of convicted murderer Clara Harris:

When David Harris emerged from the hotel and tried to get in Bridges' truck, Clara Harris hit the gas on her Mercedes and ran over Harris, shearing the passenger door right off the home wrecker's Navigator. She ran over him a few more times to make sure he was dead.

Then, she apologized to the creep and told him how much she loved him.

Clara Harris is on trial for murder in Houston.

I say: Free Clara Harris. We need more women like her. Live like her.

He then goes on to say:

There is no accountability any more for the kind of wanton irresponsibility David "The Creep" Harris showed toward his wife and his children. There's no penalty any more for adultery, for abandonment of one's spouse and children. The state doesn't get involved except to divide up the property and sort out custody issues. No one is punished.

Do you understand the line of reasoning here? If the state won't step in and kill these adulterers, any random cuckold or jilted wife should feel free to met out the ultimate punishment. Yup, bury that cheating spouse up to their neck and stone em' to a bloody pulp. Or, just run over them a few times, whichever is more convenient.

Joseph Farah enlightens us further with this proclamation:

If I were on that jury, I would find Clara Harris not guilty. After she was sprung, I'd give her a medal. She did the world a favor. She may have acted emotionally. She may be sorry for what she has done. But, frankly, she did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got.

After digesting this amazingly muddleheaded "exclusive", I came to the quick conclusion that Joseph Farah is criminally insane.

I have done a good job of avoiding his column, until today. Wondering if Mr. Farah had weighed in on the current libertarian - WND controversy, I clicked on his "Between the Lines" graphic this morning only to be greeted by this headline:

Bring Back the Hollywood blacklist

Quoting an interview given by Johnny Depp this past weekend, where he expressed the United States is a "dumb puppy that has big teeth", Farah exclaims:

I say we should make certain this scumbucket never works in America again.

That's right. I mean it's time to bring back the Hollywood blacklist.

More on Mr. Farah's comments later. According to Reuters, Depp's complete comments are as follows:

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive."

"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out."

"I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the U.S. government showing themselves as idiots."

Now, I have to tell you, compared to the regular irrationality spewing forth from Hollywood, this actually seems like a well reasoned analogy.

America, duped into accepting an immoral and illegal preemptive war doctrine, supported by overzealous hyper-patriotism, has projected its military might to every corner of the globe. Thanks to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the sun does not set on the American Empire.

As for the Freedom Fries comment. Well, like the comedian said, Congress would have a public Bald Eagle Fu#@%ing contest if they thought it would impress you.

Ok, back to Joseph Farah's proposed blacklist:

Depp may be the latest offender, but he's such a lightweight on the intellectual scale that he hardly deserves to be first.

The charge of being an intellectual lightweight is striking. Remember, this is coming from a man who not only believes in, but advocates murdering your spouse if he/she is cheating on you.

Harrison Ford also makes the list for this rather tame statement:

I am very disturbed about the direction American foreign policy is going. Something need to be done to help alleviate the conditions which have created a disenfranchised and angry faction in the Middle East. i don't think that military intervention is the correct solution. I regret what we as a country have done so far."

WOW! Pretty subversive stuff that! Better call the FBI, we have a real terrorist sympathizer in our midst.

Of course, other celebrities adorn the list as well. Martin Sheen, Mike Farrell, Sheryl Crow, The Dixie Chicks (GO DIXIE CHICKS!), Richard Geere, Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, George Looney (Hardy Har Har), and Tim Robbins, among others.

Mr. Farah states:

It's time to silence these people. It's time to force them to get real jobs and perform real work and learn the unusual and undeserved blessings America has bestowed upon them.

This execrable statement is so full of crap, it's mind blowing. Even though Mr. Farah wants to force these entertainers to get "real jobs", he never offers any suggestions. Is a "real job" writing for the now Neo-Conservative rag World Net Daily? And, what of the entertainers whose views actually agree with Joseph Farah? Are their jobs "real"? Or, is the definition of "real work" dependent upon your political philosophy? Did Ronald Reagan have a "real job" when he was an actor? How about John Wayne? Or Toby Keith?

Furthermore, what are these unusual or undeserved blessings Mr. Farah speaks of? Blessings of wealth? Fame? If so, is it really intellectually honest to claim they are in fact "unusual" or "undeserved"? As far as I know, (and my good friend Eric can correct me if I'm wrong, as he is a genius when it comes to the free market) the free market makes no such distinction.

These entertainers are wealthy and famous because millions of individuals make the conscious and heroic choice to trade their money for the product these entertainers offer.

Again, I'll ask, are these blessings "unusual" or "undeserved" for entertainers like Toby Keith or Ronald Reagan?

Mr. Farah then reverts to the most pervasive and intellectually lazy argument coming out of the far right these days:

And, as America finds itself beleaguered in the world against - literally surrounded by - enemies who seek to destroy it, we cannot allow traitors privileged status in the entertainment industry.

I'm sorry Mr. Farah, you receive an F. Besides the obvious hyperbole, this tripe reads like a cheap, dime store detective novel. My four year old daughter puts more thought into writing her name than went into this comedic effort.

Scare mongering aside, it is time Mr. Farah and his ilk learn that words have meaning. Think about it. Mr. Farah is suggesting that statements like:

"America is a dumb puppy" - Johnny Depp

I am very disturbed about the direction American foreign policy is taking." - Harrison Ford

And:

"Just so you know, we're ashamed President Bush is from Texas." - The Dixie Chicks (to a live audience during a show in England

should be equated to the actions of real traitors like Aldrich Ames, Alger Hiss or The Rosenbergs.

Mr. Farah offers no distinction. Speak publicly against American foreign policy and you are a traitor, case closed.

Boycott these entertainers if you must but, please, tone down the irresponsible rhetoric.

Mr. Farah concedes, graciously:

I don't think people should go to jail for their anti-American views. I just think they should never work in the entertainment industry again. If they like it better somewhere else, let them make films and television shows and records in that country.

And finally concludes with:

So, this time, America, the blacklisting is up to you. Make your list, and stop supporting movies, TV shows, TV sponsors, record companies, etc. which hire these louts.

Personally, I'm starting with "Pirates of the Caribbean."

Personally, I'm happy to hear that my chances of bumping into Joseph Farah at the movie theatre has decreased that much more. Now, I'm off to see the excellent "Pirates of the Caribbean" (8 1/2 out of 10 stars) for a second time.

Justin M. Stoddard's quasi syndicated column originates at shrubbloggers.com, where he serves as a self described guardian of liberty.

I would be remiss if I didn't give my own Shout Out (in response to Eric's Shout Outs)

First, let me give a huge shout out to Karen De Coster. Karen is a regular contributor to lewrockwell.com, the premier Paleo-Libertarian site on the Web. (Though I am not in total agreement with the philosophy of Paleo-Libertarianism, I visit the site daily. If we can live in a society where all Libertarians have to disagree about are issues amongst themselves, it would be a very nice society indeed).

Anyway, Karen was kind enough to post an entry on her blog about us. Thanks Karen! I would encourage anyone who reads this blog to head on over there and give it a gander. I visit at least once a day and am never disappointed.

Let me give another shout out to all my friends out there. Dorian, Greg, Brian and Sean...thanks for stopping by and contributing. It makes the experience all the more enjoyable.

And, of course, a big St. Louis shout out to Eric. Since I moved away from the D.C. area we haven't seen each other in person. However, he always has time to answer my emails and chat on the phone from time to time. See you at Thanksgiving Eric!

There is currently an all out war brewing with Libertarians and Paleo-Libertarians on one side and Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives on the other.

The first salvo was fired on August 18th when Ilana Mercer of World Net Daily wrote an article entitled Libertarians Who Loath Israel. Towards the end of her column, Ilana writes the following:

I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all "the land" belongs to the Arabs. No doubt, American libertarians speak with the authority that comes from having the finest fathers a nation could wish for.

Understandably, Sheldon Richman (of the Future of Freedom Foundation) took offense to the smear as the Institute for Historical Review has nothing to do with Libertarianism. World Net Daily was gracious enough to offer space on their pages for a rebuttal. Mr. Richman had this to say:

Ilana Mercer inserts, strangely, "I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all 'the land' belongs to the Arabs." After making this hit-and-run charge, she blithely moves on to other matters. As readers might suspect, there are serious problems with this sentence.

By writing "I understand ..." Mercer was declaring that she had not confirmed what she was about to say. In the first version of her article, no citation or link to anything I wrote or said was provided. This self-proclaimed advocate of reason expected readers to take her on faith. (A real champion of reason would know that readers care more for hard facts than a writer's vague "understandings.")

To which Ilana Mercer responds in an article entitled Foaming at the Mouth Over Israel

Meanwhile, one particular paragraph in "Libertarians Who Loathe Israel" caused another libertarian scribe, Sheldon Richman, considerable apoplexy, eliciting some strange interpretations. I wrote:

I understand that libertarians like Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review) believe, mistakenly, that all "the land" belongs to the Arabs.

To begin with, and for some unreason, Richman decided that the phrase "I understand" was an expression of uncertainty on my part: "By writing 'I understand,' Mercer was declaring that she had not confirmed what she was about to say," he writes in a bizarre retort published by WorldNetDaily. I was, he asserts, unsure about his position on Israel in "Cant and the Middle East" and was hazarding a guess.

Now, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation and a recent candidate for a Senate seat from the state of Virginia, jumps into the fray with an article entitled Shame on World Net Daily:

Ask yourself: In comparing positions on who has title to land in Israel, why didn't Mercer simply select libertarian organizations that have taken the same position as Sheldon? After all, wasn't the title of her article Libertarians Who Loathe Israel? Or why not simply compare Sheldon’s land position to, say, that of Arab organizations?

Why, indeed? There is one and only one answer: Mercer doesn't like Sheldon’s position on the land issue and decided to use the comparison with the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review as a way to smear him for his position on the land issue.

This raises the role of the conservative WorldNetDaily in this entire sordid affair.

Now things start to get personal as Robert James Bidinotto enters the picture. I don't know much about Mr. Bidinotto but from what I can glean from his webpage, he appears to be an Objectivist. Mr. Bidinotto has this to say:

Ilana (she's a friend, so I'll call her that) has a perfectly good point. There's a curious moral asymmetry among some self-styled lovers of Liberty and Justice, who rage against Israel for targeting the likes of Hamas terrorists in self-defense, yet who simultaneously exude boundless sympathy toward those who encourage their kids to strap on explosives and blow themselves up, along with scores of innocent noncombatants in buses, restaurants, and nightclubs. For most Americans, this is an easy moral call; but then again, most Americans aren't libertarian anarchists.

And this:

I would have stayed out of this particular little spat except for two things.

First, I don't much like it when men gang up on a lady--especially a lady whom I know to be honorable.

Second, it so happens that I've had a bit of first-hand experience with Mr. Hornberger concerning the matters that he says so concern him: false and despicable insinuations, smears, and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth.

Finally, Mr. Bidinotto lays into Jacob Hornberger for what appears to be a past slight in one of Hornberger's Articles. He finishes his defense of Ilana Mercer with this parting shot:

If Mr. Richman needs a defender concerned with the truth, it should be someone other than Bumper Hornberger.

Now Wendy McElroy, a gifted writer and founder of the Libertarian ifeminist.com steps into the fight with a very well reasoned and accurate synopsis of the whole affair.

I have no axe to grind. I am on cordial terms with Mercer and I do not know Bidinotto. The Middle East is not a "flash point" issue with me, although I once addressed the subject at length in an audio-documentary (more on this later). Sheldon Richman (hereafter Sheldon) is a good friend but I would not hesitate to disagree with him on issues or theory because I know he views honest disagreements as interesting rather than offensive.

I write because it is unconscionable that Sheldon's name has been linked to Holocaust denial and that his views are distorted to make it appear that he condoned the terrorist murder of innocents.

And

I do not know why Bidinotto decided to "up the ante," so to speak, on Mercer's attack and inquiring after motives is usually fruitless. Instead I will simply state that he also owes Sheldon an apology -- one that is as public as the offense.

The broad movement of libertarianism/Objectivism is very quick to malign. Perhaps that is human nature. But let's also be quick to correct any misstatements that threaten to harm the lives of fine and decent human beings.

No answer yet from Ilana Mercer or Mr. Bidinotto. However, World Net Daily has published two more articles about the issue. The latest from Ilana Mercer titled The Nature of the Jewish State begins like this:

Just when you thought the extremist anti-Israel campaigning could not get any worse, from the palsied haters come more charges: Zionism is intellectually consistent with Jim Crow racism. And Israel practices institutional racism – indeed, is an apartheid state, as one libertarian (who else?)

Also, Tom Abrose published a particularly vile column in World Net Daily entitled Big, Bad Israel?. Here is the opening paragraph to this screed:

There has been a recent rise in revisionist rants and sycophantic screeds promoting the pro-Palestinian pap normally associated with the lunatic left, Holocaust deniers (who claim to have no position on Israel but who promote literature which indicates otherwise) and radical Islamists. However, it is not these usual suspects who are responsible for this rise in rubbish, but rather a fringe faction of prominent libertarian pundits who, in thinking themselves wise, have proven themselves to be intellectual Pygmies.

Looking back at the entire argument, I see the Libertarian side acting in an honorable manner, always relying on their arguments instead of vile name calling. Contrast that with any given article either written by or in defense of World Net Daily.

Intellectual Pygmies? Tsk, tsk...

Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage.

These are the seven values each individual soldier in the United States Army are supposed to embrace.

In fact, the Army feels so strongly about these values, it issues each soldier not one, but two "Values cards" to be carried with him/her at all times, one in your wallet, one on your dog tags. Never mind that the whole concept of a "Values card" is completely asinine. One could imagine a soldier, caught in some ethical discord, pulling out his card to remind him how to act.

"Oh yeah, integrity! Thank goodness I have this handy dandy card with me, otherwise I would be adrift with no moral compass to guide me"

Most soldiers I know recognize this tripe for what it is, a bullet on some anonymous Colonel's (soon to be General) Officer Evaluation Report.

The entire concept of these cards is insulting to the point of resigned laughter and is further indication of how (or what) our leadership really thought of us.

Never-the-less, no matter how misguided the concept of "values cards" may be, the underlying principle is sound. The aforementioned values are a necessity in all combat units and any commander would be proud of an organization that lived by them.

Unfortunately, the Army, and individual soldiers don't always live by these rules. Take the Jessica Lynch story for example.

Jessica Lynch's story is an amazing tale of heroism and fortitude. While riding in a convoy on 23 March, 2003, Lynch and her fellow soldiers came under attack when her convoy made a wrong turn near the town of An Nasiriyah.

Sensing imminent danger and recognizing a nearly hopeless situation, PFC Lynch grabbed her M-16 and emptied numerous 30 round magazines into the advancing horde. When her ammunition ran out, PFC Lynch reverted to hand-to-hand combat, eventually succumbing to a bullet wound and a close combat knife injury, not to mention a broken leg.

Later, while in captivity, PFC Lynch was beaten on a daily basis. Her torture was so brutal, another limb was broken because the resolute PFC from West Virginia refused to cooperate with her captors.

Days later, an elite group of Special Forces and Navy Seals risked their lives rescuing PFC Lynch from the medieval torture chamber. Jessica was saved and a full account of her traumatic events would both horrify and solidify a reeling nation. PFC Lynch was a first class hero, an inspiration to all fighting men an women and the public back home who supported them.

A wonderful story to be sure, if a word of it were true.

Even though the Army made absolutely no effort to correct the stories being told about PFC Lynch's actions during the battle of An Nasiriyah, dedicated sources and reporters behind the scenes were beginning to paint an altogether different picture.

It was soon discovered that it was highly unlikely PFC Lynch was ever tortured while in captivity. In fact, the Iraqis tried to return her to friendly forces a couple of days before the highly publicized rescue only to be rebuffed when their ambulance was fired upon by soldiers at an American checkpoint.

Iraqi doctors who looked after PFC Lynch insisted she received the best medical attention possible under the circumstances. It was even reported that one Iraqi nurse brought in her children to help comfort PFC Lynch and sang lullabies to her as she drifted to sleep each night. In fact, at least one American doctor has gone on record saying that had it not been for the immediate medical attention received while in captivity, PFC Lynch would probably not be with us today.

As for the adrenalin packed rescue operation, numerous witnesses claim the Iraqi Paramilitary forces stationed in and around the hospital pulled out of the area several days before. Iraqi doctors and patients were bemused and a tad confused by the American's actions that night. While Rangers created a diversion in the distance, Special Operations soldiers swooped down upon the hospital, kicking in doors and creating havoc. At least one Iraqi doctor offered the soldiers the keys to the hospital, which were refused.

Once inside the hospital, the American forces restrained the doctors, nurses and several patients, one paralyzed, with quick ties. One nurse was taken to a detention center and kept there for three days. PFC Lynch was whisked away in an awaiting helicopter and shortly thereafter, all soldiers departed the scene.

Shortly after the rescue, a horrific picture began to emerge about PFC Lynch's captivity. Fortunately, very little of it was grounded in reality. Unfortunately, neither the Army or the Department of Defense attempted to correct any of the false hoods being circulated.

Immediately after the rescue, PFC Lynch was recommended for the Silver Star, the United States Army's third highest award for gallantry in action against the enemy. To put a Silver Star in context, here is what a common citation looked like during the Vietnam War:

At approximately 1400 hours, Company A, was moving along the side of Fire Support Base Airborne when the lead platoon's movement was checked by a heavy barrage of automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenade, and small arms fire. Specialist Fry was at the very front position, moving toward the well-placed enemy fortifications. With complete disregard for his own safety, he laid down a heavy volume of fire with his M-16 rifle, providing cover for the other members of his platoon. At this time, a rocket propelled grenade exploded near his position, seriously wounding him. Refusing medical aid, Specialist Fry continued retaliatory fire until another rocket propelled grenade exploded near his position, mortally wounding him. His courageous action contributed highly to the success of the mission and to the defeat of the enemy force. Specialist Fry's personal bravery and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Now, according to the U.S. Army Official Report in the 507th maintenance Co.: An Nasiriya, Iraq (page 14), this is the extent of PFC Lynch's contribution to the fight:

There were five soldiers in 1SG Dowdy's vehicle: 1SG Dowdy, his driver PFC Piestewa, and three Soldiers in the back-PFC Lynch, SGT Buggs and PFC Anguiano. 1SG Dowdy was killed on impact. Peistewa survived the crash, but was seriously injured and died in captivity. Lynch was also seriously injured and captured. The circumstances of Bugg's and Anguiano's deaths remain under investigation.

So, basically, PFC Lynch was the victim of unfortunate circumstances. After her vehicle was fired upon, it accelerated at a high rate of speed only to collide with the vehicle in front of them. PFC Lynch was knocked unconscious and was not revived until she was in captivity.

Contrary to popular belief, her weapon was never fired. In fact, nearly half the weapons used that day jammed due to poor maintenance.

Quite a different story than the one being circulated after her rescue. Unfortunately, many still believe the false account of events.

To be fair, PFC Lynch did not receive the Silver Star. I guess some General or Sergeant Major just couldn't let that one go. So, in the interest of fairness, PFC Lynch was instead awarded the less prestigious Bronze Star. Though lesser in stature, the Bronze Star still demands a very high criteria to be awarded:

a. The Bronze Star Medal was established by Executive Order 9419, 4 February 1944 (superseded by Executive Order 11046, 24 August 1962).

b. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

c. Awards may be made for acts of heroism, performed under circumstances described above, which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star.

PFC Lynch's Citation reads:

For exemplary courage under fire during combat operations to liberate Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Private First Class Lynch's bravery and heart persevered while surviving in the ambush and captivity in An Nasiriya. Private First Class Lynch's belief in the Battalion's motto "One Team, One Fight" is in keeping with the finest traditions of military service. her honor, courage and dedication reflect great credit upon herself, 507th Maintenance Company, 3rd Infantry division, Victory Corps and The United States Army

When Retired Colonel David Hackworth, America's most decorated living soldier, called the Pentagon to ask why "the citation included the word 'bravery' when according to the Army's After Action Report, Jessica was injured in a collision, which rendered her unconscious until she awoke in an Iraqi hospital as a POW?" his answer was "It was for bravery in the hospital".

It was announced today that Jessica Lynch signed a one Million dollar book deal to tell her side of the story. Don't expect any startling revelations however. According to Lynch's doctor and family, Jessica is suffering from amnesia and may never be able to account for what occurred during both the attack and her resulting captivity.

So, what, exactly, will she write about?

"Many folks have written, expressing their support for me and the for the thousands of other soldiers who serve their country", Jessica said in a statement issued by her publisher, "I feel I owe them all this story, which will be about more than a girl going off to war and fighting alongside her fellow soldiers. It will be a story about growing up in America".

Meanwhile, thousands of injured soldiers, including amputees, soldiers with severe burn trauma, lost eyesight, etc, are piling up in the D.C. area under the care of the Walter Reed Medical system. Although most of their wounds were received during actual combat operations, no book deals or hero's welcome will be coming their way anytime soon.

In fact, the true number of injured American servicemen and women is actually classified. Nearly all of these soldiers will soon be facing a medical discharge with only a faltering, overtaxed Veterans Administration and ever decreasing benefits available to take care of them.

I submit that if Jessica Lynch is truly concerned about the fellow soldiers she "fought alongside" of, she should immediately donate every penny received from her book deal to their cause. God knows they are going to need it.

Furthermore, if the much tauted Army Values are to mean anything, the United States Army will have to give a full account of the Jessica Lynch episode.

Jessica Lynch, herself, should stand up and state that in no uncertain terms, the accolades and the medal (Bronze Star) awarded her are totally undeserved.

Some people have told me that Jessica Lynch bears no responsibility for these events, that I am being rather unfair towards her. I cannot disagree more. Jessica Lynch was a Soldier. Yet, even though she was trained and indoctrinated with the core Army Values, she allowed a lie to be perpetrated. And now, she is one Million dollars richer because of that lie

I guess Fairy Tales can come true.

I'd like to point everyone's attention to Harper's Magazine's cover story for the month of September.

"Against School" is John Taylor Gatto's damning indictment of the public education system. Although most everyone is familiar with the outcome of public education, the origins of compulsory schooling is much more esoteric.

Born of Prussian ideology and early industrialization, public schooling was the perfect antithesis to democratic thought. Through a system of reflexive learning, forced conformity, standardized testing and artificial socialization, it is no wonder why children's critical thinking abilities are constantly immolated.

This is just one reason why we have chosen to homeschool our two daughters. I simply cannot, in good conscience, hand my children over to the state for 12 of their most impressionable years. I am convinced that what they can learn from us, and our support group, will far outweigh the drivel they would consume in our local "education" factories.

I am not shy when talking about my intentions. I am lucky enough to live in a state with some of the most liberal home school laws on the books. But even here, I am confronted with a myriad of reactions when I inform people, usually as a result of their inquiry, that my wife and I will be homeschooling our children.

The responses run from "Wow! I could never do that!" to "You can't do that!" to "Good for you!".

Fist, "Wow! I could never do that!". Sure you could! More and more people are homeschooling today. In fact, it is estimated that nearly 4 million children now receive their education at home. This is astounding as not more than 15 years ago, homeschoolers were being carted away by the authorities for breaking any number of state sponsored laws. With more and more parents getting intimately involved in their child's education, states are losing ground in any number of legal battles. Overzealous prosecutors, and state politicians are getting the message that children are not, in fact, a commodity of the state. Children's education and knowledge are by rights their own intellectual property. So, now is the best time to homeschool. Sure, sacrifice is needed on the part of parents. However, with the rise of homeschool associations and legal defense funds founded primarily to defend the idea of homeschooling, the practice is becoming easier as it becomes more widespread.

Next, "You can't do that!". This statement is most often delivered in a matter-of-fact tone, sometimes with a smirk, sometimes with a faint snarl. The reasons are legion. It creates a disadvantage for children who are schooled publicly. Your child will suffer from a lack of socialization (whatever the hell that means). You cannot possibly be smart enough to educate a child for 12 years. You lack any accreditation. Ad infinitum it goes.

First, I really don't care about children in public education. They have parents to worry about them. I worry about my own children thank you very much. As for the tired old "socialization" argument. I love and respect my children so much that even though I am willing to sacrifice countess hours of my time, and a second income to ensure a solid education, in doing so, they will never leave the house, never interact with another child...blah blah blah... Our girls attend ballet lessons, they have play groups, they will be starting music lessons soon. You see, instead of being a target for any random psychopath our public schools, they socialize with other children with like interests, and they have fun doing it. Remember fun?

I am not a teacher. I hold not one teaching accreditation. There are subjects I am weak in. I recognize that and strive to improve myself daily. Homeschooling is a learning process for both parent and child. If I am uncomfortable teaching a subject (like mathematics for example), I will find a tutor or a homeschooling group to teach this subject for me. A great deal of work, to be sure. However, nobody ever said having children would be easy.

And that is the crux of the problem as I see it. Too many people have children without realizing the consequences involved. Why worry about their education? After all, the state takes care of that. Well, not in this house buster. My children will grow to become good citizens instead of just good consumers.