Octaviano Juarez-Corro

Octaviano Juarez-Corro
This is really bad PR for the illegal immigration movement.


According to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The search has gone national for a man suspected of shooting five people -- killing two of them -- in South Shore Park on Memorial Day, Milwaukee police said.

Octaviano Juarez-Corro, 33, is suspected of killing a man, 31, and boy, 17, and injuring three others -- all people police say he knew. Juarez-Corro was in the U.S. illegally and has ties to Mexico, prompting Milwaukee detectives to notify border officers to watch for him. A temporary warrant has been issued and sent out to all law enforcement in the U.S.

I guess not all illegal immigrants come to this country to work hard and be productive citizens.


I think that sign held by that protester should read, "Some of us are not criminals," rather than "We are not criminals."

Like all illegals, Juarez-Corro has no respect for the immigration laws of the United States.

Juarez-Corro also showed that he has no respect for life.

His "path to citizenship" will lead to prison.

Making Haditha My Lai

The Washington Post's editorial, "What Happened in Haditha," is another example of a trial by media and an agenda-driven construction of a reality.

Witness the delight that the Left takes in the Haditha story.

PRESIDENT BUSH said last week that "the biggest mistake" the United States had made in Iraq was the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, adding, "We've been paying for that for a long period of time." Now another case of American misconduct may add greatly to that cost. The day after Mr. Bush spoke, The Post and other newspapers reported that some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged with murder, among other offenses, for the slaying of up to 24 Iraqis, including women and small children, in the town of Haditha in November. Other Marines may be culpable in trying to cover up the crime.

Accounts provided to The Post and other news organizations -- including Time magazine, which first reported on the incident in March -- describe a horrific and shameful episode. After a roadside bomb exploded near a Marine convoy, killing a corporal, a number of members of a Marine company allegedly went on a rampage, entering houses and methodically gunning down the families they found inside.

The "allegedly" gets lost in the shuffle.

If Marines killed innocents "in cold blood," as John Murtha loves to put it, they must be tried and held accountable for the atrocities they committed.

Gunning down families is horrific. No justification can be made for it, just as no justification can be made for the 9/11 attacks or other acts of terrorism.

It is worth noting that the individuals condemning the Marines are likely the same ones who called for Americans to understand why we're so hated by the Arab World and others. What is it that we did to bring the 9/11 attacks on ourselves?

Look at the flip side.

Has anyone told the Iraqis to make an effort to understand the allegedly guilty Marines, like Americans were told after 9/11 to examine why we deserved to be attacked? What is it that those Iraqi men, women, and children did to bring the killings on themselves? Why do the Marines hate them so much?

That's pretty twisted, isn't it?

I wouldn't expect that from the Iraqis. There's nothing to understand. There's no excuse for intentionally slaughtering innocents, ever. Accordingly, there was no excuse for murdering 3000 men, women, and children on September 11, 2001. There's nothing to understand about the events of that horrible day other than that the perpetrators were killers.

...Though we don't yet know the details of the Marine investigation, there is no way to mitigate or excuse such despicable acts if they occurred, and hardly any way to alleviate the tremendous damage that will be done to U.S. honor in Iraq and around the world. The only remediation can come through a thorough investigation, the full disclosure of all misconduct and accountability for all those responsible. In that respect, the Marines began poorly: Serious investigation of the events in Haditha began only after Time shared its findings with the Pentagon. Reports that some senior officers may have been following the events in Haditha or were aware that an unusual number of civilians had been killed raise troubling questions about whether crimes were deliberately overlooked.

"WE DON'T YET KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE MARINE INVESTIGATION."

That's important to keep in mind. There must be full disclosure and punishment for any wrongdoing by all parties involved.

That said, it's wrong for opportunists to make political hay out of Haditha and exploit the matter to advance an agenda. That endangers our troops, and undermines their mission.

The alleged crimes of a few cannot be allowed to taint those serving with bravery and honor.

Let the investigation play out. The details will be revealed when it's completed.

If the allegations are true, that some Marines killed indiscriminately and others covered up for them, then that is a reflection on those individuals only -- not the Marines, not the mission, not the United States.

I have a real problem with so many shameless politicians and the Old Media taking pleasure in the possibility that Marines murdered Iraqi civilians, and their implications that such behavior is the norm.

They don't hesitate to disparage our troops, in order to move their anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war agenda forward.

______________________________

Do you want propaganda or do you want to know the truth?

If you've already determined the guilt of the Marines, you'll enjoy this account from Aljazeera.

John Murtha is depicted as a hero, and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is praised for its efforts to oppose the "U.S. 'government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.'"

The Aljazeera report includes this press release from UFPJ, "Haditha Massacre is Iraq's My Lai."

19 May 2006, New York, New York--Appearing on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) confirmed that, in an incident occurring in Haditha, Iraq, last November, Marines killed 23 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, "in cold blood" as revenge for the death of a Marine from an IED. Asked by Matthews, whether by "in cold blood" he meant that the killings were like those in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, Murtha said they were. Military sources consulted by other media outlets have confirmed those claims.

At a press conference on Thursday, May 18, Congressperson John Murtha (D-OH) said, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

"The massacre of up to 500 Vietnamese civilians in the village of My Lai was the tip of an iceberg of atrocities," said Rahul Mahajan, a United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) spokesperson. "The same is true of the Haditha massacre. Although it is the largest documented example of the deliberate mass murder of civilians (there are smaller ones), it joins a series of actions that, while short of this degree of cold-blooded brutality, involve neglect and indifference so pervasive and deep that it amounts to depraved indifference to Iraqi life."

Reports of the massacre include shooting people and leaving them to bleed to death on house raids, checkpoint killings, and indiscriminate return fire in crowded civilian neighborhoods.

Larger-scale offensives like the two assaults on Fallujah in 2004 and, to a lesser extent, operations in Tall Afar and other northern cities last summer and fall also caused massive civilian fatalities. In the April 2004 assault on Fallujah, the lesser of the two, it is estimated that 1000 people were killed, at least 600 of whom were civilians.

The Marines involved in the massacre originally tried to cover it up, claiming that the unarmed men they killed were insurgents and that the women and children killed were "collateral damage." Those claims were only challenged because they were contradicted by video evidence (of the corpses in the morgue). This raises serious questions about how often incidents like this occur and are successfully covered up.

According to British officers serving in Iraq, most recently Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster in an article in Military Review, U.S. troops show a widespread pattern of institutionalized racism toward Iraqis. This is part of the explanation of the atrocity. On top of that, the Iraq occupation, like the Vietnam War, repeatedly leads to "atrocity-producing situations," where crimes like the Haditha or My Lai massacres become almost inevitable. Marines who are guilty of murder should be severely punished, but the policy-makers should not be let off the hook. As long as the occupation continues, crimes like the Haditha massacre will as well.

UFPJ claims that our troops "show a widespread pattern of institutionalized racism toward Iraqis."

This is not a condemnation of ALLEGED atrocities committed by a few. This is an assault on all of our troops.

That's wrong.

That's aiding and abetting the enemy.

Let's Talk about Solutions

What's a mayor to do when there are 28 shootings in his city over the Memorial Day weekend and the national media picks up on it?

He goes to the local media to get the word out that it's not his fault.

Mayor Tom Barrett was interviewed live by Mike Gousha on TMJ4's 10 p.m. newscast to talk solutions. Actually, it was more about political damage control.

The mayor's comments were light on solutions and heavy on excuses.

His message: "I need help from the community."

In other words, Barrett won't let the buck stop with him.

It goes without saying that stopping violence requires the cooperation of the community. Of course, Barrett can't single-handedly solve the city's problems.

All citizens need to take responsibility for their actions, but Barrett's plea for help seems more like the cry of a drowning man than the rallying cry of a leader.


He definitely went on defense, defending his record, claiming to have worked to curb gun violence and crime prior to the deadly weekend.

Barrett said he would be putting more into overtime for officers on Friday and Saturday nights, and he called for more sheriff patrols in the parks particularly on holiday weekends.

He cited the heat as a factor in the city's problems. (I guess there's reason to thank God that summer in Wisconsin is as short as it is.)

Barrett noted how much he has been doing to keep violence under control in the city.

For example, there's his meeting tomorrow on the Safe Summer Initiative, an effort directed at kids.

He also said, "I've contacted ministers prior to this incident this weekend to get them involved.

"Today I had a conversation with a local gun dealer to see what he can do to be helpful to make sure that these guns don't end up in the hands of criminals.

It's not just one single thing that we're going to do, but we're going to fight it on every single front because, quite honestly, I'm outraged."

Quite honestly, I think this is just the same old, same old.

The plan is to do more of the same. Of course, "the same" isn't working.

What good will having a conversation with a local gun dealer accomplish?

When asked about Milwaukee's image, Barrett insisted, "The vast majority of neighborhoods in the city of Milwaukee are safe. They are very safe neighborhoods. Our homicide rate is actually lower than last year. We are five below where we were last year."

Barrett failed to mention the decrease is probably due to the fact that last year's homicide rate was way up.

He said, "We have to get through to people that you don't solve problems with guns."

And how is that going to happen? Wishful thinking?

Barrett concluded, "There are too many guns, in particular illegal guns, on the street. I need every person in this community to help me on this. This is not something the mayor can do alone, the media can do alone. We need a commitment from this community. ...I need this community to come together on this issue."

That's incredibly vague.

What does he expect "every person" to do?

How, specifically, is "every person" supposed to help him?

Who knows?

Barrett was smart to address the issue quickly, but he had little of substance to offer.

Empty rhetoric is not a solution.

Like Barrett, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board also addressed the violent weekend, with similar shallowness.

In "Heading off a bad summer," the board shifted blame for the violence from the perpetrators to the "powerful gun lobby."

The board prefers to demonize law-abiding gun owners rather than confront the difficult truth that people want to kill each other and that they succeed in doing so. The board's mindset enables responsibility for gun violence to be transferred from the criminal to an inanimate object.

The board acknowledges that "the community must address the issue of males in their teens and 20s, when they are most likely to be crime-prone or crime's victims."

The board doesn't say how to address this issue, just that it needs to be addressed.

Then comes the usual response from the Left whenever gun violence becomes an issue.

But the shootings also demonstrate a well-known truth with which this community has yet to adequately grapple - the proliferation of guns. Yes, it can more forcefully hold accountable - in court - those who use guns, but government can also do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

One way to keep idle young hands away from guns and out of mischief is to keep them busy with work. Unfortunately, jobs are in short supply, so businesses must search their souls and their budgets to find a way to hire young people, particularly from the inner city. (Suburban young people, typically with more connections than their inner city peers, have an easier time finding jobs as a rule.)

To avoid a violent summer, community leaders - ministers, block leaders, agency heads - must redouble their efforts to engage young people in worthwhile activities, such as sports, clubs and community service. And parents must guide their children onto the right path.

That's it! The lack of worthwhile activities for young people leads to violence.

What a load!

Millions of dollars have been spent on programs and facilities, yet the violence doesn't ebb.

The board's call for parents to "guide their children onto the right path" is crazy.

It's so simple. Parents should take care of their children. The problem with that obvious strategy is that they don't. THEY AREN'T THERE.

It's a mistake for the board to excuse the violent behavior of inner city youth because they have less connections than their suburban counterparts.

Well-connected or not, being unemployed doesn't cause one to shoot others.

...Police must also strictly enforce gun laws, jailing people who illegally possess firearms.

Unfortunately, the powerful gun lobby ties the hands of cops by blocking laws to keep guns away from outlaws. Among these are measures to limit bulk purchases of guns and to impose background checks on every gun purchase. Foes of gun violence in Milwaukee must push such measures.

An individual who is so morally bankrupt that he or she intentionally shoots another human being is not going to be stopped by laws.

Short of a complete ban on all firearms in the U.S., people who want to kill will manage to get their hands on a gun.

Remember, these are murderers. They don't respect life. Why would they respect the law?

To believe otherwise is incredibly naïve.

The Fourth Dixie Chick

Al Gore has been hopping around the globe promoting his global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

He's also been attacking his nemesis, George W. Bush.

At the Hay Festival in Wales, Gore seemed to be auditioning to be the fourth Dixie Chick.

He gave an interview to The Guardian that makes Natalie Maines seem like a Bush supporter.

The Dixie Chicks have been speaking out against Bush again to drum up sales for their latest album. TIME obliged by putting them on the cover last week.

Similar to the Chicks' style of promotion, Gore is slamming Bush while whoring for his new movie.

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.

Taking a cue from ABC producer John Green and his infamous anti-Bush rant:

"Al Gore makes me sick. If he uses the 'recovering politican' line one more time, I'm going to puke."
Everywhere he goes, he uses that same "recovering politician" laugh line, and the media repeat it constantly.

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

I believe that Gore's politics haven't shifted to the left. I think he just feels freer to express himself.

He's always been a lunatic.

Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".

Gore's "sky is falling" approach makes him appear to be a tad off balance, which is completely in balance with being a flaming lib.

The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.

He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.

In my dreams, Gore would run and speak his mind. Nothing could be better for the conservative movement.

I do think it's weird that he admits that he was too spineless to follow his own beliefs when he ran for president. He acknowledges that he allowed his handlers to package him like a pop idol -- the Jessica Simpson of presidential politics.

Are Americans to believe that Gore has developed a backbone since 2000?

Once an invertebrate, always an invertebrate.

In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.

Gore could oppose the war at the time because he wasn't trying to get elected like the pretend tough on terror Dems.

Moreover, his power grab comments are no different than a typical Russ Feingold "King George" tirade.

...In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.

I don't accuse him of scaremongering. I accuse him of being a missionary of bad science.

...At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".

...It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.

Oh.

When Gore said "Shermanesque," I thought he was referring to Sherman of Peabody's Improbable History fame.

Gore is wallowing in all the attention he's been getting like a pig wallows in newly formed mud from a melting glacier in Argentina.

I think he loves playing these games. Frank Rich of The New York Times is among Gore's liberal elite enablers, devoting his most recent Sunday column to the dream of a Gore candidacy.
I, for one, sincerely wish Gore would run in 2008.

Gore and Kerry.

Yeah, that's the ticket, with promises of cabinet positions for the Dixie Chicks.

Alfonzo Glover

Milwaukee DA E. Michael McCann did something this morning that he rarely does.

He actually charged someone. A year after the incident, he charged a cop with murder.

This morning:

A Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot 25-year-old Wilbert Javier Prado in March 2005 was charged this morning with first-degree intentional homicide and six counts of perjury for lying to the inquest jury that examined the case.

Alfonzo Glover, 35, was off duty when he fired at Prado near S. 9th St. and W. Ohio Ave.

Prado, who was unarmed and intoxicated, was shot eight times, mostly from behind. The inquest jury in May 2005 found the shooting justified, but the verdict is only advisory.

"I do not expect it will be easy. It will be a difficult and challenging case," District Attorney E. Michael McCann said at a news conference. Glover was being taken into custody this morning.

According to AP, "McCann says it's only the second time in his 38 years as prosecutor that he's charged an officer."

As it turns out, McCann will not be taking the case to trial.
This afternoon:

A Milwaukee police officer, who was charged with homicide and perjury this morning, killed himself at his home this afternoon, Chief Nannette Hegerty said.

Alfonzo Glover, 35, a five-year veteran of the force, was pronounced dead at his home on the south side. Earlier in the day, he appeared in court on the charges.

Glover was released from the jail at 1 p.m. after posting $25,000 cash bail. He was charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the March 2005 death of Wilbert Javier Prado, 25, who was not armed, near S. 9th St. and W. Ohio Ave.

Glover has been on administrative duty since the off-duty shooting, which was ruled justified by an inquest jury in May 2005. He was suspended May 15 of this year.

Does Glover's suicide indicate that he was guilty?

Does it indicate that he was despondent after being charged with murder, when an inquest jury ruled that the shooting was justified in May of 2005?

Perhaps he couldn't face the ordeal.

Unless Glover left a note explaining why he chose to take his life, we won't know.

We do know that McCann doesn't have to worry about taking on this "difficult and challenging case."

This one is over.

One has to wonder what really went into McCann's decision to file charges.

Was it the facts of this case that caused him to act?

An AP report says that "Robert Wozniak, a mechanical engineer and accident reconstruction specialist hired by McCann's office," brought new information to McCann's attention.

[T]he extent of damage to the van and the parked vehicle demonstrated that Glover's account is "not true"...

The van must have been traveling between 22 and 27 miles per hour at the time of impact, which could not have happened if the driver came to a complete stop as Glover testified, the report said.

The inquest jury didn't have that crucial information, McCann said.

McCann is justifying his decision to charge Glover on Wozniak's report.

Was there more to it than that?

Was McCann using Glover as a scapegoat?

Was McCann trying to counter his image as the impotent DA?

So many questions.

So many will be left unanswered now that Glover has killed himself.

Guns, Bay View, and Barrett

It's summer in Milwaukee -- City of Festivals. Every weekend is a celebration.

One of the oldest Milwaukee summer festivals is the South Shore Water Frolics, a weekend of fun, including a parade, craft fair, food, music, and spectacular fireworks.

This annual event takes place in Bay View, a unique lakefront neighborhood with a proud history and proud residents committed to their community's future.

Read about Historic Bay View.

Read about Bay View: Today.

Now, read about what happened in Bay View on Memorial Day.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Two people were killed and three others injured when a man opened fire on picnickers in a crowded Bay View park Monday evening, capping off what police called one of Milwaukee's most violent Memorial Day weekends in recent memory.

...Peter Quinones was sitting under a tree on a hill nearby, and he heard at least six shots but said the gunfire didn't catch his attention until the second or third shot.

Quinones said he turned to see a man wearing a white shirt and armed with a handgun methodically circling the tables where a group of about 10 people had been seated.

"At point-blank range, he was shooting," Quinones said. "We stayed for about five or six shots, and we got out of there."

Quinones said the man looked determined to cause damage.

Quinones said, "He was so concentrated on that table, it looked like he wanted to wipe out that whole group of people."

Quinones' brother-in-law Eduardo Perez saw one of the shooting victims fall down only to have the assailant fire at him again as he lay on the ground.

"He shot the guy when he was down. He wanted to make sure he was dead. This is wrong," Perez said.

...Monday's shooting raised the number of weekend shootings to 28, [Anne E. Schwartz, Milwaukee Police Department spokeswoman] said, four of them fatal.

Someone at South Shore Park at the time of the shootings described the scene, "This is a massacre here. It is a massacre."

But according to Schwartz, not to worry.

She basically told Bay View residents that there's no problem.

"We have a good idea who we're looking for, so the people in this neighborhood can rest easy," she said.

The shooting wasn't random.

So what?

Five people shot at a park, two of them murdered, shouldn't be reassuring to anyone.

I doubt that Bay View residents, people who've invested a great deal of money and effort into maintaining their homes and reviving businesses in their community, will take comfort in the fact that the victims of the shootings were targeted.

My guess is the Bay View Neighborhood Association, a group that "exists to maximize the quality of life for individuals and families, and to promote economic development in Bay View through activities that facilitate an attractive, safe and diverse neighborhood," won't be satisfied with Schwartz's reassurances.

Random or not, shootings in a crowded park cannot be tolerated by anyone under any circumstances.

"Don't worry, citizens. You're safe. Bring your children to the park to play."

That's insane.

Accepting Monday's violence, failing to respond with dramatic measures, is akin to condoning it.

That is how a neighborhood dies. And when neighborhoods die, the city dies.

When the NRA held its convention in Milwaukee ten days ago, Mayor Tom Barrett, Governor Jim Doyle, and The Journal Sentinel editorial board were sharply critical of the group.

Tom Barrett's icy "welcome" to the 60,000 visitors to his city included a letter to NRA President Sandra Froman and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Barrett wrote:

"Parents should not have to worry about their children being hit by stray bullets while policy-makers and interest groups argue over ideology. It's time to have some fruitful discussions that will lead to safer streets and saved lives."

Guess what?

Law-abiding citizens did not commit the 28 shootings in Milwaukee over the long weekend.

Members of the NRA are not the problem, nor are they responsible for crime and murder.

It's so convenient for Barrett, Doyle, and lib editorialists to blame law-abiding gun owners for the gun violence. It's also completely fruitless.

They aren't the problem.

Barrett is right when he says that "[p]arents should not have to worry about their children being hit by stray bullets."

The reality is that parents do have to worry about that; not because there are guns, but because there are people who want to use them to kill other people.

He's the mayor of a city where children are not safe playing in a park at the lakefront.

What's he going to do about it?

Write a letter to the NRA?
________________________________

Update from AP

Reid is Definitely "In the Mix"

Well, looky here...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.

"I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts _ particularly on multiple occasions _ when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

...Reid broadly defended his actions, stating he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former-staffer-turned-lobbyist.

"People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said.

Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was "the willingness of the press ... to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them."

Oh, poor baby.

The press has a "willingness" to make a big deal out of bribes and that concerns Reid.

Was he concerned about ABC targeting Dennis Hastert?

Reid shouldn't be worried about the Old Media. They'll cover for him.

Several ethics experts said they believed Reid should have paid for the boxing tickets to avoid violating Senate ethics rules.

I don't think you need to be an ethics expert to figure out that Reid should not have accepted a gift that looks like a bribe.

...Marc Ratner, executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission when Reid took the free tickets, said one of his desires was to convince Reid and McCain that there was no need for the federal government to usurp the state commission's authority. At the time, McCain and Reid were pushing legislation to create a federal boxing commission.

"I invited him because I was talking with his staff" about the legislation, Ratner said. "This was a chance for all of my commissioners, who are politically appointed, to interact with them. It was important for them to see how we in Nevada did things.

"I am a states rights activist and I didn't want any federal bill that would take away our state rights to regulate fights," he said, adding that he hoped McCain and Reid, at the very least, would be persuaded to model any federal commission after Nevada's body.

Reid said he remembered talking to Ratner briefly at the fights and knew Ratner was working with his Senate staff on the federal legislation.

Calling Brian Ross...

There's an irresistible "Culture of Corruption" story that is just perfect for him.

Actually, it's not perfect for Ross. It's almost perfect.

The story has all the elements that should prompt Ross to start salivating and blasting away at Reid.

The problem for Ross: Reid is a Dem.

In other words, don't look for any breathless report from ABC about Senate MINORITY leader Reid.

Don't expect any "sources" to give up information about Reid being under investigation or "in the mix."

On Parade

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett walks the Memorial Day Parade route. The parade goers manage to curb their enthusiasm.





Starred and striped Congresswoman Gwen Moore rides in a car bedecked with the Stars and Stripes.

Status of tires: NOT slashed.

May 30

MEMORIAL DAY

"The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart ... should swell into a mighty chorus of remembrance, gratitude and rededication on this solemn occasion."

--ABRAHAM LINCOLN

REMEMBER

A Loss for a Brother, a Son, a Wife, a Father, a Nation

By David Zucchino
Times Staff Writer

August 12, 2005

MENTOR, Ohio — Eric Montgomery always pictured himself coming home from war in triumph, arm-in-arm with his big brother, fellow Marine Lance Cpl. Brian Montgomery. Brian was his idol, his boyhood protector and his barracks mate in the desert of western Iraq.

The two did fly home together last week, but it was the worst journey of Eric's young life. The plane that carried him also carried the body of his brother, who died Aug. 1 at age 26 during an ambush that killed all six members of Brian's sniper patrol.

It was left to Eric, at age 21, to define his brother's life and legacy. As he stood stiffly in his Marine dress blue uniform here Wednesday, he saluted Brian's flag-draped coffin and delivered a passionate eulogy to more than 600 mourners.

"Thank you, Brian, for bringing me home," he said at a church funeral service; his brother's year-old son, Alexander, sat in his mother's lap, wearing his own tiny Marine uniform. "That's all that mattered to you."

Lance Cpl. Eric Montgomery shares a heavy burden with dozens of grieving families in Ohio and across the country this month. As the casualty rate escalates in Iraq, Americans like the Montgomerys are struggling to hold their lives together while honoring the sacrifice of their fallen loved ones in uniform.

In the space of just six days, Brian Montgomery and 15 other Marines from an Ohio reserve battalion died in Iraq. Since the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment — known in northern Ohio as the "Three Twenty-Five" — arrived in Iraq in March, it has lost 47 men in combat.

The war in Iraq is unlike any in American history. Citizen-soldiers from the reserves and National Guard have been plunged into combat in numbers unseen since World War II and make up 43% of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Of the 1,840 American military deaths, about a quarter were those of reservists or guardsmen. Of the 45 Americans killed this month, 35 belonged to the reserves or Guard.

Reports of American deaths have seemed especially relentless of late. Less than a week after the Ohio deaths, seven National Guardsmen from Pennsylvania died in Iraq in three days.

When the time came to bury Brian Paul Montgomery, it was not just family and friends who honored his memory. Thousands in Mentor and two adjoining towns where Brian grew up and worked lined the funeral route. They stood in the punishing midday sun for more than an hour, saluting, waving flags and wiping away tears as the procession rolled past.

Firefighters lined up in dress uniforms outside firehouses. Workers at car dealerships and pharmacies left their air-conditioned posts and crammed the sidewalks. Retirement home residents rolled their wheelchairs to the curb. Veterans in scraps of old uniforms saluted.

Postal workers and police officers halted during their shifts and stood at attention. Swimming pools emptied as mothers in bathing suits stood with dripping children, hands over their hearts. Sunburned construction workers tied a flag to a backhoe and stood, drenched in sweat, their hard hats over their hearts.

High school football players, retirees and homeowners unfurled the red-and-yellow Marine Corps colors and hundreds of American flags. They held handmade posters that read "Thank you, Brian" and "God Bless Brian" and "A True American Hero — Brian Montgomery."

At the church service, Brian's father, Paul, broke down as he tried to describe how his son had always put others before himself. He told how Brian had been suspended in high school for fighting after he defended a girl who had been slapped by a boy. He described how the shock of the Sept. 11 attacks prompted his oldest son to join the Marine Corps Reserves.

"Brian had a deep conviction that he needed to protect his country," his father said.

Some families of reservists killed in action have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war. But Paul Montgomery said he did not, nor had Brian. "We both believe it's the right war at the right time," he said.

When he telephoned Brian in Iraq, his son always assured him that he was on "light duty," far from combat.

"Don't worry, Dad, I'm coming home," Brian would say.

Actually, Brian — a mortar man by training — had volunteered for dangerous sniper duty near Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in violent Anbar province.

His father knew the truth.

"I'd say: 'Keep lying to me, Brian. We can talk about it when you get home,' " he said.

As he spoke, the father was overcome. He sobbed. Finally, he managed to choke out, "I know Brian's in heaven because he died in hell."

Brian's widow, Pam, did not weep as she spoke.

In a clear, strong voice, she described how she knew she would marry Brian the day she met him. "You never believe in love at first sight until it happens to you," she told the mourners.

She spoke of Brian's habit of showing off his Marine tattoos in bars.

She spoke of his devotion to their son, whose first birthday came just two days after his father's death.

She recited a prayer she wrote to honor her husband and every Marine serving in Iraq.

"In order for me to get through this," she said finally, "honor all our service members every day. If you see one, salute them. Or stop in the recruiting office, or the VFW, and thank them."

Brian's family honored him with a montage of photos mounted at a funeral home in nearby Willoughby, where the Montgomery home is marked with two blue stars for the two brothers.

On display was a faded blue Cleveland hospital card announcing the birth of a baby boy, Brian Paul, on June 8, 1979. There was a studio photo of Brian and Eric, two grinning grade-schoolers, and a shot of Paul walking young Brian to grade school. More snapshots traced the arc of Brian's life, from toothless infant to young soccer player to bespectacled adolescent to tall, powerfully built recruit with a high-and-tight Marine haircut.

With the photos were handwritten tributes: "Hero," "Marine," "Father," "Husband," "Brave," "Big Heart."

There were pictures from Iraq: Brian goofing with his Marine buddies, Brian in the desert, Brian posing with his automatic rifle, looking strong and indomitable in his tan battle-dress uniform.

It was the sight of Brian in his Marine dress blues that inspired Eric to follow him into the reserves. Eric had always looked up to his brother. Brian had fought all his battles for him in high school, Eric said, and Brian committed himself to protecting his younger brother while the two served with Weapons Company of the 3/25.

At the church service, Eric quoted his brother:

" 'I have a responsibility to Mom and Dad to get you home. I know you'll take care of my wife and son if I don't make it, so I have to get you home.' "

At their base camp outside Haditha, the brothers had long talks about family and country and service. Brian believed he was fighting to protect his family and fellow citizens. He once told his father that no American should have to board an airliner wondering whether it would arrive safely at its destination.

Eric quoted his brother again:

" 'Eric, if I fall, make sure my boy gets my dog tags and he knows what I was all about. And take care of my wife.' "

Eric feared that his brother had been killed in action on March 25 when members of Brian's sniper team ran up to him and asked, "Did you hear about Brian?" In fact, Brian had scored the battalion's first combat kills — shooting three insurgents who had attempted to plant roadside bombs, Eric said.

"He sent all three of those guys to hell, where they belonged," Eric said.

Now home consoling his sister-in-law and his parents, Eric said he was ordered not to return to Iraq because the unit was scheduled to return home next month. It is an order that has left him conflicted.

"I wish I was still with them, fighting the good fight," he said. "I know my brother feels the same way."

Before leaving Iraq, Eric made his buddies promise that they would track and kill the insurgents who took his brother from him. Last week, he said, the mother of a squad member called him to relay a message from Iraq: " 'We got [them].' "

"That meant the world to me, hearing that," Eric said.

Someone asked him this week if his brother's death was worth the sacrifice. "And I answered: He thought it was worth the sacrifice," Eric said.

To honor his brother, Eric said, he will have himself tattooed with a message Brian had always intended to tattoo on his own body: "Never Left. Never Forgotten."

And when he wakes up every morning, Eric said, "I thank my brother for getting me home."

As he finished his eulogy, his face slick with sweat above his stiff Marine collar, Eric mentioned that he wanted to provide his brother in death with something he had never received in life: a standing ovation.

Everyone inside the church, in the central pews and in the cramped balcony above, rose and applauded for two full minutes. When it was over and the church echoed with soft sobs, Eric looked up and said, "Semper fi to an always faithful Marine."

As the mourners filed outside into brilliant August sunshine, Lt. Col. Kevin Rush, the battalion's rear commander in Ohio, stood beside a hearse. "That's the finest eulogy I've ever heard in my life," he said.

The colonel spotted the father, Paul Montgomery, and went over to shake his hand. "Brian will always be a hero," he told him.

An hour later, the funeral procession snaked into a cemetery. Among the six uniformed pallbearers of the Marine Color Guard was Eric Montgomery, a tall, slender figure with a narrow face and strong jaw beneath a white dress cap. The Montgomery family was presented with a Purple Heart and a ritually folded American flag.

At the gravesite of Lance Cpl. Brian Montgomery, the last hand to lower his casket into the rich earth of Ohio was that of the brother he had brought safely home.
____________________________________

A Proclamation by President Bush

Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2006

...At this important time in the history of freedom, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our liberty. These men and women carry on the legacy of our Nation's fallen heroes and demonstrate that the United States Armed Forces remain the greatest force for freedom in human history.

Those who lost their lives in the defense of freedom helped protect our citizens and lay the foundation of peace for people everywhere. On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation pays tribute to their personal courage, love of country, and dedication to duty.

In respect for their devotion to America, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 158), has requested the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 29, 2006, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day. I encourage the media to participate in these observances. I also request the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half staff until noon on this Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels throughout the United States, and in all areas under its jurisdiction and control. I also request the people of the United States to display the flag at half staff from their homes for the customary forenoon period.

The Shame of Kilo Company

An hour into Memorial Day 2006, I read an article from this week's TIME magazine, "The Shame of Kilo Company."

Michael Duffy writes:

The outfit known as Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, wasn't new to Iraq last year when it moved into Haditha, a Euphrates River farming town about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad. Several members of the unit were on their second tour of Iraq; one was on his third. The men in Kilo Company were veterans of ferocious house-to-house fighting in Fallujah. Their combat experience seemed to prepare them for the ordeal of serving in an insurgent stronghold like Haditha, the kind of place where the enemy attacks U.S. troops from the cover of mosques, schools and homes and uses civilians as shields, complicating Marine engagement rules to shoot only when threatened. In Haditha, says a Marine who has been there twice, "you can't tell a bad guy until he shoots you."

But one morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood. The details of what happened in Haditha were first disclosed in March by TIME's Tim McGirk and Aparisim Ghosh, and their reporting prompted the military to launch an inquiry into the civilian deaths. The darkest suspicions about the killings were confirmed last week, when members of Congress who were briefed on the two ongoing military investigations disclosed that at least some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged in connection with the deaths of the Iraqis--and that the charges may include murder, which carries the death penalty. "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials. "This is going to be an ugly story."

With the U.S. struggling to hold on to public support for the war and no end to the insurgency in sight, the prospect of possible indictments has induced an aching dread among military and government officials. As the military launched another probe--into the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian by Marines--General Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, headed to Iraq to address Marines on the growing crisis. Marine Corps public-affairs director Brigadier General Mary Ann Krusa-Dossin says the allegations "have caused serious concern at the highest levels" of the corps.

A military source in Iraq told TIME that investigators have obtained two sets of photos from Haditha. The first is after-action photos taken by the military as part of the routine procedure that follows any such event. Submitted in the official report on the fighting, the photos do not show any bodies. Investigators have also discovered a second, more damning set of photos, taken by Marines of the Kilo Company immediately after the shootings. The source says it isn't clear if these photos were held back from the after-action report or were personal snapshots taken by the Marines. The source says a Marine e-mailed at least one photo to a friend in the U.S.

Almost as damaging as the alleged massacre may be evidence that the unit's members and their superiors conspired to cover it up. "There's no doubt that the Marines allegedly involved in doing this--they lied about it," says Kline. "They certainly tried to cover it up." Three Marine officers, including the company commander and battalion commander, have been relieved of duty in part for actions related to the deaths in Haditha. A lawmaker who has been briefed on the matter says the investigations may implicate other senior officers.

In hindsight, it seems remarkable that the Marines were able to conceal such a horrific event for so long.

...So why did some men in Kilo Company apparently snap? Perhaps because of the stress of fighting a violent and unpopular war--or because their commanders failed them. Military psychiatrists who have studied what makes a soldier's moral compass go haywire in battle look first for a weak chain of command. That was a factor in the March 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, when U.S. soldiers, including members of an Army platoon led by Lieut. William Calley, killed some 500 Vietnamese. Says a retired Army Green Beret colonel who fought in Vietnam: "Somebody has failed to say, 'No, that's not right.'" No one, apparently, was delivering that message last November in Haditha.

The article, as usual, is based on information from shadowy sources.

"A military source in Iraq told TIME..."

"A lawmaker who has been briefed on the matter..."

"Military sources told TIME..."

"Pentagon officials say..."

Also, it appears that Duffy is convinced that the Marines slaughtered innocent civilians in cold blood.

Why bother conducting a criminal investigation? Duffy and the "military sources," "lawmaker," and "Pentagon officials" he spoke to have labeled the Marines of Kilo Company guilty.

"Lawmaker."

Hmmm. I wonder. Which lawmaker has been running around blabbing about the murdering Marines?

I don't know Duffy's sources, but I do know that John Murtha won't shut up about Haditha.

From The Washington Post:

"There has to have been a coverup of this thing," Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, charged in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "No question about it."

...[John Murtha] said, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened," adding that there is "no question in my mind about it." He reiterated a previous statement that shootings of women and children occurred "in cold blood" and that there was no firefight in which civilians were killed in a crossfire, as some Marines asserted after the event.

"This is worse than Abu Ghraib," he said, referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at a prison west of Baghdad that, when revealed in spring 2004, became a major setback for the U.S. effort in Iraq.

Murtha was most emphatic in discussing his belief that senior Marine officers acted to prevent the facts of the case from emerging. "The problem is, who covered up? And why did they cover it up?" he asked. He said an investigation should have been conducted immediately after the incident, with the facts disclosed to the public at that time.

..."We don't know how far it goes," Murtha said of the alleged coverup. "The Marines knew about it all this time. Somebody in the chain of command decided not to allow this to happen. How far up it went, I don't know."

Murtha really needs to get a grip. AND, the leakers, those unnamed sources, need to get a conscience.

No question, the investigation into what happened at Haditha needs to be completed.

As with Abu Ghraib, those responsible for abuses at Haditha, if they did occur, will be held accountable.

UNTIL THEN, it is utterly irresponsible for Murtha and the leakers to be determining guilt.

What is so aggravating to me is that the military IS investigating. The appropriate measures ARE being taken.

All the inflammatory stuff, and Murtha's "guilty until proven innocent" approach unfairly disparages the integrity of U.S. forces in general. Such negative propaganda inflames the enemy and can lead to deadly consequences for our troops.

Let the investigation proceed.

In the meantime, former Marine Murtha should conduct himself in a manner befitting the Marines. I think Murtha has forgotten the motto, "Semper Fi." Rather than remaining "always faithful," Murtha is putting the Marines currently in harm's way at greater risk.

There are appropriate channels for Murtha and the leakers to express their concerns and hold individual Marines accountable for alleged wrongdoing without excessively fanning the flames of hatred for U.S. troops en masse.

Murtha's ego-stroking practice of taking his gripes to Sunday morning TV is a disgusting, self-serving exercise. That's not the proper place to air his criticism.

Media whore Murtha is incredibly selfish.

I really don't think our troops get their due, certainly not by the Old Media. The overwhelming majority of our military personnel are serving with bravery, honor, and distinction; AND they are not under investigation for killing innocents.

I understand the need for an investigation into what happened at Haditha, just as I fully supported getting to the truth of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I am asking for some balance. I want to hear the positive news from Iraq, not only the negative. I want to see the images of progress there, not only the setbacks.

On Memorial Day, it would be nice for all Americans, including TIME reporter Michael Duffy and John Murtha, to pay tribute to the fallen and acknowledge their tremendous sacrifices.

Just for this one day, can't we put politics and mud-slinging aside?

Can't we come together as Americans, united in our gratitude and support of the past and present military men and women who've served our country so honorably on our behalf?

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Game of Shadows

Apologist for a Hot-head

In his column "McGee is controversial, and here's why he's necessary," Eugene Kane writes about the two Michael McGees.

He prefers one McGee more than the other, but Kane acts as an apologist for both.

Surprise, surprise.

It's no surprise to me there are two Mike McGees.

I've known that for a while.

One of them is the McGee guy in the headlines the past few weeks for everything from a scandalous hearing about his personal life and an arrest that landed him in jail overnight to a surprising petition for a name change.

The other McGee I know has been one of the most impressive - and controversial - young African-American politicians I've covered in the past 20 years. Between the two, I like the latter McGee much better.

Kane then goes on to list what he considers to be McGee's commendable "achievements" as a public servant, even though most of the McGee proposals that Kane cites never were enacted.

Kane blames the unreasonable Common Council for standing in McGee's way rather than admitting that his proposals were misguided.

...As I have followed McGee's career in City Hall since he roundly defeated veteran Ald. Marlene Johnson-Odom in 2004, he has evolved into the rare politician who regularly attempts to bring his vision of grass-roots politics to the mainstream.

He does it in the typical McGee fashion: in your face and without giving a hoot what his detractors think

While I think it's admirable to be guided by higher principles rather than acting solely to win the approval of others, that's not McGee's style.

Kane considers McGee's in your face approach to be courageous. It's not. It's childish and ineffective.

...The younger McGee was the driving force behind a historic Milwaukee slavery ordinance that requires any company that does business with the city to disclose ties to slavery under penalty of losing its contract.

For some, it was nothing but a symbolic move. But for socially conscious African-Americans, it was a triumph in terms of bringing a specific black issue to public policy.

There are thousands of black nationalists across the country pushing various slave reparations bills in their respective communities. McGee got it done during his first term in office.

Wow! How great for the city of Milwaukee residents!

Thanks to McGee, the city won't do business with companies that had ties to slavery.

So what? For the most part, the issue is moot. How many companies are 140 years old?

That's why I can't offer much satisfaction for white readers who flooded my mailbox during a recent vacation demanding: "You have to say something about Mike McGee!"

What they meant was, of course, something negative.

When readers write to Kane, do they all inform him of their racial background?

How does he know that his mailbox is flooded with demands from "white readers"?

Some readers may specify their race when they write to Kane, but it seems that he may be making assumptions here. He assumes that he knows the color of the readers' skin and that he knows they want him to speak negatively about McGee.

I'm sure some may be daring Kane to be critical of McGee, but he can't conclude that the flood in his mailbox is from white people anxious to read an anti-McGee rant.

With his recent admission of an extramarital affair and sincere-sounding apology to his constituents, I think it's time to put his recent transgressions in context.

Despite the overheated rhetoric from media pundits who view McGee as some dangerous virus that needs to be excised from the body politic, I prefer to consider him a young, hot-headed black politician still finding his way.

McGee is "still finding his way"?

What kind of excuse is that?

A very lame one.

This "young, hot-headed" guy is thirty-six!

We're not talking about a kid just out of high school or even college.

He's a grown man who's seriously responsibility-challenged. I don't buy the "finding his way" stuff.

Is McGee a kid or a man? Is he fit to be a community leader?

I don't think someone so unsure of his principles is qualified to be a leader. I don't know if such an individual is even capable of being a very good follower.


Kane makes McGee sound like he should be backpacking around Europe, in search of himself, rather than sitting on the Common Council.

...The reason McGee - with all his flaws - is necessary in this city is that he is the embodiment of representative government. He stands for a group of angry young black people everybody else ignores. These are young African-Americans who have chosen to participate in the system partly because of his presence.

I don't understand this reasoning.

McGee is a disgrace. Nonetheless, Kane approves of him because he's the voice of the angry young black contingent.

Here's an idea. Find an individual committed to the needs of angry young black people who doesn't lie under oath.

Much of the front-page news about McGee in the past few weeks would be minor league stuff if he weren't an alderman named Mike McGee or Michael Imanu Jackson.

The more some voices denounce him, the more his support grows. In fact, I know some blacks who love McGee simply for the way he gets white folks so riled up.

That doesn't say much for those blacks, does it?

What sort of person supports a politician simply because he gets "white folks so riled up"?

I don't think Kane should be flaunting the fact that he knows blacks that are so petty. Instead, he should be embarrassed for them.

Kane's assessment of McGee and his behavior proves his willingness to excuse the inexcusable and his capacity to justify the unjustifiable.

Kane tries to make the case that McGee is passionate. What Kane fails to see is that passion doesn't necessarily demand recklessness and irresponsibility.

That said, I'll excuse Kane for writing such a poor column. It appears that he's angry and still finding his way.
________________________________

Also on the McGee front, the JS editorial board is troubled by McGee's behavior.

In "Lying is not a trifling matter," the board argues that McGee shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath about an affair. While McGee's many problems are worth noting, it's the lying in court that really gives the board pause.

But did McGee lie under oath? The district attorney's office said it will reach a decision on how to proceed in June. Because McGee is no longer believable, we expect the DA or the courts to set the record straight. Why? McGee is a public servant. This is serious stuff.

Lying under oath has suddently become serious.

I thought lying under oath about personal matters, such as an affair, was acceptable. Maybe it's not "acceptable," but it's understandable and certainly forgivable.

Didn't we learn anything from the Clinton-Lewinsky pairing?

Heart of a Hero

In a remarkable gesture of appreciation, Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey indicated just how important support from home is to the troops.

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) -- A soldier said he was only showing his gratitude when he gave his Purple Heart to a 13-year-old student being honored for winning a contest for writing letters to American troops.

"It's important what these children do for us in sending these letters," said Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey, after giving away the medal he received for injuries in Iraq. "The letters mean so much to us. So I thought this was a big way of giving something back to them."

Trackey and a group of fellow Fort Drum soldiers were attending a ceremony Thursday at West Genesee Middle School for seventh-grader Fatima Faisal, of Camillus, who was being honored as a regional winner in the Veteran's of Foreign Wars' Letters to the Front contest.

After Faisal received her prizes, Trackey stood and held up his Purple Heart for everyone to see. Then, he pinned it on the girl's blouse.

Trackey gave away his Purple Heart, not to a cherished friend or a family member but to a complete stranger, a thirteen-year-old girl.

Why give such an honor away to someone he doesn't even know?

In a sense, I don't think Fatima was a stranger to him.

Fatima, and all the children who send letters of support to the troops, know that they are writing to real people, fellow Americans. As Trackey explained, those expressions of kindness and thanks really make a difference. They matter greatly to the troops.

What a profound way for Trackey to show Fatima and her classmates just how important those letters are!

I would imagine that a child's message of thanks would help to counter at least some of the negativity that the troops put up with from the American media.

...Faisal's letter was chosen the best out of more than 300 letters written in the age 12-18 category in the Central New York region. The national contest was to write letters to servicemen and servicewomen starting with the line, "Dear Service Member, I just wanted to say thanks for ..."

...In her letter, Faisal said, "...I give you great respect because you had a choice to join the military and because of your bravery and courage you decided to join."

For winning the contest, Faisal received a T-shirt, a certificate and a $50 savings bond.

But the Purple Heart was the top prize, Faisal said, adding she hoped to mount it in a frame to hang in her room.

"When he gave it to her, I was getting chills," said Nadia Faisal, Fatima's mother. "I told her 'Oh my gosh, Fatima. You should treasure it forever.'"

Trackey, of Glens Falls, said he received the medal for the shoulder and head wounds he suffered when a bomb went off near him in Baghdad in January 2005. Trackey said his Purple Heart was just collecting dust at home.

Trackey's gift is a beautiful symbol of the connection between the American military and the grateful American people that they so bravely serve.

I'm sure Fatima will treasure that Purple Heart forever, and Trackey will hold the gratitude of the American children deep within his heart for the rest of his life.

The White House Commission on Remembrance

Moment of Remembrance Hasn't Caught On

A tiny White House commission has spent the past five years and $1.5 million trying to bring a new American tradition to Memorial Day's barbecues, parades and sales: A moment of remembrance, a sigh, perhaps a prayer. Just a 30-second pause.

The results, so far, are mixed.

...[A] few towns, businesses and organizations have paused silently at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day.

In general, though, the commission's hyper-energetic executive director, Carmella LaSpada, has been somewhat frustrated by the lack of interest.

"We're a little disappointed," she said. "What has been the problem is that we haven't gotten the support that we would like to have from the media."

This AP story is rather critical of LaSpada and the tax dollars being allotted to the commission.

It's considered wasteful, in terms of money, in terms of time, and in terms of effort.

The White House Commission on Remembrance was "signed into law by President Clinton, and launched under President Bush," according to AP.

The Commission's Mission statement:

The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance was established by Congress as an independent government agency. The Commission encourages Americans to honor the sacrifices of America’s fallen and the families they left behind. It promotes acts of remembrance throughout the year and asks Americans to pay our debt of gratitude in memory of our fallen by giving something back to the Nation. The Commission is also tasked to unite the country in the National Moment of Remembrance at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day.

The Commission is dedicated to educating this and future generations of Americans to remember the sacrifices and costs in human life made to preserve our liberties, and to instill in them an understanding of what it means to be an American.

The Commission's logo:

The Continental Congress, in the first Flag Act, intended the stars signifying each state on the blue field of our flag represent a new Constellation. The light of this new constellation has been kept bright by the sacrifices of all our fallen, thus the star and flame are combined in the Commission on Remembrance logo.

The flame represents the light of remembrance, hope and freedom.

The media have the power to get the message out.

The entire country knew that the 2006 American Idol would be crowned on Wednesday night. Everyone seems to be aware of when the Super Bowl is played.

If they wanted to, the media could promote the Moment of Remembrance with the same vigor that they use to profit from the American Idol machine or the Super Bowl.
Frankly, it shouldn't take five years to establish the Moment of Remembrance as a Memorial Day tradition.

We know that the media are very effective at hyping an event.

If the media would cooperate, the National Moment of Remembrance would be a well-known effort by now.

I don't know which is more disgraceful --

that the power of the media isn't used to unite the country in a Moment of Remembrance "to honor the sacrifices of America’s fallen and the families they left behind"

OR
that so many Americans observe Memorial Day as summer's official kick-off rather than a time to reflect on the tremendous human cost of freedom.


At 3 p.m. on Memorial Day, say a prayer of remembrance for America's fallen and a prayer of gratitude for the gift of freedom that they gave you.


Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.

(John 15:13)

Dragging at Prom

It's that time of year again -- Prom season.

I don't know what it is about proms, but they so often become the subject of controversy, attracting cops and lawyers.

In 2000, former Green Bay Packer Mark Chmura was accused of raping a high schooler at an after-prom party. Of course, that case was extremely serious in nature.

Issues of controversial attire are in an entirely different league from that prom night nightmare, but they do seem to arise with regularity and garner attention.

Last year, Kerry Lofy stirred things up at Lake Geneva Badger High School's prom when he arrived as Victor Anderson's date. Lofy wore an understated yet fetching form-fitting black dress with spaghetti straps.



Lofy ended up with a $249 disorderly conduct ticket, suspended, and banned from his final track meet for his prom wardrobe choice.

This year, there's Kevin Logan. Like Lofy, he wore a dress to prom.

The similarities stop there.

For one, Logan wore pink.

GARY, Ind. (AP) -- A male student who has worn women's clothes to school all year was turned away from his high school prom because he was wearing a dress.

Kevin Logan, 18, went to the West Side High School prom on Friday in a slinky fuchsia gown and heels. He believes officials discriminated against him by not allowing him inside.

"I have no formal pictures, no memories, nothing. You only have one prom," he said.

Logan, who is gay, received an $85 refund for his prom ticket Tuesday but was not satisfied. He said he is considering filing a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from the prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

Tyrone Hanley, the youth program coordinator for the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition in Washington, D.C., said he often sees cases like this and called it gender-based discrimination.

"Prohibiting really short skirts for everyone is a fair dress code; prohibiting them for males is not," he said.

Logan should consider himself lucky for just being refused entry. Although he's disappointed about missing out on prom, at least he didn't get ticketed for disorderly conduct or suspended or punished in some other manner.

In general, I think prom is taken far too seriously. It should be fun for all. I don't see the need for school officials to get all bent out of shape just because a kid shows up in a dress.

At these public schools, the students have been taught from day one that alternative lifestyles are completely acceptable. Some teachers act as advocates, encouraging students to embrace differences.

So why do the schools suddenly get so puritanical and stringent about the dress code for prom?

It's inconsistent. When a guy shows up at prom in a dress, school officials should consider it a victory, right?

If the school officials are to be seen as sending a consistent message, they need to practice what they teach.

Name That Identity Thief

Greg Borowski of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides the latest installment of the soap opera, All My McGees.

Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee sought to put one controversy behind him Thursday, admitting to an extramarital affair with the woman who says he threatened to kill her last week after a court hearing.

But new questions arose after the Journal Sentinel reported Thursday that McGee had petitioned to legally change his name - to Michael I. McGee from Michael I. Jackson.

The name-change request stated that McGee, 36, had always been Michael Imanu Jackson, but now wants his last name legally switched to McGee, the name the petition says he has used his entire life.

In a statement issued late Thursday, McGee said he needs the name change to get a U.S. passport. The statement said Jackson is the name on his birth certificate because that is the birth name of his own father, the former alderman also known as Mike McGee.

Now this is news.

Mike McGee, Sr. is really Michael Jackson, Sr.

Who knew?

And, contrary to what Mike McGee, Jr. (AKA Michael Jackson, Jr.) said Wednesday night, he does have a birth certificate.

In a search of public records and commercial databases, the newspaper has found several records of a Michael I. Jackson who shares the birth date and some common addresses with the alderman, but show a different Social Security number.

Wait a minute...

This bothers me. I understand why the JS would search public records, given McGee's evasiveness when the reporter inquired about his identity on Wednesday night.

But, what kind of commercial databases have Social Security numbers available?

No legitimate simple public records search would include Social Security numbers.

If that were the case, identity theft would be rampant.

I find this really disturbing. The JS is saying that individuals' SS numbers are available to anyone looking in all the right places. That makes no sense.

You can't just tap into SS numbers. *

Questions about the Jackson-McGee name overshadowed McGee's acknowledgment Thursday that he had an extramarital affair with Kimley Rucker, 23, who claims to be pregnant with his child.

McGee was arrested after Rucker said he threatened to kill her last week after a court hearing in which a judge tossed out his request for a restraining order against Rucker, who he said has stalked him, and assaulted him March 31. He echoed those claims Thursday, stating he was trying to protect his family by seeking the order.

No charges have been filed against McGee related to his arrest or to statements he made under oath about his relationship with Rucker.

...At an initial court hearing on the restraining order, McGee denied having any romantic relationship with Rucker and any knowledge of an account from which a series of e-mails were sent to Rucker, though McGee's wife then testified it was his account. Later, in explaining his denials, McGee acknowledged having had a single sexual contact with Rucker, but said it was not romantic.

In Thursday's statement, the alderman admits "poor judgment and personal carelessness when I selfishly involved myself in an extramarital affair."

In the statement, McGee also declared: "Given my recent arrest in civil court, I believe there is less than equal protection under the law for elected officials."

At least, McGee has finally acknowledged his affair and apologized.

It's unfortunate that he spoiled that act of decency in expressing his remorse by making the stupid statement about elected officials not having equal protection under the law.

I guess he owned up to his inappropriate behavior because he realized that he needed to stop the bleeding. I guess he knew he would pay a price politically if he didn't come somewhat clean and appear somewhat level-headed.

In the statement about the name issue, McGee says he was born when his father was serving in Vietnam. According to records, the alderman was born in October 1969.

At the time, his father was using his own birth name, Michael Jackson. According to the statement, upon his return from the war, the elder McGee was adopted and "then started using 'McGee' as his last name because it is the last name of his adoptive father."

It is not clear how old the elder McGee would have been at the time, or whether he was formally adopted, or if it refers to being brought into a household and supported.

In the statement, the younger McGee says: "I was then given the McGee last name as well, and have used it ever since."

Public records show that someone has used McGee's legal name, Michael I. Jackson. State Department of Transportation records show that a Michael I. Jackson, of 1456 N. 34th St., and with McGee's birth date, was issued a driver's license in May 1995. The address is one associated with McGee in court records. Two commercial databases show several entries for Michael I. Jackson with the same birth date and with a different Social Security number than McGee's.

That sort of explains the name issue, but again what jumps out at me as odd is this claim about the SS numbers.

WHICH COMMERCIAL DATABASES REVEAL SS NUMBERS?

The article goes on to talk about Jackson being involved in a car accident, traffic violations, and failure to pay the judgments when the drivers of the two other cars sued him. Eventually, his license was revoked.

Is this Jackson the McGee Jackson? The alderman's identity is still unclear. Regarding the accident, McGee says, "I don't recall that."

Let's see. McGee has lied under oath, lied about his affair, lied about his e-mail account, and lied about his birth certificate.

Nevertheless, we're supposed to believe that he doesn't remember if he was involved in a car accident and was sued and then lost his license. That's ridiculous.

How could all of that possibly slip one's mind? I don't believe McGee. He's lying again.

Although the gist of this article is that McGee cannot be trusted to tell the truth, I'm much more concerned about the Social Security number matter.

That story, that SS numbers are so readily available, is the noteworthy revelation in this account.

Someone from the JS should do some investigative reporting on that issue.

__________________________________

* Dad29 adds that Jessica McBride noted the JS subscribes to KnowX, a search site that for a fee apparently hands over documents with Social Security numbers.

Given that access to a SS number amounts to giving someone the key to an individual's complete personal profile, I see that as aiding and abetting identity thieves.

ABC News and Guesswork

Ten minutes into ABC’s World News Tonight, after the lengthy Enron coverage, Elizabeth Vargas got around to the Brian Ross Hastert slime story.

She introduced Ross, who was in the studio with her.

He went on to supply the "new" information ABC gathered today from its shadowy "sources."

Ross' story

It was the same old trash with extra emphasis on Hastert's letter to the Secretary of the Interior about an Indian casino. A few days earlier, Jack Abramoff had hosted a fundraiser for Hastert.

Ross doesn't buy Hastert's claim that the fundraiser and the letter weren't connected.

From Brian Ross' story, "Hastert: Letter Just a Coincidence":

"'That's very unusual activity, and we believed it needed to be and needs to be investigated,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to pursuit of democracy for all Americans."

Typical to Brian Ross' style, this is extremely misleading. Democracy 21 isn't nonpartisan. It has a decidedly liberal slant.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

At the end of his report, Ross acknowledged that "it could well turn out that Hastert did nothing unlawful."

He qualified that statement by saying that the investigation is just beginning.

Is that ABC's standard? Is that their justification for sliming someone?

In other words, the investigation is in its early stages, but we'll just assume Hastert's guilty of wrong-doing in the meantime.

So, Ross and ABC report that Hastert is knee-deep in corruption without any proof.

That's not journalism. That's guesswork. That's garbage.

That's ABC.