The Media Ignore Progress, Yet Again

June 2nd, 2008 by billyhallowell

In May, 19 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. This marks the lowest monthly death toll of U.S. troops since the war began in 2003. While this by no means erases the meaning of the individuals’ lives lost, it does show that there have been improvements in the war-torn country. So, with death rates declining and with process more than immanent, why have the U.S. media been so reluctant to cover Iraq? The Washington Post’s editorial board weighs in:

“THERE’S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.“

This lag in news coverage is intriguing, considering the overall progress that has been made. It’s ironic that the only time the media are harping on Iraq is when death and destruction have taken center stage. Why is it that when progress is made, the media decide to turn away? What in this world could possibly be more newsworthy than the war that liberals have continuously berated actually taking a turn for the better?

Now, don’t get me wrong. The war was mismanaged, which surely called for anger and responsiveness on behalf of the American people. But at a time when positive advances are being made, everyone should be standing behind the mission and recognizing the importance of completing it. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.

We’ve reached an odd crossroads in America. Today, the defeatists seem to have an upper hand, as their negativity has guided the nation into a mentality that continues to trick citizens into believing that this war is lost.  Unfortunately for the defeatists, recent developments show that the U.S. is actually winning in Iraq.

So, while the media fail to properly report the positives, we’re forced to listen to Barack Obama and his enthusiasts devilishly try to appeal to a war-weary nation as they calls for complete abandonment of a war that might actually be successful. What will Obama say once he realizes that the U.S. might actually win the mission? And wouldn’t it help if the media would do their job and actually report on the positive strides that have been made?

I’m not the first person to complain about this. Conservative angst has existed since the beginning of the surge, as commentators have relentlessly made the case that the media have ignored the positive results that emerged from the troop surge.

“Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.” – The Washington Post

Perhaps Hot Air says it best:

“The defeatists have been exposed. They cannot run, but they can keep spinning. Even their colleagues in the media have begun to notice the good news, however, and the facade of defeat has begun its inevitable collapse.“

Let’s hope that the defeatists don’t win.  Their ideology is counterproductive and could lead the U.S. to prematurely pull out of a volatile region before getting the job done.  We don’t need leaders making false promises; what we need is to complete our pledge to the Iraqi people, while remaining realistic about the challenges ahead.  While the mission may not be easy, abandoning Iraq should be America’s last resort.

Posted in 2008 campaign, 2008 election, barack obama, billy hallowell, iraq | No Comments »

Obama Praised by Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots

May 29th, 2008 by billyhallowell

Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades, yet many Americans fail to question these allegiances and their potential ramifications.  Barack Obama — the man who is known for his incessant and rampant use of the word “hope” — is the latest candidate to score terrorist support.

Before delving into Obama’s current fan-base, let’s review what occurred back in 2004.  Just days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden issued an October surprise when he attempted to appeal to the American people.  Aside from claiming that Bush had misled the public, bin Laden explained away Al Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 as the mere result of U.S. foreign policy:

“Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated” – bin Laden

What bin Laden failed to mention is that he’d like us to all convert or die.  Ironically, his perverted perception of God and religion were absent from his rant.

While Osama’s quasi-endorsement of Kerry proves intriguing, Obama’s enthusiasts are more plentiful — and more disconcerting. When considering Obama’s cringe-worthy endorsements one cannot help but wonder why these war-mongers, criminals and racists would want to see Obama win in November.  Clearly, something within Obama’s character or proposed policies resonates with them.

FOX News compiled an interesting list of individuals who voiced support for Obama.  In mid-April, Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef was quoted as saying:  “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.  I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.  I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle.”  And if that’s not terrifying enough, Fidel Castro is enamored as well, as he has called Obama intelligent, while praising his work ethic.

And let’s not forget about Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s ties to Reverent Wright and company.

Agree or disagree with me — whatever you’d like.  But the fact of the matter is that these individuals — persons who hold questionable and often dangerous word views — are endorsing a man who claims to stand for hope and a brighter future.  Yet the legacies of the aforementioned individuals are comprised of nothing more than pain and suffering (or in the case of Farrakhan and Wright — societal damage as a result of reverse racism).

I’ll be interested to see who endorses Obama next.

Posted in 2008 campaign, 2008 election, billy hallowell, obama, osama bin laden | 1 Comment »

Aid Workers Abusing Those They’re Sent to Help?

May 27th, 2008 by billyhallowell

This week, Save the Children UK released a disturbing report entitled, “No One To Turn To.”  The investigation — its results alleging child abuse in the form of sexual molestation, among other violations — was conducted by researchers who met with 250 children between the ages of 10 and 17 who have had experiences with international aid workers.  According to the Associated Press,

“The report said more than half the children interviewed knew of cases of coerced sex and improper sexual touching and that in many instances children knew of 10 or more such incidents carried out by aid workers or peacekeepers.“

Importantly, researchers chose three distinct areas based on a heavy concentration of international aid workers.  The children interviewed were from southern Sudan, Haiti, and the Ivory Coast — three areas that have been struck by economic and political dissension and hardship.  The most disturbing pieces of the abuse center on the helplessness of those children who were exploited as well as the ability of aid workers to escape oversight and accountability.

However, social stigmas were also powerful enablers that led to secrecy, as the majority of those children interviewed reported that they would, themselves, never report a case; they also reported that they have never heard of a case being reported.  According to the report, potential retaliation, social stigmas associated with sexual abuse and other associated detriments were “powerful determinants to coming forward.”

“The report details many types of abuse allegedly committed by peacekeepers and aid workers, including trading food for sex, coerced sex, improper touching and kissing, forced prostitution and using children for pornographic purposes.”

While U.N. workers have allegedly been involved in some of the abuse, the problem is rampant in other governing bodies as well.  In fact, the U.N. has taken steps to combat the issue.  With this in mind, the Save the Children report is simply a reminder of a lack of sufficient progress.  Clearly, the only sufficiency in this case would be an end to these horrific actions.

Concerning remedies, Save the Children makes three distinct recommendations.  First, they recommend that adequate local complaint systems be implemented inside each country to allow individuals to report abuses.  Secondly, a global watchdog is proposed to assist in regulating and monitoring this issue.  Lastly, a strengthened child protection system at the national level is proposed.

It’s unfortunate that such abuses have occurred within organizations that have set out to make waves of change.  Only the future holds the answers to preventing such atrocious misconduct.

Posted in abuse, aid workers, billy hallowell, children, united nations | 1 Comment »

Edwards and Obama Now Bedfellows?

May 15th, 2008 by billyhallowell

In the debate over which Democratic candidate he should endorse, John Edwards has finally given in. And in the most predictable fashion, he has chosen Sen. Barack Obama. During his official endorsement speech Edwards said, “…the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”

The aforementioned statement is surprisingly thought provoking. If one takes a closer look at it, he or she will notice that Edwards first points out the fact that the Democrats have made a collective choice. He then ventures to say that he has subsequently made his own decision (which appears to be directly in line with the “popular vote” among the Democrats).

It’s not rocket science: Edwards is playing political monopoly. He is erasing his past statements about Obama and positioning himself for a vice-presidential nod. Or — at the least — he is keeping his name alive for future political gain.

After all, what took the former senator so long to endorse a candidate? MLive.com quotes Brent Slay, a retired Plainfield Township businessman (and an Obama supporter), who had some interesting thoughts on the matter:

“I think it will help [Obama] immensely with the working men and women of America. My opinion is Sen. Edwards saw Sen. Obama was going to be the candidate for the party, and he wanted to be the one to push him over the edge.“

But, perhaps the most intriguing portion of Slay’s thoughts:

Slay wondered if the endorsement might signal an Obama-Edwards ticket, although Edwards has said he is not interested in running for vice president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert Duncan has been the most precise in his criticism of Edwards’ endorsement. Duncan asks, “Why didn’t Edwards endorse sooner?” — a more than valid question. He continues:

“Edwards’ endorsement of a candidate he previously blasted as inexperienced, hypocritical and lacking substance will not help Obama with voters looking for real change.“

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Edwards was posing serious criticisms of Obama as early as December 2007:

“I know Sen. Obama gave a speech today, and he’s a good guy, but I listen to the talk about, ‘I’m going to give the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the oil companies a seat at the table, and I’m going to sit at that table, and I’m going to negotiate with them, and they will voluntarily give their power away.’ Well, that’s not the world that I live in. They’ll give their power up when we take their power away from them.” 

Sounds like a vote of no confidence to me. But suddenly — when Obama appears to have the majority of Democratic support, Edwards thinks he’s undoubtedly the man for the job. Does his description of Obama back in December reflect even a portion of the confidence one should have in a candidate they are endorsing?

And then there’s healthcare — an issue that a great many Americans have a personal stake in:

Edwards also took issue with Obama’s recently unveiled health-care plan, saying it fell short of covering the estimated 45 million uninsured people in the United States. “I believe unless we have a law requiring that every man, woman and child in America be covered, we’re going to have millions of people who aren’t covered,” Edwards said.

These are big issues — issues that Edwards has suddenly begun to ignore for the sake of an endorsement.

Posted in 2008 campaign, 2008 election, barack obama, billy hallowell, john edwards | 2 Comments »

It’s No Longer Cool to Hang With Racists?

May 5th, 2008 by billyhallowell

I know that I’m a bit late on this, but I can’t resist commenting. Barack Obama has [finally] separated himself from his former father figure-pastor-confidant-spiritual advisor. In a speech that came approximately two months later than it should have, Obama called Reverend Wright’s media hoopla nothing more than a series of incomprehensible rants. If elected, let’s hope he’s quicker when it comes to addressing national security issues. Considering his vast political experience (cough, cough), I’m sure we have nothing to worry about. After all, Obama’s got more than enough hope and change to go around, right?

If Obama’s recent denunciation isn’t a sure-fire decree that his leadership skills need tailoring, I don’t know what is. Only now, when Obama’s numbers are slipping, has he decided to step forward against his bigoted former pastor. Not only do I find it reprehensible that Obama waited to long to disavow his mentor’s words, but it’s also laughably ironic. His supporters will say one of two things – either “Reverend Wright was right (no pun intended)” or “Obama is finally doing the right thing.” Both statements are shamefully incorrect.

Oh, but I almost forgot the third response – from those individuals who think they’re being fair-minded: “Well what does Wright’s connection to Obama matter anyway?” This response is quite possibly the most ridiculous of the three; I’d rather have someone agree with Wright than openly admit that a candidate’s allegiances don’t matter.

So, to address the latter of the three: Reverend Wright is a racist who preached divisiveness. Obama was directly connected to him, he heard Wright’s racist and anti-American rants and sat unshaken at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Wright married Obama and his wife, he baptized his children – oh, and Wright also inspired one of Obama’s books. That’s more than an allegiance. And it matters.

To address the first response, how can anyone actually believe that Wright was right? Sure, you may agree with the sentiment – that African Americans have had it tough in America, but to actually believe that what this man preached, the manner that it was delivered in, was right is also reprehensible. Don’t get me wrong – America still has her share of racial issues. While I believe that this nation needs to rectify its past skeletons, I also believe that we need to be realistic about our nation’s demographics.

And to address the second statement (that Obama is finally doing the right thing): Why the hell did it take so long?  The only logical conclusion centers upon the notion that Obama didn’t necessarily disagree with Wright.  Most logical human beings would run fast and far from a pastor who made such ferocious statements — unless of course they agreed.  This — to some degree — is indefinitely the case with Obama.  He knows that he has no chance of winning in a nation that is around 70% Caucasian if he doesn’t separate himself from Wright’s rants.

Here is a snippet from some of Wright’s hope-filled words:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people…God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Race has never been an issue for me; I’ve always befriended individuals without considering their heritage as a deciding factor. I find it ironic that Wright can use those words and actually believe that they are part of the Christian doctrine. Instead of harsh and divisive words, would it not be more effective to share the plight of African Americans and other minorities who are downtrodden by a broken educational system and a history that has led to suppression? Instead, Wright tells white people what trash they are. If his methods are right, then I must be insane.

Was Wright also correct in his assertion that Farrakhan is one of the greatest voices of this century? Let’s hope not.

I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard from the Reverend.

Posted in 2008 campaign, 2008 election, obama, wright | 2 Comments »

Free Speech and Other Evolutionary Tales

April 18th, 2008 by billyhallowell

As you probably know, a recommendation in contemporary socialization calls for an absence of political and religious chatter, as it is usually leads to severe disagreements. While there are issues that can be independently placed within either political or religious categories, some issues – like evolution and abortion – are fluid, as they meander within both the political and the religious modes of society. These are, undoubtedly, the most dangerous issues to address, as few topics incite such inflammatory ranting on both ends of the political spectrum.

Enter Ben Stein – the presidential speechwriter, actor, commentator, game show host, and economist turned documentarian.

If you haven’t yet heard about Expelled — Stein’s new flick — I’m not surprised. In a media that is saturated with a blind acceptance of Darwinian theory (not to mention liberal inclinations), an absence of coverage is par for the course.

In his new film, Stein takes on free speech and evolution, as he addresses the field of science — the discipline in which these two social constructs greatly clash. While the leftist critiques seem to focus too heavily on Stein’s efforts to allegedly disprove or prove theories of creationism and evolution, media critic Brent Bozell correctly characterizes the main points of the film:

“Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.”

What many will likely miss are the fine details that get at just how limited the scientific community has made itself in terms of alternative ideologies. While the film shows us firsthand just how much Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists hate theology – and religion in general – it also shows us the powerful limitations that have been placed on scientists. After all, isn’t science all about free-thinking and exploration? I suppose free-thinking entails anything outside of the realm of believing in the possibility that our entirely complex world was created by an intelligent being.

In his own words, Stein characterizes his film as:

“… a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.”

Now, that’s a film you simply cannot miss.

Posted in ben stein, billy hallowell, creationism, evolution, expelled movie | 1 Comment »

Perez Hilton Takes It Way Too Far

March 16th, 2008 by billyhallowell

While this is typically out of the realm of what I blog about, I find it absolutely necessary to comment on the horrific actions that Perez Hilton and other bloggers have taken in response to homophobic comments from Louisiana Rep. Sally Kern. 

Look, I’m well aware of the deep hurt homosexuals feel over her statements – and rightfully so. I can understand the reaction that would come from hearing such things, but instead of responding to Kern in a more appropriate manner, Perez wrote a post entitled “Poor Repressed Homo.” The following note appeared under a picture of Kern’s son:

“How cute is he?? That is Jesse Kern, the gay son of homophobe Sally Kern, Oklahoma Republican and state representative. Jesse has been so f***** in the head by his mom that he claims to be celibate, as a gift to God. Poor kid!”

First and foremost, get the story straight, Perez (no pun intended).  Priests and other clergy members choose to be celibate.  There is a deep religious belief that is founded upon the religious inclination that it is better to serve God than it is to become wedded to another individual.  This, again, is the basis for individuals who wish to become priests, nuns, sisters, etc.  While you and I might not choose that same path, being so insensitive to those who have is pretty disgusting. 

Interestingly, Perez chose not to research the inflammatory information he (or his staff) posted about Kern’s son. Not only is her son not gay (by his own account), but he also doesn’t agree with the statements made by his mother. Had Perez or his associates researched a bit harder, they would have found the following information, reported in Tulsa World on March 14th:

Jesse Kern, son of Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said information purporting that he is gay, which has appeared on several blogs, is damaging to himself and his family. Kern, 31, said he feels the media has a responsibility to seek out the truth, then report it…

Kern’s views differ from those of his mother, although he applauds her for standing up for what she believes, and thanks his parents for his good upbringing.

Disagreeing with Sally Kern is one thing, but dragging her innocent son into the mix is damn-right evil. And her son does have a point about the damage that this is causing to him and his family. Is he a public figure? That is a question I’d be extremely concerned about if I were Perez – or any other the other bloggers who continue to slander him.

Read the following, posted by The Gaytheist:

“Now here’s the real scoop and what is probably exacerbating Sally’s virulent homophobia. Her son Jesse is a flaming queer.”

Absurd! If her son were gay and had admitted it, posting these comments would be a bit more justified. But, that simply isn’t the case. If you want to hate Sally Kerns, go for it.  I’m not sticking up for her my any means; her comments have no room in the public square.  But, attacking her son who had nothing to do with her homophobic rant is uncalled for.

Posted in billy hallowell, gay, gay issues, jesse kerns, perez hilton, sally kerns | 1 Comment »

2008 Unleashed: The Dem’s, McCain and Our Nation’s Future

March 12th, 2008 by billyhallowell

What’s most perplexing about the 2008 presidential campaign is the unadulterated love and support Barack Obama has received from America’s young generation (and from American media, but that’s for an entirely different piece). While this support has brought Obama a long way on the seemingly never-ending path toward possible presidential supremacy, Clinton is hanging tough. While I am not a Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, I fluctuate between supporting Obama and Clinton (and by “supporting” I mean “selecting the candidate who won’t make me cry myself to sleep every night if my preferred candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, happens to lose in November).

Luckily, on the Republican front McCain has officially been granted the candidacy. Instead of debating back and forth with vying party rivals, he can face the complexities associated with the general election, focusing the breadth of his energy on his upcoming battle with a Democratic contender – whomever he or she may be; this is a clear advantage that some Democrats may be underestimating.

When it comes to the overall political spectrum, one cannot help but wonder how the Democrats will possibly rectify the deep divide that the Obama vs. Clinton charade has manifested. With the Republicans losing out in 2006 – a prime example in political theory of “surge and decline” – mixed with an overall distaste for the Bush administration and its policies, left me more than concerned about the prospect of the Republicans losing out in 2008. Bearing in mind Bush’s unpopular status, one might say I had quite a bit to fear.  But, then — as it often does in politics — the sociopolitical climate changed.

While many talking heads spouted off about an impending civil war amongst members of the Republican Party, conditions seem to be turning around quite rapidly.  Sure, there have been spats and disagreements, but the battle for the Republican nomination is sealed and the focus of political fury has been placed upon the two Democratic contenders who have their hearts set on “making history.” While they’re out pledging to fulfill empty promises that they dress up with elaborate diatribes about “hope” and “change,” McCain is left alone to concentrate on better positioning himself among members of his party who still haven’t accepted him as the most applicable choice – and on the general election, of course. But the Democrats – they’re still battling one another and it isn’t pretty.

The gender and race cards are being pulled so fast that the deck is damn near empty. The other day I was in an elevator and I overheard an African American woman speaking with a man behind me. She was talking about how wonderful it was that a black man had made it so far in America (i.e. Obama). She went on to explain that this was the primary reason she’d be voting for him (assuming he receives the Democratic nomination).

Now, this is where my frustration over the Obama phenomenon reaches its max. While I truly love and value diversity, I would never support an individual on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead.

If Barack Obama were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I would be more than supportive (pending that the reason for said support was not based solely on ethnicity). I’m all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience. Unfortunately, Barack Obama does not have the experience one would expect to find in a candidate in the running for the American presidency. Feel free to debate me on that, but it’s basically unarguable at this point. 

And don’t even get me started on Hillary Clinton. The last thing this nation needs is another Clinton in the White House – but I digress.  Supporting someone based primarily on race or gender is silly and unbelievably naive.  Real leadership comes from within (and from the experiences gained in the many instances that shape our hearts and minds).

And let’s not forget about “hope” and “change” – the weasel words that he and Hillary throw around so spuriously that one cannot help but wonder if they ever deviate from their scripted banter.

The fact of the matter is this: We need a president who is ready and willing to take on the complex issues that are stampeding our nation – and our world. While all three contenders are more than willing, are they ready?

The only candidate who has proven longitudinal experience coping with peace, war and the political institutions that govern the American political schema is John McCain. Argue with me all you’d like, but the facts, the timelines and all other secondary sources of data point to his experience and willingness to reach across the aisle (something that is desperately needed when considering the level of stagnation that has been created by partisan politics in recent years).

Let’s hope Americans realize this unalienable fact before it’s too late.

Posted in billy hallowell, hillary clinton, john mccain | 2 Comments »

HIV/AIDS: Bush Saving Millions in Africa?

March 7th, 2008 by billyhallowell

Bob Geldof penned an intriguing piece for TIME Magazine last week about George W. Bush and America’s commitment to the African continent. While I disagree with Geldof’s take on the Iraq war and other associated stances, this piece opens up necessary dialog surrounding HIV/AIDS and the legacy of America’s forty-third president.

Following the 2003 Iraq invasion, Bush’s approval ratings began to decline and have remained relatively low since early 2005. Iraq and the blunders that plagued U.S. operations in the Middle East have created international and domestic resistance to the Bush administration and its policies. The Iraq War and the American-led War on Terrorism have so dominated the sociopolitical spectrum, that the events have collectively eclipsed the majority of media coverage concerning Bush’s other presidential duties.

When it comes to accomplishments, George W. Bush is rarely recognized. The hurt and anguish many have internalized over what they see as divisionary tactics has dirtied his image to such a degree that he is denied all attribution for the good he has done in various regions across the globe.

Particularly in Africa, Bush has made an impact that is literally saving millions of lives. Geldof’s piece seeks to understand why the American people are vastly unaware of Bush’s work on the African continent. Perhaps the most interesting portion of Geldof’s article centers on what he calls “the great unspoken.” While Geldof was aboard Air Force One to discuss U.S. aid to Africa, Bush sought to connect the dots between the sociopolitical landscape in Africa and the antisystemic forces that have continued to hamper U.S. operations in Iraq:

Geldof: “I don’t know how, but eventually we arrive at the great unspoken.

Bush: “See, I believe we’re in an ideological struggle with extremism…These people prey on the hopeless. Hopelessness breeds terrorism. That’s why this trip is a mission undertaken with the deepest sense of humanity, because those other folks will just use vulnerable people for evil. Like in Iraq.”

In an effort to avoid conflict (since Geldof disagrees with Bush entirely concerning U.S. actions in Iraq), he attempted to divert the conversation toward a subject that would create less contention. After what the author calls an “uncomfortable” exchange, the conversation progressed.

Geldof: “At one point I suggest that he will never be given credit for good policies, like those here in Africa, because many people view him “as a walking crime against humanity.” He looks very hurt by that. And I’m sorry I said it, because he’s a very likable fellow.”

Due to the negative connotation Bush’s name brings to the international “table,” he may, indeed, be ignored for his impressive actions in Africa.  Unfortunately for Bush’s critics, ignoring his successful assistance programs in the region is nothing short of avoiding reality.  Bush deserves recognition for these accomplishments. After all, Geldof points out that in 2003, only 50,000 Africans were taking antiretroviral drugs. Even more unconscionable, these people were paying for their own medication. But today, treatment is much more widespread. In fact, there are 1.3 million individuals receiving medicines free of charge, which can mostly be attributed to George W. Bush and his Republican administration.

According to Geldof, “Bush…initiated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist.” The Bush Administration has also fought tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS (the U.S. provides a substantial amount of funding for the Global Fund). Unfortunately, the American people remain vastly unaware of these advancements.

George W. Bush’s commitment to Africa should not be eclipsed by negative commentary or partisan political angst. While one may not agree with the aggregate of George W. Bush’s domestic of international policies, there is no contesting the positive impact this American president has had on the African region.

Posted in africa, billy hallowell, bob geldof, george w. bush, hiv/aids, time magazine | 1 Comment »

Iran: Number One World Power? Nope, Not Today

March 2nd, 2008 by billyhallowell

“Iran is the number one power in the world” – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

No, the aforementioned text has not been lifted from a “Saturday Night Life” script. According to FOX News, Ahmadinejad uttered these words this past week in a speech to the families of Iranians who perished in the Iran-Iraq war that occurred more than 20 years ago. And, yes. He was being serious.

In what serves as yet another example of his refusal to let go of the past, Ahmadinejad showcased his unadulterated lunacy in his assertion that he is leading the world most powerful country.

This baseless statement is more than laughable, especially when considering the fact that Ahmadinejad and his government deny the existence of homosexuals in Iran, authorizes the murder of gays and restricts the rights of women. I suppose these components contribute to his idea of what it takes to become the “number one world power.” Unfortunately, these are traits of an ideologically torn nation that is ruled by a cruel despotic figurehead – not indicators of a good or decent nation by any means.

“Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and puts them in their place.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Whose teeth is he referring to?  And the American liberals think Bush is a brainwashing buffoon (my guess is that this story will go widely unpublished amongst liberal bloggers who are probably more concerned with statistically predicting Bush’s next bowel movement)? This man delivered a speech on (state) television that out and out lies to his own people. 

But, what else are we to expect from a man who seems determined to solidify his nation as the diaper rash of the world.

Posted in Uncategorized, billy hallowell, fox news, iran | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries