Yep, we actually have our live.365 cast up this week, finally -- on-air right now is the show before ours, "Money Talk." Join us tonight between 6 - 8 p.m. CDT for the program.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio new for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Hey! Look! We made mention in an editorial in this morning's Charlotte Observer! More on the Laurie Taylor story...

Rather than weighing such choices with her three school-age children, Laurie Taylor has forbidden them from even entering their school libraries. In a letter to "Arkansas Tonight," an online radio show, Taylor explains her belief that "parents must have complete knowledge, if they desire (and I do!), of what THEIR children are exposed to at all times through television, Internet, music, papers, books (library or text), school, church, friends' homes, parties, camp, etc. ... "

Thanks to Kay McSpadden, who wrote the piece. We'll have a little more on this story tonight.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for you net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

New show tonight, 6 - 8 p.m. CDT on Newstalk 1030 KFAY-AM and on LIve365.com. Call in number (479) 521-5329 or go to www.arkansastonight.com for e-mail and toll-free numbers. Straight off the top, we'll talk with Bob Greenwald, producer and director of "Outfoxed" who has a new movie in the works, entitled "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Prices" -- we'll find out what kind of experience he's had trying to make the movie, and how Wal-Mart has reacted. Also tonight, Mike Earls of Take2Video, who has just taken his business (and adult movies) online. We'll talk about censorship and also Senator Blanche Lincolns recent stab at taxing net porn. Also, musical/political comedy from "The Capitol Steps" and others tonight, and we'll talk more about that nasty trouble with books in the Fayetteville Public Schools, and what you can do to keep the libraries open and uncensored. Again, that's tonight at 6 p.m. CDT.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Doug Smith has this fantastic article on Dr. Jay Greene, late of the school voucher wars and the conservative Manhattan Institute, a man who has now taken up residence at the U of A as the chief of the "Education Reform" Department...

A statement from the National Education Association, with which the Arkansas Education Association is affiliated:

"The National Education Association (NEA) is encouraged when higher education facilities, such as the College of Education at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, look to set up departments designed to examine ways to improve public education. Unfortunately, Jay Greene, who was reportedly named as the new department's head, has devoted his career to promoting vouchers and other measures aimed to weaken or otherwise dismantle public education. Dr. Greene has a history of promoting vouchers as the answer to every challenge and issue facing public schools. Given Dr. Greene's anti-public-education record and his refusal to entertain or support the need for authentic reforms supported by teachers, other educators and parents - such as smaller class sizes, quality teachers in every classroom, greater parental involvement, early childhood education, safe and clean facilities, and up-to-date textbooks and technology - there is cause for concern. NEA hopes that the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville is not headed down the slippery voucher slope that impedes the opportunity for every child to have access to a quality public education."

A good read. Again, a few professors at the University contacted us early on about the establishement of this Department and about what direction it might take -- they were afraid someone like Dr. Greene would take over. It would be interesting to hear back from them and see what they say now.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

OK, so I'm a day late and a dollar short on this story, go figure. Interesting stuff on the grapevine yesterday about some free airplane rides for the Governor and staff members courtesy of Wal-Mart. I've included the .pdf files of the disclosure forms here for you to download and look at. Just click and they'll open, or right-button-click on your mouse and download them. You'll get a good look at who in the legislature gets free dinners from Wal-Mart lobbyists and where campaign money from the Wal-Mart pac went. It's interesting stuff to say the least. Here goes...

Wal-Mart pac documents -- read me! (.pdf)

Wal-Mart lobbyist disclosures -- read me! (.pdf)

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Hmmmmmm...what's going on here?

WASHINGTON, July 28 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Someone explain this to me, what's happening?

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today.

Below, you'll see a sample of the political cartoons of Wolf Grulkey of the Fort Smith area. When Wolf whips something up, we'll put it here for you to see and you can also make comments. We're very happy to have local talent onboard -- we love editorial cartoons, and it's nice not to have to rip them off from Creator's Syndicate.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

-- Don Elkins

In Focus column, Northwest Arkansas Times

Friday, July 29, 2005

"Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be." - Lactantius

Those words from a long-ago poet and philosopher of early Christianity seem apt today, because again, fear darkens America. Anything and everything that threatens us, or looks scary can become a cause celebre for anyone looking for a soapbox, or any politician looking to get ahead.

If we can't stop an enemy, that won't stop us from making someone pay, or finding danger in the shadows. And, as Lactantius said, that's when the wisdom hits the bricks. While listening to an early morning radio program a few weeks back, I learned something interesting about fear. That piece of wisdom came while listening to an interview with a Japanese film director who specializes in horror films.

The director said that no one could look at a dog or cat or any animal and really tell if that animal is happy, sad, bored, and melancholy - but we can tell if an animal experiences fear.

Fear is a primal, base emotion and reaction to danger.

And, as such, it's a powerful force, a motivator without compare. Fear makes the wisdom, the IQ depart and makes the fearful into slaves and in some cases, into tools for those who know how to use that knowledge.

That concept shows up in military basic training. Most recruits find it hard not to fear a screaming drill instructor. However, that drill instructor has a purpose and uses fear as a tool to shape individuals into parts of a cohesive unit, into soldiers, sailors and marines who will fight, and obey orders under combat conditions. It has also been used as a tool by powerful politicians, by the Klan, by cult leaders and those who vend snake oil remedies and the latest pill or cream promised to make the aging process reverse and give us beauty. The power to inspire and profit from fear in others has long been a hallmark of manipulators.

So, with that in mind, one must weigh two current stories in the news against that knowledge. One must put tough questions to those who now would seem to use either our fear, or their own, to make changes in society.

Does local literary puritan Laurie Taylor really worry about sexually oriented books in the Fayetteville public school libraries out of her own fear and desire to protect her children, or does something else motivate her to use the fear felt by many local parents about the same books? She's told me she only worries about her own children, but has decided she also, by extension, she cares about my children as well. Sounds pretty good, but then later, learning that perhaps she's been talking to other people about "battling secular humanism" I no longer know what to think. Does she want to take advantage of my concern for my children to use others and me as tools in some sort of long-standing political campaign? I'm a journalist by trade, and by nature, meaning I'm a skeptic.

Some have called Taylor a "hero" others have written this paper to take her to task for "censorship." And what of the thing causing all the fear? What of the books? I'm still in awe of the written word, believe the pen can be "mightier than the sword" but still don't actually fear words and ideas, however alien they may seem.

After all, as a thinking animal with opposable thumbs, I have some control over the fear I feel in this case, and still don't see the threat of words or thoughts or ideas. Having to answer questions about sex from a child isn't necessarily comfortable in some cases, but it doesn't frighten me, because I have many conversations with my children, and have taught them not to fear ideas and words, even ones patently mistaken like racism and the fear of the printed word.

Again, I don't want to assign motives to anyone other than myself, and my motive remains suspicion. Another story this past week had me thinking about fear again. This time, Senator Blanche Lincoln, backed by a centrist Democratic think-tank, jumped on the Internet porn bandwagon. The good Senator wants to place an excise tax on adult websites and force those same businesses to use stronger methods of verifying a users age.

Representatives of the adult entertainment industry spoke out about the proposed legislation in the silliest way possible, one industry mogul explaining he didn't think teens like to watch "things" they didn't do themselves. I'm still scratching my head over that bit of complete, inexcusable nonsense. But I also have to question the motives of the Senator in all this.

Her bill really faces some high hurdles. Not many business lobbies want to see Internet commerce of any kind regulated or taxed - it cuts into the bottom line, and if one industry gets an excise tax, which industry comes next? Also, and probably more important here, who will determine, using which standards, which websites have to pay the tax? This bill faces almost insurmountable odds against long-standing American jurisprudence on free speech issues, and would probably end up shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court (as it stands now.)

So, I wonder if someone wants to use fear about kids and online dirty pictures to get votes, to get sympathy, to get support. Could it be true? Could the Senator have a fear of her own, something along the lines of "I need to bolster my voter base, or I may end up as a constituent, rather than serving them"?

Senator Lincoln and the brains in D.C. have to have enough native intelligence to have realized what a long shot this move could turn out to be.

In the end, I can't truly ascribe motives of either of these people, only to myself and my own fear that someone wants to turn me into a "thing, a kind of hammer or chisel to help them achieve some lightly-hidden agenda. Perhaps, as FDR said, "All we have to fear is fear itself."

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

So this is the well-qualified attorney the President thinks most Americans will find acceptable? Sounds like the Senate hearings may turn into a federal investigation instead...here's a taste of what papers disclosed by the White House about Mr. Robert's background reveal...good luck!

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

The documents are from Roberts's 1981-1982 tenure as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Like previously reported memos from Roberts's stint in President Ronald Reagan's White House in the mid-1980s, the documents made available from the National Archives yesterday show a man in his mid-twenties deeply engaged in the conservative restructuring of government that the new president had promised.

Ant-acid anyone? Where, oh where, have the moderates gone?

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Frank Broyles exercises his considerable muscle with state lawmakers again, this time complaining to Governor Huckabee on behalf of car dealers who loan cars to athletic officials -- Broyles thought it unfair those dealers had to pay taxes on the vehicles, bent the Governor's ear, and got his wish -- a special favor from the State Department of Finance...(Democrat Gazette)

That would mean dealers would pay much less in sales tax on those vehicles, according to the department. "We are working toward that end," Weiss said. "There is clearly an agreement to get these cars registered and licensed. We'll work on the mechanics of the leasing situation and collecting the taxes on the leases."

Again, Frank shows us who has the real power in Arkansas. (which is why we love him)

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Another lawsuit filed in the battle between Wal-Mart and it's former executives. This from Forbes, courtesy of Bullwhiz. Wal-Mart has filed suit against outsted Vice-Chairman Tom Coughlin. Here are some of the details of the case.

The lawsuit, filed in Benton County Circuit Court, outlines page upon page of instances in which Coughlin allegedly misused company gift cards on items such as watches, Bloody Mary mix, headphones, sunflower seeds, a Toby Keith CD, underwear and a karaoke machine. Fake expense accounts also covered the purchase of snake boots, an XM radio, truck accessories and airplane tickets, the complaint said.

Through his attorney, Coughlin has denied wrongdoing. He says his use of corporate money and property was related to what he described as "union activity" for which he was obtaining "reimbursement."

Of course, last week, former Vice President Jared Bowen filed suit against TWLR for defaming him in paperwork filed with the Labor Department.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today.

Our conservative friend, and Siloam Springs newspaper chief Lucas Roebuck today takes a stab at the Laurie Taylor book dilemma. As usual, he falls on the other side of issue, but if you've followed this story, might be worth a read. Here's a taste, so get those pens and pencils out to write a letter to the editor...

I've never met Laurie Taylor, a parent who apparently stumbled across some extremely explicit sex books at the Fayetteville public school library, and decided she was going to do something about it. Laurie, like many in Northwest Arkansas, thinks that the public school and public tax dollars should not be used to provide books that teach girls to sexually experiment with each other, to allow boys to insert objects into every orifice, etc. I happen to agree with her. Sex education in public school should be a clinical understanding of the male and female anatomy, and the reproductive process. Sexual values (i. e. what to think about homosexuality, what constitutes deviant behavior, etc.) should be taught at home.

Correct! AT HOME -- that means you don't make other parents follow the "values" you hold dear. It still doesn't work that way.

Hey! If you haven't had enough talk about the "porn ban bill" -- join us Saturday night at 6:30 p.m. on Newstalk 1030 KFAY-AM, and also on Live365.com, Sunday night on WAIradio.com for a longer discussion of this with our friend Mike Earls who runs Take 2 Video...he just jumped into the market against Netflix and Wal-Mart, with a twist. He'll join us to talk about legislating morality and content online and in video...and yes, he sponsors the show, but he's a great guest as well who's really thought about this issue...as a courtesy to him (and you if you're a video fanatic) here's his news release about the new service...

Take2dvd.com takes on Netflix by launching the first family online movie rental service complete with an adult XXX section.

Fayetteville, AR July 25th 2005- Take 2 Video, an Arkansas based video chain, launches an online movie rental service similar to Netflix and Blockbuster. Take2dvd.com takes things one step further by offering both new release movies and Adult only XXX films. Take 2 Video has long held the belief that an adult only section is very much an appropriate part of a mainstream family video store. With ad slogans like "Grown up's are part of the family too" take 2 has been locally famous for their "Couples Corners" for over a decade.

Take2dvd.com is now ready to take this definition of a family video store nationwide via the internet. Take 2 expects to recruit over 100,000 members in its first year. They currently offer a 2 week free trial and memberships start at $9.95 per month.

When asked if adult films could really be consistent with a family video store CEO Mike Earls responded "America spends more on adult entertainment each year than it does on apples, this 8 billion dollar a year industry deserves a respectable place at the table in Americas family life."When asked how something kids can't watch could be pro-family he replied "Just because something isn't for children doesn't make it anti-family."

You can view Take 2 Video Online now at www.take2dvd.com

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your online or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Apologies to the state's senior senator, but Pat Lynch, as always, puts a finger right on the problem with this week's anti-porn initiative. The points he mentions in this piece are exactly the ones NBC News and most others seemed to intentionally blow past in the search for sensational headlines and video...that, or Matt Lauer just sucks.

In fact, what Lincoln has in mind would be a regulatory nightmare, an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, and an added cost that would ultimately be borne by every internet subscriber through higher ISP fees...This is a nothing but a boondoggle and a bunch of shameless political grandstanding. Period.

Well worth a read for those of you who consider yourself cultural gauleiters out to make sure we all clean up our acts!

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Let's see...on a day when we hear more American children have fallen into poverty, when we worry about what Supreme Court nominee John Roberts would do about Roe v. Wade, when we worry about Iraq and Karl Rove, Senator Blanche Lincoln joins the "Third Way" think tank to propose legislation that would tax adult content on the internet.

Ok, first things first. Does she define that content? Could Sports Illustrated's vaunted Swim Suit Issue end up costing the sports magazine excise taxes? Again, who defines "porn?" Sounds like legal bills on that alone would submarine this thing.

And, it looks like a patent effort to appeal to the voter base centrist Democrats worry about losing, the base to which some think they need to appeal to keep office, and to dent the Republican stranglehold on the fringes of the electorate.

This "industry" makes 12 billion dollars a year. How much of that money do you think made it into election warchests after a trip through the laundry? And, if you levy a tax on one internet business, how many others will follow?

Internet commerce proponents have opposed taxing internet transactions for just about as long has we've had dial-up. They won't watch this go through, so once again, we get a piece of legislation that would accomplish absolutely nada, nothing, zip.

Sorry to say, seems like a waste of time, and an attempt at pandering. A good reason to talk about something that has nothing to do with your bread and butter, nothing to do with improving your healthcare, nothing to do with bringing down the price you pay at the pump, nothing to do with making America safer from terrorists, nothing to do with getting Americans back home and out of Iraq with all their limbs still attached. What good does this do? If it's an attempt at political strategy, OK, I'll buy it as such, but as an effective way of protectings kids, I don't see it happening, and I don't see it passing...but again, Rick Santorum and Bill Frist serve in the U.S. Senate, and they are masters of this sort of red-herring politics.

Maybe it will pass, and one surely can't rely on the House to practice any kind of sanity on an issue that includes any mention of "porn."

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Huh? The nation's chief attorney of excuses weighs in on the John Roberts nomination...

WASHINGTON - The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court. In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue.

What exactly does that mean? And, would the high court agree with that statement?

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

This yesterday from "Daily Kos" on the worsening condition of the Karl Rove defense...

Olberman reporting that there will be a piece in WSJ tommorow stating that the Memo was marked "Top Secret", and that it was not to be shared with other nation's intellegence agencies, no matter how how friendly.

Not good for the Bushes, not good at all. I guess this explains the pro-free speech Judge's agreement that Judy needed to be in jail.

Olberman announced that Joe Wilson will be on the show tommorow. Looks like Robert's nomination was not controversial enough to keep the press at bay. Oh, what a difference a couple of weeks make.

Again, the publicly known evidence against Rove continues to mount.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Those who opposed the liquor permit for the Fayetteville Sam's Club may not have ended their fight yet. Reportedly, some are considering filing a complaint in court over the decision. I spoke with Springdale State Senator Jim Holt yesterday about it, and he sent me this note -- I don't think he'd mind me reprinting it here. It gives you a good idea what opponents of the move think...sounds like they may have a point...

Dear Don,

(the) Sam's club liquor permit (is) illegal.

It just doesn't get any plainer than this:

3-4-218 AR Code

"No new liquor permit shall be issued to, nor any outstanding liquor permit be transferred to any person, firm, or corporation wherein the permitted premises of the liquor permit tee is operated as part of the profit making business of any drug, grocery, sporting goods, dry goods, hardware, or any general mercantile stores or any other business unrelated to the retail package sale of such liquor."

If interested, I have additional insight on why this is such a bad idea as well.

Laws should be adhered to, whether the entity is the biggest retailer in the world or the smallest, poorest person in the world. Laws, if just, make for a civil and orderly society.

If this passes it will open up HARD LIQUOR (not just beer and wine) sales in every grocery or department store in Arkansas. We know that that is not the intent of this law.

Again, I'm not an attorney. Love to hear some ideas on this...does it carry water legally, and does it (or doesn't it) in reality?

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your commercial or web broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

-- Don Elkins
In Focus, Northwest Arkansas Times
Friday, July 22, 2005

Washington, D.C., as always, remains a hotbed of conflicting interests. That can create confusion at least where I sit.

Case in point; the recent bill proposed by two Republican lawmakers which would create a nationwide "shield law" for journalists.

Where do we start on this? The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it finds no special right for journalists to protect their sources, short of the first amendment, and that applies to all of us. However, 31 states across America do have shield laws which make it harder for courts to take a reporters notes or tapes.

And of course, we have to examine why the bill has come up now, and who opposes it. To do that, we have to understand all the trouble in which senior White House advisor Karl Rove finds himself.

If a federal shield law existed, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine wouldn'[t have had to hand over his notes, and we wouldn't know Mr. Rove had at the very least leaked information to the media, much less that he may have broken federal law.

The New York Times' Judith Miller wouldn't be in jail, and people wouldn't be following Chicago Sun Times columnist Bob Novak around D.C. with cameras more than usual.

See the contradiction?

The public learned about something of interest and import because reporters found their ability to keep sources confidential impaired. It makes one wonder if the media didn't end up doing the public a disservice by behaving in a journalistically ethical manner.

After all, reporters highly value their ability to uncloak secrets in the interest of the public. In this case, they really kept the big story to themselves. Two wrongs don't make a right in this situation - reporters kept an explosive story under wraps, but the courts effectively turned the journalists in question into de facto deputies of the government -- if you will, unofficial police investigators.

And, as we've seen in many political situations of late, this case makes for some strange bedfellows.

You have Republican members of Congress helping to draft and support this, ostensibly to fix what happened to Karl Rove from happening to anyone else in this or any other administration - allied with most journalists who have long fought for stronger legal protections under law.

On the opposing side, you have the White House, which hates this bill, along with the Justice Department which says it goes too far lined up with writers on the left like Joe Conasen, who seemingly detests the administration. OK, that's facetious, he loathes them, so go figure. Even Little Rock writer Gene Lyons - a fantastic writer for the Democrat Gazette and magazines like "Harpers" - has come out against the proposed law.

Again, the argument against a stronger shield law for reporters states that the Constitution neither implies nor explicitly provides any special protection for journalists. We get treated like everyone else in the eyes of the law, and don't have anything like "security clearances" we can break forcing us before a grand jury.

If we go to court, we go like anyone else - as accessories to a crime, or witnesses, or corporate miscreants with valuable paperwork or documentation prosecutors can subpoena.

However, an old axiom in the business states the obvious for those who ply the pen and camera and tape recorder and mic: News is what most people want hidden - all else is publicity.

To get that news, we often have to rely on those with less than pure motives, with less than legal access to documents.

The readers want to know about the dirty deals behind closed doors and so do voters and taxpayers. Woodward and Bernstein still remain folk heroes to those who enter the field of true journalism. Their anonymous sources helped topple the Nixon White House after a cover-up intended to thwart the FBI's investigation of political dirty tricks.

Back in the early 1970s, Woodward and Bernstein were getting the low-down from high government officials like F. Mark Felt, the second-in-command of the FBI on dirty games behind the scenes, behind the wall of law, behind the gates of the White House. The Washington Post spilled the beans to the public.

Today, people like Matt Cooper find themselves actually forced into a similar role - a role they did not choose, a role a court forced them to play.

If Cooper had covered the Nixon White House, we'd have no "All the President's Men" to read today, because he would have hidden it. That raises the question of whether Cooper, Miller, Novak, et. al actually mis-used or misinterpreted their ethics in this case. They're supposed to report the facts, and yes, they need to keep their sources secret - but did you see any of them follow the Plame case and the leak through other sources? Did they point anyone in the right direction like other reporters pointed Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction in the Post newsroom during Watergate? No - they kept the details to themselves, not only preserving the secrecy of their confidential source, but may have willingly allowed themselves to function as a tool of political retribution.

For that alone, they've dealt the field of journalism a black eye, because critics of the media like to complain about bias, complain about anything they can against a free press, and Cooper, Miller and Novak have given those critics ammunition on both sides of the political aisle.

The press could use a stronger shield law in this country, and those journalists close to the administration could use a wakeup call about the dangers of using masters of spin as secret sources.

Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller has bailed out of the primary race. He says he had a blood test that shows he could develop leukemia. That leaves a new calculus in play, with Asa! and Beebe! both facing each other in the fall. The only question now -- is that the real story behind WinRock's decision? It seems a little fishy to me, but still plausible. Enough for "plausible denial" of other reasons, like "did he decide to bow out because the numbers showed he couldn't beat Beebe in the fall, and he didn't want to split his party?" or even further, and I'm not saying this out loud (am I?) did he have some sort of meaningful talk with the Asa folks about information to which the rest of us are not privy? Don't know the answers to this yet, but love to hear conjecture.

President Bush says he'll announce his candidate to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor tonight at 9 p.m. EDT, 8 p.m. EDT. Any guesses on who he's decided to throw to the wolves?

To all of you carping that the world has convicted Karl Rove before a trial...here's some more fuel for the fire from the LA Times. Seems some testimony says he did it, and did it with malice aforethought...enjoy...

WASHINGTON - Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it. Looks like the fun has just started.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Tired of hearing all those criticisms of Senator Dick Durbin talking about Nazis? Well, seems he and Rick Santorum don't have a monopoly on using references to the Third Reich...here's one that's especially messed up...

TRENTON, N.J. - Congressman Frank LoBiondo apologized for suggesting that Guantanamo Bay detainees were worse than Adolf Hitler because the Nazi dictator "sort of had a political rationale about what he was doing." The New Jersey Republican made the remark on a radio talk show this past week, describing his recent visit to the Naval Base in Cuba. Muslim terrorists, he said, were more evil than Hitler.

"Hitler, in his philosophy, was, you know, he hated Jews, he was murdering Jews, and there were some people he liked. But he never went to the level that these people are going to," LoBiondo said.

A caller objected to the statement only a few minutes later.

I bet! Point made, but we'll have to take 20 points away for a holocaust reference here. Wow, let's all just settle down on the Nazi thing for awhile.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial cast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Did Karl Rove ruin a CIA Agent's cover?
-- Don Elkins, IN FOCUS column, Northwest Arkansas Times
July 15, 2005

The debate in Washington over Karl Rove bears close watching. It has turned into a slugfest between the media and the administration over who said what, to whom and when.

The stakes have become enormous, and politically explosive.

The Republican Party has issued "talking points" to its members who speak publicly on the issue, and has also issued those message memos to members of the talk radio community.

However, some of the arguments getting airtime seem a bit thin at the edges.

Did Mr. Rove reveal the name and identity of Valerie Plame to reporters, outing her as an agent of the CIA? As a result, should the President suspend Rove's security clearances as members of the House Intelligence Committee have demanded? Why does White House spokesman Scott McClellan refuse to comment on the story after having done so at length during the course of the investigation in 2003? And, probably most important, what did Mr. Rove tell the Grand Jury investigation of the case?

The answers to all of these could add up to nothing at all, or could result in the same end to the Bush administration experienced by President Reagan after the Iran-Contra affair - a black eye on the way out the front door of the White House, and damage to the President's party.

In all the arguments over Mr. Rove's involvement, I've noticed a couple of items left out of the discussion. Mr. Rove's proponents argue speciously that he did not actually reveal Plame's name. They say he called her "(former ambassador Joe) Wilson's wife."

Next thing you know, they'll be arguing over the definition of the word "is" a la President Clinton. His proponents also argue that Rove didn't actually reveal Plame's identity, rather Chicago Sun Times columnist Bob Novak did in a newspaper column.

However, if you open your mouth in the company of Bob Novak, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine or Judith Miller of the New York Times, a wise person might consider the fact the audience present in the room will really consist of more people than just the reporter.

People with security clearances don't have the right to impart classified information to those without a security clearance, to those with a security clearance, but without a "need to know" the information Again, both arguments strain credulity and wouldn't stand up in the court of public opinion, much less a court convened to hear arguments about a disputed traffic ticket.

If, as Rove's lawyer admits, the President's advisor leaked information to the media about Plame's identity, he most certainly broke federal law about publicly putting the spotlight on an agent of the CIA.

Another argument that strains common sense contends Plame wasn't actually an undercover operative at the time Rove ripped off her cloak.

The record shows that, and the law provides a five-year period of secrecy for the agent in question. But no one arguing about the case seems to know why or seems to have any desire clarifying the rule. Having spent some time in the military intelligence community earlier in my life, I spent many hours learning the rules about security.

I know that one very big reason for keeping the identities of people like Ms. Plame secret also has to do with the people she may have worked with during the course of her work - double agents, sources, you name it. Revealing very publicly - as Novak did with Ms. Plame's name - the identity of a covert operative places the lives and usefulness of all those who worked with her in peril.

If you happen to be a general in some African dictatorship who had a close relationship with a foreign investor or guest worker from America who everyone knew as "Val" or something like that, the revelation that your old buddy worked for Uncle Sam may result in a late night visit from the Secret Police or a bad case of brake failure in your car when you go for a drive.

If you still pass information to U.S. intelligence and the "snooped-upon" find out, they could start sending misinformation to American intelligence analysts - very James Bond kind of stuff.

The government doesn't take any chances with that sort of thing happening, a truly good reason for keeping those covert identities secret for some time.

Finally, another argument in favor of Mr. Rove says he simply didn't know he was doing anything wrong, didn't realize Valerie Plame worked as a covert operative.

Really - the President's advisor wouldn't know this? He wouldn't have pulled her file? He wouldn't have had some idea of what she did for a living? And of course, as my father, who practiced law most of his life used to enjoy repeating, ignorance of the law is not usually accepted as an excuse for breaking it. That argument doesn't hold much water with anyone, though it attempts to defuse a larger aspect of the case - Mr. Rove's intent.

The Grand Jury wants to know if the revelation of Plame's identity came as part of a larger scheme of political payback against opponents of the administrations policy toward Iraq.

In the meantime, the increasing comparisons to Watergate don't do the administration much good in the realm of public discourse. Washington already has to deal with comparisons to Vietnam in Iraq; it doesn't need reporters comparing Mr. McClellan with his Nixonian counterpart Ron Zeigler, counting how may times McClellan can say "no comment" in the space of half an hour on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Worse still, Mr. McClellan claimed Mr. Rove hadn't talked about the case, where clearly Mr. Rove had.

That may ruin the credibility of the White House spokesman with reporters, which would mean Mr. McClellan can no longer do his job in an adequate fashion - another hit.

It's starting to feel a lot like the early 70s again, and that's not good for the President, especially during a time when he desperately needs to keep open lines of communication with the American people through the media, and needs to maintain a high level of confidence and trust in his cabinets and advisors.

The debate in Washington over Karl Rove bears close watching. It has turned into a slugfest between the media and the administration over who said what, to whom and when.

The stakes have become enormous, and politically explosive.

The Republican Party has issued "talking points" to its members who speak publicly on the issue, and has also issued those message memos to members of the talk radio community.

However, some of the arguments getting airtime seem a bit thin at the edges.

Did Mr. Rove reveal the name and identity of Valerie Plame to reporters, outing her as an agent of the CIA? As a result, should the President suspend Rove's security clearances as members of the House Intelligence Committee have demanded? Why does White House spokesman Scott McClellan refuse to comment on the story after having done so at length during the course of the investigation in 2003? And, probably most important, what did Mr. Rove tell the Grand Jury investigation of the case?

The answers to all of these could add up to nothing at all, or could result in the same end to the Bush administration experienced by President Reagan after the Iran-Contra affair - a black eye on the way out the front door of the White House, and damage to the President's party.

In all the arguments over Mr. Rove's involvement, I've noticed a couple of items left out of the discussion. Mr. Rove's proponents argue speciously that he did not actually reveal Plame's name. They say he called her "(former ambassador Joe) Wilson's wife." Next thing you know, they'll be arguing over the definition of the word "is" a la President Clinton. His proponents also argue that Rove didn't actually reveal Plame's identity, rather Chicago Sun Times columnist Bob Novak did in a newspaper column. However, if you open your mouth in the company of Bob Novak, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine or Judith Miller of the New York Times, a wise person might consider the fact the audience present in the room will really consist of more people than just the reporter.

People with security clearances don't have the right to impart classified information to those without a security clearance, to those with a security clearance, but without a "need to know" the information Again, both arguments strain credulity and wouldn't stand up in the court of public opinion, much less a court convened to hear arguments about a disputed traffic ticket.

If, as Rove's lawyer admits, the President's advisor leaked information to the media about Plame's identity, he most certainly broke federal law about publicly putting the spotlight on an agent of the CIA.

Another argument that strains common sense contends Plame wasn't actually an undercover operative at the time Rove ripped off her cloak. The record shows that, and the law provides a five-year period of secrecy for the agent in question. But no one arguing about the case seems to know why or seems to have any desire clarifying the rule.

Having spent some time in the military intelligence community earlier in my life, I spent many hours learning the rules about security. I know that one very big reason for keeping the identities of people like Ms. Plame secret also has to do with the people she may have worked with during the course of her work - double agents, sources, you name it. Revealing very publicly - as Novak did with Ms. Plame's name - the identity of a covert operative places the lives and usefulness of all those who worked with her in peril.

If you happen to be a general in some African dictatorship who had a close relationship with a foreign investor or guest worker from America who everyone knew as "Val" or something like that, the revelation that your old buddy worked for Uncle Sam may result in a late night visit from the Secret Police or a bad case of brake failure in your car when you go for a drive.

If you still pass information to U.S. intelligence and the "snooped-upon" find out, they could start sending misinformation to American intelligence analysts - very James Bond kind of stuff. The government doesn't take any chances with that sort of thing happening, a truly good reason for keeping those covert identities secret for some time.

Finally, another argument in favor of Mr. Rove says he simply didn't know he was doing anything wrong, didn't realize Valerie Plame worked as a covert operative.

Really - the President's advisor wouldn't know this? He wouldn't have pulled her file? He wouldn't have had some idea of what she did for a living? And of course, as my father, who practiced law most of his life used to enjoy repeating, ignorance of the law is not usually accepted as an excuse for breaking it. That argument doesn't hold much water with anyone, though it attempts to defuse a larger aspect of the case - Mr. Rove's intent.

The Grand Jury wants to know if the revelation of Plame's identity came as part of a larger scheme of political payback against opponents of the administrations policy toward Iraq.

In the meantime, the increasing comparisons to Watergate don't do the administration much good in the realm of public discourse. Washington already has to deal with comparisons to Vietnam in Iraq; it doesn't need reporters comparing Mr. McClellan with his Nixonian counterpart Ron Zeigler, counting how may times McClellan can say "no comment" in the space of half an hour on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Worse still, Mr. McClellan claimed Mr. Rove hadn't talked about the case, where clearly Mr. Rove had.

That may ruin the credibility of the White House spokesman with reporters, which would mean Mr. McClellan can no longer do his job in an adequate fashion - another hit.

It's starting to feel a lot like the early 70s again, and that's not good for the President, especially during a time when he desperately needs to keep open lines of communication with the American people through the media, and needs to maintain a high level of confidence and trust in his cabinets and advisors.

We interviewed the filmmaker in this little story, and as I said, I spent a lot of time at this college and in this town, so I found this interesting, and I've been complaining about getting a copy of this for awhile. So, I guess I can shell out some cash now and buy a copy...

Provo, UT-- Minority Films made an official announcement this week that their award winning documentary film, This Divided State, has been slated for a national DVD release and a limited theatrical run.

The film, which centers around the controversy that ensued after a small college in the center of the most conservative state in the nation invited liberal filmmaker Michael Moore to speak on campus two weeks before the 2004 presidential election, will premiere theatrically at the historic Tower Theatre in Salt Lake City, Utah on July 22nd. Other theatrical screenings have been scheduled across the country, including engagements in San Francisco, California and Portland, Oregon.

The DVD of the film, which is being released by Disinformation, will be available on the films website and in other markets across the country September 27th. The distribution company, Disinformation, gained national acclaim last year with their release of Robert Greenwald's documentary Outfoxed, an expose of the conservative bias of the Fox News Channel.

This Divided State gained national notoriety after Campus Progress, an offshoot of the Washington, D.C. based Center for American Progress, sponsored a coast to coast college tour which garnered attention from such respected media outlets as The Washington Post and National Public Radio.

Right on the heels of its whirlwind tour, the film was programmed at the 2005 Santa Cruz Film Festival, where it walked away with the Audience Award for Best Documentary. This Divided State has been hailed by audiences on both sides of the political spectrum as a successfully balanced documentary on the hot-button subject of the cultural divide in the nation.

One reviewer from the Yale Daily News went so far as to say that This Divided State was "more important than anything Michael Moore has made to date."

People who wish to see the movie in their local theatres are encouraged to visit the films official website (www.thisdividedstate.com) to check a growing list of theatres playing the film as well as stores that will be carrying the DVD.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

We have two interesting guests this Saturday. First, we'll talk with Laurie Taylor, the Fayetteville woman behind efforts to re-examine some 70 books in Fayetteville public school libraries she says contain language inappropriate for kids. Also joining us, Dr. Najib Ghadbian, Professor Political Science at the University of Arkansas, and commentator for Al Jazeera and Al Hurra television in the middle-east. We'll talk about the impact of the bombings in London, and about the effect of recent stories locally connected with the middle-east. Both will take your calls and answer questions.

Also, some big news for us -- we'll be taking to the air on Little Rock's WAIRadio.com the same place that now serves as home for one of our favorite radio personalities, Pat Lynch. You'll be able to catch the program each Sunday night between 6-8 p.m. and listen to Don Elkins deliver news during the station's morning drive time period.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Regardless of how anyone has labled Springdale Senator Jim Holt, upon closer examination, you may find him a little less of a cookie-cutter representative of the fringe-right Republican party. He also harbors more than a few populist and Democrat ideas (not a ton of them, but enough to get him in trouble with the leadership) -- he has also asked questions about the war in Iraq. We haven't joined his campaign or anything, but thought this was interesting, from the AP

"It's a tempest in a teapot," said Denzil Garrison, former state GOP leader in Oklahoma. But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Ah, someone who hasn't signed onto the "talking points" paper like the radio hosts in the conservative universe...in case you haven't heard the talking points yet, all you'll have to do is tune in your basic Limbaugh, Snow or any other right of center radio show. Regardless, those talking points haven't done much to silence a newly rejeuvenated Washington Press Corps, which has apparently lost all trust in White House spokesman Scott McClellan

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Ah, to heck with it. It's just not as fun doing this without the comments turned on...I'll relent for now and put them back up, I just ask for some probity from people who decide to post. I enjoy hearing what you have to say about these stories. Sorry for the break -- it's just the result of frustration by someone who lets himself get too upset by some of the stuff here...I'm just human, and sometimes can't help it.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

For my money, Grady Jim Robinson is one of best, and most overlooked columnists in the region. He has some very funny, very pointed stuff in the NWA Times each week, and before that wrote for the now-defunct Around Town newspaper. He hits the rhetorical nail on the head this week with his take on religious extremism...

Someday religious beliefs will be transformed, less literal or fundamental and dare I say it, yes, more liberal.

I think I'll get down on my knees right now and pray fervently that all Islamic fundamentalists become less fundamental, less literal and more scientific, modern and liberal. And Lord, demythologize their religious notions and incorporate the best of their spiritual values into a new worldview all inclusive of other races, religions, viewpoints, lifestyles and genders. Amen.

Oh, Lord, one more thing. When you're done with the Muslims... could you start working on the Christians?

...yes, and quickly on both.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Fayetteville Parent Laurie Taylor wrote me the other night, asking me to read excerpts from a series of books which she believes need either further review from Fayetteville Public School librarians, or some further restrictions -- "reconsideration" as she calls it.

However, we won't publish the excerpts here for a couple of reasons. First, we don't consider it fair for anyone reading this to judge the intrinsic value of any book by reading an excerpt. Instead, we'll list the books, and if you feel like it, simply check them out, or buy a copy and read the entire thing -- then tell us what you think about it.

We believe the value of any book ought to be judged on that basis, rather than on an excerpt or two. I doubt very much that the critics of these works have taken the time to read each one. I have read the excerpts, and many describe sexual acts, drug use and other things Ms. Taylor and some other parents find offensive.

However, that's also part of life, and part of art. Some of these authors, like Toni Morrison, are considered some of the best we have out there in the literary world. And, yes, I wouldn't let my younger children read many of these -- but I wouldn't prevent older children (junior and senior high school) from reading most of them -- I also wouldn't condemn them.

I believe the only way to really get to the heart of the matter is to read the work in question and judge for yourself. This is the list sent to me -- and it contains many books of which I haven't heard, some I've read, many I own, many I'd recommend. In all, a great summer reading list for Mom and Dad, and yes, for some of the older (and younger in one or two cases) kids. The depth and range of this list really scares me...

Always running : La Vida Loca, gang days in L.A. / Luis J. Rodriguez
Beloved/ Toni Morrison
Bless me, Ultima / Rudolfo Anaya
Breaking boxes / A.M. Jenkins
Chronicle of a death foretold / Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Deal with it! : a whole new approach to your body, brain, and life as a gurl / Esther Drill, Heather McDonald, Rebecca Odes
Druids / Morgan Llywelyn
Fade/ Robert Cormier
Fair game / Erika Tamar
Fallen angels / Walter Dean Myers
Fools Crow / James Welch
Girl Goddess #9 : nine stories / by Francesca Lia Block
How the Garcia girls lost their accents / by Julia Alvarez
I was a teenage fairy / Francesca Lia Block
Less than zero/ Ellis
Like water for chocolate : a novel in monthly installments with recipes, romances and home remedies/ Esquivel, Laura
Love in the time of cholera / Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Lucky / Alice Sebold
My father's scar / by Michael Cart
My heartbeat / Garret Freymann-Weyr
One hot second : stories about desire / edited by Cathy Young
One hundred years of solitude / Gabriel García Márquez
Paula / Isabel Allende
Peter/ Kate Walker
Push : a novel / by Sapphire
Ragtime / E. L. Doctorow
Rats saw God / Rob Thomas
Snow falling on cedars / David Guterson
Song of Solomon / Toni Morrison
Tenderness / Robert Cormier
The bluest eye / Toni Morrison
The perks of being a wallflower / Stephen Chbosky
The Pillars of the earth / Ken Follett
The rose and the beast : fairy tales retold / by Francesca
Lia Block

Again, read some, or if you've already read some, e-mail us and let us know what you think. Do we need to lock these down or get rid of them?

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

In today's Op-Ed section of the NWA Times, Scotty Schackleford wonders whether Karl Rove will pay the price for playing stool pigeon on Valerie Plame...

We're not talking about some political flunky here. Rove is the most senior political advisor to the most powerful person on earth. As much as any one person, he's perhaps most responsible for helping elect George W. Bush to the White House (twice) and making the Republican Party everything it is today. Nothing a person in that type of position does, especially when they're communicating with the press, is entirely by mistake.

By now, you've probably watched White House spokesman Scott McClellan's botched news conference, where reporters (deservedly) beat the hell out of the press spokesman for failing to speak about the Plame case after having already done so at length earlier.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Looks like the dismantle-the-public-schools set has invaded the University of Arkansas. Having talked to some faculty awhile back on this -- I found this very interesting. Seems the University has appointed a senior fellow from the ultra-conservative Manhattan Institute think tank as the new head of the school's Department of Education Reform. Some faculty worried this would become a fully-funded wing of the Republican party's more fringe efforts at getting the states to accept vouchers and dismantle the Department of Education. The new man will start August 15th and received a $160,000 a year salary. He brought some of his personnel along with him as well. Here's more from the DemGaz today...

Jay P. Greene comes to UA after serving five years as a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a nonprofit organization that calls itself a think tank.

The institute's mission is to develop ideas "that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility," according to its Web site: www. manhattan-institute. org

Greene led the institute's education reform efforts from its Education Research Office in Davie, Fla. He advocated for school vouchers, charter schools and the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, President Bush's education initiative.

The trouble with any of this? The Department got half of its 20-million dollar funding from the secretive Windgate Foundation in Siloam Springs, a group known for its support of overtly conservative causes. Some faculty expressed concern the University would hire exactly this kind of person. Sources told me they planned to watch very closely, hoping the school would hire a scholar with a long history of publishing in academia. Not sure if this person passes muster with the troops, but it sounds like exactly what some described would happen has happened. This'll be interesting to follow.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!

Newsweek confirms Karl Rove as the leak revealing the name of Valerie Plame. This is starting to sound more like Watergate all the time. Rove's lawyer admits the leak, and if you'll read the article, tries to lawyer-it-over.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did - and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

Again, the clincher is what Rove told the Grand Jury, and it's not looking good.

Need low-cost, high-quality radio news for your net or commercial broadcast? Simply visit RNS Radio News today!