GRAMMY NIGHT AND THE CHICKS

The Police triumphantly reunited, Mary J. Blige displayed why she is destined to be a legend, The Red Hot Chili Peppers are legends, Chris Brown can song and dance, James Brown will be sorely missed and after receiving public censure for anti-war and anti-George Bush remarks, the Dixie Chicks made a triumphant return to the spotlight winning several awards. This was the most important results in the 2007 Grammy Award show.

In a period where any criticism of American foreign or domestic policy was seen as anti-patriotic amidst the fear of terrorist threats at home and abroad The Dixie Chicks, one of the more popular groups in the country at the time used their right to free speech as American citizens living in a democracy, to criticize their President. Corporate fall-out, public fall-out led the Chicks down an isolated path of hate mail, decreased airplay and the resulting stress.

Once again, a country that is supposed to be framed on the tenet of public discourse and disagreement showed that we are not able to handle a truth we would rather not accept and those willing to issue their truth will be punished. It was good to see the Dixie Chicks receive several awards based on the excellence of their artistry and the truth within it. The good thing about living in a democracy is that even though one might here opinions that they furiously disagree with, they have a right to respond to it. Last night, in Los Angeles, California, the Dixie Chicks responded to the public beatdown they received by displaying the end result of perserverance.

DISINGENUOUS JOHN HOWARD

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia recently criticized United States Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's call for American troops to withdraw from Iraq by March 2008. Prime Minister Howard is under the impression that this will bolster the resolve of Terrorists. Well, whether that is a true statement is debatable. What is not debatable is that the Prime Minister of a country that currently has 1,4oo troops in Iraq compared with the upwards of 100,000 America has deployed and the 21,500 more who George Bush plans to deploy, has little room to criticize the big dog in the fight against terrorism.

America has put more troops in harms way and continues to do so, in spite of the seeming fruitlessness of it. Howard's comments denote a critical chasm in thinking. That thinking being that the war on terrorism can be one as a result of a continued conflict in Iraq. The truth is that that eventuality is uncertain at best.

Until the Iraqi governement can stomp out corruption within its ranks, grow a competent military and find a way to accomplish an end to the secterian violence that is sweeping that nation, no amount of American troops will be enough to bring a natural democracy to Iraq. But if Prime Minister Howard feels America should continue to feed the beast of chaos in Iraq he can put at least fifty thousand more of his own military citizens on the table. Senator Obama said fifteen thousand, but a man of resolve like John Howard should be more than willing to display the great strength of his Australia with a major deployment, right?