Noam Chomsky on What is Wrong with the Right in America

Writers strike costs $US21m a day

The 2007 Writers Guild of America strike which is a strike by both the Writers Guild of America, East(EGA) and the Writers Guild of America, west(WGA) that started on November 5, 2007. The two labor unions represent 12,000 members of film, television and radio writers working in the United States.The Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers agreed last week to return to the bargaining table on November 26.

According to reports this strike against major studios will cost at least $US21 million ($24 million) a day in television production spending alone and idle 10,000 workers if it lasts much longer, experts say.

The latest estimate accounts only for lost wages and other production costs in the Los Angeles area.

The writers have been demanding for a greater share of revenues from the Internet, widely seen as the future distribution pipeline of choice for filmed entertainment.

Freedom of speech and the power of Internet

A US student, Andrew Meyer, who was well-known on campus for his practical jokes, was tasered after jumping the queue to ask former presidential candidate US senator John Kerry a series of questions in a Florida University lecture hall on Monday.

The anguished cries Andrew Meyer, who was subdued using a Taser stun gun at a political meeting in Florida, has resonated worldwide in a matter of hours.

"Don't Tase me, bro!" was uttered by Andrew Meyer as he was pinned to the floor by police. 'Don't tase me' T-shirts are now being sold in the United States, earning Andrew Meyer a place in the American pop culture.

After a video of the incident was posted on the Internet, the officers responsible have been suspended on full pay while the debate rages over whether the student was a victim of police brutality or an attention-seeking prankster who got what he deserved.

Students at the university organised a protest yesterday and marched on the police station shouting “Don’t Tase me, bro” and demanding that stun guns were banned from campus.

Critics of Andrew Meyer have suggested that the entire incident was a planned attempt to win attention for Meyer who has already posted dozens of videos of himself on his website www.andrewmeyer.com.

Meyer has instantly become an Internet star for interrupting a political meeting.

Concern over social networks

A social network is a social structure which generally comprises of individuals, groups or organizations that are tied by one or more specific types of relations, such as values, visions, ideas, friends, kinship, business, or even web links.

Research by a number academics has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.

Friendship networks tend to be larger in younger groups, but they have weaker ties with those they talk with. But as they get older, the networks are smaller and they have stronger ties.

Some experts worry that cellphones will replace face-to-face contact, said Scott Campbell, who teaches communication studies at the University of Michigan, USA.

But what was set up as a purely business strategy is having an unintentional social effect. It is dividing the people who share informal bonds and bringing together those who have formal networks of cellphone “friends.”

Maybe they should blame the cellphone carriers. The carriers, after all, set up plans that encourage subscribers to talk mainly to people in the same network. The companies say they are simply trying to recruit and retain customers.

Malaysian bloggers warned: Don't go overboard

Malyasian government's policy of not intervening in the use of the Internet by people, including bloggers, who are free to use cyberspace is under pressure to change.

The Malaysian prime minister has issued a fresh warning to bloggers, as a key ruling party member described cyberspace as having "the law of the jungle," a report said yesterday.

"For postings that insult (religion and the King), there are laws that can be used against the culprits," said Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin, who is also Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Minister, after launching the four-day Malaysia International Machinery Fair 2007 at the Putra World Trade Centre yesterday.

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said bloggers have managed to create an unprecedented space for free expression in Malaysia.

YouTube debates setting new trend

Presidential debates is a long tried ritual in the United States of America, the world's trend setting democracy.

It is no longer a guy in a suit who mostly asks predictable questions of other suits in a carefully choreographed studio. The voter is a fixture in the audience, motionless until he or she gets to address the candidate, briefly and respectfully. It a is well designed PR stunt.

Now technology has come forward and is helping to change this old tradition. The debates still continue but the old world methods and the new world tactics have begun to overlap each other. In the new world, a kid in jeans and a T-shirt is asking questions, less reverentially, more pointedly and using powerful visual images to underscore the point.

The current presidential debates are about to enter the world of YouTube, the anything-goes home-video-sharing Web site that puts the power in the hands of the camera holder.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, and CNN are co-sponsoring a debate among the eight Democratic presidential candidates on July 23 in South Carolina, an event that could define the next phase of what has already been called the YouTube election, a visual realm beyond Web sites and blogs.

This proves that it is good for democracy when the people are empowered. Politicians often find that the people whose vote they need to come into office are much smarter than the political consultants and the men in grey suits( also known as spin doctors)- whether it is about Iraq war or global warming.

A media mogul wins the crown jewel

How will The Wall Street Journal, one of the world's leading business publications fare when, as seems highly likely, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the world's third-largest media conglomerate, News Corporation, succeeds in his US$5 billion unsolicited bid for the newspaper's parent company, Dow Jones?

Even before the deal is done, the American regulatory authority, the Securities Exchange Commission, SEC and the Justice Department have launched an investigation. As a wave of companies merge or seek to gain access to the public markets, SEC wants to ensure that trades are not done based on secret information.

SEC notified David Li, a Hong Kong banking magnate and Dow Jones board member, that it plans to recommend filing civil insider trading charges against him. These charges have come just as the merger entered its final phase.

Dow Jones' board has determined it will recommend to its stockholders, including the Bancroft family which holds shares representing a majority of Dow Jones' voting power, News Corp's proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Dow Jones' stock for 60 usd per share cash, or a combination of cash and News Corp stock.

Critics of Murdoch- and he has as many bashers as supporters- argue that over half-century of his career as a journalist and businessman shows that his newspapers and other media outlets have made news coverage decisions that advanced the interests of his sprawling media conglomerate, News Corp.

In the process, Mr Murdoch has blurred a line that exists at many other US media companies between business and news sides — a line intended to keep the business and political interests of owners from influencing the presentation of news.

The quiet changing of power in Britain

Former Treasury chief Gordon Brown became British prime minister Wednesday, promising "a new government with new priorities," after Tony Blair left office with a legacy of economic prosperity overshadowed by the deeply divisive Iraq war.

Yesterday was a historical day when power changed hands traditionally and quietly behind closed doors in Buckingham Palace. The constitutional monarch discharged one the most important responsibility of the traditions of the parliamentary form of government.

First Tony Blair first called on Queen Elizabeth II to submit his resignation to end a decade in power, and Gordon Brown arrived soon after to be invited to form the next government as the new prime minister.

Tony Blair's last day as the prime minister of the United Kingdom was an emotional one. In his last sitting in the revered chamber as prime minister, Tony Blair was cheered out of the Commons with a standing ovation that broke all the rules.

Earlier, his double bed, running machine and exercise bike were removed from the front door of No 10 in the full glare of the television cameras.

When Gordon Brown returned to Downing Street confirmed as prime minister, his greeting was a low-key affair, a deliberate contrast with the flag-waving crowds of "ordinary people" who lined Downing Street when Mr Blair took office 10 years ago. (It turned out that most were hand-picked Labour Party members - a metaphor for the PR of the Blair era.)

Brown set to work immediately, addressing the troops. "I don't want to be called anything other than Gordon," Britain's new Prime Minister said, going further than his predecessor's "call me Tony" edict to his Cabinet in 1997, which did not apply to staff.

Blair and Brown are friends-turned-rivals and on this day their paths took a diversion when Blair carried his own overnight bag at King's Cross as he boarded a train for Darlington.

America's fascination of Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton, in photo made available by the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, was sent home under house arrest Thursday by a sympathetic County Sheriff, a move that has sparked a furor. The judge ordered her back to the court and sent her back to jail on Friday to serve out her time.
(Photo :Los Angeles County Sheriff/Associated Press)

A tearful Paris Hilton sent back to jail is not a gleeful story. I do not enjoy the misfortune of Paris Hilton or anyone else but I'm curious to know why this story is headline news on the front page of all mainstream media in the United States as well the tabloids in the United Kingdom.

Paris Hilton, is sent to jail for violating her parole following a 2006 drunk driving incident. She claimed that she didn't know of her driving suspension. Now she has the opportunity to learn the hard way, that she should never be a danger to herself or anyone else by reckless drunk-driving.

She is an attractive woman. She is an heiress to a share of the Hilton Hotel fortune, as well as to the real estate fortune of her father Richard Hilton. At 26, she is the party girl who rose to fame when a home-made sex video of her surfaced onto the Internet in late 2003.

In a celebrity-driven culture, her court saga and jail term is a closely watched spectacle. To many people it is equal justice that she does her time in jail, without any preferential treatment on account of her wealth and fame. Her supporters feel that she been handed a disproportionate sentence to the crime she committed. They claim the court is sending a strong statement on her back to the public: Don't drink and drive, there will be no second chance as Paris Hilton has painfully learned in jail.

A court ruling that sends a wrong signal

According to Associated Press, a United States federal appeals court said a new federal policy against accidentally aired profanities on TV and radio was invalid, noting that vulgar language had become so common that even President Bush has been heard using expletives.

The court tossed out an indecency ruling against Rupert Murdoch's Fox television network yesterday and broadly questioned whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the right to police the airwaves for offensive language.

The ruling is a rebuke to the FCC and a victory for television networks, which in recent years have pushed back against the FCC's crackdown on indecency.

The court agreed with the networks' defense, in part, that if George Bush and Dick Cheney can get away with saying no-no words, then why shouldn't Cher, Nicole Richie, and the rest of us?

Said the court: Similarly, as NBC illustrates in its brief, in recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced "sexual or excretory organs or activities." . . . (citing President Bush's remark to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the United Nations needed to "get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit" and Vice President Cheney's widely-reported "Fuck yourself" comment to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the U.S. Senate).

The court ruling is a win for the American First Amendment to the United States Constitution that prohibits any laws by the federal legislature from infringing on the freedom of speech and freedom of press. So this is a clear win for freedom.

It, however, sets a bad example to fringe groups within society who think that it is OK to use vulgar language. It also makes it more difficult for the FCC to impose fines for the use of indecent language.

US mourns campus mass murder

Heart-breaking stories of the all too familiar school shootings has happened yet again.

Tragically a deranged senior student brutally gunned down the lives of 32 people including students and teachers of Virginia Tech University on Monday.

Virginia Tech - a sprawling complex of over 100 buildings on 2,600 acres - has 26,000 residents.

Monday's shootings occurred in two separate locations, two hours apart.

It was the worst since Charles Whitman went to the top of a tower at the University of Texas on Aug. 1, 1966, and opened fire. He killed 15 people, including his mother and wife the night before, and wounded 31 others.

The massacre Monday took place almost eight years to the day after the Columbine High bloodbath near Littleton, Colorado. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.

As police begin to unravel how 32 people were killed , the authorities were facing tough questions over why they waited more than two hours to inform staff and students of the first murders.

Were there any warning signs that may have given out clues that one of their own students could embark on this ferocious killing spree?

In the wake of this tragedy many questions are being asked and will stir the US debate over gun control and what drives people to go on shooting rampages through schools and colleges.

Cho Seung-hui, the 23-year-old South Korean student who carried out America's deadliest massacre was in the final year of an English degree at the university. He was a loner. His creative writing was apparently so disturbing that his teacher referred him to the university's counselling service for help.

People who commit killings in schools and colleges are sometimes motivated by a specific grievance against that institution or people within it, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor and chief psychologist at Emory School of Medicine.

They are sometimes mentally ill and may equally be reacting to a trauma, either real or imagined, that they have suffered, and decide to take that trauma out on everyone else, Kaslow said in an interview.

The Huffington Post says the US has to be honest about what price it has to pay if gun ownership is to stay legal.

Advocates of gun freedom such as the National Rifle Association argue that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. constitution and dispute efforts to link the incidence of gun crime with access to firearms.

Many recent studies have looked at student-on-student violence and its causes and after Columbine intense scrutiny focused on the lives and backgrounds of the two gunmen, who committed suicide.

It also focused on school bullying, social cliques and the potential effects of the music they listened to and the video games they played. Experts also looked for ways to spot warning signs of violence.

Sadly, university campuses in the US seem to be wide open spaces where criminally-minded individuals are able to carry out their warped fantasies.

In the days and months ahead there will a lot of soul-searching over how this senseless shooting happened and to determine ways to provide a safe learning environment.

I-Man's joke testing limits of free speech

A racial slur uttered by the US well-known radio host and comedian Don Imus also known as the I-Man is causing national outrage.

The controversy began when Imus characterized the Rutgers women's basketball team, one of the two best women's basketball teams in America as "nappy-headed hos."

Imus spewed the racist remarks on his radio show. Imus' radio show originates from WFAN-AM in New York City and is syndicated nationally by Westwood One, both of which are managed by CBS Corp. (MSNBC, which simulcasts the show on cable, is a part of NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric Co.)


Imus, 67, is a hard-core shock jock and has gone past the edges of propriety many times during his long career. He makes a living by spreading verbal insults disguised as humour, once calling Colin Powell a 'weasel' and another time referring to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as a 'fat sissy.'

His comments about the Rutgers women crossed the line and several prominent advertisers announced plans to distance themselves from the talk show host.


The fallout from the comments continues to build momentum. Office supply chain Staples Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co. said they pulled advertising from Imus' show, and Bigelow Tea said the remarks have 'put our future sponsorship in jeopardy.'

Calls for the radio host's dismissal have been growing, including from groups such as the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Black Journalists.

Imus has apologized repeatedly for his comments. He said Tuesday he hadn't been thinking when making a joke that went 'way too far.' He also said that those who called for his firing without knowing him, his philanthropic work or what his show was about would be making an 'ill-informed' choice.

Amidst the chorus of voices getting louder to fire him or take action, some legal experts say that Imus engaged in parody and there was no ill-intent on his part to demean anyone.

Freedom of speech and parody are First Amendment rights and the The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the independent United States government regulatory agency may not intervene as Imus has not demonstrated malice or broadcast obscene or indecent programming.

Imus’s friends say that he is not a racist in his heart. But what is or is not in the heart of a radio talk show host is much less important than what comes out of his mouth.

Dancing with one leg

Following her high profile divorce from Paul McCartney, the former model and human rights activist Heather Mills was vilified by the press especially in Britain. The tabloids portrayed Mills who has lost one of her legs to an accident as greedy, demanding a disproportionate settlement from the popular ex Beatle Paul McCartney.

Now she is getting kudos for her dance performance as the first ever contestant to appear on the American hit tv programme 'Dancing with the Stars,' with a prosthetic leg. Mills and her dancing partner Apolo Anton Ohno, danced the foxtrot to ‘Cheek to Cheek’ - the Irving Berlin classic.

More than 20 million US viewers tuned in to see Heather Mills foxtrot on the dancefloor yesterday, the biggest audience ever for a season premiere of the ballroom dancing show and clearly the most watched show of the night on US television.

She has overcome an adversity with a never-give-up attitude. She practised vigirously and received a standing ovation when she completed her dance without a fall. She got respectable marks from the judges who were very impressed with her effort. She said that she wanted to prove to the world that a handicapped, publicly despised person could come out on national television, overcome adversity and win.

All the money that she makes from this event is going to the charities she is involved with. Though she still has many skepics who continue to write negative publicity, this is an inspirational effort which is contributing to a good cause.

Redefining hypocrisy

Republican Newt Gingrich, who led the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Bill Clinton in a sex-and-perjury scandal, has told a Christian radio program he was cheating on his second wife at the same time as he was fighting for the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.

Gingrich, who is testing the waters for his presidential ambition, is making an attempt to make peace with Christian conservatives ahead of a possible presidential campaign.

Gingrich confessed to Dr. James Dobson, a conservative radio host who runs a nationally syndicated program and spoke at length about past infidelity and his two divorces.

Gingrich argued that he wasn't a hypocrite for pushing for Clinton's impeachment while having an affair.

The impeachment spectacle that Newt Gingrich headed costing $7 million to the American tax payers failed to convince the majority of the Americans that the republicans are neo-puritans above personal indiscretions. Instead it exposed the family-values and hypocracy of the twice divorced Gingrich, while his foe Clinton though condemned for his personal indiscretion was spared.

Gingrich resigned as speaker of the House in disgrace and Clinton completed his presidency with very high public approval of his job rating.

Rule of Law wins in high political trial

Here is a case that has gripped Washington last few years, a trial that demonstrates the power of checks and balances in the American political system and an astounding victory for the rule of law.

The criminal conviction of one of the Bush administration's most powerful figures, Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been found guilty on four counts of obstructing justice and lying to the FBI and a grand jury during an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Much of the perjury case hinged on the flawed intelligence for the case for war and the White House's campaign to justify the Iraq conflict. As Mr Cheney's former chief of staff and ex national security adviser, Libby was one of the architects of the Iraq invasion.

The offenses carry possible sentences of more than 20 years in prison, but because he is a first-time offender, Libby will probably receive substantially less under federal sentencing guidelines. His lawyer said he would move for a new trial and, if the motion is denied, would appeal.

The implications of this trial are likely to be far-reaching and long-lasting. There were few officials with greater influence or power during the first four years of the Bush administration than Libby.

Libby is one of the most well-connected neoconservatives in the US that advocated for an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein long before the 9/11 attack .

This incident shows that the rule of law, though imperfect and sometimes slow typically prevails over a particular elected official or political movement.

American politics has seen high political drama before. Richard Nixon was reelected in 1972 with the largest landslide in American history, but he spent the next two years watching as his closest aides were hauled off to criminal proceedings in the Watergate scandal.

In 1974, Nixon himself was forced to resign from office and president Gerald Ford gave him a pardon that avoided the humiliation of having dragged him through the courts.

Widely considered the most investigated US President ever, Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19 1998 by the House of Representatives and subsequently acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

Another East Asian Financial crisis?

After a two-day meeting of finance officials in Bangok, Mr. Kim Hak-Su, executive secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), has invoked the grim reminder of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis.

He said that Asian economies face new threats that could destabilise the region, despite the current boom that resulted from success in overcoming the 1997 financial crisis.

The East Asian financial crisis was a period of economic unrest that started in July 1997 in Thailand and affected currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices in several Asian countries.

Thailand was the epicentre of the 1997 meltdown when excessive borrowings in US dollars coupled with high interest rates forced the Thai government to float the currency, which then promptly collapsed along with the economy.

Many economists believed that the Asian crisis was created not by market psychology but by macroeconomic policies that distorted information which in turn created the volatility that attracted speculators.

The crisis had significant macro-level effects, including sharp reductions in values of currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices of several Asian countries.

Many businesses collapsed, and as a consequence, millions of people fell below the poverty line in 1997-1998. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis.

The economic crisis also led to political upheaval, most notably culminating in the resignations of Prime Minister Chavalit of Thailand and brought an end to Indonesian president Suharto's 30-year autocratic regime.

There was a general rise in anti-Western sentiment, with George Soros and the International Monetary Fund in particular singled out as targets of criticisms.

What some of these leaders failed to realise was that investors who sepeculated in their stock markets didn't owe a living to the citizens of the countries where they traded. It is upto the leaders of these countries to regulate their markets, control their fiscal and monetory policies in a manner that can continue their economic growth without undue burden on the society.

Globalisation, along with its many benefits, exposes economies to quick and harsh reality of the constantly shifting international environment as we saw what happened last week when the former US Fed boss Alan Greenspan made a comment about 'recession' in Hong Kong.

The herd mentality quickly follows bad news when there is a rush to sell stocks as happened in China followed by the US and much of the global markets last week. In an an interconnected world, if economies are not operated on sound principles, the social consequences of a financial meltdown can be devastating.

Money is the lifebood of any economy, it also has the power to bring it to an abrupt standill.

Greenspan still moves financial markets

Yesterday the financial markets plunged into the "correction," the euphemism for sharp decline in stock prices after the former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan made a statement at a business conference in Hong Kong.

Greenspan is reported to have said, "When you get this far away from a recession, invariably forces build up for the next recession."

Greenspan who left the Federal Reserve over a year back also said it was possible the U.S. market could slip into recession toward the end of this year. His remarks hit markets in Asia.

The Wall Street still takes notice of Greenspan, after having got used to taking economic cue by dissecting his words over 20 years.

The Dow Jones industrial index fell more than 416 points, or 3.29 percent, in trading Tuesday. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite was off by 3.86 percent, and the S&P 500 was off by 3.47 percent.

It was the largest one-day drop for markets since Sept. 17, 2001, the first day trading resumed after the Sept. 11 terror attacks

Tuesday's drops mirrored a global decline in stock markets as the investor mood turned bearish. Investors, who have been murmuring about a coming "correction" for weeks, are concerned that the U.S. and Chinese economies may be entering a period of cooling.

The former Fed chief's recession comment came just weeks after Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, gave Congress a mostly upbeat assessment of the economy's prospects.

Economists who give Bernanke good marks for his handling of the economy thus far don't believe Greenspan's recession remark undermines the new chairman's credibility.

Conservatives versus Liberals in US politics

United States, seen around the world as the bastion of democracy and capitalism is going through a phase of bitter political partisanship between the two main political parties; the republicans largely representing the conservative view and the democrats representing the liberal view.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and disappearance of the Soviet Union as a super power in the world, the United States has become the world's policeman.

With the events of 9/11 and the Bush administration's foreign policy of pre-emtive war, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has bitterly divided world public opinion. As the war in Iraq drags out, the goodwill on America also is declining.

With the next US presidential election in November 2008, the world is watching the political moves of the aspiring presidential candidates from the dominating parties.

News media, the means through which information is transmitted to a large audience play a vital role in any democracy. Common forms of media includes newspapers, television, radio, and more recently the internet.

For the media to be most effective for its intended function, it has to be independent and report news objectively so that the public can make informed decisions.

Amongst the political bickering and mud slinging, even some of the mainstream media seems to have lost its independece or its objectivity. Some of them are seen to favour one ideology over the other.

Political pundits potificate their views which manipulate public opinoin and make it impossible to differentiate news from commentary. The issues being debated are and higly charged.

Let's take the case of abortion as an example. This is a bitterly divisive issue with the conservatives backed by the evangelicals who want to adopt an extreme an anti-abortion position as possible, even ruling out exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

On the other hand the liberals support and demand it as a constitutional right, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe versus Wade permiting abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.

Information and misinformation is being thrashed to the public consciousness intended to further an idelogical bias. What is happening reflects a cultural war, with deep mistrust that is unrelenting.

Frankenstein's monster in Idi Amin film

The Oscar-nominated film "The Last King of Scotland," premeiered in Kampala on Saturday and Ugandans got a haunting opportunity to see a realistic portrayal of their blood-thirsty former dictator, Idi Amin.

Forest Whitaker, tipped to win an Oscar for his performance, brings out Amin's complex character -- lurching between being warm and fun-loving to being a sadistic monster, fueled by paranoia of even his closest aides.

Describing Amin's character Whitaker said, "There was this deliberate instability, something about him that unnerved people when he did the unexpected. It was as if he were able to step outside of himself and observe, taking a measure of the other individual, then gain advantage on them by suddenly switching from anger to laughter or vice versa."

Idi Amin was a brutal dictator and up to 400,000 people are believed to have been killed under his rule.

Tanzanian troops outsted the blood-thirsty dictator in 1979. Amin fled to Libya, then Iraq, before finally settling in Saudi Arabia, where he was allowed to remain till he died in 2003.

He never faced trial for the crimes he committed against humanity.

Dixie shines in Grammys

The Dixie Chicks comprising of the Texas trio completed a defiant comeback on Sunday night, winning five Grammy awards after being shunned by the country music establishment over the group's anti-Bush comments leading up to the Iraq invasion.

As they accepted the honours, the Dixie girls, Martie Maguire, Natalie Maines and Emily Robinson did not use the stage this time as a platform for its well-known opposition to the war in Iraq.

But by the time the group accepted the evening-closing album-of-the-year award for Taking the Long Way, singer Natalie Maines who is the firebrand in the group said that members of the Recording Academy were clearly using their votes as a show of support, if not political expression, in favour of a band that has received death threats after its initial criticism of the U.S. President at a concert in Britain in early 2003.

Even amidst the bitter partisan political divide, freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, does seem to prevail.