Obstinate Eye

20/20 hindsight, or people you meet while standing in line

2007-05-21T10:02:00.000-04:00

I went out to brunch with my DH (dear husband) yesterday morning. I was still kind of foggy and my voice was croaking from talking so much--and doing my share of cheering--at the Convention yesterday. We were at our fave brunching hole, Mel's in Cochituate, standing on the inevitable line.

I was telling DH about the resolutions that were voted on Saturday, reading from my notes in my agenda, and the woman in front of us kept turning around and looking at us. Not with any particular expression. I lowered my voice a little in case that was the hint she was trying to deliver, but she kept turning around to look, or stare, at us as I segued from the Resolution to the Housing Crisis into the Impeach Cheney-amended-to-Impeach both Bush and Cheney.

So I smiled at her. She smiled back and looked away.

Then I told DH about the troop withdrawal resolution, and she commented, not quietly enough to act the "I'll pretend to be talking to myself" ruse, "I hope it doesn't pass."

I said, pleasantly, "What?" then added, "Polls show that the majority of Americans are in favor of ending the war."
Well that set her off in a tizzy: she doesn't believe in the polls; that they don't include the "silent majority" who support the war; that there are a lot of people who lost loved ones in 9/11 . . .

I interjected, still pleasantly, that there's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

She said, very emphatically and implying that she KNOWS everything, "Yes there is."

I paused, different possible replies flipping through my head like an old Viewmaster, and said, with a big smile, "Oh, you're one of the 25 percenters! It's a pleasure to meet you."

She smiled and said that it was a pleasure to meet me as well.

The line moved up and she crept inside. So I went back to talking to DH, who commented that that 25 percenter was nuts, which just proved a point I had made yesterday to the people I was carpooling with, that the 25 percent who still believe are actually one lightbulb shy of a full box.

So we finally get inside, and in order to not be in the uncomfortable position of standing at the door, which means constantly moving back and forth as people enter and exit, I had to move to a space in front of a banquette, where people on line were sitting. Including Ms. 25 percenter. I said to everyone that I wasn't cutting in line, I just wanted to get out of the way.

When Sam (name changed to protect the innocent) came down the line finding out how many people were in each party, Ms. 25 percenter got up and moved in front of us, giving us a smug look.

I said, "Don't worry, we weren't going to cut ahead of you."

She snapped back, "I will worry," and turned her back on us in a huff. A couple of minutes later she walked out of the line to go outside.

I wondered if she just couldn't bear being next to us. And the fact that she didn't trust that we wouldn't cut in front of her bothered me more than any other part of our exchange. In her world, were liberals not only unbelievers but lacking in common courtesy? And I had been so pleased with myself for keeping things polite.

She came back and placed herself in the big gap in the line we had left for her, with a smug smile on her face.

After we got back home I checked my e-mail. Someone had sent a suspiciously myth-y looking story about "Red Shirt Fridays." Being the irrevocable geek that I am, I thought it was going to be a funny story about the expendable ensigns. It was, instead, a heartwarming story about an airline passenger who sat across a first-class aisle from a Marine sergeant who was escorting the body of a fallen soldier home that segued into the story of "Red Shirt Fridays".

Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing Red every Friday . The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority." We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or overbearing.
Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -- and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that .... every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something red.

I expect Ms. 25 percenter was also on the receiving end of that e-mail, which whipped her up into a fine frothing frenzy about all those war-opposers who (obviously) hate the troops and cut in front of people in lines. While I couldn't talk back to Ms. 25 percenter, I did write back to everyone on the e-mail list:

I'm not quite sure what is meant by those who "support our troops are the silent majority." Hmmm . . . according to every poll, the majority of Americans are against the war. So does this message indicate that those who oppose the war are against the troops? It seems to me that those in power who support the war are clearly not supporting the troops: the troops don't have enough safety equipment, their families don't get enough support, there's not enough medical care for vets, the administration doesn't want to add .5% to the paltry 3% raise that has been suggested as a soldier's pay raise, and our troops are being treated like robots--rotated constantly and deployed indefinitely.

No matter how hard we try, no matter how many times we tell the truth, no matter how many times we put action behind our visions, we'll always be the ones who can't be trusted to honor the unspoken rule of queues. How did we get to be the pickpockets of American democracy? I suppose I shouldn't think too much about this, since our experiment proved that the 25 percent believers are not living in the reality-based community. I just don't like to see that kind of hate and craziness seen as being mainstream.

Sen. Russ Feingold, American Hero

2006-04-04T11:02:00.000-04:00

Bravo to Sen. Russ Feingold for standing up and speaking truth to power! By introducing the Resolution relating to the censure of George W. Bush, Feingold has joined the ranks of Congressman John Conyers in trying to take permanent, legal action to hold Bush accountable for his despicable actions (obviously, neither censure nor impeachment would be as good as trials for war crimes and treason, but ya gotta start somewhere . . . ).

So I called our Massachusetts Senate Delegation. John Kerry's office says he wants to hold Bush accountable, but he hasn't decided whether or not to support the censure. My feeling is he won't decide until such time as a vote is taken.

As for the senior senator, Ted Kennedy's office said that he wants to make sure there is the correct judicial and legislative oversight taken. Huh? Again, someone who's not going to decide probably until a vote is taken. I say probably because Kennedy has nothing to lose by taking a stand, so it's not inconceivable he might support the resolution before a vote is taken. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

My gut feeling is that if there is a vote, Kennedy will vote yes and Kerry will either not vote or vote no.

Letter to the Boston Globe

2006-01-22T20:42:00.000-05:00

I was glancing at right-wing anti-liberty Jeff Jacoby's column in the Boston Globe last Sunday, called Mass. Exodus, about the population shrinkage of the Bay State.

He listed the usual reasons--lack of jobs, high housing costs, the weather--then promptly dismissed them. The reason people are leaving in droves?

Maybe fewer and fewer people want to call Massachusetts home not because of its oppressive winters but because of its oppressive and demoralizing political culture. In the state that produced Michael S. Dukakis and Sen. Kerry, the concerns of ordinary citizens are so often met with disdain, while the political class lets nothing get in the way of its own appetites and priorities. A state legislature that stays in session year-round? A supreme court that turns same-sex marriage into a constitutional right? Public ''authorities" that answer to no one? In most of America, no way. In Massachusetts, no problem.

That annoyed me. I wrote a letter to the Globe, and who'd'a thunk it, they printed it today. Not exactly how I wrote it--they deleted some snarkiness--but message intact.

Court's ruling a vote for liberty

JEFF JACOBY dismisses real reasons people are leaving -- lack of well-paying jobs, obscenely high home prices -- and cites the state court's turning ''same-sex marriage into a constitutional right."

The truth, however, doesn't support his position. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not ''turn" same-sex marriage into a constitutional right. The question was whether it was constitutional for the Commonwealth to deny civil marriages to same-sex couples. The court found that limiting ''the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution." In other words, the court found that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples equal rights.

The Globe omitted my describing Jacoby's column as being full of "dishonest neocon talking points," and I ended with the following sentence: "Given Mr. Jacoby's prejudices, it's a mystery to any rational person why he persists in staying in Massachusetts."

There were quite a few letters in the same vein, but also a few letters by clueless idiots, who think the Supreme Judicial Court "abused its power," and one by a true wingnut who couldn't see the irony in being Massachusetts born and raised, "Boston stock, dating back to 1637" whose ancestors have fought in all "American" wars and are listed on monuments in Bunker Hill and Lexington; she's moving "because of the crazy left-wing political agenda"--moving south, where "the political climate is truly democratic." Yeah, democratic like Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Frist; with governors like Mike Huckabee, and Jeb Bush. Good democratic values there.

As a very eloquent woman wrote in another letter: "If indeed people are driven away because of the state's commitment to fairness, let them go. There are plenty of other places where they can enjoy the unearned privileges of discrimination."

Democratic vision and leadership

2006-01-11T23:05:00.000-05:00

While trying to sift for truth amidst the fool's gold that passes for news, I've become more and more worried that we will, in two words, um, screw up the mid-term elections. It seems we Democrats are more afraid of ourselves than we are of the Death Star that is the christo-fascist zombie brigade of the faux-Republican Administration. So for fun--if you can call exercises in futility fun--I wrote a sort of a wish list and sent it to the Democratic National Committee, to Howard Dean, to Harry Reid and several other Democratic leaders. It reads:

As a life-long Democrat, I am horrified to see the continuing slide towards Conservative mediocrity within this party. We are the party of FDR, of JFK. We are FOR the working person, the poor, the downtrodden. We are FOR protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We are FOR civil rights for everyone.

I do not want a Democratic version of a Republican for president. I want someone who speaks clearly in favor of women's rights (someone who does NOT call the anti-choice movement "pro-life"), gay rights--including the right to marry, not the separate-but-not-equal "civil union", and the separation of church and state.

I want someone who will protect workers' rights, including the right to make a living wage under safe working conditions. Someone who will propose legislation to make companies put workers' pensions in accounts that cannot be touched for any reason other than pension payouts. Someone who will stop the outrageous growth in top management salaries at the expense of those at the bottom.

I want someone who will protect the environment against short-term capitalist greed.

I want someone who agrees that a good education is the key to a successful future--any future. That we need to spend more on education, particularly education that teaches children to THINK CRITICALLY and have an imagination, not just memorize facts.

I want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, I want substantial campaign reform, I want the teaching of the meaning of the Constitution mandatory, I want the media to do their job, I want legislation to be about only one thing--not to be full of hidden riders and clauses.

I want to be able to believe in a candidate, to vote FOR someone rather than against someone else.

The mid-term elections, and the 2008 election, are ours to lose. And we will lose them if we don't have strong candidates that present a clear alternative to continued Republican lies, arrogance, and hypocrisy. Make no mistake, we will lose. If Hillary Clinton runs against John McCain, we will lose. Not because she is a woman (although that will certainly enter into it), but because she is just a moderate Republican dressed in Democrat clothes.

The regressive policies of this Administration call for nothing less than a return to progressive policies that could only be brought forth by a true Democratic candidate.

If anyone wants to add to this shopping list, please feel free.

What's your elf name?

2005-12-23T11:36:00.000-05:00

Here's mine. Yes, too silly.

Your Elf Name Is...

Flakey Sticky Fingers

What's Your Elf Name?

Preview to Morning Sedition RIP

2005-12-18T12:18:00.000-05:00

I just read Jonathan Larsen's posting on his blog Petty Larseny about the death of Air America's Morning Sedition. I still haven't been able to get my thoughts straight about this; I'm devastated and furious. But here's what I posted in response.

Thank you for telling us the sad, stupid truth. I cannot believe I will not be hearing Marc and Mark tomorrow morning. I, too, will be among the multitude downloading past episodes to play over again.

Danny Goldberg was a "suit" in the music business, riding on the talent of the artists, and is still a "suit," with no creativity, vision or, apparently, a sense of humor.

Morning Sedition was the future of progressive radio. The show talked about not only politics, but culture; its humor was not only intelligent but often silly and stupid. These guys had their fingers on the pulse of the liberal zeitgeist above and beyond politics.

I mourn its passing with not just sadness, but fury. How dare they keep the banal, insipid Jerry Springer?? How is he more worthy than Marc and Mark?

I urge all listeners to boycott AAR. Nothing against Rachel Maddow, but I want the ratings to plunge. That's the only way the suits in charge will realize their mistake.

Listen up, sheeple!!!

Marc Maron

Letter to the FCC

2005-12-09T00:32:00.000-05:00

SUBJECT
Request: Please stop Bill O'Reilly from inciting hate, intolerance and violence

I would very much appreciate it if the FCC would put a halt to the spreading of hate speech by Fox Broadcasting Co. and Bill O’Reilly. The FCC already lets Fox get away with calling itself a “news” channel, even though its talking heads blatantly and repeatedly violate the First Amendment (by deliberately spreading lies about public officials and public figures with reckless disregard for the truth) and the FCC’s own regulations against personal attacks, noted below.* The lies this station spouts nearly 24/7 are well documented on such sites as MediaMatters, FactCheck.org, and Newshounds, which all use transcripts and audio and video files to back up their research.

But to do nothing to stop Bill O’Reilly’s heinous, belligerent and callously vicious call for violent action against those he considers are waging a “war against Christmas” is just as good as condoning it. The FCC’s regulation against “Clear and Present Danger” allows the FCC to curtail such speech if it intends “to incite or produce dangerous activity.”

A typical quotation from one of O’Reilly’s rants clearly indicates such an intention:

“I am not going to let oppressive, totalitarian, anti-Christian forces in this country diminish and denigrate the holiday and the celebration. I am not going to let it happen. I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that.”

(source: mediamatters.org/items/200512070010)

I am a firm believer in free speech and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but as a non-Christian I feel threatened and frightened by O’Reilly’s escalatingly aggressive hatred toward anyone who does not share his warped view of Jesus’ philosophies, which were peaceful, loving, and tolerant. O’Reilly’s crusade would violate any non-Christian’s rights to equal protection under the law.

(*Personal Attacks. Personal attacks occur when, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, someone attacks the honesty, character, integrity, or like personal qualities of an identified person or group. No more than a week after a personal attack, the station must transmit the following three things to the person or group attacked: (1) notification of the date, time, and identification of the broadcast; (2) a tape, script or accurate summary of the attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond on the air.)

Happy? Resentful?

2005-11-10T12:41:00.000-05:00

OK, I know I should be happy that the American public is finally seeing the light, with Dubya's ratings lower than low, Dems winning back two gubernatorial seats, Ahnuld's four ballot measures resoundingly shot down. But part of me is really, really, really annoyed.

Really annoyed. As in:

WHERE the fuck have these people been LIVING for FIVE YEARS??!!??!!

The rampant cronyism, ignorant arrogance, stupid bloody-mindedness and rank fascistic tendencies of this administration were evident before Bushie was (s)elected. But he didn't win that election, so let's forward to 2004. By that time, the abyss of this regime's shortcomings was painfully obvious. And it was painful, painful, painful.

I'm still not convinced that Bushie won 2004, either, but the vote was certainly too close for comfort. But now people are finally on the bandwagon? I should embrace them and lead them happily into the light, but they've cost us. They've cost the United States. Their blinkered refusal to look reality in the eye has killed thousands of people, damaged--perhaps irreparably--the environment, and gutted the Constitution.

And now these people are unhappy. Well, D-UH!!!

Welcome to the bandwagon. You can start by cleaning up all the shit still remaining on your feet.

The "real" America

2005-09-07T19:46:00.000-04:00

This about says it all, from the BeatBushGear Cafe Press store.

As the crypto-fascist NeoCon zombie brigade tries to circle their wagons, even Bush's trips to the Gulf to look concerned unravel to reveal the truth: nothing but callous blatant PR photo ops. The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday that the 1,400 firefighters gathered from around the country by FEMA, instead of using their firefighting, search-and-rescue, paramedic, or haz-mat skills, they were herded into a conference room in Atlanta, forced to sit through an eight-hour sensitivity training class, and told their were to be "community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA." This was on Monday, when their expertise might have been put to better use rescuing people and putting out fires.

To add insult to injury, a team of 50 of these firefighters were flown to Louisiana--so they could accompany Bush on his tour.
In addition, he apparently set up another photo op of the 17th Street levee being fixed, and yet another of an open air food distribution point. On top of that, rescue efforts had to be halted for hours while Bush was in the area, since the airways had to be kept clear.

Laura "It was an accident!" Bush did her part, as well. She commandeered the computer in Lafayette's Cajundome--the only room with phone and internet access for the evacuees--for eight hours, along with the food service rooms and the ladies showers, so she could manipulate a feel-good photo op "helping" seven evacuees.

The excellent Daily Kos blog expresses just the right eloquent outrage:

This is a clear signal of the depravity of this administration, were everything is political and nothing can be real. Nothing can be done simply because it's the right thing to do, or it's the best thing for America. There is a "real" America, and then there's Rove's America, where firemen serve the Republican Party and their leader, not people in distress. The Republican banner flies over the Stars and Stripes.

That the NeoCons are living in a different reality isn't such a surprise; it was admitted in an October 2004 New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskind, where Suskind quotes a Bush aide:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-- "Ozymandias," Percy Bysshe Shelley

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

2005-09-06T20:35:00.000-04:00

In case anyone hasn't already read this absolutely revolting comment, now's your chance. This report from Editor & Publisher:

Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM
NEW YORK
Accompanying her husband, former President George
H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in
Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this
evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace"
program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the
Astrodome that included her husband and former
President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son,
the current president, to head fundraising efforts for
the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack
Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of
evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost
everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to
Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of
scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is
so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Um, Mrs. Bush, Marie Antoinette called--she wants her disdain for the poor back.

Eloquent posts

2005-09-03T23:05:00.000-04:00

A couple of eloquent blog postings:

Being Poor, on John Scalzi's Whatever blog:

Being poor is off-brand toys.
Being poor is a heater in only one room of the house.
Being poor is Goodwill underwear.
Being poor is not enough space for everyone who lives with you.
Being poor is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal.
Being poor is relying on people who don't give a damn about you.
Being poor is an overnight shift under florescent lights.
Being poor is people angry at you just for walking around in the mall.
Being poor is people thinking they know something about you by the way you talk.
Being poor is knowing you work as hard as anyone, anywhere.
Being poor is people surprised to discover you're not actually stupid.
Being poor is people surprised to discover you're not actually lazy.
Being poor is never buying anything someone else hasn't bought first.
Being poor is getting tired of people wanting you to be grateful.
Being poor is knowing you're being judged.
Being poor is a box of crayons and a $1 coloring book from a community center Santa.
Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so.
Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.
Being poor is seeing how few options you have.
Being poor is running in place.
Being poor is people wondering why you didn't leave.

And Nick Mamatas' Nihilistic Kid journal has an entry from New Orleans resident Jordan Flaherty, Notes From Inside New Orleans. Excerpt:

I traveled throughout the camp and spoke to Red Cross workers, Salvation Army workers, National Guard, and state police, and although they were friendly, no one could give me any details on when buses would arrive, how many, where they would go to, or any other information. I spoke to the several teams of journalists nearby, and asked if any of them had been able to get any information from any federal or state officials on any of these questions, and all of them, from Australian tv to local Fox affiliates complained of an unorganized, non-communicative, mess. One cameraman told me “as someone who’s been here in this camp for two days, the only information I can give you is this: get out by nightfall. You don’t want to be here at night.”

While the rich escaped New Orleans, those with nowhere to go and no way to get there were left behind. Adding salt to the wound, the local and national media have spent the last week demonizing those left behind. As someone that loves New Orleans and the people in it, this is the part of this tragedy that hurts me the most, and it hurts me deeply.

Images of New Orleans’ hurricane-ravaged population were transformed into black, out-of-control, criminals. As if taking a stereo from a store that will clearly be insured against loss is a greater crime than the governmental neglect and incompetence that did billions of dollars of damage and destroyed a city. This media focus is a tactic . . . the hyper-exploited people of New Orleans are being used as a scapegoat to cover up much larger crimes.

City, state and national politicians are the real criminals here. Since at least the mid-1800s, its been widely known the danger faced by flooding to New Orleans . . . Yet government officials have consistently refused to spend the money to protect this poor, overwhelmingly black, city. While FEMA and others warned of the urgent impending danger to New Orleans and put forward proposals for funding to reinforce and protect the city, the Bush administration, in every year since 2001, has cut or refused to fund New Orleans flood control, and ignored scientists warnings of increased hurricanes as a result of global warming. And, as the dangers rose with the floodlines, the lack of coordinated response dramatized vividly the callous disregard of our elected leaders.

Thanks to lauramerle for the links!

Michael Chertoff is a puppet

2005-09-03T14:17:00.000-04:00

Why do reporters keep asking Chertoff why the response was so slow? I mean, I know why they ask him, but do they really think he's just going to say, "oh, they're poor black people and we're not in any hurry"? Maybe they just like to see how many different lies and excuses he can come up with.

Sometimes I honestly think they want to wait until as many die as possible.

As Scrooge said about the poor in A Christmas Carol, "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Halliburton hired for storm cleanup

2005-09-03T10:08:00.000-04:00

get a load of this, buried in the business section:

HoustonChronicle.com

Sept. 1, 2005, 8:30PM

AROUND THE REGION

CONSTRUCTION

Halliburton hired for storm cleanup

The Navy has hired Houston-based Halliburton Co. to restore electric power, repair roofs and remove debris at three naval facilities in Mississippi damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

Halliburton subsidiary KBR will also perform damage assessments at other naval installations in New Orleans as soon as it is safe to do so.

KBR was assigned the work under a "construction capabilities" contract awarded in 2004 after a competitive bidding process. The company is not involved in the Army Corps of Engineers' effort to repair New Orleans' levees.

so dick cheney and his cronies are not just war profiteers but disaster profiteers. it's not enough they're CHEATING the us taxpayers with their inflated prices--and spoiled food--in iraq, and endangering soldiers, they're now going to do that in the gulf coast.

i'm speechless. but not terribly surprised, unfortunately.

The above news courtesy of the excellent folks at Citizens for Legitimate Government.

HANDSOME

2005-08-26T18:40:00.000-04:00

Handsome
1994 - 2005
Rest in peace, my little Mr. Man, my little buddy

The Bush lightbulb joke

2005-07-10T17:39:00.000-04:00

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a lightbulb?

One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be changed.
One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the lightbulb needs to be changed.
One to blame Clinton for burning out the lightbulb.
One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the lightbulb or for darkness.
One to give a billion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new lightbulb.
One to set up a photograph of Bush dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: "Lightbulb Change Accomplished!"
One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
One to viciously smear #7.
One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong lightbulb-changing policy all along.
And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.

Thanks to Celia for this!

Bush's speech by the numbers

2005-06-28T22:52:00.000-04:00

From the excellent site Think Progress

Bush Iraq Speech: By The Numbers

References to “September 11″: 5
References to “weapons of mass destruction”: 0
References to “freedom”: 21
References to “exit strategy”: 0
References to “Saddam Hussein”: 2
References to “Osama Bin Laden”: 2
References to “a mistake”: 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal)
References to “mission”: 11
References to “mission accomplished”: 0

Bigotry rears ugly head in Lexington

2005-04-29T00:11:00.000-04:00

The following is also an eye-rolling exercise in so-called journalism:

Here’s the story from the Associated Press, from the local NBC affiliate website:

Father Of 6-Year-Old Confronts School Over Book With Same-Sex Parents

LEXINGTON (AP) -- A dispute over a children's book that includes gay characters leads to the arrest of a father in Lexington.

David Parker refused to leave the Estabrook elementary school yesterday after a meeting with School Superintendent Bill Hurley. Parker confronted school officials after his six-year-old son brought home a book titled "Who's in a Family?" The book includes parents who are gay.

In a statement, Parker says he asked that he be notified in the future anytime his son is exposed to classroom discussion about same-sex households. Parker says the superintendent turned down the request.

When he refused to leave, Parker was arrested for trespassing on school property.

same story from the site 365gay.com:

Parent Arrested Protesting Gay Kids' Book
by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau

Posted: April 28, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Police arrested the father of a six year old boy after he refused to leave a Lexington, Mass. school where he was protesting against a children's' book with gay characters.

David Parker became enraged when he discovered his son had brought home the book "Who's in a Family.'

The book by Robert Skutch, and illustrated by Laura Nienhaus is aimed at children between three and seven. It catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents.

But, it was the inclusion of same-sex parents that angered Parker. He confronted officials at the Joseph Estabrook School.

Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously,

Lexington Schools Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected both demands.

When Parker refused to leave the meeting police were called and he was charged with trespassing.

In court today Parker pleaded not guilty and was released on $100 cash bail and ordered to stay off school grounds.

After his release, Parker said teaching children about homosexuality should be left to parents not teachers.

"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"

Worcester Telegram headline, with the AP story (and can you GET a WORSE headline?!?!):

Man arrested after dispute over gay lifestyle teachings pleads innocent

The Associated Press

CONCORD, Mass— A Lexington father who wouldn't leave school property after officials refused his demand to remove his 6-year-old son from discussions about homosexuality pleaded innocent to a trespassing charge Thursday.

David Parker, 42, of Lexington was released on $100 cash bail after his arraignment in Concord District Court and ordered to stay off school grounds.

After his release, Parker said he wanted to teach his son about gay lifestyles, not leave it to a teacher.

"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"

Lexington school officials released a short statement dealing with the facts of the arrest and did not immediately return a request for comment.

Parker first complained to officials at Joseph Estabrook School in January, after his son brought home a book called "Who's in a Family?", which included pictures of same-sex households. He was arrested after a meeting Wednesday in which school officials refused to notify him whenever homosexuality was discussed and remove his son from class.

Parker spent the night in a cell at the Lexington police station.

And here’s the Christian extremist coverage, from the agape press:

Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-So in Son's Education

By Jody Brown
April 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts group battling judicial activism and the advancing homosexual agenda in their state is reporting that the father of a kindergarten student was arrested on Wednesday during a scheduled meeting with the principal of his son's school. Since January, the father of the six-year-old had been attempting to get his son opted-out from discussions portraying homosexuality as acceptable.

According to reports by the Article 8 Alliance, David Parker and his wife Tonia had been in e-mail contact with Joni Jay, principal of Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington regarding material brought home by their son from school. The "Diversity Book Bag" included a book titled Who's in a Family, which portrays same-sex parent families as morally equivalent to traditional families. The Parkers, over the course of several e-mails with Principal Jay, attempted to make it clear they wanted their son removed from the classroom any time discussions or displays dealt with homosexuality -- and they sought a commitment from the principal that their desires would be accommodated.

"You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights or obviate our freedom of choice, to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith," the Parkers wrote in a March 4 e-mail to Jay.

After attending an "anti-bias meeting" in early April, David Parker again requested a meeting with Jay, which occurred yesterday (Wednesday, April 27). Article 8 Alliance reports that during that meeting, Mr. Parker reiterated his demands: that the school inform him when the topic of homosexuality was to be discussed with his son, and that the school permit his son not be included in those discussions. Parker's requests were reportedly denied by the principal, the director of education, and the superintendent.

Parker refused to leave the school unless his requests were granted, says a press statement -- and then police were summoned, who informed the father he would be arrested if he did not leave the school. When he did not, school officials had Parker arrested for trespassing.

Article 8 Alliance says Parker spent the night in jail, and was scheduled for arraignment Thursday morning. Brian Camenker of the Alliance is a friend of Parkers. "This is an unbelievable outrage," Camenker states. "It's where last year's same-sex 'marriage' ruling has brought us."

Camenker's group is seeking to remove the four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council whose vote imposed homosexual marriage on the Bay State. The Alliance contends those four jurists unconstitutionally changed state law.

The group also is seeking to strengthen the state's "Parental Notification and Consent Law" so that parents would no longer have to "opt-out" their children in cases like the Parkers', but instead would have to choose to "opt-in." The Article 8 Alliance says homosexual activists are opposed to the move because they "know that this will stop the homosexual agenda in the public schools by giving parents the power."

and this guy has the unmitigated GALL to be on the anti-bias committee at the elementary school! i guess he just wants to make sure there’s no bias against intolerant ignorant stupid people.

Lexington Minuteman Online

Parents upset with silence day
By Bethan L. Jones
Thursday, April 28, 2005

The effects of the Day of Silence held at Lexington High School two weeks ago is anything but quiet.
     At the School Committee meeting Tuesday night, several parents and community members spoke out against what was called by one Lowell Street resident as the "homosexual agenda of Lexington High School."
     LHS was the location of adult protestng and students battling out agendas inside the school. The Day of Silence is a national effort to recognize those who feel disenfranchised because of the social bias against their sexual orientation.
     In the public comment section of Tuesday's meeting, several stood up to speak against the actions of school system.
     Parent David Parker of Bedford Street and a member of the anti-bias committee at Estabrook Elementary School said he was unhappy with the planned distribution of school books depicting homosexual parents.
     "[Schools] have unfettered ... access to children's psyches," he said, adding he resents being denied the role of gatekeeper of the information his son is exposed to.
     Parker said the accepting of homosexuality is inextricably linked to the sexual element of the lifestyle, something he felt the schools should not foster.
     Lorraine Fournier of Cedar Street said she finds "what's happening in the school system appalling," attributing the efforts to the "liberal agendas of the school system."
     She protested that words which demean students who are homosexual are banned from the schools but other words like "bigot" and "homophobe" are still used, making students who are exercising their rights feel threatened.
     "You have no right to do that to any student who walks through that door," she said.
     The School Committee and LHS Principal Michael Jones did not comment.

BTW, dontcha just LOVE that stupid woman’s comment in the last article, where she protests that it’s OK to use words like “bigot” and “homophobe” but it’s not OK to use demeaning words about homosexuals. This, of course, is an interesting First Amendment argument; theoretically maybe she has a point. Technically, realistically, and in context of creating an atmosphere of fear and fomenting hatred and perhaps violence, let’s just say we don’t see too many groups uniting to promote diversity and tolerance practicing HATRED and BIGOTRY in the name of religion or freedom. Hate speech is more likely to come under the 1st amendment exception of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre for no reason.

All righty, this leads to the following, contacts for the school administrators if you feel like writing notes of support:

For the first story about the arrested bigot:
contact:
Estabrook Elementary

117 Grove Street
Lexington, MA 02420
(781) 861-2520
Joni Jay, Principal
jjay@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us

superintendent of schools
whurley@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
William Hurley, Superintendent (781) 861-2550

for the second story about silence day:
Lexington High School

251 Waltham Street
Lexington, MA 02421
(781) 861-2320, ext. 1000
Dr. Michael Jones, Principal
mjones@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us

as for the lexington minuteman online, the only thing i could find for letters was a general “contact us” form for the herald, the parent company:
http://www.heraldinteractive.com/contactus/index.bg

there are pulldown menus to indicate where you would like your comment to be directed.

I should be ranting about Time magazine's abhorrent neocon pandering . . .

2005-04-19T22:00:00.000-04:00

. . . but it's too close to bedtime. Instead, another delightful news brief from The Onion.

New Tech-Support Caste Arises In India

NEW DELHI—Thanks to widespread outsourcing of telephone-service jobs, a sixth caste has blossomed in India: the Khidakayas, a mid-level jati made up of technical-support workers. "I am happy to be a Khidakaya," said technical-support agent Ranji Prasat, who speaks English with a flawless American accent and goes by the name "Ron" at work. "While we rank below members of the reigning order, those of us responsible for helping Americans track their online purchases and change their account PINs share many privileges not enjoyed by the merchant class below us." Prasat said he expects to marry another tech-support worker.

EPA To Drop 'E,' 'P' From Name

2005-03-30T22:14:00.000-05:00

March 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC—Days after unveiling new power-plant pollution regulations that rely on an industry-favored market-trading approach to cutting mercury emissions, EPA Acting Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that the agency will remove the "E" and "P" from its name. "We're notreally 'environmental' anymore, and we certainly aren't 'protecting' anything," Johnson said. "'The Agency' is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls." Thechange comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services' January decision to shorten its name to the Department of Services.

No, not real. Just true -- a delightfully sarcastic news brief from The Onion.

Another reporter on the Neocon payroll

2005-03-29T20:08:00.000-05:00

Reporter Accused of Producing Fake News for Florida Government

The South Florida Herald Tribune has exposed yet another case of a television reporter receiving public funds to produce PR news clips touting the work of state agencies. The newspaper said that while doing freelance reporting for Florida NBC stations and CNN, Mike Vasilinda had earned more than $100,000 over the past four years from contracts with the office of Gov. Jeb Bush and top state agencies. In an interview with the newspaper, Vasilinda maintained that he had put procedures in place to assure that there was no pro-agency bias reflected in his news reports. However, journalism ethics professor Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute told the Herald Tribune: "When journalists have loyalties to a government office or government agencies, those competing loyalties can undermine journalistic independence

From IMDb*'s Movie & TV News.

(*Internet Movie Database)

Some random thoughts about the media

2005-03-28T22:03:00.000-05:00

While participating in a heated though civilized debate about the Schiavo debacle on a bulletin board I frequent, the subject of the media came up. And, invariably, the "liberal media" charge was dropped.

Lliberal media?? That's absolutely the most hysterical thing i've ever heard. There is no such thing as the liberal media--not the liberal media as portrayed by Fox "News" and all their ilk. The media is only as liberal as the people who own it--and who owns the media? International conglomerates, corporate robber barons like Rupert Murdoch.

Puh-leeze.

The Neocon Death Cult took over the government, they're wrecking the Consitution and eliminating the separation between church and state, and they won't stop whining and saying that they're victims.

Nope, the only "liberal" media--as in, the only media that tells the truth--can't be found in one place. Reuters is usually pretty good; The Guardian in the UK as well; and many many editorial and op-ed columnists in major papers--since news reporters apparently aren't allowed to cover things like Tom DeLay's criminal activities, or list the blatant hypocrisies and lies of this administration.

And when any stories like that manage to leak out, OMG, it's the LIBERAL media again! Hello??? Since when does the TRUTH have an agenda?? The TRUTH is neither liberal NOR fascist--excuse me, Neocon.

As for calling Fox anchors "commentators," that's certainly not how they present themselves. They present themselves as "Fair and Balanced." Yeah, right. If they called themselves the "Fox Opinion Channel" I'd have no problem with them.

So please, don't believe that liberal media crap. Ask yourself, instead, what the news outlet is actually reporting ON that makes them a target of that label. Ted Koppel wanting to read the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq as a tribute? Oh, horrible liberal media! Stories about people who have been kicked out of Bushie's Social Security dog-and-pony show across the country because they were wearing Democratic or anti-Bush paraphernalia--btw, not a campaign stop but meetings held with taxpayer's money that are supposed to be open to the public? What's that--haven't heard any of that? With all our liberal media? And what about all the war protests going on over the weekend--wait a minute, wasn't there something else that coincidentally happened this weekend?

We don't hear about HALF of the creepy stuff the administration is doing because editors/publishers avoid the stories. If we had a liberal media, Bush wouldn't be in the White House. He'd be in a big house, all right, but not the White House. And Al Gore would still be president.

Then someone said they never heard hate talk about Clinton the way they do about Bush.

Hate talk about Clinton is ongoing even now, into Bush's second term. Fox news and their ilk blame everything on Clinton. If they could find a way to blame Bush choking on a pretzel on Clinton they would have.

You don't think people hate Clinton the way they do Bush?? They accuse him of byzantine murder plots. They spent, oh, like $6 billion dollars of taxpayer money looking into something he allegedly did while governor of Arkansas--not while president--couldn't prove anything, all the while ruining people's lives with a McCarthy-like witch hunt, even driving one person to suicide?

That's a lot like hate.

Think about it--if Jeff Guckert/James Gannon had been given a press pass during Clinton's terms, honestly, what do you think the Neocon Death Cult would have done? Considering the viciousness with which they hounded him over something they couldn't prove that allegedly happened before he was president, I daresay drawing and quartering might have come up.

Yet where is the Ken Starr Gestapo to investigate this actual, proven breach of national security? And when anyone brought up what Bush allegedly did before he was president, they're jumped on.

One of the things that scares me the most is that this administration pays absolutely NO attention to what is going on outside their little boys' club. They want to do what they want to do, and facts don't matter.

That is truly dangerous.

And for the record, these people are not Conservatives. They're not even true Republicans. They are obsessed with power and money and greed, and it scares me that I don't know what they won't do to get it. I don't think they would stop at anything. Anything. Absolutely anything.

Words . . . not good . . . losing ability to think . . .

2005-03-22T23:31:00.000-05:00

Can't understand. Makes no sense.

I'm finally overloaded. The Schiavo case has made me speechless with fury. The neocon death cult is the most monumentally arrogant, hypocritical, amoral, selfish, inconsiderate, repulsive, reprehensible, nausea-inducing group of so-called "people" that has probably ever existed. And how do they get away with it? Because they have been able to brainwash a large percentage of the population--the undereducated, the gullible, the self-righteous wackos, the greedy would-be robber barons and their brain-dead trust fund brats, the naively loyal. A vote for Bush was a vote for the death of democracy.

To use this tragic situation for political purposes--wait a sec, that's old hat for them. Just when their ability to use 9/11 as a political device might be getting a bit long in the tooth, here comes poor Terri Schiavo. And Bushit, the most-killingest-governor in the history of the U.S., has to hightail it back to the White House to sign a bill to not save a life, but prolong the misery of the family of a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, whose brain is literally melting and is beyond medical care.

In one of the billions of cases of cynical hypocrisy that riddle Bushit's administration like prions through a Mad Cow-diseased brain, Dubya, while governor of Texas--killing mentally retarded people and prisoners whose lawyers fell asleep during trials--signed into law in 1999 the Texas Futile Care Act, which states that if a patient has not made a previous directive about life-prolonging care, the patient's spouse makes the call. And that was considered non-controversial.

Tom DeLay talking about ethics . . . Bill Frist making a medical decision based on a few minutes of a videotape (y'all remember him trying to say that AIDS can be transmitted through sweat? Yeah, he'd be my first choice of a doctor . . . ).

When are good old-fashioned Republicans going to grow some SPINES??? Doesn't this further example of government interference in not only a family's private tragedy, but the attempt to coopt the judicial branch--which has ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, Michael, for many, many years--insult their supposed belief in non-invasive government?

My stomach hurts. The administration has been making me sicker and sicker since 2000. Anybody else feel that?

Proposal to use abstinence funds in schools fails

2005-03-10T22:37:00.000-05:00

Again, Massachusetts votes for facts, not fiction.

The Boston Globe

Proposal to use abstinence funds in schools fails

By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | March 10, 2005

A proposal by Governor Mitt Romney that would have focused sex education programs on abstinence lessons in the schools was defeated by the Legislature yesterday, dealing the governor a setback on an issue dear to social conservatives.

The House voted 104-44 to continue the state's current policy of spending federal abstinence funds on television commercials and ads on subways and buses. The Senate also rejected his approach on a voice vote.

Romney and his allies in the abstinence education movement had hoped to send the money directly to classrooms, where they argued it would have been more effective in reaching teenagers.

The debate over how to spend a relatively minor grant of $740,000 from the federal government drew passionate lobbying from advocates on both sides of the issue and highlighted a simmering feud over how best to reach teenagers in a culture saturated with sex. Romney lost the battle, but succeeded in bringing the issue to the front of public debate.

''The governor believes the most effective abstinence education is done in the classroom, in a more personalized setting with young people," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said yesterday. ''It's really a question of how you can most effectively spend these limited dollars."

If Romney's measure had passed and the federal money had gone to schools, opponents say, it would have increased the focus on abstinence to the exclusion of other forms of sex education. It would have meant, for example, that educators receiving the funds could discuss only the failure rates of popular forms of contraception, without discussing their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, opponents said.

''We don't think those programs are effective, and in fact they can be harmful because they're misleading, they're incomplete," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''For young people who are already sexually active, they're not going to get the information they need to best take care of themselves or protect themselves."

Romney drew support from some Democrats, as well as the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church and the Massachusetts Family Institute. Opponents included the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and other abortion rights groups, who argued the plan would limit what educators who receive the funds can discuss in the classroom.

Planned Parenthood was among the interest groups urging lawmakers to defeat Romney's proposal yesterday. Their advocates argued that condom use should be taught in the classroom and that abstinence funds are best spent on reaching a broader audience outside the schools.

''The big troubling question about these programs, is: are they actually causing disease transmission to go up because they discourage condom use," said Erin Rowland, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman. ''That's really at the heart of this debate. It's the concern that they're putting teens at risk by spreading misleading information."

Since 1998, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has spent its abstinence funds on radio and television ads for students ages 9 to 12 and 15 to 17 and to produce brochures and films in Spanish and English. The votes yesterday amounted to an endorsement of that policy and drew praise from abortion rights groups.

Abstinence education supporters expressed disappointment after the vote. They said that even if the measure had passed, schools would have been able to teach about contraception in other classes.

''The only foolproof way to prevent teen pregnancy is abstinence," said Maria C. Parker, associated director for public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church's policy arm. ''All the rest of them have a failure rate; someone has to get real about what's happening here."

The vote actually represented an about-face for the Legislature, which voted last year to spend the money on classroom lessons. Some lawmakers said they did not remember voting for the plan, and lawmakers repealed the measure several weeks ago. The back-and-forth spurred Romney, a Republican, to reintroduce the measure restricting the funds.

Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo, a Plymouth Republican, spoke in favor of Romney's proposal on the House floor. ''The people that support the abstinence education programs believe it is best spent in the classroom, as opposed to pamphlets that sit on a table that never get used," deMacedo said.

Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat, crossed party lines to support Romney's classroom-based approach. ''This program is specifically designed to teach young men and young women about the values of abstinence," O'Flaherty said. ''Maybe one out of 10 will hear that message, but at least that one will."

Kristian Mineau -- president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which also supported Romney's plan -- said he was worried that $740,000 would be completely ineffective if spent on a media campaign. Other supporters of abstinence education agreed.

''A television advertisement on MTV evaporates in seconds and costs millions of dollars," Mineau said. ''Births, [sexually transmitted diseases], abortion [are] linked to this, and these are all social issues that destroy the fiber of the family. So we believe abstinence is the most effective way to combat the social ills of the family."

'Morning Sedition' rules, Laurence Britt's "Fascism, Anyone?", Paul Krugman's sobering column

2005-03-08T12:31:00.000-05:00

In case any of you out there are not listening to Air America's brilliant morning show, "Morning Sedition," I say this: WAKE UP, sheeple! You're drinking the Koolaid!

http://forums.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/ms/

The hosts, Marc Maron and Mark Riley, have also been reading from Laurence Britt's article called "Fascism, Anyone?" (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm). If you're not bone-chillingly frightened by this you're probably either dead or part of the neocon death cult.

Also today, Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times on "Debt-Peonage Society," the feudal/futile system of rule by the rich that the crypto-fascist zombies of the neocon death cult (brilliant Morning Sedition terms) are trying to push through (free registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08krugman.html?th

'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud

2005-03-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

From Truthout.org

'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
    By Edward Wasserman
    The Miami Herald

    Wednesday 23 February 2005

    The news media got an unusual bashing during last year's bitter electoral campaigns. They got slapped around from all sides, and everybody argued about how the media tried either to undermine Bush or discredit Kerry or both.
    Still, it's never clear why some media wrongs are made into a big deal while others slip by. Take the CBS "60 Minutes" report on Bush's military nonservice: The story itself was old, the dubious evidence was of dubious importance, and the broadcast had no discernible effect. It became a major scandal anyway.
    On the other end of the scale is an instance of clear-cut media wrongdoing that involved unquestionably fraudulent evidence and had dramatic consequences. This one, however, has gone largely unremarked. It is the famous incident involving Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean that is known as The Dean Scream.
    And with Dean's recent appointment as Democratic Party chairman it's being hauled out as constituting the ceiling on whatever political ambitions he might still have, proof that he's shaky, unstable, unfit to serve - Howard Dean's Chappaquiddick.
    You've seen the clip. After Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, it's the most famous news video of 2004. Dean is addressing campaign supporters after he lost the Iowa party caucuses in January. He's screaming for no apparent reason, practically shrieking, ticking off the states where he's vowing to continue the race. His face is red, his voice breaking. He looks deranged. It's a portrait of a man out of control. It's documentary evidence that Dean lacks the temperament for high office.
    In fact the Dean Scream was a fraud, probably the clearest instance of media assassination in recent U.S. political history.
    Last year, a young cable news producer attended one of our twice-yearly Ethics Institutes at Washington and Lee University, in which students and journalists gather to discuss newsroom wrongdoing. He brought two clips.
    The first was the familiar pool footage of Dean in Iowa. The candidate filled the screen, no supporters were visible. Crowd noise was silenced by the microphone he held, which deadened ambient sounds. You saw only him and heard only his inexplicable screaming.
    The second clip was the same speech taped by a supporter on the floor of the hall. The difference was stunning. The place was packed. The noise was deafening. Dean was on the podium, but you couldn't hear him. The roar from his supporters was drowning him out.
    Dean was no longer scary, unhinged, volcanic, over the top. He was like the coach of a would-be championship NCAA football team at a pre-game rally, trying to be heard over a gym full of determined, wildly enthusiastic fans. I saw energy, not lunacy.
    The difference was context. As psychiatrist R.D. Laing once wrote: We see a woman on her knees, eyes closed, muttering to someone who isn't there. Of course, she's praying. But if we deny her that context, we naturally conclude she's insane.
    The Dean Scream footage that was repeatedly aired rests on a similar falsehood. It takes a man who in context was acting reasonably, and by stripping away that context transforms him into a lunatic.
    But that clip was aired an estimated 700 times on various cable and broadcast channels in the week after the Iowa caucus. The people who showed that clip are far more technically sophisticated than I and had to understand how tight visual framing and noise-suppression hardware can distort reality.
    True, some network news executives commented afterward that perhaps the footage was overplayed and offered the bureaucrat's favorite bromide, that hindsight is 20/20. But the media establishment has never acknowledged this as a burning matter of ethical harm.
    That's because the Dean Scream incriminates the entire professional mission of television news, which is built around the primacy of the picture. TV producers don't profess to offer meaning and context; they get you the visuals, unless they're gory or obscene. The notion that great footage would be not shown just because it's profoundly misleading - that's a possibility few TV news executives would entertain.
    That's why they're not eager to see the Dean Scream enter the canon of journalistic sin. And if that leaves Howard Dean's political future hobbled by a lie, so be it.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"

2005-03-02T12:02:00.000-05:00

Again, proof of how stressful times lead to co-dependence on religious voodoo.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"

Fallacies

2005-03-02T11:20:00.000-05:00

Another fascinating site.

Fallacies

That was a link from this site:

Deism.org

Living Under Fascism

2005-03-02T10:47:00.000-05:00

An eloquent essay.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15511.shtml

Cheers for Citizens for Legitimate Government

2004-09-07T19:59:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite activist sites is Citizens for Legitimate Government, which, from the beginning of this awful period in American history, has made me feel less alone in some of my more radical and, some would say, conspiratorial thinking.

Seattle Times: Kerry for President

2004-08-29T20:20:00.000-04:00

The Seattle Times: Kerry for President

The Seattle Times

Friday, August 27, 2004, 01:16 P.M. Pacific

Kerry for President

Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.

The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.

The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.

The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.

A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.

This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.

Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.

Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.

In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.

Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.

On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.

We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.

Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.

There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.

Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.

Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.

Democracy, That's the Ticket

2004-08-18T20:57:00.001-04:00

This is probably already on my friend Dick Mac's blog, but I couldn't help including this. I find this kind of behavior really reprehensible, not to mention unAmerican. This example is from northern Michigan, but it has been happening throughout the country at Bush's Youth--er, rallies (if anyone doesn't understand that reference, e-mail me).

http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/aug/17mead.htm
Traverse City Record-Eagle
August 17, 2004

Ticket ripped because of sticker
Teacher, 55, wanted to see a president

BY IAN C. STOREY
Record-Eagle staff writer
TRAVERSE CITY - Kathryn Mead wanted to see her first sitting president when George W. Bush visited the city.
Instead, Bush campaign staffers tore up the 55-year-old social studies teacher's ticket and refused her admission because she sported a small sticker on her blouse that touted the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards.
"I had my ticket and photo identification, but they would not let me in because of this sticker," said Mead, a teacher at Traverse City West Senior High, who said she has seen Queen Elizabeth and Pope John Paul in person.
"I have never found this kind of screening anywhere in my travels around the world. I can't imagine being denied access to hearing the president of the United States speak."
"How can anyone in the United States deny someone entry? Isn't this a democracy?"

Several people outside the campaign event tried to console Mead, who was visibly upset.
"It really is comedic," said a man holding a Kerry/Edwards sign. "What absolute nonsense."
Kate Stephan, chair of the Grand Traverse Republican Party, could not be reached for comment after the rally.
But Ralph Soffredine, a Traverse City commissioner, school board member and former police chief who worked security at the front gate, said it is part of the Bush campaign policy.
"We were told that anyone with stickers or shirts would not be let in if they would not take them off," he said. "(Mead) came to me after her ticket was torn up, but I told her there was nothing I could do.
"I know her and it was really too bad, but I would say that we had very few instances of that. I thought it went very well."
Lynn Larson, chair of the Grand Traverse Democratic Party, said the move is typical of other Bush rallies that only allow Republican supporters to see the president.
"The very reason that we are here protesting is to protect our First Amendment rights," she said. "When the Secret Service rips somebody's sticker off and takes their ticket away, it makes me even more determined to march to protect our rights."
Mead, who has taught for two decades, instead stood on the sidewalks with other John Kerry supporters, listening to Bush from behind a fence.
"I really, truly wanted to have the experience of having seen the president and hear him speak, which is very important to me as a social studies teacher," she said. "How can anyone in the United States deny someone entry? Isn't this a democracy?"

Time to Get Out the Bush

2004-08-11T21:11:00.000-04:00

Time To Get Out The Bush
How do you know it's time for a major change in American leadership? Let us count the signs

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

You know it's time for a serious change when the president of the United States actually mutters the infantile, instantly infamous line, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," just after finishing phonetically spelling out his name, in his favoritest red crayon, on yet another budget-reaming $417 billion defense-spending bill.

And you know it's time for a change when not a single one of the rigid and spiritually curdled military yes men standing around the ceremonial signing table, those sad automatons with their wooden smiles and stiff spines and bone-dry souls, not one broke into a hysterical bout of sad, suicidal laughter, followed by uncontrolled wailing and the rending of flesh and the muttering of oh my freaking God what the hell is this man doing as leader of the free world.

You know it's time for a change when you hear that Kerry and Edwards both wrote their own riveting, galvanizing acceptance speeches at the Democratic National Convention, heartfelt and effective rhetoric that gives you hope not for the quality of polished oratory but for genuine, refreshing political intellect, and verbal acumen, as you offer deep thanks that at least some politicians can still speak coherently and cogently without mangling the goddamn language at every adjectival clause.

Whereas you just know Dubya isn't capable of writing a single word of his own speeches, and will employ entire squadrons of lackeys to do it for him at the RNC, and will regardless still insist on mispronouncing "nukuler" and "'Murka" and "terrist" and "gin bender at Yale," and will doubtlessly say something like, "We must stamp out evil in all its forms because evil wants to do evil things to us and evil don't know the depths of its own, uh, evilnesses. Praise Jesus."

There are signs and indicators. There are feelings and intuitions. There is that undeniable tang in the air, that clenching of the cultural colon, that cringe in the collective soul. Something has got to give. A national shakeup is more than imminent—it is desperately, urgently needed. And Bush is just about finished.

Don't you feel it? The sensation that the country cannot continue to careen down this ultraviolent, antihumanitarian path much longer without implosion and desperation and a massive increase in sedative prescriptions for anyone with an even slightly intuitive sense of justice and future and long hot sighs of hope? You're not alone.

You know it's time for a dramatic change when American bookstores and movie theaters are filled with unprecedented numbers of extraordinarily damning BushCo exposés and embarrassing tell-all tomes and brutal whistle-blower digests from all corners of the culture, produced by everyone from disheartened CIA insiders to ex-generals to respected reporters to former U.S. allies.

From Clarke's Against All Enemies, Woodward's Plan of Attack, Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, Phillips' American Dynasty, Dean's Worse Than Watergate, Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud and Imperial Hubris, by Anonymous, to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed and The Hunting of the President. Go ahead, Google any one (or all) of those titles. The list is endless and stunning in its depth and in the heat of its unanimous BushCo condemnation.

Hell, it's getting so you can't turn a corner or have a nuanced, humane thought without confronting another hunk of undeniable proof that what these media documents say is true: The Bush administration is quite possibly the most economically destructive, environmentally devastating, ethically corrupt, internationally loathed, deliberately tyrannical, worst-dressed administration in American history.

What, too harsh? Hardly.

When the professors and other intellectuals and the artists and the social workers and the mystics and the truly spiritual among us are appalled and mournful, and the homophobes and the rednecks and the religious zealots are cheering and shooting their guns in the sky, this is how you know.

When America has become a global punch line, a petulant and screeching child in an oversize Texas cowboy hat throwing oily little tantrums on a WMD whim, and the global community can only sit there, stunned and enraged, as every ally withdraws all offers of support and overtures of concern for our well-being, this is how you know.

The activists know it. Angry groups are popping up by the hundreds across the nation, all working diligently to toss a nice emetic into the Republican gorge-fest. Some are even going so far as to offer up the ultimate sacrifice: They will have sex with any Republicans willing to withhold their Bush vote this election.

It's true. It's funny. It's called fthevote.com. What, too extreme? Hey, extreme times call for extreme lubrication.

The watchdogs know it. The usual reaction from most analysts and wonks, most intellectuals and artists, when faced with another presidential election, is this: Yawn. After all, such ultra-elitist, top-tier shifts have little effect on the massive daily political grind, the real meat and potatoes of government, right? This is the common wisdom. A change in presidents is like changing the paint on an aircraft carrier: different patina, same damn boat.

Not this time. All those who normally claim that a change in who sits in the Oval Office means nothing are now all frantically waving their arms and shouting their protests and joining the resistance. This election is different. This one matters like never before in history, considering how so many of us underestimated just how much damage a single president's gnarled, hateful administration could unleash upon the world in a single term.

This is the new rallying cry. If you care at all about the soul of this country, if you care at all about women's rights and gay rights and true spiritual freedom and the environment and our international standing, if you care at all about actually reducing the anti-U.S. hatred in the world, as opposed to amplifying it a thousandfold, then oh my god yes, this election matters.

This, then, is how you know it's time for a serious change. When you can feel it in your bones, when you finally attune and really listen to the underlying messages and dig deep into your own spirit and discover that no, this isn't the way the world is supposed to work. This is not the way the country has to be.

This is not the way the world's greatest superpower is supposed to behave, this bitter metallic taste that leaps into my mouth whenever I see a picture of BushCo isn't really supposed to be there, the vice president isn't supposed to make children cry and flowers wilt and the gods recoil in disgust.

And the president isn't supposed to mangle the language and induce multiple wars and invite international derision and make so many millions of us ashamed to be Americans. It's time for a serious change. This is how you know.

Bush "seeks new ways to harm US"

2004-08-05T19:57:00.000-04:00

From my brother, web surfer extraordinaire (and master of Fingertips).

Bush 'seeks new ways to harm US'
From correspondents in Washington
06aug04

US President George W. Bush offered up a new entry for his catalogue of "Bushisms" today, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people".

Mr Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $US417 billion ($593 billion) defence spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Mr Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No-one in Mr Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

Fun with Vocabulary

2004-08-04T21:34:00.000-04:00

Since it's unfair to slime all Republicans with the same viscous brush of lies, slander, and acid that spew from the administration's henchmen from Cheney down to Sean Hannity, I've decided this new breed that the GOP hath spawned needs a new name. hence:

RepubliCANTs.

Use it as you like. We'll start a movement.

My iPod's Dream House

2004-08-02T22:00:00.000-04:00

A digression from the political arena:

The other day, while I was surfing the 'net, through Everything iPod, iPod Hacks and iPod Lounge, I saw the plethora of third-party add-ons available, everything from high-tech aluminum sleeves and sports bands to designer cases for multiple collections and customized ear plugs.

I looked down at my sleek second-generation 'pod, surrounded by its black cover, its skintight fire-engine blue cover, its two different car adapters, its selection of cables, of earplugs and headsets, not to mention the various different iterations of itself available through the playlists (am I feeling angry today? am I feeling folksy today? am I feeling spontaneous today?), and nestling in its brand-new Altec Lansing collapsible portable speakers, I recognized a feeling.

The feeling of play, of whimsy, of imagination, of accessorizing. Of projecting my personality onto an inanimate object.

Oh my god--my iPod has become my Barbie doll.

It even has its own dream house--I had to buy an external hard drive for iTunes and the music library, since my first-generation white iBook (obsolete, circa 2001) ran out of space.

Think about its impossible dimensions, the slim white casing with its good looks unattainable by any normal human, the wealth of mix 'n' match available, the bonding of creativity and self-expression. It even comes in different colors now; though maybe the minis are more like Skipper and Scooter and Midge. Or even Francie.

And love. I am in love with my iPod. It has opened up new worlds for me, takes me away from the mundane, and I can play with it at work. How great is that? Granted, it's not as personal as a Barbie--if something were to happen to this iPod I could update without feeling devastated. I don't have to worry that a different iPod's hair and face wouldn't be exactly the same, the coif pressed to the side by lying in a box or the face perhaps a slightly different color from a new batch of dye.

I've never lost my love for my childhood Barbie, the vintage Barbie with the sloe eyes, ponytail, and pouty red lips. Not the generic wide-eyed teen of current crops, but a Barbie who was never, never, never ever 16. Even as a child I knew she wasn't 16.

My much-adored Barbie with her still-perfect ponytail and well-kept clothes (for I was a careful child with my dolls) suffered an unknown fate. She just disappeared. The last time I saw her she was in the attic of the last house my parents lived in. My mother swears she never let any children play with her. Yet all that remains, once my mother moved out of the house, was the double-case in black plastic vinyl, some miscellaneous accessories and stacks of old catalogues, my second Barbie, the swivel-hipped beach babe with orange net bathing suit and bendable legs, some panels from the Fashion Shop, and my Dream House (untouched, I might add, for some 30 years until my cat chewed a corner of the roof). In some misguided generosity I had given my cousin, the closest relative I have to a sister, my beloved Francie doll and her incredible wardrobe. Neither my cousin nor my aunt have any recollection of what happened to her.

Luckily, early on I had rescued Skipper and Scooter, stuffed in their case with clothes bulging off the wardrobe and shoes and socks and tights and butterfly nets bursting out of the drawers.

But I still mourn the loss of my Barbie and her clothes. Her wonderful, stylish, well-made clothes with sewn seams, carefully proportioned patterns, and wonderful attention to detail.

A few years ago, in a period of blue funk, I fixated on Barbies, most likely trying to recapture the elusive feeling of play that people inevitably lose to social conditioning. I bought a new Barbie, some clothes, accessories, and a new case. But today's Barbie dresses in what can only be described as white-trash couture, full of too-short skirts in unattractive bright pastels made of glued-together, poorly dyed fabrics that probably never saw human hands. No one with any taste would ever want those clothes in real life, but we all wanted vintage Barbie frocks, the pouffed skirts, white gloves, oh-so-perfect high-heeled mules. Look at Charlotte's wardrobe from Sex and the City--pure Barbie doll! (I was so waiting for SATC fashion dolls! Why not, HBO, why not?)

So i'll continue accessorizing my iPod with sheaths and coats, cases and personalities. And while it plays, so will I.

More on "Bill of Non-Rights"

2004-07-27T00:52:00.000-04:00

Well, I did something I rarely ever do, that is, circulate something without checking it out.

Turns out the "Bill of Non-Rights" is actually the "Bill of No Rights," and was written by Libertarian Lewis Napper, not Georgia State Rep. Mitchell Kaye. (See the Truth or Fiction.com website.) This screed is still as fictional as it ever was.

Even stranger, Article XI was not in the original piece. It was added somewhere along the way, by someone in desparate need of a wack upside the head and a repeat course in American History. In that order.

The Bill of Non-Rights

2004-07-26T22:37:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent this around. Some of it's true, some of it's funny, some is just obnoxious—articles IV, V, and VIII in particular. But I really had a problem with the last part, article XI.

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA:

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(lastly....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

It is a popular misconception that the United States was founded on any one religious belief. First of all, "In God We Trust" was placed on American coins during the Civil War, and then only for a little while. It didn't start showing up on coins in continuous use until 1909--in other words, not even 100 years. It wasn't adopted as the American motto until 1956, and didn't start to be used on paper money until 1957 (source: US Treasury Dept.).

This was also the height of the Cold War and the McCarthy witch trials, not a coincidence, I think. 1954 was also the year that "under God" was placed in the original, secular Pledge of Allegiance, a move that would have angered the writer, Dr. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister.

The original motto of the United States, as created by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, was E Pluribus Unum, meaning, "out of many, one."

As for the founding fathers, James Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote, "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Also:
In his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788), John Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Another comment from Early America.com:
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

In other words, the United States was founded to be a place where people of any belief could live together in peace, where no one belief would be more important, or better than, any other. In other words, a secular nation that welcomes people of all faiths.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

(sigh) remember:

President Kerry, President Kerry, President Kerry . . .

Florida, a state of mind--an evil mind

2004-07-26T21:28:00.000-04:00

Lately a couple of incredibly newsworthy events have happened in Florida--newsworthy, that is, if the mass media was really interested in news. A congresswoman was censured for suggesting that it might be a good idea for the November elections to have international monitoring. And newly sworn-in citizens were given a push to vote—Republican.

First, a congresswoman was censured because she had the nerve to suggest that the November elections have international monitoring. I could only find this item in an obscure website, First Coast News:

Congresswoman Corrine Brown in Jacksonville after Censure

By First Coast News Staff

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville)hosted a healthcare roundtable at the Mary Singleton Center this morning.

Representative Brown told First Coast News she still stands behind her comments that ignited a firestorm in Washington.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives censured Brown after a shouting match on the House floor Thursday night.

The argument started during a debate over HR-4818. The bill would provide international monitoring of the November presidential election. Congress has been considering an outside monitor due to all the confusion over the last election, and the "hanging chads" in Florida.

Representative Brown said, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."

Those comments drew an immediate objection from Republican members of the House. Leaders moved to strike her comments from the record. The House also censured Brown which kept her from talking on the House floor for the rest of the day.

Congresswoman Brown responded to the matter in a statement late Thursday night. Congresswoman Brown wrote, "Striking my words from the House floor is just one more example of the Republican Party's attempt to try and cover up what happened during the 2000 election."

Brown also wrote, "When the words of Corrine Brown are stricken from the floor, so is the voice of her 600,000 constituents in Florida's 3rd Congressional District."

More recently, brand-spankin'-new citizens of the U.S. of A. were welcomed to their new home by friendly people at voter registration tables--with registration forms already helpfully checked off as "Republican." (Thanks to my brother for this item--check out his awesome website, Fingertips.)

Posted on Fri, Jul. 23, 2004

CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES
GOP gets scolded on recruitment

Naturalization ceremonies in Jacksonville are to be relocated after complaints that GOP activists registered new citizens as Republicans.

BY GARY FINEOUT AND ALFONSO CHARDY

The citizenship ceremony in Jacksonville seemed to go off as usual, with a crowd of nearly 200 people going home as new Americans.

Just before the new citizens left the June 29 event, an immigration official directing the swearing-in urged the them to stop by a voter registration table -- a not uncommon sight at naturalization ceremonies.

But this table was unusual: Those handing out forms were Republican volunteers -- and the party affiliation box had been checked off ahead of time to make all of the new voters members of the GOP.

All of it was suspicious to Linda Cross, who was there to watch her husband, Dario Cruz, take his citizenship oath. Cross asked one of the women sitting at the table in the foyer of the University of North Florida auditorium whether there were any forms that left the party affiliation blank.

NO CHOICE OFFERED

She was told no.

''They said they didn't have any forms that weren't checked,'' Cross recalled. 'She said, `We're a Republican organization.' ''

Now, after complaints from Democrats, immigration officials say the table was unauthorized and that the incident will mean delays in swearing in naturalized citizens in Jacksonville. Top Republican party officials insist they did not authorize the voter registration effort, but Democrats remain skeptical as to how a Republican group would know when and where to show up.

''We don't know if this is happening anywhere else,'' said Ann Farra, voter registration director for the Duval County Democratic Party. ``Our other concern is, how long has this been going on?''

Jack Bulger, the Florida district director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told The Herald that the group was not authorized to pass out pre-checked voter registration forms. He said that from now on, naturalization ceremonies in Jacksonville will be held at the local immigration office or in a federal courthouse, where immigration officials can have better control of the premises.

''The outcome of all this is that I understand better than anybody the sensitivity of voter registration, at any time . . . and I will not permit the naturalization process to be politicized in any way,'' Bulger said. ``It will not happen.''

A top immigration official sent an e-mail last week to aides to Florida's two senators to alert them to the naturalization ceremony changes, ``because of a recent flap regarding the registration of voters.''

A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Wednesday that the Melbourne Democrat wants assurances that those eligible for citizenship will not endure lengthy delays because of the change.

Bulger said no other cities in Florida have reported any similar occurrences and that no limitations on where to hold citizenship ceremonies will affect other cities. Only one ceremony in Jacksonville will be delayed a few days, he said, to accommodate the change of venue from the university campus to the Jacksonville immigration office.

Joseph Agostini, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Florida, said that voter registration efforts are directed by local clubs and local party organizations and that the state party had no involvement in the June 29 registration drive.

''At the local level, volunteers often attend these kind of events to register voters,'' said Agostini, who said he had registered voters at swearing-in ceremonies in Hillsborough County in past years.

Dick Carlberg, assistant supervisor of elections for Duval County, said that on the basis of complaints from Democrats, the elections office set aside 36 registration forms from June 29 that were dropped off by the Duval County Republican Party. It is a third-degree felony in Florida to alter voter registration forms without the voter's consent.

But he said those registrations were processed after the office got an opinion from the division of elections that nothing illegal had happened. Carlberg said that while the forms were pre-checked Republican, some voters had crossed it out and selected another party affiliation, indicating they understood they had a choice.

''At worst it was unethical,'' Carlberg said. ``It depends on your point of view. But illegal, no.''

Bulger, the immigration chief in Florida, said that immigration officials typically allow nonpartisan groups or local election offices to register voters at ceremonies and no one thought to question the identity of the people who showed up to register voters in Jacksonville.

'In this particular incident, when our people were almost ready to start the ceremony, a group came in and had a nondescript sign that said `voter registration,' and our people made the assumption, without verifying it, that it was one of the nonpartisan groups we typically have dealt with,'' he said. ``Later, someone approached one of our people and said they thought they had received a form that was pre-checked. That would be inappropriate.''

SOMEONE NAMED

While immigration officials said that the organization that offered voter registration cards to new citizens was ''unknown,'' a story about the initial controversy in The Florida Times-Union identified one of those registering voters as being a Republican volunteer named Millie McLean.

McLean was identified last October as being in charge of voter registration drives for the Republican Women's Club of Duval County Federated, one of dozens of clubs statewide that are chartered by the Republican Party of Florida. McLean refused to answer questions from The Herald, but she denied any wrongdoing to the Times-Union.

Judith Albertelli, a Jacksonville resident and president of the Florida Federation of Republican Women, said she had been told that the women's club itself did not sponsor the voting booth at the June 29 naturalization ceremony.

Y'know, Florida is just a microcosm of the United States as a whole. Two Bushes out of control beat democracy into the ground.

It's Official: Bush Stupidest Man on Planet

2004-07-24T23:39:00.000-04:00

Toronto Star

Jul. 24, 2004. 10:51 AM
Bush wins big at Stupidity Awards

NELSON WYATT
CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL — The November elections may still be ahead of him but U.S. President George W. Bush came out a big winner yesterday — at the World Stupidity Awards.

Bush was a dominating presence at the second edition of the awards presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival.

Host Lewis Black, whose biting satire is a highlight of TV's The Daily Show, took pride in the recognition the United States received at the awards, saying: "we are the gold standard."

Black said the awards "celebrate the pros" and "perfection in idiocy" because real stupidity is hard work.

"It's easy to fall down a manhole, it's easy to put the candles too close to the drapes, it's easy to launch a military invasion of another country based on a few blurry satellite photos," he observed.

"This year my people, we scaled the Everest of stupidity and we stand upon its peak."

Bush took the Stupidest Man of the Year Award and for the second time in the history of the two-year-old awards won the Stupidity Award for Reckless Endangerment of the Planet.

That award was presented by Justin Trudeau, son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. He got the biggest reaction of the night from females in the packed house, who hooted, whistled and yelled "yum" at him while he was on stage.

Bush didn't take the category alone, however, and tied with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The controversial Texan president shared in two other awards as the United States was noted for having the Stupidest Government of the Year.

"What was interesting about that is that the decision was made overwhelmingly by Americans who voted," said Albert Nerenberg, of the Main Organization Revealing Obvious Numbskulls which runs the awards.

Nominations and voting took place at the organization's online site, except for the lifetime achievement award which is settled by the judges.

The nominations were judged by experts in their fields — "a bunch of idiots" and overseen by the Academy for Recognizing Stupidity Everywhere.

Stupidest Statement of the Year was Bush's pronouncement that "combat operations have ended in Iraq," where fighting still rages more than a year after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Bush beat out pop princess Britney Spears, nominated for saying, "I do," at her brief Las Vegas wedding, and singer Jessica Simpson, who wondered aloud on TV: "Why does Chicken By the Sea taste like tuna? Is it chicken or tuna?"

Though he is facing war crimes charges after being captured by U.S. forces, Saddam can take solace in the Lifetime Achievement Award for Stupidity, which was bestowed on him with a musical tribute and a montage of film clips and photos, including one of him getting a fashion makeover from the cast of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy.

Iraq and the conservative right in the United States figured heavily in the awards, which declared Fox's The O'Reilly Factor the Stupidest TV Show and gave Fox News the nod for Media Outlet Which Has Made the Greatest Contribution to Furthering Ignorance Worldwide.

Also, Stupidest Woman of the Year was U.S. soldier Pte. Lynndie England, who became notorious after pictures were published of her allegedly abusing Arab prisoners in a Baghdad military prison. She is facing charges.

Presenter Maggie Cassella said England beat out convicted homemaking guru Martha Stewart, dysfunctional rocker Courtney Love, Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson who "finally had enough surgery to place himself in this category."

Cast members from Survivor: All Stars — Rob Cesternino, Kathy O'Brien and Shii Ann Huang — gave the award for stupidest trend, which was trucker hats.

Stupidest Act of the Year went to Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, who cradled his baby while feeding a crocodile, an act which sparked a storm of protest.

"What is it with celebrities dangling their babies?" asked presenter Scott Thompson of Kids in the Hall fame. "Next year, they'll be eating them. Good thing cocaine is an appetite suppressant."

Gigli, considered one of the worst movies of the year and an albatross for stars Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, tied with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ as Stupidest Movie. The tie was to be broken by audience members at the Friday night event but the audience couldn't decide which was worse so the tie stayed.

Although Canada was shut out, Nerenberg said it was a banner year for stupidity.

"It was a stupendous year for stupidity," he said.

The show ended with a raucous musical number by mini Kiss, a group of singing dwarfs who perform made up like the '70s glam rock group.

Creative Visualization for Kerry

2004-07-20T21:16:00.000-04:00

I had this idea. Remember the Harmonic Convergence in 1987? The New Age celebration of the supposed beginning of a New Age of Peace?

That obviously didn't work.

Well, let's start our own Harmonic Convergence on a smaller, more manageable scale. According to one Convergence observer from the Mt. Shasta Project:

While truth is defined individually, global change is controlled by what the majority think. If enough people "think" a belief, the belief becomes real.

So . . . let's practice some creative visualization. Every day, this should be our mantra--let's repeat it many times a day, when we get up, during breaks at work, as a blessing over dinner, before we go to bed to create good dreams:

When John Kerry is elected in November.
When John Kerry is elected in November.
When John Kerry is elected in November.
When John Kerry is elected in November.
When John Kerry is elected in November.

Or, if you prefer:

President Kerry.
President Kerry.
President Kerry.
President Kerry.
President Kerry.

Come on people now, smile on each other, everybody get together, try to love one another right now!

We got "Outfoxed"!

2004-07-20T21:00:00.000-04:00

We hosted a house party on Sunday night to view the new documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. These house parties were sponsored, as it were, by the brilliant grassroots activist group MoveOn.org; there were nearly 4,000 such house parties across the United States.

We got together and watched the movie at 7pm EST, and then afterwards took part in a coast-to-coast conference call with Al Franken and the documentary's director, Robert Greenwald.

Pretty cool, huh??

So when I signed up for our house party, I didn't think that anyone besides the friends I sent the invite to would pay any attention. And yet our party soon filled up, and went beyond. I actually had to turn two people away. We had about 10 people here, and only 3 of them were people we knew. It was a very positive experience, to be with like-minded people that we didn't know!

I highly recommend the documentary. It's available on the "Outfoxed" website for about $10.

Welcome to Public Service

2004-07-14T20:44:00.000-04:00

Eric and I decided to go out for community service. It wasn't decreed by a judge. Eric is now one of two new members of Natick's Cultural Council, and I got named the Natick representative to the MBTA's Advisory Board.

At one point, when one of the selectmen was mentioning the state's "parsimonious" budget for the arts, I was reminded of the scene from "Waiting for Guffman" where Corky St. Clair goes in front of Blaine's town council and is, as we say here, wicked disappointed when he doesn't get the $10,000 he wants for his production, and ends up having a temper tantrum: "'cause you people are BASTARD PEOPLE!"

As for my position, I got the feeling I had just volunteered to spend a night in a house everyone swears isn't haunted, but finds convenient reasons not to enter themselves.

But this is POLITICS for the PEOPLE, man! We're in the game!

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

2004-07-11T21:40:00.000-04:00

Herald Sun: Terrorism could delay US election [12jul04]

2004-07-11T21:37:00.000-04:00

Herald Sun: Terrorism could delay US election [12jul04]

People need to write their elected officials and warn them of the coming threat to our democratic processes. The regime is going to try to pull a fast one again because they're running scared. This isn't The X Files, folks.

In the words of Buffalo Springfield:

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

To Read or Not To Read II

2004-07-09T22:58:00.000-04:00

As I was saying, in a normal world, the more mundane of mysteries--the serial killers, the sexual predators, the vengeful apprentice or jealous spouse--would be enough to make me feel that all's right with the world, that the ingenious, intrepid detective or private eye or special agent can get the bad guy.

But now even the mysteriously sinister anthropomorphic house, imbued with the occult for generations, is losing its abiity to suspend my disbelief. There's just nothing more horrifying than what's going on in the news. The Haunting of Hill House? The scariest book ever written? A picnic. The unreliable narrator? Don't make me laugh--what we are living with now is the ultimate example of an unreliable narrator.

The Blair Witch Project, yeah, that could be scary--if you renamed it The Bush White House Project.

I want my fun reading back! Vote the scary man out of office!

To Read or Not To Read

2004-07-08T20:46:00.000-04:00

You know things are really bad when a good mystery just won't do it anymore. You know, to take your mind off the drudgery, cruelty, mean-spiritedness of what passes for news and politics.

I love a good mystery. Michael Connelly, Elizabeth George, Nevada Barr, Sue Grafton, Donald Harstad, Val McDermid. Tough, smart, and often witty protagonists making the world safe, if sometimes a bit sadder.

I just finished a really good one, Earthquake Weather, by Terrill Lee Lankford, a hard-boiled Hollywood mystery with more than a taste of Raymond Chandler.

But murder most foul just wasn't, well, foul enough to drown out the bleak white noise of everyday life. I need a stronger hit these days. Like apocalyptic weather, reptilian aliens, ghosts, ghouls, things that not only go bump but also crash in the night. Anything strong enough to make me glad to be in this dimension--er, world.

More on this theory anon . . .

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Help Wanted

2004-07-06T20:45:00.000-04:00

The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy has had some unforeseen--unforeseen, that is, by the idiots who thunk this up--consequences, some of which could be serious. May have been serious all along. I kinda think that the armed services could've used more interpreters all along, maybe saved some lives. I dunno. I'm just a goofy liberal.

from UPI
Published 7/2/2004 4:28 PM

1,000 gays have needed military skills

By Pamela Hess
Pentagon correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 2 (UPI) -- Around 1,000 service members with special skills that are now sorely needed in Iraq have been expelled from the military in the last five years because they are gay, according to a United Press International analysis.

The military next week will recall from their civilian lives some 5,600 soldiers to fill out the ranks of 141,000 soldiers serving in Iraq. The service is calling in those former soldiers who have specific skills tailor-made for the Iraq conflict -- those experienced in food service, truck driving, auto repair and healthcare as well as paralegals, combat engineers, administration specialists and infantry. It is the largest mobilization of the Individual Ready Reserve in two decades.

The IRR is a pool of former military personnel who either volunteer to be on call for duty or who, by virtue of their initial enlistment contracts, owe up to four years in the IRR after they leave the military. An Army official this week admitted some soldiers will be "shocked" to be called up for a year's duty from their civilian lives as the IRR is so rarely tapped.

However, according to numbers provided by the Army and by the Defense Department, at least 948 gay service members with the very same specialties have been forced out of the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars homosexuals from serving. Not all of the 948 are from the Army; service by service breakdowns were not available.

The Army is seeking 790 "motor transport operators" -- truck drivers -- to pull a year's duty in Iraq. At least 113 military truck drivers were forced to leave the armed forces between 1998 and 2003, according to statistics the Defense Manpower Data Center in Seaside, Calif., provided under the Freedom of Information Act to the University of California-Santa Barbara's Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.

The list continues: The Army is seeking 211 food service operators for a year's duty in Iraq. At least 153 gay food service operators were forced out of the military between 1998 and 2003. The Army is activating 531 "administration specialists." At least 234 supply administration specialists were kicked out of the military in the same five-year period. The Army is seeking 361 light-wheel mechanics and 52 tracked-vehicle mechanics. And at least 122 automotive service specialist and 28 tracked-vehicle specialists have left the military because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The Army also needs some 307 medical personnel. At least 212 general medical care treatment specialists have left the service along with dozens of other medical specialists ranging from surgery to dental care to registered nurses.

The Army is also seeking 143 combat engineers. At least 57 were forced from the military between 1998 and 2003.

The military has also expelled 163 law enforcement specialists and 15 language interrogators for homosexuality, the same specialties that have come under such scrutiny in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- in no small part because of the graphic, homoerotic and humiliating pictures taken of the prisoners. In some pictures, prisoners were forced to emulate fellatio on each other. In others, they were forced to masturbate with hoods on. In still others, they were piled naked on top of each other.

Due to a lack of trained Arabic linguists, the military has hired private contractors to conduct interrogations and provide translation to intelligence teams. At least three such private contractors have been implicated in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In November 2002, CSSMM reported that seven military Arabic linguists were discharged because of their homosexuality.

According to CSSMM, 6,273 service members were expelled from the U.S. military between 1998 and 2003 for sexual orientation. After peaking in 2001 with 1,227 service members kicked out for violating the policy against homosexuals serving in the military, the numbers declined for the last two years -- to 885 in 2002 and 770 in 2003. The reduction coincides with an increased need for soldiers in general, as the United States has engaged in two ground-force intensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"At a time when the military is forced to recall previously discharged service members on an involuntary basis, these data show that 'don't ask, don't tell' has undermined readiness by depriving the armed forces of mission-critical talent," said CSSMM Executive Director Aaron Belkin, in a report released last week.

"Repealing the gay ban is essential to preserving the fighting ability of our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that advocates for homosexuals in the military.

The controversial "don't ask, don't tell" rule was crafted in 1993 by Congress and then President Clinton, softening the military's stance since 1981 that declared homosexuality incompatible with military service. Under the new policy, the military could no longer interrogate troops or recruits about their sexual orientation nor conduct investigations based on hearsay. For their part, gay troops were not to declare their orientation nor act on it while in the military.

Nevertheless, the policy still holds that homosexuality poses an unacceptable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline in the armed forces. Clinton initially promised in his presidential campaign to lift the ban on gays in the military, causing an outcry throughout the armed forces.

The policy is also a law: Even if the military wanted to keep openly gay service members, it is forbidden to do so. The policy is somewhat selectively enforced, however: retired Lt. Steve May, a member of Arizona's state legislature, declared himself to be gay in 2000 but was allowed to complete his term of service in the Army Reserve.

"The current law mandated by Congress makes it necessary that individuals who make it known publicly that they are homosexuals must be considered for separation," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Keck. "At this time there is no other option for commanders in the field."

According to the Pentagon, about 90 percent of those who leave the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" ban do so voluntarily -- that is, they declare their sexual orientation to superiors or colleagues thereby forcing their removal.

The SLDN, however, says 95 percent of the service members who contact the organization for assistance report they were harassed because of their perceived sexual orientation.

A 1999 Pentagon survey on gay harassment in the military suggests that figure is not far off: 80 percent of respondents had heard derogatory, anti-gay remarks during the past year; 37 percent had witnessed or experienced targeted incidents of anti-gay harassment; and 9 percent of respondents reported witnessing or experiencing anti-gay physical assaults.

The survey was undertaken after the 1999 beating murder of Pfc. Barry Winchell while he slept in his barracks at Fort Campbell, Ky., by Pvt. Calvin Glover, a soldier in his unit who believed Winchell was gay. Glover is serving a life sentence.

Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

Soldier Mental Illness Hits Vietnam Levels

2004-07-05T12:01:00.000-04:00

THE BOSTON GLOBE
Thursday, July 1, 2004

Soldier mental illness hits Vietnam levels
Many returning troops suffer combat-related afflictions

By RAJA MISHRA

Nearly one in five U.S. combat troops returning from war-torn Iraq suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression or other serious mental afflictions, according to new data detailing the psychic costs of the bloodiest war in a generation.

A study conducted by the U.S. Army shows that combat-related mental problems have been higher among those who have served in Iraq than in any military action since Vietnam.

It also paints the first broad statistical picture of the battlefield horrors encountered by the American combatants on the front lines in Iraq. For instance, one in four U.S. Marines surveyed reported killing Iraqi civilians. About one in five Army members surveyed reported engaging in hand-to-hand combat. More than 85 percent of those in Marine or Army combat units said they knew someone who had been injured or killed. More than half said they had handled corpses or human remains. The figures were based on soldiers' responses; the military does not have statistics available to confirm them.

Up to 17 percent of these troops in Iraq suffered mental health problems, though less than half said they had sought professional help after ending their tours, according to the study, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"There's no question that these service members have truly experienced the spectrum of things that happen during the war," said Dr. Charles Hoge, psychiatry chief at the U.S. Army Walter Reed Medical Center and lead author of the study. "This is real, sustained war."

The Pentagon's health affairs chief, Dr. William Winkenwerder, said it was premature to compare service in Iraq to Vietnam, but added, "We can certainly surmise there's plenty of stress."

With more than 800 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 5,000 wounded, Operation Iraqi Freedom has become the deadliest American military conflict since the Vietnam War, in which some 58,000 Americans died.

The new study's chief purpose was to gauge the effectiveness of mental health services provided by the military. The data indicated a dramatic improvement since the Vietnam era, when the military's mental health care was relatively unsophisticated.

But the study still revealed gaps in the system, chief among them a continued stigma about mental illness among troops despite considerable educational efforts by Pentagon brass over the past decade. Also, nearly half of Iraq veterans reporting mental symptoms said they had trouble scheduling a psychiatric appointment.

The mental trauma from the Iraq war appears to be approaching Vietnamlike levels for the 40,000-plus U.S. soldiers in the thick of daily violence, according to the new study.

Wartime psychology was in its infancy during the Vietnam conflict, and no comparable studies were done of soldiers during the war. Later research found that about 15 percent of troops who served there suffered PTSD.

The most recent studies found that about 30 percent of Vietnam veterans had developed psychological problems after the war, as condemnation of soldiers by stateside critics exacerbated combat stress in some.

The study found that 12 percent to 13 percent of troops returning from Iraq reported PTSD symptoms, and another 3 percent to 4 percent reported other mental distress. By contrast, PTSD estimates for veterans of the first Gulf War range between 2 percent and 10 percent. The rate is about 4 percent in the U.S. adult population. The new Army study found about 11 percent of troops returning from Afghanistan reported symptoms of mental distress.

reprinted in
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Most heartening sign of intelligence this week

2004-07-04T20:09:00.000-04:00

Yankee fans. Gotta love 'em.

from The New York Times
Published: June 30, 2004

Cheney Pays Visit to Stadium

By TYLER KEPNER

Vice President Dick Cheney spent about 20 minutes in Manager Joe Torre's office and in the clubhouse shaking hands with players before the Yankees beat the Boston Red Sox, 11-3, last night at Yankee Stadium.

Cheney studied the photographs inside and outside Torre's office and asked Yogi Berra, the Hall of Fame catcher, why he was playing the outfield in one picture. Cheney started watching the game from the private box of the Yankees' principal owner, George Steinbrenner, switched to a seat beside the Yankees' dugout for a few innings, then returned to Steinbrenner's box.

"I told him before the game I hope he brings us more good luck than he brings them," Torre said. "It's great any time a dignitary like that visits. It slaps you with pride."

During the singing of "God Bless America" in the seventh inning, an image of Cheney was shown on the scoreboard. It was greeted with booing, so the Yankees quickly removed the image.