Atheists in Foxholes

Congress handed the president a belated Christmas present yesterday with passage of a new Iraq funding bill sans deadlines, or exit strategy. The Senate vote was nearly 8 to 1, (80 for, 14 against), and the House 2 to 1. Some may see this as a referendum on a unitary executive, and say the president won. Others might suggest the vote illustrates an executive branch on steroids, but as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin observes about Congress, "We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land."

Simply put, the vote conforms to the laws of gravity; Congress came up against an immoveable force---the president of the United States. This administration only proves, yet again, that despite our technological prowess, ideology can still triumph over reason and common sense. And, if nothing else, the past six years have shown us that ideology is a contact sport.

So, on the eve of a holiday that pays tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of those core values that distinguish us from theocracies and dictatorships, principles like religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state, why not look to those in the military who have served in Iraq, in active combat, and who openly differ with the ideological bent of their commanding officers. And, by extension, why not think, too, about religious coercion, in the U.S. armed forces, as an attempt to stifle political dissent.

While we may appear to have lost the battle to end the president's war in Congress yesterday, something very exciting is happening in the military that is so threatening to the Department of Defense that it has refused access to Web sites like You Tube and My Space, on department computers, to those in uniform. What, and who, is DOD trying to protect, and from what, and whom? If there is a crisis in belief, on all levels, and if groups are forming to ardently profess disbelief, is it any wonder?

It's no wonder, too, then that there are atheists in foxholes, and they're organizing, and speaking out, in greater numbers, about discrimination, and coercion, about infringement on their First Amendment rights, and maybe, just maybe, about an extremist vision that is a menace to the very principles they are fighting to defend.

Make no mistake, being an atheist, in the theatre of war, isn't just about the absence of belief in the Almighty, it's about the affirmation of choice, as well as acknowledgment that unbridled, and unchecked, zealotry poses a threat to society regardless of what the peculiar brand of ideology is. Some 20% of those now in the service profess to being atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers; that religious dissent is more prevalent in the military than in the civilian population leads one to wonder if disbelief isn't also a statement of profound, and unparalleled distrust in political leadership.

More active service members are coming together not merely to affirm their disbelief, but as resistance to extremist Christian proselytizing by their commanding officers, as well as in response to discrimination based on their refusal to participate in religious practice. While there have always been atheists and agnostics in the military, they are more vocal now, and we can expect their numbers to increase in direct proportion to the numbers of those dying, wounded, and a growing sense of helplessness, the kind of powerlessness suggested by Senator Durbin .

But, if we really want to know what it means to be an atheist in the military today, why not ask one, the president of Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Jason Torpy. MAAF is a group with members in 15 countries, 45 states, and over 100 military installations and ships.

Torpy, MAAF president since 2000, is a West Point graduate, trained intelligence officer, who enlisted in the Army back in 1994, and held the rank of Captain when he left the service in 2005. He calls for preserving the separation between church and state, and for protecting the First Amendment rights of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers.

When asked how one preserves one's humanism in active combat situations, Mr. Torpy said "Combat lays bare any misconceptions one might have about any special place humanity might enjoy in the natural world." And, this former Army captain confirms the pressure placed on service members to participate in prayer at what they thought were secular meetings, and testimonials on MAAF's Web site attest to efforts, by extreme Christian fundamentalists, to convert, and ostracize those who refuse to be converted.

He contends that religious discrimination comes "in two basic forms—active and passive. Active discrimination might involve denying a promotion, forcing undeserved labor, or providing undesirable assignments. Passive discrimination is far more common because it is sometimes unintentional, it is nonetheless very divisive… Our greatest concern is when leaders use their military power to express their personal religion by instituting personal religious ceremonies, symbolism, or statements in official activities."

"Combat does not inspire religion, and it certainly does not inspire Christianity," says Torpy adding that atheists "maintain their convictions despite external pressures, including combat." While belief in a higher power doesn't factor into those convictions, service in the military requires adherence to the Constitution, not the Bible.

Those in the service today who stand up for their constitutional rights are honoring every man and woman who gave their life so that they may enjoy these protections. By challenging ideological coercion, they are showing Congress how to take power back from those who have abused it.

Back to the Future...

for the quote of the day which comes, courtesy of The Washington Post, from Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, an anti-war Democrat from Illinois, in response to the passage yesterday of the Iraq funding bill:

"We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land."

Sadly, today, we are one step closer to being a monarchy.

The Bleeping Truth

So, you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the bleeping truth? Not only has this administration put government surveillance back on the map, and in ways that would make J. Edgar Hoover proud, but it has also engaged in the kind of censorship of scientific, and military, documents that would raise an eyebrow or two even at the Kremlin. And, burgeoning governmental intrusion poses a far graver threat to Internet safety than any garden variety computer virus ever could.

Among the more controversial issues former Vice President Al Gore mentioned last night on Larry King Live was this administration's unprecedented proclivity for blacking out parts of scientific reports on global warming, and anything else it considers "inconvenient." A study recently conducted by Oxford and Harvard, released last week, reports that fully two-thirds of the 40 countries surveyed block or edit Internet social, and political posts.

While the nations surveyed include the usual suspects like China, Iran, and Korea, so-called "social filtering" is said to be happening in France and Germany where Web sites that deny the Holocaust are blocked. Whether we agree that Nazis and Holocaust deniers are not a desirable bunch, giving any government the right to decide what we see, and what we say, online may portend a dangerous trend. As John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, suggests"The survey shows us that online censorship is growing around the world." (Agence France Presse) Coming soon to a Web site near you?

Already in China, Internet censors not only block Web pages, but entire Web sites based on what they perceive to be threats to national security. Companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, as well as media moguls like Rupert Murdoch are giving the green light to filtering, and deleting content which may be objectionable to the Chinese party line. Indeed, corporate profits make strange bedfellows.

But, more importantly, this kind of zeal for protecting national security isn't peculiar to the Chinese alone. As attorney-general-gate is quickly revealing, there may be many, thousands of miles from Beiing, on Pennsylvania Avenue, who want to reserve a front row seat, whether warranted or unwarranted, and check in with those sites that present a "dissident" view of government. And, after all, how does one distinguish between filtering and intelligence interception?

While some countries like Ethiopia and Pakistan are disabling blogging by blocking entire domains, others like China and Iran are only monitoring those Web sites they consider to be extremists, and/or those of political dissidents. While few would argue that some regulation of the Internet was inevitable, who can refute the ubiquitous threat to civil liberties posed by pervasive online censorship?

It's important to keep in mind, too, that the U.S. and most of Europe were not among those surveyed, and the folks at Oxford expect to find more nations that participate in the insidious practice of Internet snooping and blocking. The World Wide Web is, relatively speaking, in its infancy, and this is the first major study of its kind. Consider this in the context of what Al Gore, and others, report as censorship of scientific reports.

Mr. Gore is right. For those of us who look to the Internet for the kind of investigative reporting that would never make it past the editor's desk at mainstream newspapers, we'd better wake up to the fact that, sooner or later, we will see the same intrusion, and inability to tell the bleeping truth in cyberspace that we now see in the mainstream marketplace. Unless we want to lose our unfettered, and mostly unpaid, right to rant on a cyber soapbox, we'd better start paying closer attention to censorship. The Defense Department has already blocked active service members from visiting You Tube on department computers, so it's just a question of time before the blocking spreads to a personal computer near and dear to you.

The only way to prevent this administration, or its clones, in coming years, from blocking out dissenting political and social commentary, on the World Wide Web, as well as anything it considers a threat to "national security" is to ask Congress to pass legislation that makes it a felony to intercept, edit, or block any post, Web site, or domain without a Court order. We must act now to protect the First Amendment, in all its applications, before it is so neutralized that it will no longer be able to protect us.

Another "I" Word: Irrelevant

When White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, called Jimmy Carter's comments made on Saturday to an Arkansas newspaper "increasingly irrelevant," he was not only impugning the intellectual integrity of a former president, but one who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. As a private citizen, Mr. Carter is entitled to say what he will about anyone in office without having to field accusations of "reckless personal criticism" from anyone on the president's staff. As Mr. Carter rightly suggests, the only thing he leads now is the Carter Center." (AP)

Obviously, the former president was quoted out of context. As you recall, his remarks dealt specifically with foreign policy. He was comparing the foreign policies of George W. Bush with that of Richard Nixon. No one can deny that Mr. Nixon was an expert marksman when it came to foreign policy. On the other hand, Dick Cheney amply demonstrates the kind of marksmanship at which this administration excels. Clearly, there was nothing "reckless" about anything Mr. Carter said, especially about the erosion of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.. .What is "reckless" is the attempt to bully former presidents, and anyone who publicly disagrees with this president, and his administration.

Moreover, Mr. Bush's spokesperson may not realize it, but when he denounces comments made by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, he implicitly condemns the committee that awarded him his prize. But, what the hey, why not challenge the Nobel Committee- while they're at it; this administration has already challenged the Geneva Conventions, the Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus, too. This is a higher octane hubris we're seeing, and one that may yet outlast the Ever-ready Battery.
.
Jimmy Carter has every right to express his opinion as a citizen, and as a former president. There is absolutely no reason for him to back down from saying what he thinks. If anything, Mr. Bush's people should retreat, and issue a formal apology for their insolence. The unmitigated arrogance of this administration never fails to amaze.

That the White House would dismiss observations made by a Nobel Peace Prize winner as irrelevant should come as no surprise in light of their actions. After all, they increasingly demonstrate they consider the concept of peace irrelevant, too.

Quote of the Day

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Leon Trotsky

Faith-based Initiatives

Former counsel to Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal who for ten years served as Air Force Judge Advocate, Mikey Weinstein, founder of a group called Military Religious Freedom Foundation said "We have a Christian Taliban within our U.S. military," and that "this administration has turned the Department of Defense into a faith-based initiative." Arguably, this administration has turned government itself into a faith-based initiative.

There are some like former President Jimmy Carter who lament that the separation of church and state has been compromised, that this executive branch endorses religious coercion, and who consider the Bush White House responsible for the blurring of boundaries not merely between the various branches of government, but between church and state.

Mr. Carter has expressed righteous indignation at the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives which has, in 2005, awarded more than $2 billion in federal funding to religious groups even, as he says, "those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion." The former president insists, too, that "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one." (AP) It must be remembered, however, that our current president claims to be serving the Almighty not the people and, indeed, any president making such a messianic claim poses a threat not merely to the concept of statehood, but to the separation of powers.

If we consider the military as a microcosm of what is going on in the country, and see religious coercion as symptomatic of an egregious, and growing, intolerance of conceptual diversity, it becomes evident that not only are we quickly approaching the winter of our disbelief, but that skepticism about a higher power is itself a form of political dissent.

One has only to look at recent bestsellers like Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" to get a sense of the groundswell of revolt fomenting in response to more than a decade of faith-based initiatives in government prompted by the likes of neo-conservative Christian extremists including former attorney-general, John Ashcroft, who reportedly conducted Bible study groups in Congress.

The numbers of those who express confidence in secular leadership, and in the President, have reached record lows, yet Americans who say they believe in God prevail by a 92 to 6 margin. And, while more say they would vote for a homosexual for president before they'd vote for an atheist, the outspoken expression of disbelief, in the U.S. military, may be as much an act of resistance to religious coercion, and an affirmation of constitutional entitlement, as it is an expression of disbelief. . Religious proselytizing can only lead to an environment of increased cynicism, and greater distrust of leadership.

In a world where one is inclined to inspect a head of lettuce for signs of foul play, it should come as little surprise that nearly half of our troops find themselves at official gatherings, at least monthly, that advertise themselves as being secular, but that open with a psalm or some form of prayer. Nonstop media coverage of the sudden demise of Rev. Jerry Falwell shows what a muscular grip the "moral majority" has on America's psyche. Not surprisingly, too, in this bifurcated culture, while we have renowned journalists speaking out against blind faith, three out of ten Republican presidential candidates, at a recent convention, gleefully declared that they don't believe in evolution.

And, let's not forget Monica Goodling, Justice Department appointee of a born-again president, who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights straining credulity in her claim that she, and her colleague, Kyle Sampson, a devout Mormon, were not personally involved in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But, then what are we to make of a Department of Justice who has, in a senior position, someone with a law degree from Regent University, a school whose motto is: "Christian leadership to change the world?" Ostensibly, this is quickly becoming the tag line, too, for the Department of Defense.

Even public education is beginning to confuse its function with that of Sunday school. Some Georgia school districts are thinking about offering state-funded Bible classes, and Texas is taking it one step further by considering a proposal to make Bible study a high school requirement. In fact, last week, the ACLU took up the cause of a handful of parents, in the Western District of Texas, who are concerned about their religious liberty, and have chosen to resist efforts of the born again to infuse their schools' curricula with Bible courses which promote the peculiar brand of religion that has received their God-housekeeping stamp of approval.. While the number of religious groups hasn't increased dramatically, the funds earmarked for their expenditure has; faith-based lobbying appears to be a burgeoning field.

Despite the glut of newfangled Creationists, those who never had faith, or have chosen to leave it in the trunk are becoming more audible, and more visible perhaps in proportion to those who question the assertions of the commander in chief whose claims about the war in Iraq seem to correlate with those of weapons of mass destruction. Maybe those who question their leaders are more likely to challenge the existence of God, particularly when the God that is being offered up is one that doesn't accept diversity of opinion, or practice.

Clearly, when generals are daily defecting from the established party line, there is a crisis in belief in authority of all stars and stripes which goes to prove that we might not have trickle down economics, but trickle down disbelief. It isn't so much a crisis of faith that is insinuating itself into our military and our public schools as much as a crisis in credibility with some fairly stalwart confusion as to when knowledge is required by way of intervention.

For a country bent on purging itself of sexual predators, the issue of religious predators seldom comes up, not in polite society, especially not in our armed forces. But, what is it if not predatory when a commander tries to usurp his position of authority, and use his influence to impose his notions of religion on a subordinate? Is this not a form of metaphysical rape? While atheists now comprise more than 20% of the military population, it is increasingly more common to find those in power exercising their control by seducing lower classmen into attending group functions which begin with a command to pray.

Among many underlying questions, one looms large—can it be that lack of faith in military leadership has resulted in a climate of increasing religious skepticism among the ranks of those who serve? Has cynicism towards government carried over to a pronounced loss of confidence going up the chain of command as far as it can go? These are probative questions that require a closer look as does the use of coercive tactics by those in command of our armed forces to ensure conformity in religious practice which constitutes a violation of these soldiers' First Amendment rights. It might be a good idea, too, to examine how a militaristic, Crusader foreign policy has been superimposed upon U.S. armed forces.

Undoubtedly, loss of faith in leadership may correlate with, or result in, swelling of the ranks of disbelievers, both in the service and in civilian life, as would attempts by born again Christians, in the upper echelons of command, to impose their belief system upon their subordinates. What is ironic here is that, overall, there is far more emphasis on freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, as well as the separation of church and state, among members of the military than among their civilian counterparts, and Jimmy Carter may be the first prominent public figure to call attention to this problem.

When religion becomes politicized, freedom of choice is corrupted. Failure to connect the dots between Dominionism, a religious ideology that strives to convert as many as possible, and a foreign policy predicated on notions of pre-emptive war may prove to be a fatal one for civilization as we know it.
Moreover, belief in a higher power, and the right brand of higher power, must not be a prerequisite for service in the military which requires adherence to the Constitution, not the Bible any more than Bible study should be a prerequisite for admission into a state-funded college .

Whether, as Christopher Hitchens argues, God is, or is not, great, those who originally came to this country to escape religious persecution wouldn't want to find government faith-based initiatives on the menu. It's time for parents to stand up to school boards who want to confuse belief with knowledge, and for more in the military to speak out against coercion from fundamentalist Christian commanding officers. It's time for dissent to move from its foxhole into the public domain where it belongs.

Jihad Joe

Upon resigning as attorney general, in 2004, John Ashcroft wrote that he "believes the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration." The irony of those words is not lost on anyone who has been following recent developments in the campaign to get at the truth behind what someday be called the purges of Al Gonzales.

Keeping in mind that his predecessor in the Justice Department, Mr. Ashcroft, is considered the point man behind the USA Patriot Act, recent revelations that Ashcroft, his deputy James B. Comey, and then FBI DirectorRobert Mueller considered quitting in response to what they considered the dubious legality of the NSA program is stunning. Even more startling is the account of then White House counsel, and President Bush's chief of staff Andrew H. Card's visit to the hospital bedside of the ailing Ashcroft in an attempt to strong arm him, and get him to sign off on a program that he would otherwise not approve, a program that allows this administration to bypass the need for warrants to intercept, and monitor, international telephone calls in violation of FISA, and the First Amendment. Mr. Comey made these extraordinary allegations, earlier this week, before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of their investigation into another dubious activity, the authorization to fire nine U.S. attorneys.

Picture a dark hospital room, a heavily medicated patient, and the arrival of two high powered government officials, Gonzales and Card, not only asking that Ashcroft authorize the spy program, but in defiance of the fact that James Comey, his deputy, had now taken over as acting attorney general. According to Comey's testimony, Ashcroft had already decided that the program was dubious, and didn't want to renew it. Nevertheless, trying to slip in under the radar, Gonzales was on a mission to get what the president wanted, a blessing from the Justice Department to monitor phone calls. "Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program." (NYT)

Despite what anyone tells you, Gonzales is, and has always been, a glorified hit man. He doesn't give the commands, he merely executes them. Getting what Mr. Bush wants is consistently number one on the Gonzales agenda. Indeed, this president couldn't have conceived of a more submissive, and subordinate, Justice Department; not exactly what the framers had in mind by the phrase "balance of power."

John Ashcroft was to the war on terror what Leonard Bernstein was to the New York Philharmonic yet, curiously, Mr. Ashcroft has been conspicuously silent on the events of that evening. One might expect him to acknowledge that not only was the executive branch on human growth hormones, but so was the Justice Department. More importantly, Justice was busying itself with something even more radical, a jihad of its own; the subversion, and subrogation, of our civil liberties.

Consider, for a moment, that the architect of a radical right wing, neo-conservative agenda stood up, barely conscious, from his hospital bed, and refused to go along with the program; what a defining moment for democracy. And, while the president agreed to Mr. Comey's demands to tweak the N.S.A. legislation so that it would at least have the illusion of legality, that doesn't lessen the statement Ashcroft made against a constitutional implosion, nor make his subsequent defection from the ranks of Bush loyalists any less significant.

Those who now call for Attorney General Gonzales to step down echo the cries, months earlier, for Donald Rumsfeld's head. Neither resignation has made, or will make, a palpable difference in business as usual in Washington. What is increasingly lost in the shuffle is that both Gonzales and Rumsfeld are henchmen. What's more, should Gonzales step down as Ashcroft did before him, the president will merely appoint another likeminded attorney general, and one who doesn't make the mistake of getting caught.

You may recall a character strip figure that emerged during World War II, GI Joe, who won the hearts of millions. Joe went on to become an action figure, and Hasbro's best loved boy doll. In response to concerns about the war in Vietnam, the toy manufacturer chose to transform GI Joe from a warrior into the leader of an adventure team, one that was inspired by the idea of fighting evil. The war on terror has created a climate that's ripe for a new doll, Jihad Joe, and the adventures of the great avenger of the axis of evil. If the mentality of some of Bush's appointees is any indication, it's a safe bet that GI Joe found his way into the hands of the president.

But where did the arbiter of constitutional law, and justice, get his notions of blind obedience to the burning Bush? Clearly, his predecessor managed to maintain some independence of thought, which may explain why he's no longer attorney-general.

The fact that the Justice Department actually contemplated terminating more than 25% of the U.S. attorneys in the middle of a presidential term, no less, is quite a story, but the bigger story is not who the department wanted to fire, and why, but that documents pertaining to their termination were "withheld from the public." (WaPo) That the lists of prosecutors up for elimination provided evidence of the randomness involved in the decision-making process only goes to show that the president's fingerprints were all over it, but the quintessential question is why the Justice documents were accepted for release " in censored form," and include only limited, approved information. What is there on these lists that is classified, and what threat to "national security" would their release pose? More importantly, how are they any different from those kept by another GI Joe---Joe McCarthy?

David York, among the U.S. attorneys targeted for dismissal, called the lists of US attorneys slated for firing a "non-story." ( WaPo) He's right. The real story is censorship, the Bush administration's ongoing efforts to withhold public documents, and an appointed attorney general who doesn't recognize, or respect, his independence from the executive branch. This hyper focus, by the media, on minutia of the story, as well as on Gonzales's famous memory lapses only serves to distract from how it is that a government is allowed to operate, with impunity, in secret, and in defiance of its Constitution, for nearly a decade.

The Jihad Joes will have won their war on civil liberties if this government is permitted to use turbulent discourse on the war in Iraq as a way to deflect attention away from its efforts to play hide and seek with the First Amendment, to operate in secret, as well as to put a silencer on open dissent.

Alas, the only smoking gun many in the mainstream media are willing to cover is the one used by Phil Spector. Unless the focus changes, and fast, we will soon come to see that the only difference between government and organized crime is that organized crime pays better.

Photo Op for Bigotry

Below is an open letter I wrote, last week, to CNN news commentator Lou Dobbs which appeared on The Huffington Post, and the Atlantic Free Press. One of those who read the post, at HuffPo,made an astute, and important observation which is that Lou Dobbs has the courage to take on a difficult subject matter, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, which no one else wishes to tackle. For this, Mr. Dobbs is to be commended. For his obstinate insistence on sticking to "facts" of his own invention, however, he is entitled only to censure. Indeed, we need to see more, and greater forays into the arena of intelligent, informed discourse on illegal immigration, and soon. We don't need petulance from either side of the debate, but pertinence and, more importantly, accuracy, as well as respect for truth..






My Dear Mr. Dobbs:

Please allow me to begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for you, and think that you're a highly intelligent, and knowledgeable fellow. Any self-made individual holds a special place in my heart, particularly one who attended a prestigious, and demanding school like Harvard.

Having said that, I must express my dismay, and disappointment, at your failure to acknowledge, and take responsibility for, some dubious numbers that you used to assert that illegal immigrants have crossed the border with 7,000 new cases of leprosy just iin the past three years when, in fact, statistics show that the new cases have evolved over thirty years not three. Moreover, there is no hard evidence showing just how many o f those with the disease were illegal immigrants, as you suggested.

At a time when the government is using a program called "Operation Return to Sender" in order to detain illegal immigrants, as well as seeking to deport them in unprecedented numbers, it is flat out irresponsible journalism to foster a climate of hysteria, and fan the flames of the kind of neanderthal ban which recently passed, in a suburb of Dallas, that prohibits landlords from renting to illegals, one that is unconstitutional. Anyone who fans this kind of fire is promoting tabloid journalism, and one unworthy of any major network.

When, during last week's broadcast of "60 Minutes," reporter Lesley Stahl (no relation) called this egregious error to your attention, your response was something considerably less than one might expect from someone literate, and educated, let alone the son of a farmer who managed to go to an ivy league college. You said something like "I'm the managing editor, and if I said the number is accurate, then it is."

Such defensive posturing is strongly reminiscent of the kind of argument that "commander guy," President Bush, is so fond of making, as well as the failed attempt to validate weapons of mass destruction. To suggest that illegal immigrants carry a pernicious, and dreaded disease across the border without solid, and incontravertible evidence is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous for one at the helm of what purports to be a news show. . You recall, I'm sure, the program "Truth or Consequences." One shudders to th ink of what will come from the kind of distortions that are legitimatized by your failure to acknowledge factual error.

While it may fail to deliver, on occasion, journalism aims to tell the truth, and not engage in the kind of sensationalism that may result in high ratings, yes, but will no doubt set a dangerous precedent one in which hysteria rules, and cultural xenophobia is confused with scientific fact.. To refuse to back down when shown that your facts are less than authentic is nothing short of hubris, and thanks to fellows like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, we have enough hubris to last us through the next millenium. So, I, for one, ask that you carefully inspect what you bring to the table, and not add to the ruffage. Everybody makes mistakes. Surely, you don't want, as your legacy, an inability to acknowledge erroneous information, especially when the environment which you're fostering is one in which accurate facts are what distinguish it from the tabloids.

I'm sure your viewers, as well as those who occupy your air time a generation from now, will want to think of you not only as as a self-made man of intellect, but one who has the courage to admit that he made a mistake.

Question of the Day

What is a benchmark, and does it give you hemorrhoids?

How Is George W. Bush like the Weather?

Now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has tendered his resignation, and will step down the end of next month, it gives one pause to reflect on the impotency of American public opinion, and a Congress which, like Sisyphus, continues its uphill battle to mitigate against the military excesses Mr. Bush and his corporate gang bangers have brought to bear not merely on his native soil, but on the planet.

Those of us who give a crap about human rights and civil liberties might wish to tell Congress, it's time to show that the vote is not a vestigial organ of the body politic.

It looks like the old adage about the weather now applies here, too: everybody talks about the Bush administration, but nobody is doing anything about it. Let's get a move on, guys, the Old Country just passed us.

we think...

We think we have free elections in this country. They're actually very costly; they're costly to anyone with thinks we have free elections.

The Murdoch Muscle

Before you know it, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is going to own the news, and we don't hear a peep from the press, or the mainstream media.

In his bid to buy Dow Jones for $5 billion, last week, the Australian-born owner of Fox News , Harper Collins, the New York Post, and The Times of London offered an unprecedented $60 a share for the company's remaining stock options, and nobody blinked, except members of the Bancroft family, owners of the Wall Street Journal, and controlling stockholders of Dow Jones. But, insiders say, that for $10 a share more, the Bancrofts, too, may be willing to give it up for Rupert Murdoch.

Not only is no one in the mainstream media speaking out against the proposed takeover, but some even suggest it might not be a bad idea for this master at corporate monopoly to have his way with Dow Jones, and the Journal, arguing that, if a bit disfigured, the news will survive. After all, salmonella kills people, not sensationalism. And, if anybody's squawking, it must be behind closed doorswhere only family members can hear. Where is outrage at the tought that,sooner rather than later, the Wall Street Journal will look just like the New York Post, and and Fox News? Where is the angst not merely from the public, but from the press corps that a company called News Corp. can buy and sell what we read? No one is asking what will happen to dissent,, and a free press when big business and big news merge. Corporate profit which has consumed the heart and soul of America, as well as the middle class, now looks to devour the information age like a bowl of sushi.

If he prevails, and acquires Dow Jones, Mr. Murdoch will lay claim to the second largest paper in the country, and the lion's share of newspaper profit. And, Rupert Murdoch will, once again, get to demonstrate his unfailing ability to flex, censor, and sway his way to the top. But, allowing for inflation, the $60 million question is, while he's had his eye on the Wall Street Journal for many years, why is the Fox News owner so hot for the Journal now, this close to a crucial presidential race? Having watched the Murdoch muscle at work, over the past decade or so, a pattern emerges, one that is as transparent as it is trans-fat.

Arguably, only a shark has a better sense of smell than Rupert Murdoch. He already has The Times of London in his pocket, and has expressed more than a passing interest in that paper's leading competitor, The Financial Times, showing not merely how much he wants to be the big fish, but that he can ably breakfast, lunch, and dine on his competition. So, it's not too big a stretch to think that, having had his fill of Dow and the Journal, Mr. M. may have a craving for USA Today, the only paper with a larger circulation than the Wall Street Journal .

But, newspaper consolidation isn't the only thing we have to fear from Rupert Murdoch. His devout conservatism, and penchant for silencing his opposition, as well as his well-documented campaigns against anything contrarian, may prove especially precarious in these times when not only the Journal, but every print newspaper is hemorrhaging readership as a result of the Internet.

For a look at how Murdoch challenges diversity of opinion, one has only to go back to the days when he acquired The Village Voice, some twenty years ago, to see that, while he likes to make money, he also has another agenda.. Shortly after his takeover, two of the Voice's most liberal investigative reporters, Joe Conason and Wayne Barrett were let go. Murdoch's battle of the bilge includes, but is not limited to, purging his opposition in ways that would make Stalin envious. While Mr. Barrett was hired back, the message came through, loud and clear; don't mess with Rupert Murdoch. The Murdoch rubric appears to be comply, or perish.

Word has it that he hasn't even taken over yet, but has already mentioned to WSJ reporters that he doesn't like "long stories" which, many think, is code for the fact that he doesn't want investigative work, and that only those will survive who tow the party line. And, which party would that be? The party that Fox endorses, of course. The party that wants to bring you the next president of the United States, a man Mr. Murdoch has had his eye on for almost as long as the Wall Street Journal.

The only time he appears to deviate from his rank and file Republican conservatism is when it lines his pocket as is the case with Hong Kong, and his tacit agreement to look the other way with regard to human rights abuses in Communist China, as well as to bend to the wishes of Chinese censors. Indeed, Murdoch went along with redacting anything pejorative about Communist China long before Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google caved in to demands of censors from Beijing.

Showing his capacity to flex his censor muscle, in the spring of 1998, Murdoch stopped Harper Collins from publishing the memoirs of one-time Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten, because he alleged human rights abuses by Communist China. Murdoch himself sat down with a draft of "East and West," Patten's book, and "ordered senior managers at Harper Collins to tone down the criticism of Chinese leadership." (Toronto Star) Clearly, Mr. Murdoch doesn't like it when anybody has something bad to say about his friends in Communist China.

Similarly, a few months later, Murdoch made it clear that he wouldn't want anyone to say anything bad about another friend, Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. Later that year, Fox Television dropped a television drama based on a book, "Strange Justice," by (quel concidence) two Wall Street Journal reporters that concluded that Anita Hill's allegations against Thomas were accurate. Once again, the News Corp. owner got his hands on the book, and demanded that the TV project be scrapped telling a colleague only that he was friends with Justice Thomas, and that Thomas had been "railroaded" in the court proceedings. And, Murdoch based his decision only on the book; he didn't bother to read the screenplay before stopping the teledrama dead in its tracks. Who cares about divine right of kings when we have divine right of publishers!

Aside from his fealty to conservative Justice Thomas, that same month, that same year, 1998, Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Senator John McCain who , at the time, conveniently happened to be chairman of the committee that oversees the Federal Communications Commissions. In a fundraiser invite, Murdoch called McCain "an outspoken leader for the telecommunications industry." (NYT) I'm sure at least one Republican presidential candidate will take one huge sigh of relief should Mr. Murdoch take the helm of Dow Jones, and the second largest newspaper in the country. How expedient to have, as a friend, the owner of Fox News, the New York Post, The Times of London, and now Dow Jones? That is, unless somebody wakes up before their snooz alarm goes off.

It isn't just the war the press has gone to sleep on. Whose been busy running the farm when we've been out betting it? If Murdoch prevails in his bid for Dow Jones, he may not just be buying the Wall Street Journal, but the 2008 presidential election, as well.

From V-chips to Vetoes

Don't you just love the progression, or regression, we've made, over the past several years, from figuring out how to block what we don't want to see on our TV screen to the food we eat to whether to follow through on the innumerable opportunities afforded us to procreate every time we engage in what we consider to be harmless fun. And, make no mistake, were it up to this administration and, arguably, this Supreme Court, the days of harmless fun may well be over.

Yes, friends, President Bush whose muscular veto of the Iraq war funding bill captured last week's headlines now promises to exercise that fuel-efficient veto power once again, only th is time to veto any effort made by a Democratic Congress to mitigate against his flagrant goal of doing to Roe v. Wade what he did to Baghdad.

The reaction to the president's growing obsession to use his newly discovered, and clearly intoxicating, veto power on bills that roll back choice should come as no surprise, especially in light of the fact that 30% of those Republican wanna be presidents, at the Reagan library debate ,said they don't "believe in" evolution. Excuse me, but I thought that evolution has already been established as scientific fact. Maybe these fellows were thinking of "evilution," a process that happens when the axis of evil is allowed to metastasize from a morbid abstraction to a twisted rationale for torture, illegal search and seizure, and unjustified, unlimited detention.

When watching the debate Thursday night, I confess, I had one of those V-chip moments myself , and wished my TV came equipped with the apparatus requisite to block hypocrisy, so I wouldn't have to watch ten rich guys talking as if they gave a flying fajita about the middle class, or the working man and woman in this country. Having to listen to obscene talk of securing the border against illegal immigrants coming from the mouths of those who have gained the most from their exploitation was more than I could bear.

Instead, I proceeded to keep track of just how swiftly, almost effortlessly , this "commander guy" has managed to work his way through the alphabet, and how far he has come from unitary to make it squarely into veto country.

'I will veto any legislation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage," the president wrote in a letter within hours of his party's first debate. And if, as he suggests, he really opposes the taking of human life "at any stage," how can he suppport legislation that furthers the destruction of the lives of more American service members, as well as those of Iraqis? Can it be that the lives of those yet to be born mean more to this president than the lives of those in combat? How can one who opposes stem cell research out of concern for human life, in its conceptual stage, turn around and authorize $124 billion more to divest of breath many thousands? By what quirk of logic can this come to pass? May he be held to account for those words by the widows, children, mothers, and fathers of every man and woman who lost their lives as a result of his illegal, and irrelevant war

While the talking heads were busy keeping score of whose Republican mitts went up first in response to a question that one prospective nominee, the next day, declared to be irrelevant, ("Why does it matter whether the next president of the United States believes in evolution?"), those who want another decade in which to deny women access to health care services which will not only save the lives of their "preborn" progeny, but their own lives, as well, were at home licking their chops at the clear and present danger of a McCain presidency.

What a cynical ideology it is that confuses the right to life with the right to live, and that uses a frozen embryo as a pawn in a game to promote the politics of privilege, to ensure that poverty is generational by denying a woman the right to determine her own destiny. Over the past six years, we've witnessed the collapse of opportunity across the board; this is just one more perverse attempt to instill a sense of caste into those who dare to strive. The women who will most be impacted, were Roe to be overturned, would be the poor women, those for whom a college education, and a career, will, once again, become a distant hope.

Upon hearing Mr. Bush's resolve to stay the course, and turn back the constitutional amendment that allows for legalized abortion, Douglas Johnson, the head of the National Right to Life Committee told the Associated Press how much he appreciates "that the president is drawing a bright line," and a bright line it is, indeed, a border that separates rich from poor, literate from illiterate, privileged from disenfranchised. But what happens to a country when the voice of the majority is stifled for the protection and profit of the minority? Stay tuned, there hasn't been a V-chip made yet that is powerful enough to keep images of growing domestic sectarian violence from coming to a theatre near you.

"Operational Security"

In the military? Disagree with what your government is doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan? Have something controversial to say about the war, bringing the troops home, the president's veto of the war funding bill? Get the feeling "Big Bully" is breathing down your neck? Well, you're right. Under a new Army "directive," issued last month, you'd better speak with your commander, and/or an officer who handles so-called "operational security," and get their permission before you post to your blog, or send any e-mail to a public Web site, or you may find yourself facing court martial.

Yes, that's right, as of April, the Army now reserves the right to review (and edit?) anything you post to the World Wide Web, and permission must first be obtained. While personal e-mails are exempt from scrutiny by what the Army calls OPSEC, any e-mail posted to a "public forum," under this new rule, isn't. What's more, the new regulation doesn't only apply to active service members, but to all in the military, including those who have returned from combat.

When queried about the program, Army officials said they opted not to inspect private electronic communications as that would be "impractical," (Reuters) not unconstitutional, mind you, but impractical.How does the song go? "So it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?"

Surely, somebody seems to have factored the First Amendment out of the equation just as they did on May Day, in Los Angeles, when the LAPD shot golf ball size rubber pellets at protestors and press alike at a legal immigration protest. While a handful were said to have thrown rocks and bottles, surely arbitrarily pelting any of the 25,000 in the crowd, including news anchors, and cameramen, was without justification. LAPD Police Chief, William Bratton, looked duly sober, as well he should. Who'd have thunk the shit would hit the fan and, more importantly, who'd have thunk there'd be video footage when it did. In this city of four million, the police department, like the Army, seems to have forgotten that dissent has nothing to do with descent, and that freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and a free press are First Amendment rights.

What is most alarming about OPSEC, and the Army collision course with the Constitution, is that it is, arguably, precedent setting in its attempt to stifle dissent not merely among the ranks of its active service members, but among those who have already returned from war.
It is equally outrageous that not one candidate for president, of either party, is talking about OPSEC, or the Pentagon's continuing breech of citizen confidentiality inherent in the data mining of anti-war groups including even those most conspicuously innocuous as the American Friends Service Committee, and the Quakers, for their activities.

The Defense Department's nefarious practice of keeping of a classified database has now been condemned by newly appointed Pentagon intelligence undersecretary, James R. Clapper, Jr., who appears to agree that American citizens have the right to disagree with their government's war policy, with impunity, and who calls for shutting down the database. Interesting, isn't it, that at the same time top brass at the Pentagon suggest doing away with a dubious database of dissenters, the Army presents a new regulation which requires the monitoring of all military public online communications a practice which, in itself, is nothing new, but now extends to those who have come home from the war, too. It's fair to say that the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing, or does it?

Once again, reading, and redacting, of Web site postings by active members of the military is nothing new, but now the Army has the authority to play peeping tom with those whose service has expired. Far be it for me to suggest that one can post whatever one wants to a public blog, or say what one wishes, while in uniform without compromising either the security, or the morale of the troops, but how in the hell can one rationalize having a veteran of a war submit to the same scrutiny without compromising his guaranteed constitutional right to freedom of speech?

Interestingly, those at the Pentagon who call for eliminating the antiwar database suggest that the information they've collected isn't worth the condemnation from Congress, and the media, but where, pray tell, is the coverage, let alone the condemnation, from the media, and the appropriate contempt from Congress, as well as from presidential hopefuls? Where is wide scale, broad based press coverage of this new Army regulation, effective in April, which will, in effect, gag service members both past, present, and future from publicly reporting, or opining on this war, and future wars?

What we have here is a campaign issue of the first order. When service members are officially precluded from publicly posting their thoughts, and experiences with impunity, without review, censure, and/or editing, by so-called "Operational Security," when immigrants, in a major American city, are pelted with rubber bullets for protesting on May Day, and when the names of those who lawfully disagree with what they consider to be an illegal war are stored for nearly a half dozen years under the Threat and Local Observation Notice program, it sure looks like we're not too far away from the day when martial law will be declared, when the national guard will be deployed to physically quell dissent, and American citizens will find themselves held without charge, or access to counsel indefinitely, the way we detain countless in Guantanamo Bay, and secret detention cells around the world.

Congress, as well as those who offer to lead this country as their next chief executive, owe each and every one of us an answer as to how they intend to guarantee free elections, as well as what they will do to keep the land of the free, home of the brave from becoming a police state.

Proposed Legislation

Earlier this week, Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed a bill that would close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. This holding cell for "terrorists" has attracted international scorn not merely from human rights organizations, but from virtually every industrialized country in the world. Should this legislation pass, Gitmo would be shut down within 100 days of its enactment.

We applaud the efforts of the senator from California, and think we have the makings of a successful paradigm: if we can get out of Gitmo in 100 days, we can get out of Iraq by July!

"a prescription for chaos"

As expected, President Bush vetoed the war funding bill today which passed both the House and the Senate. Calling a deadline for troop withdrawal "a prescription for chaos and confusion," (WaPo) the president showed, once again, who is the boss.

When you think about it, for one who has mastered malapropism better than any occupant of the Oval Office, in recent memory, Mr. Bush appears to have hit upon just the right word when he talks about a "prescription." Clearly, for this commander-in-chief, combat is a remedy, indeed a panacea, for whatever social evil, real or imagined, he comes across. And, for the right price, if there is no pretext for battle, this president has demonstrated an extraordinary aptitude for inventing one.

By vetoeing a concessionary bill which would have allocated nearly $125 billion more in wartime expenditure, this president comes remarkably close to Custer's last stand, and the only justifiable response from Congress must be to cut off all funding for this war, and bring the troops home now!

Giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "Washington Insider"

Attorneys for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam," accused of running a high stakes prostitution ring for more than a dozen years, in the nation's capital, insist that her escorts "performed fantasies, not sex." (Bloomberg News) But, how does one "perform" fantasies? What is an "adult fantasy service," and can this be likened to what Jimmy Carter once called lusting in one's heart? Is lusting on the World Wide Web like lusting in one's heart, or performing fantasy? Does sex involve the laying on of hands, and isn't that when we're out of the fantasy domain? Just who does Ms. Palfrey think she's kidding when she says that her escorts performed "fantasy?"

The D.C. Madam, who will have her day in court in Washington today, now threatens to unleash her little black book to prove that her ladies didn't break any laws as if any of her clientele will appear in court. Can you just see Karl Rove standing in federal court, one hand on the Bible, proclaiming, "but your honor, I did not have sex with that woman;" talk about poetic justice!

Not that I'm suggesting, even for a minute, that Republicans, and conservative ones, at that, are the only ones whose names will surface, but Democrats never claimed to be the party of "family values" whose "Contract for America," and byzantine agenda, consistently confuses the right to life with the right to live. ABC News has already obtained Palfrey's high octane client list and Newt Gingrich's name may indeed be on it, but one thing you can count on, the fallout if, and when, the names start pouring out will amount to nothing short of a political Chernobyl.

There has already been one major resignation, that of Randall Tobias, an aide for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who also heads the U.S. Agency for International Development, and was responsible for implementing the President's initiatives overseas including US Aid, an agency that works with nearly 100 countries worldwide requiring that they make efforts to stop prostitution, as well as combat the spread of AIDS by promoting abstinence as the best prophylactic. How interesting that Mr. Tobias is the first upper echelon administration casualty of this scandal. What a heaping pot of hard boiled hypocrisy that Tobias, the former head of Eli Lilly and leader of an agency promulgating abstinence, would use Palfrey's service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage," as he reportedly conceded. (Bloomberg News)

If, as we're told, the medium is the massage those like Rep. Mark Foley,who was considered by many a great crusader against child abuse, and sexual exploitation of children, are forced to resign after embarrassing, and personal disclosures such as the sending of sexually explicit instant messages to teenage pages, one has to wonder not so much at human frailty, but at the holier-than-thou attitude that seems to be pervasive among these born again hypocrites. How can anyone head a team that professes to advocate for safe sex, and promote abstinence (or celibacy) while, at the same time, making use of a prostitution service?

The Washington Madam, like the Hollywood Madam before her, is engaging in the world's oldest profession. What's more, making use of the services of "escorts" is nothing new. You can be sure that Jesse James had his share of fantasy helpers in his heyday back in Cook County, Missouri, but Jesse James never claimed to be a minister; his father did. There is nothing unique or outrageous about the serv ice Ms. Palfrey is providing nor is there anything unique or outrageous about her customers. What is egregious here is the transparent, and absurd arguments made by her counsel which insult the intelligence not merely of federal court, but of the average person, and which one might expect more from a snake oil salesman than one who passed the Washington bar. Equally disturbing is that those who speak out for family values, purity, censorship, and against the exploitation of children more often than not appear to be the first to get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

One can only hope that if, and when this notorious prostitution ring owner is forced to hand over her records, the federal judge hearing her case will "perform justice," and not make her the scapegoat, creating the illusion that all will be well after the witch is divested of her assets, as well as made to do time, but hold her high powered customers responsible for a breach of ethics and, no doubt, a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Leadership that misleads is...

in contempt of Congress and all those it was elected to represent.

The American people are sick and tired of placebo politics, and we want a real time solution to the quagmire that is Iraq.

To say that troops will begin to leave Iraq by October 1st is, once again, misleading when Congress simultaneously authorizes the expenditure of another $124 billion in funding to amp up this war.

It's time for elected officials, from assemblymen to senators, to speak truth to power. We've already lost more than 3200 American lives, and those of countless Iraqis.

When, as expected, President Bush vetoes last week's legislation authorizing the removal of American forces from Iraq next spring, Congress must, in turn, introduce a new bill to de-authorize further funding, and start bringing our troops home not in six months, but right now.

Star Power

Yesterday, as Dana Perino, White House spokesperson, said "the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq, and the President will veto its bill." (WaPo) The legislation to which she refers mandates the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq beginning in October unless certain "benchmarks" are met that demonstrate that the presence of American troops, over the past four years, has succeeded in quelling sectarian strife. In addition to providing a first ever timetable for removal, the bill also provides for an additional $95 billion for combat operations. Only from a country that juxtaposes a 30 second spot for Jenny Craig with one for Burger King would that kind of conceptual incongruity be plausible. And, a few hours ago, as expected, the Senate also approved the bill.

While nobody contends that having our soldiers pack up, and come home means an end to our presence in that war-battered country, merely an end to our military presence, and while some might argue that this is more a symbolic gesture than a strategic one, few can dispute the clear and cogent signal this sends to the American people that, yes, however partisan and divided, there are folks in Congress who are listening to us. But, how frustrating to think that those like Kucinich and Feingold who have, for some time now, called for cutting off war funds altogether must stand by and watch a "too little, too late" measure pass. So it is then that this lame duck president has managed to triumph in the very pit of defeat. And, rest assured, this isn't the only "v", as "victory," this president may yet get to claim as his phoenix arising from the ashes of an itinerant war, one built on lies, false premises, and moribund greed.

While he may not have star power like another prominent Republican, the governor of California, this president may yet get to prove that he has veto power. Make no mistake, this is not your grandma's veto, this is not some flaccid, viagra-sucking veto, this is a virile, meat-eating veto. This is the kind of veto that puts hair on one's chest, maybe even on Hillary's because if this President refuses to just say no to war, and give up his manic warrior ways, whoever occupies the Oval Office come 2010 may well find themselves sitting in the same dark, and dirty foxhole he has left behind. Indeed, who better than this President to show the wisdom of that age-old adage "there are no atheists in foxholes." Keep this in mind, next Tuesday, when watching a beaming Bush grin ear to ear during the inevitable photo-op in which he'll show his virile veto, as well as shoot down what may only be seen as minimalist, and modest efforts to rein in his unitary hyperactive divide and conquer global antics. But, let's not confuse star power with staying power.

It isn't bin Laden and Al Qaeda the world needs to worry about as much as this administration's militaristic incontinence. Rest assured, long after names like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove are relegated to the tattered, and moldy books of history we, as a civilization, will still be paying for the misdeeds and misadventures of the past six years.

a timely quote

on the announcement, by John McCain, of his decision to run for president:

"But in the end the age was handed
the sort of shit that it demanded."

Ernest Hemingway

If Nothing Else...

recent history shows that memory lapses are contagious.

why "pre-emptive" doesn't mean "proactive"

For an administration that prides itself on foreign policy that is anticipatory, or pre-emptive, it sure is reactive, not proactive, where domestic matters are concerned. And, by the way, there's a difference, a big one, between being reactive and being responsive.

Now that it finds itself in yet another quagmire, this White House may have to part ways with another Rummy-style loyalist. Excuse me, but am I the only one wondering if "loyalists" are mostly something one expects from monarchies, and not elected governments?

George W. Bush may well be second only to Josef Stalin with respect to great purges, but remember, too, that, as far as we know, Stalin was in the driver's side. This steady stream of resignations from Bush appointees is alarming, and reminds one of a phrase more to be expected during foreplay, "let me know when I'm getting close."

What is needed now is not foreplay, but floor play. We need to see more diatribes on the Senate, and House floors like those of Senators Leahy and Specter. We also need to know why it is that no one asked the tough questions of the attorney general before his appointment? Why is nepotism acceptable in the White House, but not in the World Bank? And, most importantly, can a civilization in which nuclear obliteration is a clear and present danger accept anything less than leadership that is proactive, as well as responsive.

The politics of pre-emption have led only to an era of protracted conflict. It's time for Congress, and the American people to demand not merely clarification of terms, but a changing of the guard.

The Boy Who Cried Wolfowitz

It looks like Paul Wolfowitz, leader of the World Bank, and his mentor, George W. Bush, got a stay of execution from the board, or is that "bored," of directors, who put off deciding whether or not to give Wolfie the proverbial ax until next week, a postponement Houdini would die for. Wolfowitz who, some might argue, makes Attila the Hun look like a socialist, fate lies in the balance not for alleged attempts by his aides to abort family planning, and wreak havoc on envrironmental policies, but for garden variety nepotism; giving a hefty raise, and promotion to his "companion" (International Herald Tribune) a.k.a. mistress.

So, it isn't the fact that, as many assert, he was among the principals who masterminded the muscular empire-building blueprint that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Baghdad, and may well ultimately lead to the decimation of Tehran, it comes down to the simple, inescapable, and ludicrous matter of not being able to keep it in his pants, and not knowing what to do with it when he takes it out.

How tired are we of these embarrassingly puerile, and inconsequential attacks on leaders which, more often than not, do little more than deflect attention away for the true high crimes and misdemeanors for which they deserve censure? No one is suggesting, even for a minute, that Wolfie shouldn't step down, but the spotlight needs to be adjusted, and the focus squarely placed on meaningful, substantive activities like, for instance, the efforts by his aides to meddle with the bank's policies on contraception and family planning, as well as protecting the environment. Whether he orchestrated the transfer, and pay increase of his girlfriend or not pales in comparison with some of the other allegations made against the man. What, do we have a pack of Puritans running the World Bank, too? If you're going to demand that he step down, do so for the right reasons.

Aren't we also tired of hearing all the mea culpas from defrocked celebrities? First, it was Mel Gibson, then Michael Richards, then Imus, now Alec Baldwin and his abusive voicemail message; puh-leeze...we have deranged youngsters who buy handguns on the Internet, then pump 100 plus rounds of ammunition into their classmates, we have villages being blown to smithereens in Iraq, we have war ships ready to move into Tehran, we have a president who signs nuclear cooperation treaties with India, then threatens nuclear annihilation in Iran, we have an attorney general who admits to being involved in firing eight U.S.attorneys andsays he never read their performance reviews, who wants to hear about an irate message left by a celebrity on his eleven year old's answering machine, for chrissake?

How ready are we for both Big Al and Wolfie to resign, but whether or not Wolfowitz deserves to have the blitzkrieg knocked out of him by the World Bank, and Big Al steps down, it's time to face the music. Anyone who tells you that the course we're on is going to be significantly altered by either man's resignation is flat out lying to you. We have a president who has already had the opportunity to appoint one too many Supreme Court justices to the bench and, if we let him have his way and his stay, may yet have the chance to appoint, and annoint another. And, as a result of last week's ruling, a woman's right to choose is now officially on life supports. Moreover, thanks to some newfangled terror legislation, habeas corpus has become as vestigial as an appendix, and been disappeared by the same government that brings you "enemy combatants" in lieu of prisoners of war, Abu Ghraib, and NSA electronic surveillance in defiance of FISA law. Surely, that has to mean more than Don Imus' rants, or those of Mel Gibson.

Mr. Gonzales was right; his stepping down really won't solve anything. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation didn't bring us any closer to solving the quagmire that is Iraq nor, for that matter, did it prove to be Viagra for this administration's flaccid approval ratings. Sadly, it is doubtful anything will change by Wolfowitz' departure, either. One thing is certain: until we, as a civilization, start talking about the things that matter, nothing else will.

Good News!

If you want good news nowadays, you've got to make it.

They Got The Wrong Guy

No, it's not Alberto Gonzales, not Karl Rove, but a widely respected, and highly principled community leader, in a small town in western Michigan, the Reverend Edward Pinkney who was recently tried, and convicted of election "irregularities," or voter fraud, and who now finds himself under house arrest, facing up to twenty years in prison when he is sentenced on May 14th.

Pinkney, an African-American preacher, was acquitted in his first trial, but forced to stand trial again, last month, as those who prosecuted him contend that he got off because there were too many blacks on the jury; two. They prevailed, and Rev. Pinkney stood trial a second time, only this time all the jurors were white, and he was convicted.

The alleged voting improprieties pertain to the recall election of Benton Harbor's powerful commissioner, Glen Yarbrough, a name that is synonymous with large scale corporate development, and construction of 500 acres of a marina residential golf course, and complex. Rev. Pinkney, on the other hand, is renowned for his efforts on behalf of the environment, improved education, and access to affordable health care.

The charges for which this preacher, and community leader, who has been active in trying to improve living conditions, employment, housing, and education in his hometown of Benton Harbor, a city of fewer than 15,000 residents, which is more than 90% black and largely impoverished, has been convicted are strictly little league iwhen compared with this administration's attempts at polling place purge, and the systematic disenfranchisement of thousands of minority, indigent, and largely Democratic, voters as disclosed by former Justice Department lawyers. As you know, several of those fired U.S. attorneys were terminated for refusing to participate in voter fraud cases, like that of Rev. Pinkney's, in key Republican strongholds, Michigan being among them.

Further, departmental records indicate that, over the past six years, Bush, Cheney and Co. have aggressively tried to keep people from voting in "key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates." (Baltimore Sun) Indeed, administration efforts to claim "widespread election fraud" despite strong evidence that little, if any, national voter fraud existed, according to its own federal panel (New York Times) speaks to its urgent need to establish an infrastructure, i.e. federal voter identification laws whereby those who are indigent, socio-economically and racially segregated, those who traditionally have voted for liberal Democrats, may be kept from voting.

While an administration spokesperson insists that every effort has been made to protect and preserve voter integrity, as guaranteed by the 1965 Voter Authorization Bill, reauthorized last fall, the president's first attorney-general, John Ashcroft, with his "Ballot Access and Voter Integrity initiative," in 2001, paved the way for the Civil Rights Division to pursue more virile prosecution of alleged voter fraud cases. And, no surprise, the focus of the division's energies were those states where Republicans led by only a narrow margin: Florida, Ohio, and Michigan among them.

So, taken in context then, it should come as no surprise that an all-white jury found a prominent African-American minister, one beloved by his community, guilty of such "irregularities" as "handling" an absentee ballot, for which he may be sentenced to five years in prison, and allegedly paying people $5,00 to vote in a 2005 election.(BANCO) In fact, Rev . Pinkney supporters contend that all he did was ask a local woman to recruit people to hand out leaflets in return for five bucks, which is perfectly legal. Interestingly, that same year, 2005, a young man claimed that Mr. Yarborough himself paid him $10.00 to accuse Pinkney of giving him $5.00 to vote. Somebody wants to see Rev. Pinkney behind bars, and it's not likely to be those disenfranchised, unemployed, undereducated, and uninsured in this small midwest community who he so honorably has served.

Among the most fascinating elements of this case is how an administration who denied voter fraud in 2000, and then again in 2004, has now redacted the original report of a federal panel which was commissioned to do research into election improprieties to argue that voter fraud is rampant. I guess when you lose an election bigtime, as the Republicans did in the midterm election, it's okay to cry foul even when those one contracts, and pays, to investigate fraud insist that there was no fraud.

Clearly, with a growing demographic that is largely Democratic, what better way to quell dissent, and ensure supremacy than to enact legislation requiring voter identification. Make no mistake, this legislation targets poor minorities, many of whom vote for those who offer them a bigger slice of a pie that increasingly belongs only to big business, and big bucks. And, were it up to the Bush administration, we'd not only have guest workers, but guest voters, too. Consider the irony, and egregious injustice of holding a man under house arrest, as well as the absurdity of having him face as many as twenty years in prison on such charges as improperly touching an absentee ballot.

This is an effront to every thinking man and woman, as well as irrefutable evidence that there is not merely a monied class, but a ruling class in America. Is this why our esteemed forefathers boarded the Mayflower to escape religious intolerance, economic exclusion , class rigidity, and divine right of kings to have their elections stolen by people who want to enact voter ID laws in order to fix the vote, preserve their job security, and silence the growing discontent of the impoverished, and minorities?

When the Bush administration, in the past, has flagrantly disqualifed new voting registrants whose I.D. didn't match what was in the computer database, thereby resulting in turning away "tens of thousands" of eligible voters, (BANCO) how can any rational person opt to sentence Rev. Pinkney to spend even one night in prison for anything he was convicted for having done? They got the wrong guy. If anyone should face sentencing for voter fraud, it's Karl Rove and his boss. But, in this land of the free, home of the brave, we're not going to see Rove, Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, or any other empire rogue rat, stand trial for election "irregularities."

Instead, on May 14th, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, a judge will have the awesome duty of considering whether or not to sentence a courageous community leader to four consecutive five year terms, a black man convicted by an all-white jury, for little more than working to ensure inclusion in a process that has become increasingly exclusive, the right to vote, in America, which, if some have their way, will soon be a matter of privilege. One can only hope that the judge will make the only sane decision.

Forcing Rev. Pinkney to serve even five minutes behind bars would not merely be an insult to those who founded this great nation, it would be an unparalleled act of cowardice, and proof that class, not character, race not reason has won the day.

FISA Revisited

Remember all the hooplah, and righteous indignation, on the part of Congress, when the National Security Agency electronic surveillance program story first broke, several months ago, and word got out that Bush & Co. have been illegally monitoring e-mails, and conducting warrantless eavesdropping in defiance of Foreign Instelligence Surveillance Act law of 1978? As you recall, several prominent elected officials, at that time, insisted that the practice stop and itself have oversight, unless, o f course, efforts were made to revise FISA to accommodate the bogeyman war on terror; (bogey, short for bogus)

Well, over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that, as part of his legacy, the president has now decided to make changes to the existing FISA laws, changes that would allow for greater surveillance of non-citizens as well as expanded "interception" of international communications. Under the current law, a person has to be associated with a specific "terrorism" suspect, or group to come before FISA court, and be deemed eligible for for authorization to monitor their overseas calls, and e-mails. But, as part of its policy of planned obscolescence of the Constitution, the administration now to expand its snooping authority to any noncitizen it deems worthy of surveillance, using a broad brush to define that worthiness. Additionally, the new bill allows the current, and future administration, the power to store information that has only a tenuous connection to their investigation, as well as any data they come across "unintentionally," as long as it is considered it to have what they deem "significant foreign intelligence."

Importantly, the proposed legislation does not deal with the pattern of abuse in the NSA scandal, late last year, which revealed that the government has been intercepting domestic communications, and demanding telephone and Internet records, whenever it believed that there contact between someone within our borders and someone overseas posed a threat to our elusive national security..

And, lest anyone could include inconsistency as among this administration's failings,and using the M ilitary Commissions Act as a pernicious paradigm, this proposed bill also seeks to grant immuniity, not from war crimes, but from prosecution, for those telecommunications carriers, and Internet service providers, who cooperate with the government in turning over confidential telephone, and e-mail records, should you or I decide to take them to court for doing so. Whats more,, this immunity would be retroactive for those companies that compromised your privacy by surrendering your personal information to the government dating back as far as the wee hours after 9/11. (WaPo)

When you consider that FISA has remained intact for nearly 30 years, and that, should this president have his way with this legislation as he did with the USA Patriot Act, it, too, will remain in place for decades, it's chilling to think about its longterm effect on freedom of expression. Think about how future generations will grow up with the constant thought that Big Brother may be reading their e-mails, letters, and/or listening in on their phone calls, and not only is Ma Bell going along for the ride, but their taxes may well go to keep this national (in)security infrastructure in place. Who will write the history books, and how credible will those history books be, when the government gets to breathe down the necks of those who, in some way, try to communicate about their authentic experience of events?

It's time, yes, and way overdue, that each and every one of us who got out to vote for change, in the mid-term e lections, contact members of Congress and tell them that this is not what we had in mind by a changing of the guard. It's time we let them know that the 2006 electiion wasn't just about the war in Iraq, it was about the war on our civil liberties, too. And, those intelligence committee meetings that dealt with NSA spying, and government overreaching into our affairs, can be seen as little more than theatre of the absurd if this is how they plan to counter the excessive, and egregious legislation being enacted, and proposed, in the name of preventing another terror attack. We need to let them know that we want our Bill of Rights back; if they can have their secrecy, we can have our privacy.

Oh yes, and those Democrats, in the Senate , who said that if the president thought that FISA needed to be reformed, in light of 9/11, then he should reform it, surely this isn't what they had in mind by that reform. And, if it is, then we need to give them a piece of our mind before the Senate Intelligence Committee convenes tomorrow , and for as long as it takes until everyone we elected to represent us understands that 2008 is just around the corner, and we're not going to accept these ongoingi, and outrageous efforts to put the First Amendment on the endangered species list.

Putting Imus to bed....

One could say that the Imus story has all the earmarks of the best Greek tragedy, but we know what Imus might have to say about Greeks . So, instead, consider this: if all the drug dealers were to be rounded up, and jailed, that would not eliminate junkies, or keep heroin and crack cocaine off the streets.

As long as there is a desire for heroin, there will be someone to supply it. As long as there is racism, and hatred, in our society, we will continue to witness the ignorant slurs for which Imus is being stripped like Job of his mainstream media status, and left to wander off in the satellite desert. Rest assured that, if the Pentagon were to be torn down, and a militaristic climate allowed to fester, world peace would not come about.

Consider, too, negotiations between Imus and the Rutgers women, and all the media hype. If we citizens have enough clout to bring Imus to the table, why can't we exert the same kind of pressure on President Bush to go to Iran for a chat. If the president were to go to Tehran, along with the British prime minister, to dialogue with Ahmadinejad the way Imus went to New Jersey to engage in talks with the Rutgers women's basketball team, the odds of a confrontation with that country would decrease exponentially.

But, you can bet that we'll see Mr. Bush on a space shuttle to Mars long before we'll see him shoulder to shoulder with his friends in the "axis of evil;" this is, no doubt, what he thinks is meant by the phrase "shuttle diplomacy."

Even if he were to sit down at table with Iran, Syria, and his growing opposition in Iraq, those talks would never approach the kind of ratings CNN's Imus coverage got. How ironic given that the prospect of massive, and mutual nuclear annihilation poses a far more egregious, and imminent threat to the planet than Don Imus ever could.

The Pharmakon

The ancient Greeks had ideas for what they thought would cure disease, famine, and drought. They picked one citizen, often at random, and paraded him through the streets in the misguided belief that through his sacrifice they would cure the ills of society. That unwilling victim came to be known as a "pharmakon" which, in Greek, means both poison and remedy, and is the origin of our modern day pharmacy.

As French historian, and social philosopher, Rene Girard has suggested, it was thought that by making an example of this one individual, it would rain again, there would be abundant food, and plagues would vanish. I'm reminded of the pharmakon when observing the rabid crusade against Imus who, in my opinion, deserves less attention, and has less credibility than your average garden variety slug, but instead finds himself in the spotlight and will, no doubt, profit handily from his bigotry thanks to all the notoriety.

While there is nothing random about the spectacle that is Imus and his disgraceful words, parading him around the public square, and sacrificing him at the altar of big advertising dollars won't alter the fact, not even for a minute, that someone with his outspoken, racist, and neanderthal mindset made it as far as MSNBC in the first place nor will it make us, as a society, any less corrupt or bigoted. The monster currently playing on the front page of a newspaper near you has an audience, and a large one at that. They will simply take their advertising, and consumer dollars to the bigot on the radio, or cable station next door, and we, as a civilization, will not have learned a single thing unless we face up to the fact that the cure is seldom to be found in the poison.

There was nothing arbitrary about Imus' racial slur, or those who have been victimized by it just as there is nothing random about those who buy products from those who sponsor stations that broadcast this smut. Imus deserves the condemnation he got, but his dismissal means only more bucks, and an inevitable move to satellite where he may join the likes of Howard Stern.

The Imus mea culpa will only count if it comes from each and every one who shares, or feeds his mindset. Social justice is a process, not a product, and one that has been derailed not only by racism, but by greed, and lust for fame

Famous Last Words

"The CIA does not conduct or condone torture," or so they, U.S. intelligence officials, say but try telling that to an Iranian diplomat, Jalaf Sharafi, who was abducted, in Baghdad, in February, and just released last week. Only hours after statements made by the 15 British sailors captured by Tehran alleging that they were blindfolded, and subjected to physical, as well as psychological abuse by their Iranian captors, come allegations by an Iranian official held in Baghdad that he was tortured by his CIA captors.

Mr. Sharafi, on Saturday, told Iranian state television that, while he was captured by the Iraqi military, his abductors were "driving U.S. coalition vehicles," (AP) and that he was interrogated by the CIA about his country's relationship with Iraq. After he told his captors that "Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures," and tortured him "through different methods days and nights" over a two month period. The diplomat's body still shows signs of torture. What's more, proof that Sharafi's arrest, and subsequent questioning were covert operations, and not above board exists insofar as he was dumped at the back of the Baghdad airport as if he were little more than a mob informant.

This capture, and abuse of an Iranian government official is startling, because he is a diplomat, but is nothing new in these days of extraordinary rendition. What is different is that the CIA has now openly inserted itself into the process by which captives are subjected to ongoing abuse. Sharafi's contention that he was abducted by an Iraqi group that is controlled by the CIA now introduces a different factor into the equation. As a consequence of the Bush administration's so-called war on terror, and laws that have been passed that compromise the integrity of due process, habeas corpus, and redefine torture itself, those in American intelligence who feel compelled to raid, seize, and harass Iranians, or anyone else they deem to be "enemy combatants," may now do so with impunity.

While a U.S. embassy spokesman, in Iraq, repeatedly insists that the U.S. had no part in the abduction, or detention of the Iranian diplomat, bear in mind that legislation passed by Congress, last year, the Military Commissions Act, allows for what it calls "alternative interrogation techniques," some of which may well have been used by those holding Sharafi. And, as the Washington Post reported several months ago, even the president acknowledges the presence of secret cells, as well as the practice of outsourcing torture, which has euphemistically come to be known as "extraordinary rendition."

One of the inherent expediencies of the Military Commissions Act is that our government no longer has to enlist the aid of countries where torture is routine, and can now carry out practices, in defiance of Geneva Conventions, that were once synonymous only with regimes of Augusto Pinochet and Edi Amin. Thanks to the Military Commissions Act, torture is now in the eye of the beholder, subjective, and no longer defined by international law. Indeed, it is as if this administration has fashioned its own private language with newfangled phrases like "enemy combatant." What's more, while the U.S. denies any complicity with the Iraqis in capturing Mr. Sharafi, keep in mind that the U.S. military denied any role in the killing of Saddam Hussein, too.
An event preceding Sharafi's capture, and which received little notice by the American media, may have precipitated the taking of fifteen sailors by Iran earlier this month. On an official visit to Baghdad in mid-January, two high ranking Iranian security officers came dangerously close to sharing the same fate as their colleague when American helicopters raided an Iranian security office, in Kurdistan, and took five junior Iranian officers hostage. (Independent U.K.) The U.S. accuses the five men of working in Iranian intelligence and, to this day, is still holding them. This under-publicized, and bungled raid by our government may well have been the catalyst for the seizing, by Iran, of the fifteen British marines. But, the underlying, and galling question is: who is holding the American press, and media hostage, and why is the January raid, and ongoing detention of five Iranian officials receiving little, if any, attention? Have the press and media, in this country, been coopted by the same propaganda machine that brought us into the Persian Gulf in the first place?

While the U.S. mission flagrantly failed in its efforts to seize, and detain Mohammed Jafari of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, it did succeed in capturing five Iranian officials from whom nothing has been heard since. What is the official party line on that one? American officials claim that the five currently held are believed to be "closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces." But, by way of contrast, a senior Iraqi official asserts that the goal of the Americans was to capture Iranian officials whose only plan was to work towards a climate of cooperation, and "bilateral security."

That a raid on an Iranian security office, in Iraq, was carried out by our own forces, and not by Iraqi puppets, is further proof of just how far over the line the foreign policy of this administration has gone; the concept of preemption no longer applies to those states our commander-in-chief and his advisors have deemed the "enemy," but those who have nothing more than the mere potential for being enemies.

At some point, these five Iranian officials currently detained, in Iraq, since January, will also be released . One wonders if, like Mr. Sharafi, they, too, will attest to "alternative interrogation techniques," and acts of torture. And, if so, then the rubric, "The CIA does not conduct or condone torture," can only be seen as famous last words as, sooner or later, evidence to the contrary can no longer be denied.

It is no secret that the CIA has a long, and distinguished career of meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries but, in the past, few of their victims have survived to tell about what they have done. Thanks to the "terrorists," and our current president's hubris, we now have an infrastructure in place, as well as a sympathetic Congress, to look into the bold transgressions of those who'd like us to think they have right, and might on their side. So, it is now time that American intelligence investigate itself to get to the truth, and bring those responsible for giving the command to torture, as well as those who carry out that heinous command, to justice. There can be no glass ceiling for acountability, and those investigations into criminal misconduct must not be allowed to surrender to calls for executive privilege. There is but one way that history can interpret our apathy, and silence, as complicity in these crimes.

A Matter of Convenience

In an interview with Rush Limbaugh yesterday conveniently timed to coincide with a major holiday weekend, the vice president re-asserted his position that Al Qaeda's al-Zarqawi, and the terror group were operating in Iraq before an American service member set foot on Iraqi soil. (AP) Fascinating, isn't it, how potentially explosive news is always timed for release when the smallest number of people are paying attention.

Yet, Mr. Cheney's tired contention of a link between a deposed, and very dead dictator and the thugs involved with an unprecedented act of terror on American soil is an insult to every man and woman in uniform, as well as those taxpayers who pay his inflated, and superfluous salary. What's more, his argument directly contradicts a Pentagon report, declassified only yesterday, which conclusively confirms that there was no collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion. You'll recall, too, that the 9/11 Commission report, back in 2004, also concluded that there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden's group at the time of the U.S. invasion. The fact of the matter is, as the report suggests, that while the despised dictator we hunted down and murdered may have been on a first name basis with some key Al Qaeda figures, there was no Al Qaeda factor to speak of, in Iraq, before we invaded and toppled that regime.

Well, pay attention, pay attention to the fact that not only is your government lying to you, it is lying to itself. Pay attention to the fact that i nvestigations, and interrogations of Saddam and his former aides have compelled this administration's own military to challenge assertions made by second in command to the commander-in-chief. Pay attention to the fact that the attorney-general's top aide took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to testify on grounds that her testimony might "incriminate" her. Who will administer justice when the Department of Justice itself has been corrupted? How can a vice president of the United States make assertions that egregiously counter findings of his own military?

When, despite evidence to the contrary, Dick Cheney continues to stubbornly insist that Al Qaeda was alive, well and operating in Baghdad before the U.S. invasion, four years ago, clearly any rational person can only deduce one thing, that he and Mr. Limbaugh must be sharing the same meds.

from forty years ago, but it could have been yesterday...

"I do not want--as I believe most Americans do not want--to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong. I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that we are acting as if no other nations existed, against the judgment and desires of neutrals and our historic allies alike. I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world. I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed; more of our treasure spilled out; and because of the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of [civilians] slaughtered; so they may say, as Tacitus said of Rome: "They made a desert, and called it peace." . . .

You are the people, as President Kennedy said, who have "the least ties to the present and the greatest ties to the future." I urge you to learn the harsh facts that lurk behind the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances, even from ourselves. Our country is in danger: not just from foreign enemies; but above all, from our misguided policies--and what they can do to the nation that Thomas Jefferson once told us was the last, best hope of man. There is a contest on, not for the rule of America, but for the heart of America. . . . I ask you to go forth and work for new policies--work to change our direction--and thus restore our place at the point of moral leadership, in our country, in our hearts, and all around the world."


from speeches given, back in the mid-1960's, by Senator, and presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy in reference to another pernicious battle, the Vietnam War; courtesy of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and The Huffington Post.

For Immediate Release

Benefit for the A.C.L.U. of Southern California Legal Programs

Staged reading of “The Battle for Ulysses,” by Jayne Lyn Stahl, the story of the censorship struggle to publish James Joyce’s “Ulysses.”

Wednesday, April 18th at 8 p.m.

at: The Odyssey Theatre
2055 So. Sepulveda Blvd.
West Los Angeles, CA

Cast members include: Dan Lauria, Marty Maguire, Meeghan Holaway, Joseph Falasca, Lisa Pelikan, John Wesley, and others. Directed by: Pavel Cerny.

Ticket Prices: $35 (general admission) / $50 (VIP seating)

Tickets on sale now!!! daily from 1 p.m. (except Mondays); call The Odyssey box office: (310) 477-2055 x 2.

Co-sponsored by: Stanley K. Sheinbaum, Ed Asner, Danny Goldberg, Linda and Arthur L. Carter, and Media Alliance.


All proceeds, after expenses, go to the A.C.L.U. of Southern California Legal Programs.

"Inexcusable Behavior"

Despite the best efforts of Tony Blair to keep the president from shooting off his mouth, the inevitable diatribes ensued at a news conference this weekend, at Camp David, in which Mr. Bush suggested that the behavior of those who "summarily plucked out of the water" fifteen British sailors and marines was "inexcusable." (WaPo)

Both the U.S. and Great Britain insist that the sailors were kosher insofar as they were in Iraqi, and not Iranian waters., but as we've come to see, every major confrontation has had its catalyst . There are catalysts and there are catalysts, and this, the taking of innocent "hostages," as the president likes to call them, makes for the perfect pretext to do unto Iran what we haven't quite finished doing to Iraq, and maybe just in time for Easter, too.

Some rationales for taking a country to war are manufactured, some are exaggerated; all too often evidence is tampered with, and/or planted; sometimes there is no evidence, at all. Sometimes, too, the lives of spouses of those who have the courage to insist that there is no evidence are placed in jeopardy, as was the case with Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Far be it for me to suggest that these marines, sailors, and so-called "hostages" are a bunch of extras sent by central casting to provoke the kind of ire needed for a conflagration in Tehran, but had it not been for the release of a notorious classified memo, which divulged conversations between Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush on possible catalysts for confrontation with Baghdad immediately preceding the invasion, and occupation of Iraq, perhaps one wouldn't be so cynical as to ask when we will see the Downing Street Memo for this one.