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.

What Is Our Business?

When I turned on my computer this morning, a headline flashed before me "John Edwards talks about his son's death," and got me to wondering:

Why is the death of a political candidate's son, and his wife's spreading cancer our business?

Why is it that ongoing genocide in Darfur, starvation, and homelessness not?

Why is the sex life of teenagers our business, but

implementing programs to provide the tools required to ensure safer sex not?

Why does Katie Couric cross-examine a prospective president about his capacity to cope with grief, and function as commander in chief, and NOT question the current chief executive about his delusions of grandeur, and how it affects world peace, as well as stability at home?

Why so much concern about eight fired U.S. attorneys, and so little attention paid to the fact that, " new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980," as reported by David Cay Johnston in today's New York Times?

What skewed priorities when we, as a society, no longer distinguish between that which is private, and that which we have a right to know.

hearts and prayers...

Our hearts and prayers go out to Tony Snow in his hour of pain, as well as to Elizabeth Edwards both of whom show the true meaning of the word courage. Putting politics aside, Tony Snow is a stand-up guy who possesses, in good measure, both humor and grace. And, after all, what can be more appropriate than to put politics aside, and celebrate the deep humanity that unites us all.

As one who has looked mortality in the eye, I can tell you that precious little matters, in the final analysis, not one's stand on the war, or on government spending, but whether one can see, and convey, the ray of light that surfaces after the storm passes, as well as that adversity is a challenge, and defeat is merely a matter of perspective.

Russian Sources Report...

that a U.S. attack on Iran is scheduled for April 6th...

Hope

One lives with hope, but not for it.

How's This for a Marriage?

How's this for a marriage...Dick Cheney and Mel Gibson? They're both practiced at spewing obscenities, for one thing, as well as mistaking monuments for the stuff from which low budget movies are made. They both have their passion, and both are also mistaken if they think their passion has anything to do with Christ. Well, if you don't believe me, just ask the former residents of Baghdad, that is, the Baghdad before Cheney and his Fortune 500 cronies took over.

To say that House Democrats don't support the troops only goes to show just how much closer this administration has come to the stuff of monarchies, and totalitarian states. If history can be seen as a series of mimetic events, the Bush regime shows, if nothing else, that what the president calls "political theatre" is in its finest hour. Far be it for me, or anyone, to eclipse or upstage the vice president's histronic claim that the House Dems are sending a message to "terrorists" but, hey, somebody needs to remind Mr. Cheney that there were no "terrorists" in Iraq until he and his homeboys chose to invade, and topple a sovereign state. And , while we're on the subject of history, history may well show that legislation passed yesterday, by the House, calling for pulling troops out by next year was too little too late. Iraq is one problem that won't be solved by throwing more coins into the war purse, but only by cashing out.

If, as they claim, Mr Cheney and Mr. Bush are looking for "stability in Iraq," (AP) then their only hope in finding it is in a concrete, and coherent exit strategy. What's more, if Mr. Cheney really wants to support the troops, he'll resign, go home to Halliburton where he belongs, take Rove, Gonzales, and his other lapdogs with him.

The Ultimate in Ultrasounds

Clearly, someone isn't thinking soundly in the South Carolina legislature given this week's passage, by a whopping 91-23 , of a bill that will require a woman, before having an abortion, to view ultrasound images of the fetus. The measure, which now goes to the state senate, does allow for rape and incest as exceptions to what can only be seen as an horrific, and medieval ordeal, and one that is tantamount to psychological waterboarding. While South Carolina isn't the only state giving a woman the option to look at an ultrasound of the fetus in her womb, it is the only state that mandates this procedure. All those for whom the words "civ il rights" still resonate cannot afford to be anything less than outraged by this bill, and those who support it. (AP)

Apart from the obvious, and egregious, attempt to intimidate, and mortify a woman when she is at her most vulnerable, there are serious flaws in the logic underlying such a proposal . Think, for a moment, about the legal viability of requiring members of our armed forces, as part of boot camp, to sit through hours of footage showing the bombing of Hiroshima., that is unless you think it's okay to blow up a city, and many thousands of its civilians. Or, better still, how about playing a DVD featuring a corpse in advanced stages of rigor mortis before administering the death penalty? But, then , of course, these folks who consider abortion murder, by and large, have no problem with bombing the hell out of Baghdad, Beirut, Tehran ... these folks who want to deny a woman the right to choose claim that abortion means killing an unborn child have no problem with killing an adult man, or woman, on death row, in a thatched hut in southeast Asia, or in Iraq.

What eludes me is this: why is it that those who speak the loudest about protecting an unborn life don't give a damn about putting an innocent man to death for a crime he didn't commit? Why don't they apply their "ultrasound argument" to capital punishment, and insist that a convict who might otherwise be sentenced to lethal injection be forced to endure reels of footage reenacting not merely his crime, but every major event in the lives of his victims? But, of course, this would never be allowed. Why? It would go under the heading "cruel and unusual punishment," a phrase these "right to lifers" have perverted just as they have that of torture, and due process, but forcing a woman to look at ultrasound images of a pregnancy she feels she must terminate, does that not also constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Anyone who thinks that this primitive, and deeply disturbing act of coercion will make a woman change her mind has no respect for the native intelligence, sense, and sensitivity of those who gave them life. This is about way more than terminating a pregnancy. Whether we agree with legalized abortion or not, anyone who supports neanderthal bills like this doesn't respect the right to privacy, and independent decision-making guaranteed us by the Constitution, and instead supports allowing the state to interfere, in a most insidious way, in what is, and must remain, a deeply private process. More importantly, we find here the seed of crime; the crime of contempt for the rights of the living in favor of those of the unborn and, by extension, contempt for the lives of those who serve in favor of those who profit from their service. Make no mistake, the right to choose is among our most fundamental, and inalienable civil rights.

from "Executive Privilege is a Dodge"...

by Tony Snow, yes, the current White House Press Secretary penned the below, nearly a decade ago, as an op-ed for the St. Louis Dispatch, and what we hear today is little more than another Snow job from Tony. The below is from his piece called...


"Executive Privilege is a Dodge"

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time. One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

Tony Snow
March, 1998




Ah, cynics and the folks who love them. Tony Snow hit the nail right on the head when he wrote of upholding the "majesty" of office, and how those words may now come back to haunt him. One can only hope that Mr. Snow, and his benefactors, are made to feast on his above opinion piece, and pony up to its irony.

Oh, and what is the line from that John Lennon song, "Happiness is a warm gun;" this gun's not just warm, it's smoking.

Das Capital

If New York is the city that never sleeps, Washington, D.C. is quickly coming to be known as the city that sleeps all the time, at least insofar as "functional literacy" is concerned.

A study by the State Education Agency recently revealed that fully one-third of the residents of our nation's capital not only would be unable to wade through Karl Marx's modern classic on class struggle, "Das Kapital," or make it through a novel by John Dos Passos, but have difficulty doing such basic tasks as reading train schedules, maps, and completing employment appications. What's more, D.C.'s senior population ranks number one in low scores. (AP)

While the U.S. Department of Education study attributes the astonishing 33% illiteracy rate to the recent proliferation of immigrants whose grasp of English is tenuous, this number becomes even more mind-boggling when considering that the national illiteracy rate is 20%, hence Washington, D.C.'s rate is 13% higher than the national average .

Factoring out the growing number of people moving to our nation's capital from Spanish-speaking countries, and Ethiopia, consider for a moment that D.C. is the nucleus of legislation, as well as home to Congress, and the Supreme Court. What a statement this makes about the direction in which we're going, and growing.

Still, fair is fair, and literacy, too, may be seen as a relative concept which leads one to wonder if future generations of Americans might well look back at these desperate times, and wonder if congressional approval of the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, as well as other stultifying legislation that aims to tweak definitions of torture, as well as what is legitimate, if unauthorized, domestic surveillance may be seen as a by-product of functional illiteracy. Or, more to the point, will we yet live to see the day when historical revisionists may have their way with the way we define what it means to navigate our way through the world with words?

Will, for instance, a scholar at Harvard, say in the year 2110, look back at statements made by a former administration official claiming the right to edit scientific reports about global warming so that they reflected an official, if erroneous, report by the National Academy of Sciences as a newfangled form of functional illiteracy? Or, will the hazardous effect of our perversion of greenhouse gases be such that human intelligence will exist only on paper, and no longer as a matter of fact?

And, more importantly, what will our future Harvard historian have to say about a Senate Judiciary Committee that aggressively sought subpoenas for White House officials who were charged with lying about the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons, yet stood quietly behind the obscene appropriation of funds for a war that only one who is functionally illiterate can justify.

While we send heartfelt congratulations to Senator Leahy, and applaud his efforts to get to the bottom of who gave the green light to fire these federal attorneys, truth is, if the Senate had subpoeaned the White House, four years ago, and paid this much attention to fraudulent claims of "weapons of mass destruction," we wouldn't be in Iraq now!

So, some might even call it poetic justice that the greatest number of those deemed "functionally illiterate" should find themselves in the proverbial backyard of those who govern them. In an odd sort of way, it looks like Karl Marx may have been right; those who decide what functional means, as well as what literacy is, more often than not, are running the manor, and not mowing the lawn. The irony is, the economics don't matter when considering the concept of nuclear proliferation, and the clear and present danger of human extinction brought on by corporate greed.

The "C" Word

In a week that witnessed so-called Al Qaeda "mastermind," Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, at his military hearing at Gitmo insist that he was "responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z" and, indeed, claim responsibility for everything but sinking the Titanic, the letter "c" repeats itself like a bad case of acid reflux. Take, for instance:

" c" as in "criminal:" From London , this morning comes a stunning ruling by the Oxfordshire deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, that what was dubbed a U.S. friendly fire attack, which resulted in the death of a British soldier, in southern Iraq, nearly four years ago to the day, "amounted to an assault," and was "unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it." What's more, eleven lines of the American military's own 1100 line investigation into the incident, an aerial assault on the tank carrying Lance Cpl. Matty Hull, had been blacked out, or deleted. (AP)

Moreover, the British coroner's office that conducted the inquest made no bones about his dissatisfaction with the U.S. military's failure to
"c" as in "cooperate" with his investigation into the incident which suggests that the official Pentagon findings were spurious, and concocted. Lance Cpl. Hull, and his family, believe that the interrogation of a British air controller who witnessed the attack has been "c" as in "censored." In a statement to the press, the slain English soldier's widow urged President Bush "to release the 11 lines," in the report, that were deleted so that the "c," "coroner," can get to the truth of who, how, and why this 25 year old coalition serviceman was slain. The question, of course, is: onc e the truth has been obtained, will there be any "c"onsequences in that the American military is not subject to British law?

Oh, and speaking of consequences, what can be more ironic than hearing the word "criminal" applied to a military operation by our own government, especially when it comes on the heels of a ubiquitous confession, by a notorious member of Al Qaeda, in a hearing meant only to establish him as an "enemy combatant," and to pave the way for charges of war crimes? Apart from the obvious, namely that only the Bionic Man could have been involved in as many terrorist attacks for which Mohammed takes credit, his confession sets the stage for de facto exoneration of the remaining 550 "enemy combatants" who may now point the finger at him.

And, in her testimony before a Senate committee, the face behind the Libby trial, Valerie Plame Wilson, stated repeatedly that she was a "c" as in covert agent for the CIA working on clandestine operations. What's more, Ms. Wilson insists, her "cover" was blown by Libby and company, thus compromising not merely her job, but her personal security. Clearly, we live at a time in which concerns for "national security" supersede those of personal security.

But, arguably, the most daring use of what has increasingly become an essential, if surly, letter of the alphabet comes in remarks by the "c"hairman of a Senate committee investigating the egregious mis conduct, and abuse of power, in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys whose unprecedented midstream presidential termination has aroused the ire of key Democrats and Republicans alike who are now calling for a "c" as in controversial attorney general to step down.

Importantly, too, at least one high octane Senate democrat, Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, isn't willing to take White House blarney, and has authorized subpoenas for a handful of Justice Department officials. Yes, and Leahy intends to keep going until he reaches the "c" as in commander-in-chief, saying that it is his belief that the attorney general and his deputy "misled" the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is a serious "c"harge. Leahy asserts "Whether it was deliberate or not we're going to have to find out." (CNN) Refusing to be bullied, and humbled by a unitary executive branch, and its claims of executive privilege, the Vermont senator promises that his committee will "subpoena who we want." Good for him, and better for us!

Which brings me, alas, to those "c " words that have been missing in action since the onset of the present regime, one that censors scientific findings, military investigations, as well as the carnage of a cowardly, vindictive war:

Why is it that not merely truth, but "c" as in "character" has been the first casualty of the war in Iraq?

How is it that those who brought us counterfeit phrases like "family values," and "right to life," have usurped our trust in their contempt for the lives of those who struggle to provide food and shelter for their wives and children, those who come home maimed, and disfigured to join the ranks of the homeless, or waste away in dry rot V.A. hospitals ?

What happened to the kind of "c" as in "courage" that inspired the framers of the Declaration of Independence to board the Mayflower, change course, and venture away from "c"oronations to transparent leadership that is answerable to the people; leadership that doesn't hide behind dubious concepts like executive privilege, as well as immunity from charges of war crimes as legitimatized by the Military Commissions Act. What would folks like George Washington, and John Adams have to say about the "right makes might" attitude, and religious intolerance infesting their country today?

When, as a nation, we surrender our collective vision, and voice, we have lost the framework upon which this nation was founded. And, in the memorable words of one of the U.S . pilots involved in what a British inquest has now determined to be the criminal firing on a coalition tank, "We're in jail, dude." There's only one way out, and that is to commit to
"c" as in change.

He May Not Be Houdini, But...

He may not be Houdini, but how many smoking guns will it take to impeach this president? While it's downright decent of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller to take responsibility for the fact that the FBI "broke the law," and "underreported" to Congress the number of National Security Letters it used by, oh, a mere 20% (AP), there is one daunting, and unavoidable question here: who appointed the prominent San Francisco attorney to the helm of an increasingly unbiquitous governmental agency in the first place? Why, yes, it was the president who, back in 2001, decided upon Mueller to replace then beleaguered Louis Freeh.

But, will the problem be solved by having Mueller step down as Rumsfeld did? Who is at the helm? Is it Mueller? Isn't he just following orders? Wasn't Rumsfeld just following orders, too, or maybe refusing to get with the program? And, now that April 15th is just a month away, what do you think would happen to you and me if we were to underreport our earnings to the IRS by, say, 20% this year the way the number of National Security Letters issued was underreported?

Even Houdini had to worry about showing panty lines every now and then, but this president never has to worry about anything. He would make Midas blush. How Mr. Bush manages to escape facing a grand jury in light of the scandals that were Plame-gate, Katrina, weapons of mass delusion, warrantless surveillance in defiance of FISA, and now this, the admission by the two head honchos of law enforcement, in the U.S., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation committed illegal acts. Maybe we need to introduce a modern day Mata Hari into the inner circle, maybe as a White House intern, before people will take anything this president does seriously enough to make him testify, in an impeachment trial, the way another former president did.

Even a desultory look back, over the past six years, will demonstrate that the USA Patriot Act, and National Security, or demand for information, Letters, are the warped progeny of the 43rd President of the United States. Moreover, as we have seen earlier this week by the controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys whose views conflict with those of the White House, a single sentence in the controversial legislation falsely confused with patriots entitles the chief executive to "replace a U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation." (AP) This habit of bypassing Congress, and inflating executive branch authority, has already resulted in prolonging, and exacerbating, a grossly misrepresented, unjust, and unwarranted war.

That said, it must be noted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears to be quite upset by revelations that the FBI falsified its reporting, and exceeded its authority by demanding personal records without first getting approval, and in non-emergent situations. Gonzales suggests the possibility of maybe even pursuing indictments against those Bureau agents, or counsel, whose use of the Patriot Act was spurious, and unauthorized.

Mueller, on the other hand, seems to think that issues of underreporting, falsifying data, and unwarranted action can be readily remedied by "training employees on the limits of their authority." (AP) But, ironically enough, the person who most needs to be "trained" on the limits of his authority gets to flex his unitary muscles with impunity in the Oval Office, and at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Just the mere thought that the Justice Department felt compelled to spend taxpayer's money on an audit of the FBI's activities is, in and of itself, a statement of just how far over the line this administration has gone with respect to its own hubris-begetting criminal misconduct; it's positively biblical. That legislation was introduced, and passed, during a time of mass hysteria from which members of Congress were not exempt has opened the door for the egregious, and illegal abuse of power which now rears its ugly head in every branch of government. Indeed, corruption thy name is terror. What's more, release of the Justice Department's astonishing findings today only leads us to say this: so much for Patriot Acts---it's time to give these "patriots" the axe.

Howell: A Postscript

By way of postscript to a piece I wrote, last week, which details efforts on the part of the Livingston Organization for Values in Education (LOVE) to pressure the school board, in Howell, Michigan, into removing such modern classics as Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five," Richard Wright's "Black Boy," and Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" from high school curriculum on grounds of obscenity comes the following:

Late yesterday, U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Murphy III and the Michigan attorney general's office announced that complaints of obscenity by LOVE are without merit, and there has been no violation of federal law by placing the above-mentioned books on the Howell school approved reading list. (ABFFE) While this is a clear victory for the First Amendment, and shows that there are signs, however small, of intelligent life left in this country, one cannot help but wonder, along with American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression president, Chris Finan, why it is that a complaint by one person to a local school board about what she considers objectionable content would be referred by a U.S. attorney to the FBI in the first place? If one patron in a movie theatre complains about the air conditioning, the theatre seldom turns it off, but if one parent complains about profanity in a novel, it gets referred to the U.S. attorney who then summarily passes it on to the FBI? Hopefully, Murphy's decision shows that he's done his homework, and recognizes that pursuing this obscenity charge is both ludicrous, and frivolous in light of obscenity trials of the past century

And, at the end of a week in which it was disclosed that the Justice Department has been investigating underreporting of use of the USA Patriot Act to harass companies to turn over personal data about their customers, one also wonders how it is that there is so little focus on, and i nvestigation of a proliferation of inc idents involving attempts to ban books in public schools, such respected titles as "Tiger Eyes," by Judy Blume, and "The Chocolate War," by Robert Cormier? While we are all outraged by the prospect of a presidential pardon of Scooter Libby, where is our rightful sense of outrage over the affliction of right wing agoraphobia into our public schools?

The Price of Gas

A friend was right, the other night, when, at a play reading, she said that the price of gas would climb to $4 a gallon, in California, where it will remain indefinitely. Yes, indeed, and we don't need crystal balls to see the extent to which corporate gluttony has damaged not merely the socioeconomic hemisphere, but the heart, and ethos, of this country.

What is often ignored by the mass media is how lots of folks, including myself, will be forced to roll over, and make some immensely tough choices thanks to the lewd and lascivious conduct of the oil cartels. We hear much talk about the obscene profits the oil companies have made over the past year. We don't hear about the daily sacrifices, at the altar of the almighty buck, that 99% of Americans daily make in order to go about living their lives, feeding their families, and finding their way to work. After all, in Southern Califoria, Florida, and most of the country, which is rural, a car is not a luxury item; people must drive to get to and from work, and often in wrenching traffic.

And, we're not even going to talk about the cost to human lives of this monstrous appetite, and lust for profit, this warmongering that has cost more than 3,000 American, and 600,000 Iraqi lives.

This is usury on the part of Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, and the other gout-ridden oil giants. And, if the Internal Revenue Service can devote itself to going after John Doe Taxpayer who screws up on the number of deductions he claims, why in the hell can't the Justice Department go after these crooks, and carpetbaggers, friends of the president, and oil baron in chief, who are raping the middle class in the name of a war on terror. T his is a travesty that requires herculean consumer organizing efforts to stop it, and fast.... where is Ralph Nader when we need him most????

Howell

Just fifty short years since the censorship trial of Allen Ginsberg's historic poem, "Howl," the publication of which landed poet, and City Lights publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, in jail, another Howell is in the news, Howell, Michigan. In an otherwise innocuous midwestern town, last month, the U.S. Attorney's office requested that the FBI investigate claims of obscenity based upon a complaint filed with the Howell Board of Education.

The complaint was made by a woman who failed in her mission to have the county Board of Education ban books currently on eleventh grade reading lists on grounds that they are not only obscene, but "violate the laws against child pornography and child sexual abuse." (ABFFE) Which books does the complainant want banned, and pulled from school shelves? None other than Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," Richard Wright's "Black Boy," and Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five."

How is it that one person's disgust can garner the attention not merely of a local school board, and the state's attorney's office, but the FBI? Arguably, because this woman has the support, and backing of a group- called Livingston Organization for Values in Education (LOVE) comprised primarily of parents, clergy, and others in the community who also believe that the aforementioned books are unfit for high school students. And, when rebuked by the Howell Board of Education by their decision, in a vote of 2 to 1, to defend the books by Morrison, Wright, and Vonnegut, a prominent member of the organization called LOVE took their complaint to the Livingston County prosecutor, who then turned it over to U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Murphy, III. It was Mr. Murphy's call to involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to Chris Finan, President of American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Murphy "routinely refers all obscenity complaints to the FBI." One would think that a U.S. Attorney, and his pals at the FBI, would have a lot on their plates these days what with the war on terror, and would find themselves short of the manpower to wage a war on innocent literary texts by investigating such lean, and frivolous charges, especially in light of the fact that Richard Wright, Toni Morrison, and Kurt Vonnegut are among the best, and most prominent writers of our times.

Moreover, if, as has been suggested, the aforementioned literature violates laws against child pornography, child abuse, and is "obscene," then one might also reasonably expect that the Howell Board of Education be compelled, by the FBI and/or the U.S. Attorney, to ban the Old Testament from school currirulum, too, given its lurid, and incestuous nature. One has only to recall the rape of Tamar, as well as the first circumcision, and the murder by Jephthah of his daughter, to call for banning the bible on grounds that it promotes child abuse.

Wouldn't it be something if all those who speak out the loudest in favor of creationism, and so-called "intelligent design," were to have their bibles pulled from public school shelves based on charges that they contain child pornography!

Consider, too, the ruling that as long as a book has "literary merit," it may not be considered obscene in light of some superbly lascivious biblical passages. If a school district may be allowed to condemn a book like "Slaughterhouse Five," why not Exodus 4 :24 in which Zipporah is forced to cut off the foreskin of her baby in order to keep the Lord from killing her husband Moses? And, putting literary texts aside for a moment, what reasonable person can read an account of how our forefathers slaughtered the native Americans, in a history textbook, and not condemn that as obscene?

To think that our friend, U.S. Attorney Murphy, has reportedly referred the offending books to the FBI makes one take a long, hard look at just how far we've actually come since July, 1933 when another judge, in the southern district of New York, Judge Woolsey, ruled that James Joyce's "Ulysses" may legally be admitted into the United States.

It takes one's breath away to think that we live in an age when anything we can think of can be digitalized, when we can communicate with someone 9,000 miles away, by means of a laptop computer, instantly, when we can fly 30,000 feet above the ground, and we still have to defend literature, and writers, against a hard-boiled band of neanderthals who have a longer life expectancy than your average garden variety cockroach. For shame, America, hope of many, embarrassment to all.