'Out of Control'

I found this article today on the American Library Association's news page (via Morons.org):

Santa Fe Police Detain Library Patron over Chat-Room Visit

A St. John’s College Library visit by a former public defender was abruptly interrupted February 13 when city police officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer terminal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, police station for questioning by Secret Service agents from Albuquerque. Andrew J. O’Conner, 40, who was released about five hours later, said in the February 16 Santa Fe New Mexican, “I’m going to sue the Secret Service, Santa Fe Police, St. John’s, and everybody involved in this whole thing.”

According to O’Connor, the agents accused him of making threatening remarks about President George W. Bush in an Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the library with a woman who was wearing a “No war with Iraq” button, O’Connor recalled saying that Bush is “out of control,” but that “I’m allowed to say all that. There is this thing called freedom of speech.” He also speculated that the FBI might have been observing him because of his one-time involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder, Colorado.

You know, I'm really sorry if the Secret Service, the FBI or anyone else doesn't like it, but Mr. O'Connor is right.  Bush is "out of control".  He has made it clear that he doesn't care what the American people think he's going to have is war whether we like it or not.  He is trying to bully regimes around the world into joining him, even though their citizens have made it clear that they don't like it, either.  He and his administration ridicule France, talk about destroying the German economy, and are willing to pay Turkey billions, even though over 80% of the Turkish people have indicated that they don't want their government to take part in a war. 

See, what galls me is that one of the excuses being offered for the war is that we want the Iraqis to be able to have a free and democratic country - yet the way Bush and his cronies are running this country, they don't seem to understand what democracy is.  One of the bedrock principles of democracy is that the people being governed have a say in that government, which means our opinions are supposed to mean something - but as far as Bush is concerned, we're pretty much irrelevent, as are the opinions of the citizens of other democratic countries around the world - if their opinions don't agree with what Bush wants to see happen.

Of course, we're also supposed to be a free society, but if anything, this story shows just how far from that we've fallen. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is an organization that is helping people from around the country in a grassroots effort to pass resolutions barring the law enforcement organizations in a given city (or other geo-political area) from enforcing any laws that would infringe upon an individuals civil rights.  This campaign was started largely in response to the USA PATRIOT act, and has had quite a bit of success.  So far, 51 cities and towns have passed such resolutions - including Oakland, San Francisco, Denver, Detroit and Seattle - and efforts are under way in many more.

Part of what I find disturbing about this story is the idea that saying Bush is "out of control" is somehow a threatening statement.  In what way can this be construed as a threat?  There's no indication that O'Connor indicated what, if anything, he thought should be done about it, and, last time I checked, before you could threaten someone, you had to say or do something that would indicate that there is a real risk that they could, somehow, be harmed. 

Just to be clear, in case anyone is reading.  Yes, I agree that Bush is completely "out of control".  If someone wants to construe that as a threat, that's really their own problem.  The only thing I'm threatening to do is to support any rational, non-violent and legal means of removing him from office, including impeachment or simply trying to convince as many people as possible to vote against him come 2004.

Sad news...

Mr. Rogers passed away today. 

Not sure much else needs to be said, really....  just feeling very sad at the moment. 

Excuse de jour

The Democrats campaign to challenge Bush's credibility seems to either have wonderful timing or has already started sparking comments from journalists throughout the country. So, yes, today appears to be "challenge Bush's credibility" day at different strings.

I've commented a few times on Bush's rotating excuses for going to war.  PM Carpenter, a columnist for buzzflash.com and the History News Network has this to say about the matter:

The president has buck-and-winged around the putative inexorable logic of war to the point of global ridicule and contempt. If it is Monday and the sun is shining, Bush calls the world to arms because Saddam is a despotic barbarian; if Tuesday and cloudy, because the swarthy rodent possesses wicked WMDs. Given other days of the week and climate conditions, we are exhorted to pounce militarily because Saddam is in league with al Qaeda; he might be in league with al Qaeda; he might opt to be in league with al Qaeda; he has an unhealthy interest in chemistry; he is, by implication, the only national leader in defiance of a United Nations resolution; Colin Powell has a photo collection; and so on, and so on. If one motive fails to catch fire with the public, the White House simply trots out another. A single motive or consistent combination of motives might have inspired, but the White House's hysterical explanations de jour have only managed to eviscerate the one essential of broad-based war-making support: credibility.

Helping? Or just not hurting?

From Newsday - more reasons to question Bush's credibiltiy

Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law.

That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Claire Buchan insisted Friday that the survey, which mentioned "the likelihood that some version of the Bush administration's latest stimulus package will be enacted," justified the president's claim. Moore said that a survey taken in January before the president announced his plan forecast 3.3 percent annual growth between the last quarter of 2002 and the last quarter of 2003. A survey taken in February reached the same consensus.  

Economics tends to lose me sometimes, but if I'm reading that last paragraph right, saying that Bush's tax cut will help - in any way - increase annual growth at all isn't supported by the data.  If a survey taken before the plan was announced showing 3.3% annual growth, and a survey taken after the plan was announced shows 3.3% annual growth, then the plan isn't doing a damn thing to stimulate the economy.  All it's doing is not hurting it any.

Would anyone buy it for a moment if a scientist went out and measured the temperature (let's say, 70 degrees) on a Tuesday, drank a Coke on Wednesday and then noted it was over 70 on Thursday, announced that his research shows drinking a Coke helps ensure the temperature stays above 70?  We'd laugh him off the national stage! Too bad we have to wait 2 more years to do that to Bush.

First Responders

Electrolite has a quote from an editorial by Paul Krugman about Bush and credibility - it make some interesting points, and also points out how even the President of Mexico has had to deal with Bush making a promise in exchange for political support and then failed to follow through on his end of the deal.

It also recounts how among the others Bush has welched on include the fire fighters, police, paramedics and other "First Responders" who were so highly praised (and more-than-deservedly so) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:

New York's elected representatives stood side by side with him a few days after Sept. 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration's commitment, the budget director, Mitch Daniels, accused them of "money-grubbing games." Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr. Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of $3.5 billion for "first responders"; so far, not a penny has been delivered.

It's no secret that I'm appauled by many of the things Bush has done (or is trying to do), but this is one I find to be among his most heinous. Even before 9/11, "first responders" were doing an exceptionally important job with inadequate resources.  In the wake of 9/11, we got a huge reminder just how much we depend on these people who are so willing to risk - and even lose - their own lives in order to save the lives of others.  But even more than just their heroism, their functionin society is a vital one.  I don't think it's really possible to quantify how many people's lives are affected by our rescue workers - and yet they often receive compensation far less than those who's primary purpose is to shuffle paper or "make money" for someone, are unable to obtain the best technology or equipment in order to do their jobs and have to deal with staffing shortages the other kinds of problems that go with being underfunded.

Then, in the wake of our nations worst disaster, in which the value of these "first responders" was so clearly proven, Bush, knowing that anything he said or did that would be seen as supportive for the police, fire and emergency medical teams (and thus would be good for his ratings), promised them $3.5 billion dollars -- then walked away and washed his hands of it.

A couple days ago, I was ranting about how there are many better uses for the $15 billion we're apparently going to pay Turkey to use their country as a launching zone for the Iraq war.  I guess we know where $3.5 billion of it is coming from.

Bush Credibility?

After months of searching for a unified political attack against President Bush, congressional Democrats have settled on a new and, some say, controversial strategy: questioning the president's truthfulness.

On an almost daily basis now, congressional Democrats are warning of a "credibility gap" between what Bush says to the American people and what he does through new government policies.  [Washington Post]

It's about time.

When Bush took campaigned for the Presidency, he said he would bring integrity back to the White House.  It's looked to me - for quite some time - that whatever directions he gave it were pretty lousy, and I hope if anyone sees Integrity out roaming around, looking for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, they'll be nice and buy it a GPS system so it can find its way there.

To me, credibility covers a lot more than someone doing what they say they will - though that's a big part of it.  It also involves not trying to hide what is being done, who its being done with, how its being done, or why its being done.  It also means giving straight answers and not coming up with a list of collapsing excuses.  It also involves doing what is best and not just doing what those who give you a lot of money want you to do.

A top strategist for House Democrats, who declined to be identified, said party leaders are intensifying the campaign now to coincide with criticism of Bush's Iraq policy from world leaders. "What's happening in Europe has been the trigger," the strategist said. Daschle has encouraged activists in labor unions and environmental groups to spread the "credibility gap" message, too. "You will see this coming from all corners of the Democratic operation," spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer said.

Having the message reinforced from a variety of sources sounds like a good idea - but it needs to be done well for it to work.  There will have to be evidence to back up the claims that he's full of it, or it will be construed as liberal whining - and that will only hurt the Democrats. 

More organ donation discussions

An additional update to the "Second Chances" piece:  A more rational discussion of organ donation has been started at MetaFilter, if anyone is interested in checking it out.

Second Chances

While what happened to Jesica Santillan is tragic, her parents' refusal to allow any of her organs be donated to others - including the new heart and lungs that were implanted 2 days ago - is unbelievable.

Like most everyone else, I don't understand how such a mistake - using organs of the wrong blood-type - could be made in the first place.  In an interview I heard with a doctor who is familiar with transplant procedures, he commented that there are usually at least 5 checks made to ensure that the organs will be compatable with the patient, including blood type.  Additionally, Duke University has admitted that the organs were properly labeled as being Type A, when the patient was Type O, and that the Dr. James Jaggers had failed to double-check the blood type before implanting the first set of organs.

I cannot deny that when an error of this magnitude is made, there should be some special considerations given when deciding how to handle it.  The problem is, after the initial error was made, Jesica's body underwent horrific stresses while on life support, waiting to see if a second transplant could be done.  By the time the new organs were located, doctors believed she had little chance of surviving - her own doctors put it at no better than 50% - even with a 2nd transplant, and it was unclear what kind of life she might have if she did survive.

Doctors not connected to her case, however, were pessimistic. The one-year survival rate for transplanting a heart and both lungs as a unit is ordinarily about 60 percent, but Jésica's case is far from ordinary.

Heart transplant surgeons from other hospitals said there were no studies to provide specific odds of survival, but they put them at less than 50 percent short term.

``It is a long shot for her to recover,'' said Dr. Robert C. Robbins, who directs the heart-lung and lung transplant center at Stanford.

Unlike Jésica, most patients who receive second heart transplants do so because their immune systems reject the donor organs. Because the heart and lungs Jésica received came from a person with a different blood type, her body mounted a monster attack on the mismatched organs.

The blood type incompatibility is generally more serious in transplanting lungs because lung tissue has a propensity to react very strongly immunologically, the doctors said.

One of the most cruical factors in dealing with any kind of a transplant situation is time, and, according to the Boston Globe, the hospital may have wasted as much as a week by not immediately admitting that an error had been made.

Yesterday, Mahoney said he believes that the Duke doctors had wasted valuable time by not publicly admitting their error for more than a week. ''Life support ruins kidneys, it ruins brains, it ruins all the organs of the body,'' he said, accusing hospital officials of having ''played with that little girl's life'' as they tried to decide whether to admit to making a mistake.

It easy for me to sit here and look at the situation in the abstract - I have no personal connection to the Santillans or anyone else involved, and have never even known someone in need of a transplant.  What I do know, though, is that many people wait for years on a list, hoping and praying that they will get that second chance a transplant can give them.  Jesica herself had been on the translant list for three years before her first operation.  Yet after the error was admitted, after her body had already been brutally damaged by its own attempts to fight off the immunological effects of the botched transplant, and after the case became known to the media, it was less than a week before new organs were found to make a second try. It was less than 2 weeks overall from the date of the inital transplant attempt.

It's hard to say this, as I'm sure many will think me cold and unfeeling, but would compassion have not been better served if those 2nd organs had gone to someone who had a real chance of survival?  If there hadn't been anyone else who could have used them (and I don't know for sure if there was - but given the number of people awaiting transplants, I have to think that the odds are good that there would have been), then, by all means, try the 2nd transplant for Jesica - but wouldn't it have made more sense to have given them to someone else who had also been waiting for years, whose body would have been strong enough to accept them and make use of them?

Regardless, I find it unimaginable that her parents would not have allowed whatever of her organs could possibly have been used for someone else to have a chance to live.  I have no doubt that there will be a debate rise from this entire incident - part surrounding the questions I raised above, and part from two other factors: her parents refusal to donate her organs to anyone, and the fact that her parents illegally entered this country 3 years ago in order to get a transplant for Jesica. It will be interesting to see what shape the debate takes, as we strive to balance practicality, hope and compassion. 

Update:  Reading a bit further, it seems that after she was declared brain dead, her doctors stopped giving her medication that was keeping her heart beating.  In a discussion at MetaFilter, many are saying that this should help mitigate the parents' decision not to allow any of her organs to be used for transplant, especially since it was massive medical negligence that killed her.  I can understand the sentiment, but I don't agree.  If the girl was brain dead and her body was only funcitoning because of machines and medicines - and there was no hope at all for her recovery (not just no meaningful hope, but no hope whatsoever), then, tragically, Jesica was dead.  

Others have noted that its likely none of her organs could have been used - but that is speculation only.  Because her parents refused to even consider donating any of her organs, the viability of doing so wouldn't have been checked.  Maybe there wouldn't have been anything that could have been used - and if that were the case, then that would be the end of it.  But even though I know her parents are going through a horrific time right now, I still cannot comprehend or agree with their decision to not try to help someone else.  Their daughter's only chance depended on the kindness of strangers who had also just lost a loved one - in this case, specifically a child, as only child-sized organs would work for Jesica.  In the last two weeks, two sets of parents have lost their children and been able to overcome their grief and emotional turmoil enough to say "yes" when asked about donating those organs. Because of that, Jesica was able to have two operations to try and save her life.

Tilting at Windmills

I'm feeling pretty angry today.

Yesterday, my mom was crying.  That's a hard thing for a daughter to hear, especially when there's really nothing I can do to help her. 

See, my parents worked hard all their lives, setting aside money for retirement and investing in the stock market like you're supposed to (and like Bush has said wants to do with Social Secrurity by "privatizing" it), and basically being good, responsible citizens.  I'm sure you all know where this is going.  Yep, the bottom fell out of the stock market and now they're not sure how they're going to make what's left last. 

What makes it worse is that - as many older Americans do - they need a variety of medications to help their bodies keep up with their minds, and since they're retired, they have to rely on Medicare for their health insurance.  Yeah, it's not much help with prescription drugs, is it?

Of course, the government could choose to come up with some kind of real economic stimulus - something that would help the stock market recover and let people earn money rather than lose it, but the administration would rather give tax breaks to people who don't have to worry about how they're going to survive during their retirement years.  Oh, and they want to elimiate income taxes on capital gains - which is going to help, exactly, how?  If people are losing money in the stock market, exactly what gains are they not going to be paying taxes on?

Part of what has me so angry is Bush's plan to pay Turkey $15 billion (with a "b") dollars (in grants and "loans" - which often don't seem to ever get paid back) to let us station our troops in their country so we can attack Iraq from the north.  Fifteen billion dollars! True, $15 billion is better than the $26 billion amount I'd been hearing about yesterday (and less than half of the $32 billion Turkey reportedly wanted), but it's still $15 billion dollars.

That kind of money would buy my folks - and people like them - quite a few months-worth of their medications.  Hell, it could help refill their depleted bank and stock accounts!  That much money could stimulate the economy a lot more than telling us to buy duct tape will.  It could help younger people be able to get better educations so they have a better chance at getting one of the few jobs that are left.  It could do a lot of things other than rent us a bit of space in a foreign country so that we can go prove what a big bully America can be.

When it comes to spending money on the war, though, this is what Bush had to say about it recently:

"As we insist that Congress be wise with your money, we're going to make sure we spend enough to win this war," Bush said.

After the applause died down, he added, "And by spending enough to win a war, we may not have a war at all."

Right.  Like he's not going to find any excuse he can to have his little war, regardless of what it costs.

Of course, he also says:

If the United States were to "liberate" the Iraqis, "they can rest assured that we will help them build a country that is disarmed and peaceful and united and free," he said.

Except that no money has been budgeted for rebuilding Iraq.  None was initially allocated in this year's budget for helping to rebuild Afghanistan, either, which (in case everyone has forgotten) we recently helped push through it's own regime change - after promising to help rebuild - and then promptly left in the dust.

After all, look at our behavior in Afghanistan. In the beginning, money was no object; victory over the Taliban was as much a matter of bribes to warlords as it was of Special Forces and smart bombs. But President Bush promised that our interest wouldn't end once the war was won; this time we wouldn't forget about Afghanistan, we would stay to help rebuild the country and secure the peace. So how much money for Afghan reconstruction did the administration put in its 2004 budget?

None. The Bush team forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse. You can see why the Turks, in addition to demanding even more money, want guarantees in writing. Administration officials are insulted when the Turks say that a personal assurance from Mr. Bush isn't enough. But the Turks know what happened in Afghanistan, and they also know that fine words about support for New York City, the firefighters and so on didn't translate into actual money once the cameras stopped rolling.   [Paul Krugman, The New York Times]

I don't think it would be so infuriating if anything about this war made sense, but it doesn't.  Our leaders can't give us a coherent reason - that holds up to scruitny - as to why we need to depose Saddam Hussein.  North Korea is a lot closer to being able to attack us with nuclear weapons, but we're not threatening to invade them yet.  Osama bin Laden is still running about able to organize and finance terrorists, and yet he still hasn't been brought to justice.  Near as I can tell, we're barely even trying to find him any longer.  We're constantly being told that we need to bring Saddam down to reduce the threat of terrorism, but now the Homeland Security Department is telling us that if we do attack Iraq, it may make us even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not less.  And, while we're ostenibly fighting this war to help ensure the Iraqi people can have a free and democratic country, we're having our rights chipped away at every turn. 

So, yeah, I'm pretty angry right now, and aside from doing whatever I can to make my voice heard and my opinion known, there's not much I can do - and there's no guarantee that even making myself heard will do much of anything.  I feel a bit like Don Quixote tilting at his windmills - but tilt I must.  Like sealing up my house with duct tape and plastic sheeting, it may not do much good, but at the very least, it has to be better than sitting around and doing nothing at all.

New - for weddings!

.... it even has an inflatable organ ...

For Shame

Recently, a teacher in Canada learned that an anti-gang organization in Chicago was sponsoring a poster contest.  She contact the National Gang Crime Research Centre to find out about entering her students in the contest (which was described as being for "North American" students, and also specified that entry was open to students in the United States and Canada), and received the following message in response:

29 Jan 2003

To Whom It May Concern:

We are a pro-law enforcement group and support initiatives against Gangs and Terrorism.

Recent national political statements from leaders in your country have, unfortunately, been non-supportive of American interests. Due to this unfortunate development we are no longer able to accept Canadian entries.

I am sure this is not a reflection on your own patriotism and your own perspectives on the issue, but in the current climate --- that is the way Americans are going to react.

Yours truly,

George Knox
Director
NGCRC

In response, here is the letter I sent to Mr. Knox:

I am truly saddened and shamed by your recent response to a Canadian teacher who inquired about having her student enter their artwork in your poster contest.  You are wrong in saying that "in the current climate --- this is how Americans are going to react".  If you've not noticed, there is little consensus as to whether Americans in general support the coming war or not, and there are a good number of Americans who, like me, will find your attitude disgraceful.  If nothing else, the massive anti-war protests last weekend speaks loudly to the fact that there are more than just a few Americans who don't believe in what our government is doing.  Will you be checking to see if the parents of any American students participated in the protests before deciding to accept their entries or not? 

From what I know about dealing with gangs, one of the most important things any kid can know is that even if gang members are trying to bully them into joining, they have the ability - and the right - to say "no".  Sadly, these days, America is acting more like a gang trying to bully other nations into joining us than anything else.  There is even talk of taking steps to damage - if not destroy - the German economy as retribution for their refusal to agree with our position.  (See this article in the Observer for more information: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html )

The Canadian government doesn't feel that supporting the position of our government is in their best interest.  Just as any kid has the right to say "no" to a gang, the Canadians have the right to say "no" to President Bush - and whether their leaders want to agree with our leaders or not, it shouldn't have any impact on whether or not you allow young Canadian students to participate in a contest that might help them learn something about the dangers of gangs. 

Virtual March

MoveOn.org is sponsoring a "Virtual March on Washington", schedule for next Thursday to protest the coming war.  This protest will feature citizens calling their Senators and the White House to deliver messages in oppostion of the war, as well as sending faxes and emails.  Since I can't get out to participate in a physical march, this is something I'm excited to have the chance to do. 

When you register to participate in the Virtual March, they also ask you what your statement to the Senators and White House will be (so that they can post it in their anti-war room and on the web at the time your calls are scheduled to be made).  Below is mine:

I am calling to express my opposition to a war with Iraq.  While President Bush may feel that listening to the loud, overwhelming voices of American citizens is "governing by focus groups", the government is supposed to be "by the people" and "for the people".  If the people don't want war, then as our elected official, you have an obligation to do whatever you can to prevent one. So far there has been little to no credible evidence that Iraq is enough of a threat to warrant an invasion and the inevitable loss of life it would visit upon both the Iraqi citizens and our young men and women in the armed services. Even the Bush administration has acknowledged that attacking Iraq would actually make us MORE vulnerable to terror attacks rather than less.  The risks are too great, the benefits too few, the justification too shakey and the war too unwanted by the people of this country, and the world.

I would strongly encourage anyone who can pick up a phone and has some spare time available when they could make three calls to sign up and participate in the Virtual March.  Bush may not want to listen to what we have to say, but we can still make him at least hear us - and realize that every person protesting the war is also quite likely a voter (activists usually manage to make it to the polls, no?) - and someone who can help make sure he's a one-terms wonder just like dear ol' dad.

If a nuclear bomb explodes in your area, please head in a different direction...

If you haven't visited the new Department of Homeland Security site, "Be Informed", you probably should.  Not for any valuable information, but because the site is pathetically hilarious in a totally unintentional way.  Be sure, in particular, to check out the visual section on "Nuclear Blast". Below is an actual graphics from that site, demonstrating the best way to get away from a nuclear explosion.

As you can see from that example (and believe me, the rest of the site is about the same), the site is ripe for parodies, and I've found a couple really good ones.   Be sure to check them out at:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/000290.html

and

http://www.idlewords.com/nuclear_blast.htm

Walking backwards into the future

I hate living in Kansas.  I really do.

Not that there's anything wrong with the area itself - granted, there's not much to look at here, but we get some fun weather (especially if you love thunderstorms), and the people are, for the most part, nice.  It's just that somehow, our officials keep doing really stupid things that tend to reinforce the opinion many people already have that this is one of the more bassakwards places in the country to begin with.

Having our education board decide that students didn't need to be tested on the theory of evolution (and - since everyone teaches only what's needed for the big standardized tests, it meant that most teachers wouldn't bother teaching it any more - which was probably the point, but I digress).  Having "underaged sex" laws that penalize an older gay teen who has sex with a younger one with significatly more prison time than had it been a male-female couple doesn't help any either.

But now, oh, now they're just getting really silly.  Thanks to the vague ruling by the Supreme Court that declared "obscenity" to be pretty much whatever the "community" (most often as represented by the DA's office) decides it is, we now that the honour of being the state that just secured a federal conviction against a guy who had 2 pictures of nude adult women on his computer. 

Thanks to a plea bargain, this heinous criminal is going to be allowed to remain free (perish the thought!), but he does get to have the federal government watching over his shoulder anytime he goes online in the next two years.  He has to tell him his passwords, they can come check his computer anytime they want, and they can even attach tracking software to his computer so they can just watch everywhere he goes.  One wrong click, and he can go to jail.

I think, perhaps, the only thing worse than the fact that this poor guy is in legal trouble for looking at what most people I know (and yes, this includes Kansans) would consider to be run-of-the-mill legal pornography, is how he got in trouble for it in the first place. 

Apparnetly, he ordered photo copies of some electronic images, which included pictures of some young-looking women, through a Yahoo photo service.  Yahoo sent an email to tell him that they images might be illegal, so he cancelled the order.  You'd think that should be the end of it, but, obviously, it wasn't.  The postal inspector (apparently called in by Yahoo) got permission to deliver the order to this guy - even though he'd cancelled it! He was then busted on child pornography charges and his computer seized and searched.

When his lawyer pointed out that, essentially, the government had trapped him into committing an illegal act (by delivering the order he'd cancelled upon learning that it might be illegal), they dropped the child porn charges, but were loathe to lose the case entirely.  So, they decided that these two images of naked, adult women were offensive to Kansans, and as such, obscene, and offered him the plea bargain. 

Now, it's kind of hard to argue that the pictures aren't obscene when the definition of obscene is, well, obscenely vague.  How does one determine what the 'community standards' are?  And, as his lawyer noted, "when a respected member of the community is threatened not only with prison but with the stigma of a crime of perversion, it's pretty easy for them to accept the government's later settlement offer of a plea to an obscure offense and probation."

I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

The lastest twist on destroying the villiage to save it...

The government is going to be running ads on how to be ready for a terrorist attack (yep, duct tape is still on the list).  They say the ads are designed to educate without scaring, but somehow I can't see too many ways the government can tell people how to be ready, without people somehow getting the idea that an attack is imminent. 

At any rate, part of the reason for the ad campaign is that the government is concerned that going to war against Iraq make make the country "more vulnerable to an attack".  The logic here just kills me (and I hope I'm meaning that figuratively).  One of the supposed justifications for the war is that Iraq may help sponsor terrorism and we need to get rid of Saddam to protect ourselves from potential terrorist attacks.  We just may make ourselves more likely to get attacked in the process.

The funny thing is, I don't remember falling through any rabbit holes....

Me and my Blog

Questions from The Friday Five:

1. Explain why you started to journal/blog.

I stumbled onto Live Journal a couple years ago, and thought it might be interesting to try and keep a record of my thoughts and all the other crap that goes on in my head.  I found, though, that the sense of community there lent itself much more to general chit-chaty type things, quizzes, memes and just having fun, than it did to rants, essays, political commentaries and the other, more serious, topics I also tend to write about.  So, I decided to have my Live Journal be my place for just letting my hair down and being "me", and a separate blog for the "heavy" stuff.  I'd been keeping one at my main site, Thunderhaven, for quite a while, but it wasn't getting read all that much, so when I saw that Salon had a blogging community, I thought it might be a good place to hang out a shingle.  I've been very glad that I did. :)

2. Do people you interact with day to day or family members know about your journal/blog? Why or why not?

Most do, though I don't think any of the read it - mainly because they've gotten to hear it at some point :)  If I was able to work, though, I probably wouldn't let my co-workers know about it becuase I do get into things related to religion occasionally, and while people online generally don't have any trouble with my being a Norse Pagan, people who have to deal with someone face-to-face are often a bit more uncomfortable with it - and that's not something that I need to bring into the workplace for myself or my co-workers.

3. Do you have a theme for your journal/blog?

Mostly just offering my own perspective on policital issues, current events, news and strange things I find to write about - and, hopefully, to hear what others have to say - the "different strings" that make us each unique.

4. What direction would you like to have your journal/blog go in over the next year?

I'd like to be able to improve my actual writing.  I read things by some of the other writers here and wish I could express myself as well - their use of language adds an extra dimension to what they're saying, giving it even greater impact. 

5. Pimp five of your favorite journals/blogs.

Awwww, that's hardly fair!  There's so many good ones out there (see the list of recommended blogs in the side bar if you don't believe me). 

If I had to pick 5, though, I'd probably go with The Raven, Rayne Today, Secular Blasphemy, Emphasis Added and Real Live Preacher.

Extra! Extra! Dead Toad Found on Road

I was just telling my husband about the post below on Satanic Ritual Abuse, and had to share with him this section from one of the articles I'd found on the Great Satanic Panic:

The Strange Case of the Crucified Toad

Some poor fool who had the bad fortune to be walking along the bank of a river near Oscoda, Michigan, was confronted by an unspeakably horrible sight: Occult-type graffiti, spray-painted on the base of a bridge, and on the ground beneath it, gutted candles and a dead toad. Having stumbled upon the remains of a Satanic altar, the poor fool called the police. The officers looked things over and decided that, well, there was no evidence of any crime having been committed. But they wrote up a report, and the details made it into the paper the following week.

The headlines, of course, screamed about the Great Satanic Conspiracy. The article contained an amusing reference to a "murdered toad," which prompted me to write a letter to the editor asking if killing toads was considered a capital offense in Michigan. But the poor amphibian was, undeniably, dead. It was right there in the police report. And it caused quite a stir, even though an average half-mile stretch of the state highway that ran west of town contained, oh, probably a whole bushel basket full of deceased toads. A rumor began to fly around that the toad had been (gulp) crucified, which I found to be rather creative until I recalled that Aleister Crowley had boasted about doing just that in his Confessions. Well, perhaps it had merely succumbed to a common toad disorder and shriveled up in the sun.

No one really knew how the miserable toad met its end, but the proximity of its corpse to Satanic paraphernalia and graffiti left few without a shred of doubt that the unfortunate creature's demise was the work of deranged devil-worshippers. The spectre of a sinister cabal of candle-burning, spray-painting toad-killers haunted the land.

His response? "I can just see it now:  Friday the 13th part 47: Ribbit"

He is SO no help sometimes :)

Satan, sex and mind games

Satanic sex abuse

CBC takes a criticial look at a recent child sex abuse scandal in Canada. These media panics, which has happened all over the world, generally follow the same pattern. Rumours and accusations start spreading, the initial investigation by the police and health care authorites is mocked up completely, and from the wrong start the case just explodes and grows into bizarre proportions. Media and police lose all sense of direction, creating a total panic, and nobody actually looks at the basic evidence, or lack thereof.  (Read more at Secular Blasphemy).

Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and the hysteria surrounding it in the 1980s and early 90's is a topic that has fascinated me for a while.  Part of my interest, of course, stems from the fact that many people equate Wicca - and thus all Paganism - with Satanism - or at least Satanism as they have come to misunderstand it based, more often than not, on cases like the Canadian child sex abuse scandal cited above or any of the other so called SRA cases, including the McMartin Day Care trial.  But it's also fascinating because this widespread belief that so many seem to have that there are Satanic cults at work, enslaving, abusing and/or sacrificing children was started by a book that was held out as a true story, but has since been shown to be false. 

The book is called "Michelle Remembers" by Dr. Lawrence Pazder and his wife, Michelle, a former patient of his, and prior to the book's publication, there were few, if any, reports of "Satanic cults" or "Satanic Ritual Abuse".  After it came out in 1980, reports skyrocketed, and it began to seem as if there were wild roming packs of dangerous Satanists at every corner.  Helping dysfunctional adults uncover their own "hidden" memories of Satanic abuse became a part of therapy for many counselors, and theapists who worked with children had to find ways to get them to acknowledge what had "happened" to them.

Seven years later, Mike Warnke, a Christian evangelist and comedian, published a booked called "The Satan Seller", in which he recouted his supposedly true adventures as a Satanist and all of the horrible things he had done during is years in the service of evil.  That book, also, has been shown to be false.

When bows attack...

For your viewing amusement, a collection of frighteningly bad ideas from a variety of bridal fashion advertisements.

The first page is mainly scary hats and veils, but at the bottom of the page is a set of links leading to other bridal fashion disasters, including the all-important horrid flower girl dresses.

I don't even know what to say about this one....

Oh, and be sure to check out the patriot's dream wedding dresses....  it is NOT to be missed!

No 'Precious' Oscar?

Gollum: Dissed by the Oscars?. Andy Serkis' computer-aided performance was one of the best things about "The Two Towers." But the Academy isn't ready for digital actors. [Salon.com]

I was really disappointed that Andy Serkis didn't get nominated for an Oscar - doing a performance that you know is going to have to be able to be transformed in a computer is something that would be rather difficult - especially since nothing on this scale has really been done before.  In addition to the usual requirements for a performance, Serkis also had to keep in mind that everything he was doing would have to be "painted over" or otherwise recreated by the computer technicians. 

Given the emotional depth that Gollum brought to the film, I find it hard to imagine that if the character had not been computer-altered that Serkis would have gone overlooked in the nominations.  Gollum is not only Frodo and Sam's guide, but he is, in a sense, also our guide.  He shows us what may happen to both our hero and the world if evil triumphs over good.  If Frodo fails in his task, he faces a future in which he may well develop into a Gollum-like creature himself - and the world, too, will become drawn, and thin; a shadow of its former self, barely able to recall what it was like before the evil took over, weak and feeble, only knowing that at one time, it was so much more. 

I've always felt that the mark of a good performance is when you can't take your eyes off the screen anytime the action is on (though that can also be the mark of just a really handsome actor, too, but that's another matter *g*), and I found that happening whenever Gollum was present.  In watching the movie, I was much more caught up in the story of Rohan than in what any of the hobbits were doing, but Gollum was something else again.

Peter Jackson has spoken of the importance of Andy Serkis in the creation of Gollum:

"What was important," Jackson explains, "is that there was one person, an experienced, skilled actor, making all of the decisions on behalf of Gollum. [Andy] would decide how Gollum would move, how he would act, what emotion he would have, what pauses he would put where, what weight he'd put into a particular scene -- just as any actor, like Elijah and Sean, would be doing for their characters."

To me, it sounds like, in the long run, the computer animated Gollum was less a "computer-generated" character than just a very unique costume for the very human actor portraying him.  I know that Hollywood worries about actors being replaced by computer-generated characters, but when you compare the performance of Serkis as Gollum to, say, the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, Godzilla in the recent remake of that film, the really annoying critter from "The Phantom Menace" (I have been blessed by the inability to remember his name) or even the Hulk in that upcoming film, there really seems to be little for actors to be concerned about.  A purely computer-generated character can't hold a candle to a character with the mind, heart, and skill of a human performer - and somehow I doubt that will change anytime soon.

Of course, it's interesting that both "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" have not garnered much in the way of big awards in general, despite the near universal acclaim that has greated them and the sheer delight so many Tolkein fans take in them.  Peter Jackson and all of the performers in these films have done was many considered impossible - they've taken one of the most important works of modern literature and translated it to the screen in a way that respects the source material while creating an overwhelming visual spectacle that knocks most people off of their feet.  I'm hoping that maybe Hollywood and the other award-givers are simply waiting for "The Return of the King" to be released to make sure that Jackson carries through on the promise these first two films have made - and will reward him appropriately at that time.

Evacuation Plans, part 2

I just posted this to the Salon Blog mailing list as a starting point for discussing possible "evacuation plans".  If you're not already a member of the list and are interested in helping make sure we can preserve this great community we have here, be sure to sign up!

I'm still holding out hope that we won't have to move from our nice little home, but if we do, one thing I think would be great would be to create (and publicize) a Salon Blog Refugee directory - a central resource where people can find links for all the Salon Blogs.  Also, in addition to the web ring, we could also create a little linkable graphic that anyone who wants to can display on their site that will take the visitor to the directory once it's clicked on. The directory can then be listed in places like Daypop, Popdex, Globe of Blogs, BlogWise, and any other big blog directories we can find.

We may also be able to figure out a way for all of the Salon Blogs to ping the directory when they're updated, so we can keep a version of the "Recently Updated" list going (since that's where a LOT of traffic comes from), if the current one goes away.  I don't know how to set something like that up, but I'll be glad to do some research and see what I can find out.

The best option, of course, would be if Radio Userland will keep the Salon blog server running so we can have the updated list and the rankings listing available to us, still - or, as Rob from Emphasis Added suggested, see if we can get a server package that would let us run our own Radio server set up (though  have no idea what that would cost).

If others are interested in the director, I'll be glad to host it (my hosting package has far more space and bandwidth available than I even come close to touching each months, plus I can add domain names to it without it costing me any more, so hosting the director would be easy - and basically free *g*), and can even see about getting a good domain name for it.  We'd have to find out if there would be any legal issues with this, but i believe the domain "salonblogs.com" is still available   :)

Commenting Update

As much as I like the Haloscan commenting system, it's not been working properly for several days now, and I want people who visit here to let me know what they think - that's the best part of blogging!

Unfortuantely, the default Radio Userland system doesn't allow for deleting (which I've never done yet) or editing (which I only do to my own comments), and hasn't always been terribly stable either.  As such I didn't really consider it an option to go back to that one.

So, I now have yet another new commenting system I'm using.  This one is Enetation, and it looks to be very nice.  I will also be upgrading so that the comments will be hosted on a dedicated server, which should allow for more stability.  Over the next few days, I'm going to start transferring comments posted to the Haloscan system to the Enetation one so that the previous dialogue isn't lost.

At any rate, COMMENTING WORKS AGAIN, so PLEASE SAY SOMETHING!!  :)  And I'm sorry for any inconvenience these technical difficulties have caused....

Options?

There's a new blog campaign in support of Iraqi democracy and human rights - which also seems to be intended as support for the coming war, albeit in a subtle manner.  There's been some interesting discussion about the campaign and the issues it raises over at MetaFilter.

One thing that I have a hard time understanding is why anyone who opposes the war must also oppose democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people.  I don't support Saddam or his continued "leadership" of Iraq, but I also don't believe that this war is the best way to get him out of office and return control of Iraq to its people.

I want them to be liberated, I want them to have the ability to set up and run a democratic government.  I want them to be treated the way any human being should and for the abuses of their rights to come to an end.  What I don't want is for us to go in, kill who knows how many Iraqi civilians and have who knows how many of our own soldiers killed in a war that may not be the best (or only) way to resolve the issue, and to destroy our reputation and standing in the international community in the process.  We're supposed to be the good guys, not the neighborhood bully everyone wants to see brought to his knees.

Honestly, no, I don't know what other options are open to us at this time - what other methods would be available to depose him (I'd need to do a lot more research and put in a few years to get an education in international politics and policy, civil engineering, sociology and a few other related subjects) but I simply do not trust this administration or a war they want this badly.

What I do know is that we've helped depose inhumane regimes in other nations without an invasion Saddam's movements and locations aren't impossible to track or find. The primary purpose of this proposed war is to get rid of Saddam - and odds are very good that with the kind of firepower we're talking about, we're going to kill him. 

We may currently have a policy against assassinating foreign leaders (or at least we did last time I looked), but I'd much prefer that we consider a straight-out assassination of Saddam than go in and bomb the daylights out of an entire nation in order to accomplish the same goal.  It's as if we're saying its wrong to go in and target an international leader specifically and kill him, but it's ok to go in, and instead of targeting just one man, target the entire nation and kill who knows how many people in the long run to get that one man.

Paranoid speculation...

Ridge Says Warning Levels Might Be Lowered in Days. Tom Ridge, the domestic security chief, said that the alert level warning of possible terrorist attacks might be lowered depending on threats received by the government. By David Johnston. [New York Times: Politics]

Hmmmm.... 

Earlier I commented on the fact that, after being denied a march permit for yesterday's protest, the decision was appealed, upheld by a judge and appealed - and upheld - a second time.  At the time the permit was initially sought, we were at our normal "yellow" threat status.  By the time the case went to court, however, the threat level had been raised to orange, and, in making their decisions, both appelate courts cited the need for heightened security in justifying the denial of the permit.

A few days ago, the news came out that one of the big pieces of intelligence that helped convince the government to raise the threat level was bogus, but they said "other" information was still considered valid and they didn't feel it was appropriate to reduce the threat level yet.

Now here we are, 24 hours following the protest, and we've not only learned that the Bush Administration filed a brief to help encourage the courts to uphold the denial of the permit, but things are now such that the threat alert level may be able to be lowered.

Makes you wonder what the real "threat" they were concerned about was.

White House filed brief against protest march permit

It was outrageous when New York City denied the planners of yesterday's protest a permit to march through the street.  In fact, since fall of 2002, all requests for protest march permits in Manhattan have been denied as a matter of policy.

It was astounding when a judge upheld the permit's denial "in this time of heightened security" (even though the initial denial by the city itself took place prior to the increased orange threat status), and the appeals court upheld her ruling - even though they were told that the police did not expect there to be any violence.  Just about the only good news out of the appeals court was that they noted that the denial was only being upheld for this one protest march, and was not to be taken as an indication that banning all protest marches would be supported by the courts.

But it reaches into the unbelievable when the White House - the Bush Administration itself - is found to have filed a brief strongly encouraging the judges to uphold the denial of the permit.  While the White House obviously doesn't want too much protesting to be done, the idea that they would involved themselves in a court case, crosses a line.  If there was any question left as to whether or not the President cares what Americans think, it should be gone now.

Day of Protest

SubIntSoc.net has a nice piece about their experiences with the protest rally in New York City yesterday, and links to images from other protests as well.

I'm impressed at the number of protests held and the number of people who showed up for them.  It may not make any difference to Bush or have any effect on his plans, but a loud message has been sent, and that, in and of itself, is important.  It also finally got the news media to recognize that protests are happening, and that they're NOT small. 

Kudos and thanks to everyone who planned or particpated in one of the protests yesterday. 

Religious harassment in schools

Union schools hit with religion-related lawsuit

Action claims student was beaten, harassed for being different

By Jennifer Lawson
February 14, 2003

India Tracy came to expect being sent to the principal's office even though she was a well-behaved, straight-A student.

But the Union County youngster knew she'd probably be the only student with "no" written on the permission slip to attend a tent revival during school hours. When she declined to portray Mary in a Christmas play, she also was sent to the principal's office.

India and her parents, Greg and Sarajane Tracy, allege other students taunted her, beat her and ridiculed her religion for years. Fed up with the treatment, her parents filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf Thursday.

The lawsuit claims the Union County school system violated India's civil rights by promoting and endorsing religious activities, denied her right to freely exercise her religion and failed to protect her from harassment and physical and verbal abuse.

This story is full of so many questionable actions, I'm astounded that no one has taken any action before now.

It turns out that the Union County school system has been taking students to fundamentalist revivals since 1998.  A representative from the school system says that the ministry has rented school buses, and that some teachers have taken person time off to act as chaperones for the revivals, but this doesn't explain why students would need to have a signed permission slip to attend the revival.  In addition, the revivals are noted as being three-day events.  Even if they're held on a weekend, for it to be a three-day event, that third day is going to be a school day. 

Now, there's nothing wrong with a ministry hosting a revival, and there's not even anything wrong with teenagers attending.  What is wrong is that the school is getting permission to send students to the revival - an act that, in and of itself, indicates that the school endorses the revival and is encouraging students to attend.  What would be far more appropriate - and probably legal (which it's unlikely their current actions are) - would be for parents who want their children to attend the revivals to contact the school themselves, make arrangements for their child to miss class at the time of the revival and to make up the homework or tests that they would be missing.  That kind of a request could be handled the same as doctor's appointements or vacation request, and would not put the school in the position of endorsing, or appearing to endorse, religion and religious activity.

India Tracy is now being home schooled - a decision her parents made after they were told by one of her fellow students that India had indicated she was contemplating suicide.  She was subjected to significant harassment and torment at the hands of both students and the administrations between 1999 and 2002, when she was removed from the school by her parents.  The suit alleges:

• That India was repeatedly called "Satan worshipper," "witch" and other derogatory names. She was accused of eating babies and of being a lesbian because she wasn't a Christian, the lawsuit said.
  
  
  


• That India was forced to attend regular Bible study classes during the school day, and urged to lead the school and her class in prayer.
  
  
  


• That derogatory names were written on her locker in permanent ink and the school refused to paint over the graffiti or move her locker.
  
  
  


• That India was repeatedly attacked as she knelt in front of her bottom-row locker. Her head was bashed at least 10 times, cutting her lip, above her eyes and bloodying her nose.
  
  
  


• That a teacher told India to "keep quiet because you'll get in trouble" after she wrote a paper about religious freedom.
  
  
  


• That a bus driver regularly asked India in front of other students if she had gone to church yet and if she'd like to come to church.

Some of these claims may sound a bit far-fetched at first, but this isn't an isolated incident.  The Tracy family is Pagan, and there have been other incidents of serious harassment aimed at Pagan students at a number of schools.

In February of 2001, a 12-year-old girl named Tempest Smith hung herself from her bunk bed after months of teasing and harassment from her fellow students over her Wiccan beliefs.  Her mother says that she went to the administration and to counselors several times to seek help for her daughter, but nothing was ever done about it.  An article published in the Detroit News noted:

According to Tempest's journal, found under her bed after the suicide, her classmates often crowded around her chanting "Jesus loves you," along with other comments that ridiculed her Wiccan beliefs.

After her death, teachers and counselors heard from many students who felt they were responsible because they had teased her so relentlessly.  At her funeral, there were many notes left expressing feelings of guilt.

Interestingly, the same school district had, just a year before, been sued by student Crystal Seifferly after she was told she was not allowed to wear a pentacle to school, even though it is a symbol of her faith, just as the cross is for Christians.  The school had outlawed pentacles as part of their dress code, which also listed groups that were inappropriate for students to belong to.  Witches and Pagans were specifially listed, along with gangs, the KKK, "Gothic" and other "controversial" groups.  Surprisingly, something that came out during the course of the suit was that as far as the school was concerned, Muslim students did not have a right to wear a cresent and star, and Jews wanting to wear the Star of David would have to ask permission. The suit was resolved by a consent decree that granted Wiccans the right to wear a Pentacle.

Other incidents that I'm aware of (but, unfortuantely, no longer have access to articles about), included one girl - who claimed not to be a Witch OR Wiccan - who was suspended when a teacher claimed that they'd been made sick by a spell the girl had cast; and another girl on the East Coast who had been heckled because she was uncomfortable singing religious-themed hymns in a school concert.  Following the concert, as the girl and her mother made their way out to their car, many of the concert attendees shouted insults at them, and others began driving around them slowly, blasting Christian music out of their cars.

Obviously, Pagan students aren't the only ones who are harassed, taunted, teased or bullied because of their religious choices.  While the situation may be improving somewhat, Jewish children have often been treated similarly, and in the wake of the terror attacks, its likely that many Muslim children aren't being treated much better.  I'm more familiar with the Pagan incidents because, as a Pagan, they will catch my eye faster.

Part of what's aggrevating is that it wouldn't really be that hard for schools to enforce rules that derogatory or harassing comments or behaviours related to any students religious choice (or choice to be non-religious) will not be tolerated.  The school does not need to (and should not) try to teach religious tolerance - that has to be left up to the parents.  But they can establish a policy that - regardless of what a student personally believes about the choices other may make about their own spiritual lives - during the time they are in school, those opinions are to be kept to themselves.  Some may say that's splitting hairs, but I think it can be done, and if it is enforced equally - any of the behaviours mentioned above would be considered out-of-bounds, as would, say, an atheist child taunting a Christian student about being a "goody two-shoes", or something of that nature - doesn't send a message endorsing a religious life over a non-religious one (or vice versa), nor does it endorse any one religion over others.

Or maybe I'm just being unreasonably optimistic...

Evacuation Plans

While I certainly hope that, as has been the case previously, the rumours of Salon's pending demise are exaggerated, I also hope that the Salon Bloggers community will find a way to survive. 

For those who do not yet know, there is both a mailing list and a webring that we can use to stay in contact.  If you'd like to join, the webring sign-up form is available here, and you can join the mailing list either by filling out the form in my sidebar or by sending a blank e-mail to  salonblog-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

If you run into any difficulty signing up for either, please feel free to contact me at kriselda@differentstrings.info.

Just speechless....

US to punish German 'treachery'

Peter Beaumont, David Roseand Paul Beaver
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros.

The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'.

The hawks believe that making an example of Germany will force other countries heavily dependent on US trade to think twice about standing up to America in future.

Juvenile time

Typically, when two or more juveniles commit a crime, the older one is considered the "leader", or the more culpable, because they are older.  Yet the way our juvenile system works can lead to an odd result. 

Tonight on American Justice (a documentary program that deals with crime, criminals and the justice system in general), they did a piece on Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, the two boys who at ages 13 and 11, killed a teacher and four students at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Because of their ages, the justice system had to handle them as juveniles, not adults (at the time of the killings, only those over 14 could be tried as adults), and the stiffest sentence they could be given would hold them in a juvenile facility until they each turned 18, at which point they will go to an adult facility until they are 21.  Once they turn 21, they will be released with clean records.

Here's the irony, though.  Even if both boys were considered equally culplable, Mitchell Johnson's sentence works out to 8 years, and Andrew Golden gets 10 years - for the same criminal acts.  If, as is usually the case, Johnson is considered more responsible since he's older - he still gets a shorter sentence than Golden, simply because he was the elder when the crime was committed.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but there just seems to be something wrong with this current scenario...

Whaddya mean he might die?...

ReadMe.blog has a note about an article on CNN that includes a quote from a woman who is protesting the war because her son is in the Marines.  Seems he joined the Marines because he needed money for his education, and his mother doesn't him dying, and is against his killing innocent people because that's not how she raised him.

As ReadMe notes:

Does this woman realize that you don't join The Marines to get a free meal ticket? Killing and dying for our country is kind of the whole point of the armed services. Unbelievable.

Sadly, I think too many parents - and kids - have had this same kind of mentality about the military.  They see it as a way to earn money and get an education, but dismiss the very real risk that we will go to war if the leadership decides that we have a reason to (or because he just seems to feel like it, as the case may be).  Part of that may well be because the military recruitment advertisements focus on the monetary and educational benefits of service (since advertising that you might get to go to exotic places, kill people and maybe even die yourself isn't going to be the kind of marketing pitch that's going to attract the type of recruits the military wants), but the level of ignorance this mother is showing is inexcusable.

Update:  While checking out PatriotWatch (an interesting blog I just discovered), I noticed a section called "Remixed Propaganda Posters", which links to their CafePress shop and offers a variety of hilarious WWII-stype propaganda posted, updated for today's world.  One in particular seems appropriate for this story...  take a moment to check it out.

I love my husband (and damn well better love fortune cookies!)

We have a local Chinese restaraunt that has FANTASTIC food, and extremely reasonable prices.  Too reasonable, actually.  They have a $10 minimum order for delivery, and my usual order is a pint of Sweet and Sour Pork and a side order of Crab Rangoon.  I can't eat all of it, but those are the smallest quanities I can get.  It only costs $8.01, thought, including tax, so I have to send hubby down to pick it up when I'm in the mood for it (which lately has been a lot.)

Today, I knew there was no way he'd want to go out and get it, though - in addition to being fairly lazy (which he readily admits to), he's also been kinda tired all day, and the weather is a bit messy.  Rather than being my usual bitchy self who tries to talk him into it anyway,  I thought I'd see if I could figure out how to get my order up to $10 so they'd deliver it - without wasting food (and I don't like reheated Chinese take-out - no idea why, just picky about it).  Enter the one food that Chinese restaurants order that (a) last for a while and (b) don't have to be reheated.

Fortune Cookies.

And here we have those damnable reasonable prices again.  Fortune Cookies are 10 cents each.  And I had a bit over $2 to make up.  So, right now I'm waiting for a pint of Sweet and Sour Pork, an order of Crab Rangoon and two dozen Fortune Cookies.  (I did have to have him call it in though - I couldn't stop laughing enough to do it myself.)

No More Salon?

Not exactly the news I want to hear....

Posted on Fri, Feb. 14, 2003

Salon warns it may not survive beyond February

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- Online magazine publisher Salon Media Group Inc. on Friday warned that it may not survive beyond this month if it can't raise more money to pay its rent and other bills.

The San Francisco-based company painted a grim financial picture in a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Things are so bad, Salon said, it stopped paying rent for its San Francisco headquarters in December, prompting the landlord to issue a Jan. 29 demand for a $200,000 payment.

To raise money, the company said it may sell its rights to $5.6 million worth of advertising on a Cablevision Systems Corp. subsidiary for as little as $1 million.

Friday's was the latest in a series of dire projections made by Salon. The company warned late last year it might go out of business, but then raised enough money to stay alive temporarily. Salon's troubles caused its stock to be delisted from the Nasdaq Stock Market in November.

Although its news coverage and commentary have attracted a loyal audience, Salon hasn't been able to make money. The company said it lost another $1.3 million during the final three months of 2002, bringing its cumulative deficit to $81 million.

Unable to drum up enough advertising to pay the bills, Salon started charging subscriptions to read some of its stories in 2001. The company began charging fees for all its once-free content late last month as part of its last-ditch survival effort. At of Dec. 31, Salon's site had 47,300 subscribers.

Discussion at MetaFilter

Happy Happy

As one who loves bad weather, I'm kind of in heaven right now.  Looking at my local TV's weather-warning graphic (you know the ones, that sit in the lower corner of your screen so you constantly see what the severe weather threat is, except, of course, during commercial breaks), we're currently under both a winter storm warning and a severe thunderstorm warning (I love it when Thor decides to stop by for a visit), plus the counties immediately south of us have a severe thunderstorm watch in effect.  If you don't hear from me for a bit, it may be that our cable has gone out.  <laughing happily>

Impeaching Bush?

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has drawn up Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft.  The website VoteToImpeach.org features a posting of Clark's Articles, which specify the reasons for impeachment and notes that Clark has prepared on the historical power of impeachment and its application in this case.

The site also offers you the ability to indicate your support for impeachment.  Notice of this support will be hand delivered to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and to the ranking Democrat on the Committee.

Clark served as Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson from 1967 to 1969, and supervised the drafting and passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.  A biography of him included as part of an interview by The Sun Magazine also notes:

After the Gulf War, in 1991, Clark initiated a war-crimes tribunal, which tried and found guilty President George Bush and Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, among others. Clark went on to write a book, The Fire This Time (Thunder's Mouth Press), describing the crimes he says were committed by U.S. and NATO forces during the Gulf War. When asked why he focuses on the crimes of his own country, instead of those committed by Iraq, Clark says that we, as citizens, need to announce our principles and "force our government to adhere to them. When you see your government violating those principles, you have the highest obligation to correct what your government does, not point the finger at someone else."

Hold the cheese

One of the beauties of capitalism is that we can often use the marketplace to make our voices heard on political issues by which products and companies we choose to support or boycott.  Right now, a number of people are championing boycotts of French, German, Belgian and Luxembourgian companies.  (If anyone knows the proper term for "people or things from Luxembourg, please let me know - the one I used is a mouthful.)  While I may find the idea kind of amusing, it's their right to do so and if it makes a difference, more power to them.

One such group is the Women's Republican Club, who have initiated their boycott to coincide with Valentine's Day, since many of the "luxury" gifts given on Valentine's Day are imported.  They did, however, want to make note that some items one might think are from the targeted countries aren't.

Since the Mercedes M class is manufactured in the United States, not Germany, and Godiva chocolates made for American distribution are produced in Pennsylvania, not Belgium, these products are exempt from the boycott.

So, if you want to get that special girl some nifty chocolates, or are planning to splurge on a new car for your sweetie, you're ok.

Marc Rafabert, or fromages.com, is taking the boycott of French cheese in stride.

''It's their way of showing their patriotism. Good for them,'' he said. ''We've decided not to reply to the e-mails. What good would it do? I'm not a politician. ... But you've got to be adult. I don't think it's a very well thought-through reaction.''

Refabert said he thinks American customers won't be able to maintain the boycott for too long because French cheese tastes too good.

''It's just temporary. They'll come back in two or three months.''

Another tactic

Saying President Bush is "not a king," a group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop the president from launching a war against Iraq without Congressional approval.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prevent them from launching an invasion of Iraq.

U.S. Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

[...] The other members of Congress named as plaintiffs are: Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Jim McDermott, D-Wash.; Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.; and Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

This lawsuit is highly unlikely to succeed.  Courts are generally not eager to get involved in foreign policy,  and similar suits in the past have all failed.

[...] A similar lawsuit filed against Bush's father before the Gulf War by 54 members of Congress was denied by a federal judge in December 1990.

That judge said he agreed in principle that the president must seek congressional authorization for war, but said the president at that time had not clearly committed to a course of action.

The judge also noted that only about 10 percent of the Congress had asked for the injunction -- a percentage he said wasn't representative of the entire body.

Bonifaz said this case is different because in addition to the six members of Congress, soldiers have asked for the injunction.

Oops, they did it again

False Alarm?

Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information

By Brian Ross, Len Tepper and Jill Rackmill
ABCNews.com

Feb. 13 — A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York.

 

[...] The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.

The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers.

[...] It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.

"This person did not pass," said Cannistraro.

[...] Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted.

Well, I wouldn't say it's time to put the duct tape back into storage, but once again, it looks like there's not quite as much to worry about as the government would have had us believe. 

This isn't the first time, of course, that an informant has lied to The Powers That Be, nor is the first time they've been caught with their pants down.  How long did the news broadcasts remind us to be on the lookout for five suspicious men who'd snuck into the country before someone figured out that they didn't actually exist?  And, of course, several of the alerts from last summer - possible attacks by scuba divers, attacks on apartment buildings, attacks on banks, and others - eventually turned out to be questionable as well.

Personally, I think it's beyond inexcusable for them to raise the threat level and release information on "potential" actions without having first done a reasonably thorough verification that the information - and informant - are reliable.  True, lie detector tests aren't 100% accurate.  Very little is in intelligence gathering; but any informant reporting a potential threat of such significance that they're contemplating putting the entire country on alert should be subjected to a lie detector at the very least.  Doing the test after the alert has been sounded is not only pointless, it's also dangerous - and not just because of the contribution it makes to alert fatigue.

Think about it.  We have someone in custody whose best interests are served by giving us "information" on possible threats - if TPTB think he's telling the truth, he's likely to get a better deal out of them, and they'll put the country on alert and, even if the informant's group doesn't get to actually kill a bunch of us, they still get to have put us all in fear (which, of course, is a form of non-lethal terrorism).  But it goes beyond even that.  If he's lying, but convinces TPTB that there is a threat and they put out an alert, once the truth comes out that it was a false alarm, we all get just that much more skeptical about the alerts, and maybe pay that much less attention to them

There's one other danger, though, that comes with not giving a lie detector test until after the cats out of the bag.  What if he was telling the truth.  What if the threat this terrorist reported to TPTB is real.  TPTB issue the alert, we all get nervous, blah, blah blah.  Then someone gets the bright idea that maybe they should give this guy a lie detector test, just in case they've worried us all for nothing. Presuming that the terrorist isn't stupid, and that he still has some loyalties to the people he was working with before he was captured,  all of a sudden he's got a way to help them out - courtesy of our own law enforcement officials.  We all know that someone can fool a lie detector test into thinking that they're telling the truth.  Why couldn't they fool it into thinking they're telling a lie?  The benefit to our terrorist and his friends would be that now we're all thinking that we're safe, we'll let our guard down that much more, and we become that much more resistant to future warnings, and law enforcement is going to focus their energy on other possible threats.  It just became that much easier for the plan to go forward - and to make TPTB look even more like fools than just falling for a liar does. 

It's paranoia fun?

A Living Memorial?

Each issue, Newsweek magazine publishes a column called "My Turn", which, I suppose, could be considered a glorified "letter to the editor", but I've usually found it more interesting than that would imply.  It's a column written by, well, pretty much anyone, on whatever subject they choose - and often focuses on topics that I know I wouldn't have though of otherwise.

This week's is on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center, and is written by the wife of one of the men killed in the attack.  She has a very interesting suggestion for the memorial, and one I think would be an excellent way of commemorating the lives lost:

Instead, I like the idea of an eternal flame, and a space for trees—living, growing trees, 2,792 of them, each bearing a plaque with a name. You could visit Glenn’s tree, or Dominick’s, or Leo’s, or Jane’s. Over the years New Yorkers would watch these trees grow, and family and friends could leave tributes by their trees on special occasions. This would be meaningful to every visitor without feeling morbid to any. And how better to remind those who pass these trees on the way to and from work each day, or who lunch in their shade, of the lives that once thrived here?

The idea of a living memorial has a certain beauty to it, and I hope that something like this would be given serious consideration. 

Terror alert warning warning

New tonight - information you need about the potential dangers of being prepared in the event of a terror attack!

You read that right - there are dangers to being prepared.  My local news tonight did a story about growing concern that some people may be going overboard in their preparations for a potential terror attack, and may be putting themselves at risk because of it. 

Now, granted, they have a valid point - for all the talk lately about getting duct tape and plastic sheeting to cover windows and cracks in the home (to prevent chemical or biological agents from seeping into your house), little has been said about the fact that you can actually over-seal a home.

In general, structures need some form of outside ventilation to bring in new air.  Additionally, in homes with gas furnaces or appliances, fresh air is needed to help keep the by-products of burning gas (which include carbon monoxide - lethal in and of itself) from building up.  The concern is that some people will decide that if sealing up one or two rooms is good, sealing up the entire house is that much better.

Still, there's just something about getting warnings about following the advice of previous warnings is a bit on the surrealistic side.  As if the world wasn't feeling screwy enough right now, even safety can be hazardous to you.

On a lighter note....

 X-Men 1.5 ROCKS.  Excellent commentaries, good behind-the-scenes stuff, and 6 scenes that were left out - all worth seeing. 

I've never read any of the X-Men comics, seen any of the animated shows, or otherwise been made familiar with the X-Men universe - and I had NO desire whatsoever to see this movie.  When it came out on cable, though, my husband prevailed upon me to give it a chance, because he loved it so much.  It's been quite a while since I lost count of how many times I've seen it.... What a ride :)

Judgement call

Fox News Carries Bin Laden Speech Uninterrupted

Fox News Channel chose not to heed a request by the Bush administration to show restraint in broadcasting taped messages purported to have originated from Osama bin Laden and instead carried a new message ostensibly from bin Laden in its entirety as it was being carried by the Al-Jazeera Arabic news network. The administration had earlier warned that such messages could contain coded instructions to terrorists. CNN and MSNBC carried only highlights of the bin Laden statement.

I can certainly understand that a news network would want to bring the full news story to the public - and there's been a great deal of criticism lately that news outlets have not necessarily been providing complete coverage of important information.  At the same time, however, the possibility that these tapes, ostenibly from Osama bin Laden may include coded instructions is something that needs to be taken very seriously - especially when one is released at a time when we're being told that we have to be on heightened alert and that the government is concered about what they consider to be credible threats.

Under these circumstances, it's my opinion that broadcasting the tape in its entirety is irresponsible.  There are many factors that need to be considered when deciding what and how to report on something, and the risk to the public safety should be one of them.  In most cases, reporting on a story or about an incident doesn't contain any kind of a threat to the public safety, and, indeed, not doing so may be the greater threat.  But tapes that are allegedly being produced by a man who has made it clear that he wishes to destroy our country, and is the head of a global network that has to find very discreet ways of communicating, are really a different matter.

Regardless, I do have to say that I am glad that the government can only request that they not broadcast the tapes in full, rather than being able to order them not to, or punish them if they do.  I may want the editors and directors of our news media to use better judgement, but under no circumstances do I think the government should be able to dictate what can or cannot be shown.  In a way, I suppose, Fox's choice is a reaffirmation of the fact that - even though it may not always seem like it, we do still have a mostly-free press, and while they're not perfect, they're better than the alternative.

The only thing we have to fear...

We're currently under an "orange" alert, meaning that the risk of a terrorist attack is heightened, though no one can yet say when it might happen, where, what kind of attack it might be or anything else useful.  Granted, we need to be aware to be on alert, but the vagueness of it all tends to make me feel more helpless than secure.

Of course, sometimes I think the attack is already underway - and that rather than a biological, chemical, nuclear or physical attack, we're being attacked through our news media.  The news these last few days has been filled with news of one new potential threat after another.  India test-launching a missle that can reach Pakistan.  Iran reprocessing spent uranium fuel and mining uranium in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.  North Korea having an untested missle that could reach the US.  Saddam using his civilians as "human shields" so he can blame us for the massive casualties that will result and get more people mad at us. The military being concerned enough about the possiblity of a biological or chemical attack against our troops in Iraq that they're talking about making arrangements to cremate soldiers who are killed in such an attack (to prevent the further spread of whatever agent they're attacked with), rather than returning them home in flag-draped coffins. The government telling us to put together "disaster kits", including plastic sheeting and duct tape to help seal up our windows in the event of a chemical or biological attack.

Yeah, I'd have to say I'm feeling pretty terrorized right now.

The CARE act

ACLU Action Alert:

From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
To: ACLU Action Network Members
Date: February 12, 2003
Support Civil Rights: Oppose the Faith-Based Initiative!

Two months ago, President Bush bypassed Congress and through executive fiat implemented his program for government-funded religion, a scheme that Capitol Hill had repeatedly rejected.  By executive order, he not only ensured that public money was available to religious groups, but also that they were entitled to fund discriminatory practices with that money.  Now, some Senators are trying to worsen an already bad situation.

Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) have re-introduced their government-funded religion bill and are pushing for quick Senate action. 

Take Action now!  Your actions in the last Congress stopped discriminatory legislation from passing, forcing Bush to act by executive order.  You can continue to stop discrimination by opposing the CARE Act!  Click here to get more information and to send a free fax.

The truth will out

Hesiod at Counterspin Center (if you're not reading it yet, you should check it out) has sussed out Bush's most recent plan to solve all his problems:

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: A Ha! Now we find out why the Bush administration issued an Orange alert, and told everyone to stock up on disaster supplies. It was to stimulate the retail sector!

Communications breakdown

Hints not shared in Oklahoma City bombing?

John Solomon
Associated Press

Two federal law enforcement agencies had information before the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing suggesting that white supremacists living nearby were considering an attack on government buildings. However, the intelligence was never passed on to other federal officials in the state, documents and interviews show.

[...] But federal investigators said that they had no information about a specific target and had not even heard of McVeigh until his arrest, making it impossible to issue a useful warning.

It turns out that the FBI had been concerned that white supremacists associated with Elohim City in Oklahoma might make some kind of terrorist attack on April 19, 1995, as one of their "heroes", Wayne Snell, was being executed that day.  Snell, along with two others, had been planning an attack (which was never launched) on the Alfred P. Murrah building - using plastique explosives and rocket launchers - in 1983, and were arrested 2 years later for the murder of a pawn broker.

Official reports indicate that no connection was ever found between Timothy McVeigh - who used a fuel and fertilizer bomb to destroy the Murrah building on April 19, 1995 - and Elohim City, but it seems more than a bit coincidental that he would choose to destroy the same target Snell has planned to attack on the day of Snell's execution.  In addition, this page from the ADL, indicates that McVeigh had contacted someone within Elohim City, and that

Prior to the attack, at least one corrections official claims that he heard Snell bragging that an attack would take place on the day of his execution, and even correctly predicted that the initial response would be for people to assume that it had to be Middle Eastern terrorists who had caused the explosion.  In addition, the ATF had received reports that people within Elohim City were discussing attacks including assassinations and bombings.

ATF documents show the informant provided agents with fragments of practice explosives detonated by Elohim City members and had suspicions about a possible target. "It is understood that ATF is the main enemy of the people of EC," one report states. ATF offices were in the building McVeigh struck with a truck bomb.

Despite the warnings and concerns, however, very little information was shared between the agencies, or with the local agencies in Oklahoma City.  At one point, the ATF had planned a raid on Elohim City, but the FBI called it off.  Later, the FBI agent in charge at that point stated that "At the time, they hadn't told me everything they apparently knew."

However, the thousands of pages of federal investigative memos and handwritten notes obtained by the Associated Press portray government miscommunications that mirror the intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sadly, even though there was evidence following the OKC bombing that a lack of interagency cooperation and miscommunications may have prevented law enforcement from detecting and potentially stopping the plot to bomb the Murrah building, it's apparently little was done in the seven years between that tragedy and the WTC and Pentagon attacks to improve communication or cooperation. 

One would think that shouldn't be a lesson we would have to be taught twice.

Hey! Here's an idea....

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself." -- George W. Bush - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29.

Maybe if Saddam terrorizes himself enough, he'll get scared and surrender.....

Truth or Propaganda

President George W. Bush accused Saddam Hussein on Monday of using civilians as human shields to protect his military forces so the Iraqi leader could blame the United States should there be civilian casualties in the event of war.

I know I'm becoming exceptionally cynical when I read the above statement and my first thought is "Yeah, or Bush is just telling us this so that if there are a large number of civilian casualties, he can claim that - just as he said Saddam would - Iraqi civilians were used by their government as a means to try and prevent the US from attacking Iraqi military targets."

I have no evidence that this is the case, and I am not aware of any information that would indicate any of it is true - but I have so little faith in my government right now that I can more easily see them making up a story like this - so that they don't necessarily have to be quite so careful when selecting what targets to go after (or so that targets that are already in a location where civilian casualties might be high can still be used as targets, with the civilian casualties chalked up to Saddam using them as meat shields rather than admitting that we felt the target was so important that the lives of Iraqis living near it were irrevelvent.

Pressing issue?

Oklahoma State Senator Ben Robinson is a man of his word.  Fifteen years ago, when he was first running for office, a supporter made a substantial donation, and requested that he introduce a bill that would require cloth napkins be provided when being served barbecue.  It's taken a while, but Senator Robinson has now introduced just such a bill.

While I'm sure his supporter is pleased that he has honoured the request, somehow I think the Oklahoma Senate has more important things to do than worry about whether barbecue patrons have napkins - cloth or otherwise.

The TRUE Stella Awards -- 2002 Winners

Note from Kriselda: Many of you may have seen an e-mail being fowarded around featuring outrageous lawsuits called the "Stella Awards". (Stella is the name of the woman who sued McDonald's for having excessively hot coffee after she was burned while holding a cup between her legs as she was driving). The cases cited are quite outlandish, but they're also fake. None of the suits cited in the e-mail exist, and in most cases, there's no record to indicate that the incident cited as being the causitive event happened, either.

Randy Cassingham, author of THIS IS TRUE, a widely syndicated newspaper column featuring hilarious - but true - stories, tied up by a clever tagline. Recently, he also began publishing the True Stella Awards, inspired by the e-mail, but featuring real, verified court cases. The True Stella Awards newsletter is available free of charge, and in addition to his summaries of the cases, he also frequently includes thought-provoking comments from his readers, and responses from other readers to previously published comments, as well as his own responses.

Below are his choices for the 2002 True Stella Awards - cases that have really been filed and which demonstrate the lengths some people will go to in order to try and get "free" money via lawsuits.

If you wish to forward this message to anyone else, please be aware that you may do so, provided that all of the information located below the horizontal lines is included, and is unaltered (including the copyright notice). This introductory material by me [Kriselda] is NOT a part of the message and MUST NOT be fowarded with the actual message itself.

Unlike the FAKE cases that have been highly circulated online for the last several years (see http://www.StellaAwards.com/bogus.html for details), the following cases have been researched from public sources and are confirmed TRUE by the ONLY legitimate source for the Stella Awards: www.StellaAwards.com. To confirm this copy is legitimate, see http://www.StellaAwards.com/2002.html

-v-

#7: Attorney Philip Shafer of Ashland, Ohio, flew on Delta Airlines from New Orleans to Cincinnati and was given a seat, he says, next to a fat man. "He was a huge man," Shafer says. "He and I [were] literally and figuratively married from the right kneecap to the shoulder for two hours." He therefore "suffered embarrassment, severe discomfort, mental anguish and severe emotional distress," he claims in a lawsuit against the airline. Shafer figures this embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish and emotional distress could be cured by a $9,500 payment from Delta. If Shafer isn't careful, that might be dwarfed by the divorce settlement his "huge" (seat)mate might demand.

#6: "The Godfather of Soul" James Brown has a "grudge" against his daughters Deanna Brown Thomas and Yamma Brown Lumar, they allege. They say Brown "vowed to the media that his daughters will never get a dime from him" and "James Brown has kept his word." So they have done what any kid would do when cut off from their rich daddy's bank account: they sued him for more than $1 million, claiming that they are owed royalties on 25 of his songs which, they say, they helped him write even though, at the time, they were children. For instance, when Brown's 1976 hit "Get Up Offa That Thing" was a chart-topper, the girls were aged 3 and 6. It's enough to make Brown switch to the Blues.

#5: Utah prison inmate Robert Paul Rice, serving 1-15 years on multiple felonies, sued the Utah Department of Corrections claiming the prison was not letting him practice his religion: "Druidic Vampire". Rice claimed that to do that, he must be allowed sexual access to a "vampress". In addition, the prison isn't supplying his specific "vampiric dietary needs" (yes: blood). Records show that Rice registered as a Catholic when he was imprisoned in 2000. "Without any question we do not have conjugal visits in Utah," said a prison spokesman when the suit was thrown out. Which just goes to prove prison life sucks.

#4: Every time you visit your doctor, you're told the same old things: eat less, exercise more, stop smoking. Do you listen? Neither did Kathleen Ann McCormick. The obese, cigarette-smoking woman from Wilkes-Barre, Penn., had high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a family history of coronary artery disease. Yet doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center "did not do enough" to convince her to work to improve her own health. Unsurprisingly, she had a heart attack which, she says in a federal lawsuit, left her a "cardiac invalid". In addition to eight doctors, she's suing their employer -- the U.S. government -- demanding a minimum of $1 million in compensation.

#3: In 1997 Bob Craft, then 39, of Hot Springs, Montana, changed his name to Jack Ass. Now, he says that MTV's TV show and movie "Jackass" was "plagiarized" from him, infringes his trademarks and copyrights, and that this has demeaned, denigrated and damaged his public image. No attorney would take the case, so he has filed suit on his own against MTV's corporate parent, demanding $50 million in damages. If nothing else, Jack Ass has proved he chose his name well.

#2: Hazel Norton of Rolling Fork, Miss., read there was a class action suit against the drug Propulsid, which her doctor had prescribed to her for a digestive disorder. Despite admitting that "I didn't get hurt by Propulsid," Norton thought "I might get a couple of thousand dollars" by joining the lawsuit. When her doctor was named in the suit, he quit his Mississippi practice -- where he was serving the poor. He left with his wife, a pediatrician and internist. That left only two doctors practicing at the local hospital. So while Norton wasn't harmed by the drug, all her neighbors now get to suffer from drastically reduced access to medical care because of her greed.

AND THE WINNER of the 2002 True Stella Awards:

Sisters Janice Bird, Dayle Bird Edgmon and Kim Bird Moran sued their mother's doctors and a hospital after Janice accompanied her mother, Nita Bird, to a minor medical procedure. When something went wrong, Janice and Dayle witnessed doctors rushing their mother to emergency surgery. Rather that suing for malpractice, the lawsuit claimed "negligent infliction of emotional distress" -- not for causing distress to their mother, but for causing distress to THEM for having to SEE the doctors rushing to help their mother. The case was fought all the way to the California Supreme Court, which finally ruled against the women. Which is a good thing, since if they had prevailed doctors and hospitals would have had no choice but to keep YOU from being anywhere near your family members during medical procedures just in case something goes wrong. In their greed, the Bird sisters risked everyone's right to have family members with them in emergencies.

TO CONFIRM THE VALIDITY OF THESE CASES, get more information on the True Stella Awards, or sign up for a free e-mail subscription to new cases as they are issued, see http://www.StellaAwards.com/2002.html

Copyright 2003 www.StellaAwards.com. This message may be forwarded as long as it remains complete and unaltered.

There are no words.....

From the Washington Post:

Our friends at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have outdone themselves this time, sending a deferential letter to Yasser Arafat about a Jan. 26 Jerusalem bombing in which a donkey -- but no human beings -- died after being strapped with explosives and detonated.

Yesterday we asked [PETA President Ingrid] Newkirk if she considered asking Arafat to persuade those who listen to him to stop blowing up people as well. "It's not my business to inject myself into human wars," she replied.

A professional at work

Last week, Bill O'Reilly created quite a stir when we browbeat guest Jeremy Glick, the son of a Port Authority worker who had died in the 9/11 attacks, for having signed the "Not In Our Name" ad and opposting the attacks against Afghanistan.  During the brief interview, O'Reilly insulted Glick several times, told him to "keep his mouth shut", claimed that Glick's father wouldn't have approved of his positions, and eventually ordered him to "shut up" and for his producers to "cut his mic".  If you'd like to hear the actual exchange, an .mp3 of it has been posted by poisonskin.com.

Camping

Earlier this week, Howard Coble (R-NC), the chairman of the House committee on Homeland Security claimed that he supported FDR's decision to put the Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II, because they were being put there - at least in part - for their own protection.

Now, I wasn't alive back then, and I'm not much of a student of history - but even I know that we weren't locking up the Japanese-Americans for their own good. (And, yes, it worries me that we have someone that ignorant chairing a committee on Homeland Security.)  We were doing it because we were afraid that they would have more loyalty to the Japan than America and were therefore a threat to national security. 

The internment of the Japanese-Americans during the war is one of the sadder chapters in American history. We were afraid, and we let our fear get the better of us as a nation.  We took away the civil rights of thousands of people - most of whom had done nothing except be born with the wrong ancestry (well, wrong for that time -- the 'wrong' ancestry seems to keep changing depending on who we're most afraid of at the moment) - and then took decades to acknowledge that what we'd done was wrong.

I suppose the good news is that Rep. Coble says that he would not support the internment of Arab-Americans today, though his rationale for doing so seems a bit odd.  His spokeswoman, Missy Branson, explains it this way:

Seeking to clarify the comments, Branson said Coble would not endorse the internment policy today, but he thought it was an appropriate decision at the time because American society was much less integrated and multicultural.

"We were much less tolerant and understanding of other cultures," Branson said.

"The emotion that surrounded the bombing of Pearl Harbor was so intense, the possibility of harm coming to Japanese Americans was very strong as a result."

Maybe it's just me, but from what I can see, the emotion surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon is pretty intense - intense enough that the President is using it to convince Americans we need to attack Iraq - a country we have no evidence to indicate it was even involved in the WTC/Pentagon attack.  It's intense enough that most Americans are turning a blind eye to the new rules requiring most men from Middle Eastern countries (and North Korea) to submit a special registration to the INS and check in with them periodically.  It's intense enough that we're letting the government take away our supposedly cherished rights and freedoms through the USA PATRIOT act (and it's propsed sequal), creeping power-grabs by the Justice Department, the development of the Total Information Awareness project and other erosions and intrusions being developed by our government.  It's intense enough that we let our government keep secrets from us, lie to us, manipulate us and scare us. 

We've been fortunate that, thus far, there hasn't been a wholesale outbreak of hate crimes against Arab-Americans - but that doesn't mean that there haven't been any; and Arab-Americans are still at risk from harm other than physical attacks.  The FBI has been given leeway to begin spying in mosques, and FBI offices have been told that as part of their threat assessments for their local areas, they need to include a count of how many mosques there are, a step the ACLU has likened to an ethnic survey done during WWII, and which helped serve as part of the beginnings of the Japanese-American internment. 

Arab-Americans are being more closely watched by the government and by the general public, and there's a greater chance that innocuous actions or comments by Arab-Americans will be viewed as potentially threatening, which can result in police intervention where none is needed (as was the case a few months back for 3 medical students whose comments, which they claim were about how to get a car from one state to another, were taken by a waitress as being a discussion about blowing up either a plane or a building - and who were then pulled over by the police, searched and interrogated.)

One of Coble's colleagues, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) gave a wonderful example of the kind of mentality that our current fear of what Arabic people might do can lead to.  When speaking about the state of American readiness said:

"You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness (husband) Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, `You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.' Every little town you go into, you know?"

Given that we, as a nation, have finally progressed to the point where we at least seem to recognize that our treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was shameful, I suspect that it would be difficult for the government to get away with rounding up all Arabs and Arab-Americans and put them in internment camps - though my fellow citizens have been known to surprise me lately with what they let the government get away with.  But even if we don't construct barbed-wire fences and barracks to house Arabs and Arab-Americans away from the rest of the population, there are other ways to isolate and, in a sense, segregate "them" from the rest of "us" - the infiltration of mosques by the FBI, closer surveillance by law enforcement, various forms of racial profiling and suspicious eyes and ears of friends and neighbors can segregate Arabs and Arab-Americans socially, politically and economically - without a single camp being constructed.

Unexpected Audacity

I was reading an article on how the disintegration of the Shuttle Columbia, like many other tragedies of the last few decades, played out in full view of the public - but rather than being on TV, this time, the public was mainly tuned into the Internet.  As an example of how the disaster unfolded online, the article provides a link to a thread at the Free Republic message forum that was started by a Freeper wanting to give a heads up reminder to anyone on the west coast who might be interested in seeing the Shuttle pass overhead. 

The posts started well before there was any thought something might be amiss, and follow through as the forum participants realize that the Shuttle is out of communication, that the cameras should have switched to show the Shuttle coming in for it's landing, that it is long past the time when some kind of news should have broadcast, and finally that the worst has apparently happened.

The thread, to that point, was haunting - people posting what they had seen as the Shuttle flew over their heads, one commenting on the time he saw one of the moon capsules coming in for splashdown, and the sad realizations of what it was they were truly witnessing.  Then comes post number 79, posted by "1John2 3and4", no more than 2 hours after the first signs that the Shuttle was in danger:

ok, im so sad....but i just thought it would be good for someone in saudi arabia to get footage of crowd reaction....you know what i mean here....would serve as a good reminder

Initially, the point the poster was trying to make went right over my head.  Maybe I'm just as blood-thirsty in my outlook or as mercenary in my tactics, but as I read on, I wondered what this enigmatic message was supposed to mean. 

In post 88, "1John2 3and4" comments on how he's tried to pass the above sentiment on to local radio stations:

AND i just phoned the local talk radios, KLIF 570AM, and WBAP 820AM....the call screener at KLIF chided me for thinking such a thing, saying we didnt need to see such a thing, to which i (gently) replied; "what about going under the heading of: 'the public's RIGHT TO KNOW'?" the WBAP screener thought it was a good idea....

Finally, in number 91, "1John2 3and4" states more clearly what it is he's referring to:

you know, im not sure about the appropriateness(?) of getting such footage and broadcasting it right away, but it sure would be viscerally powerful (to see the muslim crowd(s) celebrating) at SOME point....

In today's climate, there's no way that the Shuttle disaster won't be used to score political points, most likely by politicians on both sides of the aisle.  It's distasteful and it's unseemly, but it's the American way.  Somehow, though, I find it nearly unimaginable that people were already thinking of ways to exploit the tragedy (and, in this case, the reaction some Muslims had to the news) no more than 2 hours after it occured?  Unbelievable.

It's V-O DAY!

Be sure to check out the best of the Salon Blogs at Virtual Occcoquan, lovingly compiled each week by Mark Hoback.

A Puzzle

I'm sure that most of you who've listened to pop radio remember Meat Loaf's enigmatically titled "I'd Do Anything For Love, But I Won't Do That".  One of the most distinctive things about that song, aside from the fact that whatever "That" is is never identified, is the woman who sings the song with Meat Loaf.

Her name is Patty Russo.  She's a singer from New York City, and has shown up in a number of places as a "featured singer" or doing "guest vocals".  She has one HELL of an expressive, powerhouse voice, and has not only performed with Meat Loaf (on a number of other tracks besides the one mentioned above, including a duet version of "Is Nothing Sacred"), but also with Trans-Siberian Orchestra ["After the Fall" - clip 1 and clip 2; "I'll Keep Your Secrets"], and, more recently, in concert with Queen, singing lead on "Another One Bites the Dust" and "The Show Must Go On".   

What's weird is that she has never, as far as I can find, released a single or a CD of her own.  She's apparently putting together a demo, but I'm not even sure why, with what is already available of her performances, why no one has just snapped her up and given her a contract.

No, this isn't really of any significance in terms of "the big picture", but its one of those things that just keep nibbling away at the back of my mind...  I really do hope that if she's simply been overlooked so far that someday someone with some authority will realize what a gem she is and let her get out there and sing for herself...

[Special Kudos to MeatLoaf, or whomever designed his multimedia website.  In addition to providing information on Mr. Loaf, along with audio and video clips of his performances, the site also has subsections focusing on many of the artists who have performed with Meat over the years, including Patti.  What a great way to let those who have helped make his music good shine a bit for themselves! 

Several years ago, I saw MeatLoaf in concert, and one thing that really struck me was how genuine his gratitude was to the audience and his "backup" performers.  He made it very clear that he knows that his popularity isn't his alone, and he was very generous in sharing it with the others on stage.  I'm glad to see the same attitude extended to his website.]

The Blair switch project

As most of us who pay attention to the news have already read, the British dossier [available in HTML and downloadable in both PDF and Word formats] that Colin Powell praised so highly during his presentation on Wednesday was largely plagiarized from three sources, including a graduate paper published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). 

It's bad enough for a governmental paper that is supposed to help solidify the case for going to war to be shown to have been fraudulently presented (by, at the very least, giving the impression that it was the original work of the British Intelligence community), but this paper appears to have been, in some ways, almost mindlessly plagiarized.  Britian's Channel 4, which broke the story, has an article today demonstrating the similarities between the apparent source material and the plagiarized finished product.  They also point out that, in at least some places, the complilers of the British dossier didn't even bother to correct typographical errors.  An example:

Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated.

Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his original paper:

"The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam's immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head..." Note the comma after appointed.

Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: "Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War."

This second line is cut and pasted, complete with the same grammatical error.

On a somewhat ironic note, when Condaleeza Rice wrote her essay on "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying", one of the reasons she cites is that Iraq had allegedly plagiarized part of their declaration. 

Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program.

I have read several articles on this controversy, and one question that keeps coming up is "what does it matter if the material was plagiarized if it is accurate?".  In my opinion, it makes a difference on several levels.  First, the very act of plagiarizing calls into question the integrity of those who put the report together.  Beyond that, it is academic laziness at it's worst, and when decision-makers are using this material to help determine of war is necessary or to justify their decision to go to war, it is crucial that the information - and the information gatherers - be unquestionably trustworthy.  The fact that the compliers apparently didn't even check the source material or the final dossier closely enough to catch simple typographical errors calls into question how well they checked the information provided by the source material.

For me, though, the most troubling aspect is that it very clearly shows that those who are in support of this war will goto great lengths to push their agenda through - even if it means presenting information through fraudulent means.  Reports have indicated that much of the material in the British dossier is based on information that is roughly a decade old - and may or may not have much relevance in regards to the current situation.  In stealing old material and presenting it as current intelligence, the British dossier serves only to muddy the waters, not make anything clearer.  The whole situation raises the question of "why?" - why would the British decide to plagiarize these documents?  Is there no current intelligence to present? Do we know if they bothered to check out any of the sources for the original source material (and if so, did they at least check them out more thoroughly than they proofread their final dossier?) 

Had the British, rather than stealing the material outright, chosen to make use of the paper to support the intelligence data they wished to present or the conclusions they are drawing from that intelligence, providing proper credit to the author, it would have been a very different situation.  Readers of the dossier would have known that the British were relying on information from an outside source (the MERIA article), and could have thus chosen to review the MERIA article, see who originally wrote that and do additional research on its author, if they wanted.  They could even have gone through the MERIA article's footnotes, references and biblography, and looked into the validity of those sources. The ability to do this is crucial in decisions of this magnitude, and in the course of public debate on the issue. 

In the long run, the British have done more to hurt their case for war than anything.  Even if it turns out that the information in the dossier is valid, by showing themselves to be untrustworthy and willing to steal and lie to make a point, the credibility of the British and their intelligence community has just sunk a great deal in my opinion.

NOTE: Credit for catching the plagiarism goes to Dr. Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge lecturer who was familiar with the original paper published in MERIA, and maintains a detailed reference file looking at the claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons.  This reference file appears to be updated regularly, and was most recently updated on February 6, 2003, to include comments on Powell's presentation.

Another day, another threat to our civil rights...

The Center for Public Integrity has posted an article on a secret draft they've obtained of a new bill being developed by the Justice Department to expand upon the powers granted by the USA PATRIOT ACT.   I don't have a whole lot to say about the bill at this point since it seems to be still in the relatively early stages of development, but it is one I think we should be aware of an keep an eye on.  The CPI article aslo includes a link to the full text of the bill.

Fat, health and science

Jan, at Secular Blasphemy, has a post today about the journal Science, focusing an entire issue on obesity - an issue that has been getting a great deal of press lately.  While not a scientific or medical journal, last week, The New Republic ran a very interesting article [free registration required, I believe] regarding the issues of obesity, health and dieting.

From the introduction:

A careful survey of medical literature reveals that the conventional wisdom about the health risks of fat is a grotesque distortion of a far more complicated story. Indeed, subject to exceptions for the most extreme cases, it's not at all clear that being overweight is an independent health risk of any kind, let alone something that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. While having a sedentary lifestyle or a lousy diet--both factors, of course, that can contribute to being overweight--do pose health risks, there's virtually no evidence that being fat, in and of itself, is at all bad for you. In other words, while lifestyle is a good predictor of health, weight isn't: A moderately active fat person is likely to be far healthier than someone who is svelte but sedentary. What's worse, Americans' (largely unsuccessful) efforts to make themselves thin through dieting and supplements are themselves a major cause of the ill health associated with being overweight--meaning that America's war on fat is actually helping cause the very disease it is supposed to cure.

The article challenges many common beliefs about obesity, including the oft-cited figure that 300,000 deaths a year are attributable to obesity.  The authors note that the study which produced that number did not account for any confounding variables except gender, age and smoking - meaning that there may have been deaths included in those studies which may not have actually been caused by obesity. 

There are any number of people who die each year from heart attacks who appear to be in excellent physical condition.  In some cases, they may have inheirited an enlarged heart, or their heart may have become diseased from other factors, such as previously untreated infection.  If such things can happen to thin, fit patients, there's no reason that a fat patient can't have the same kinds of problems.  Unfortunately, if the patient is fat, the doctor may decide that the obesity is the "obvious" cause of death, and not look for anything further.   Those cases then get counted toward the "300,000" figure, but aren't actually obesity-related deaths, as the patient may well have died at the same age, from the same cause, even if they had never gained any excess weight. 

Similar scenarios exist with other causes of death or illness - yet in many cases, obesity may be a co-existing condition without actually being the causitive factor.  In my own case, some doctors have tried to say that my weight caused my arthritis - but while I know it hasn't helped any, the arthritis is the result of a misalignment in my kneecaps that existed when I was born - and the pain of the arthritis as I was growing up is one of the main reasons I have never been able to be very physically active (which, obviously, can contribute to weight gain).  It's frightning, though, how many doctors seem to assume that obesity can be blamed for almost anything.  I have them try to attribute the migraine headaches I get from time to time to my weight, disregarding the fact that my mother and my grandmother both suffered from migraines as well - and that I had headaches before my weight became excessive.  I was told that the tendonitis I developed in my wrists was because of my size, and not the 12 to 16 hours a day I was spending typing on the computer (8 hours at work, and another 4 to 8 hours of "play" when I got home).

By contrast, even though medical science has claimed for years that obesity causes diabeties, high blood pressure, heart disease and high cholesterol, despite my weight, I have none of those conditions, nor does my father, who (until recently) has also had a life-long battle with his weight. By contrast, my mother, who's weight is well within normal ranges, does have heart trouble, as did her normal-weight mother. Obviously, there is more that goes into these health conditions than just obesity.

As noted in the New Republic article:

In a decided majority of studies, groups of people labeled "overweight" by current standards are found to have equal or lower mortality rates than groups of supposedly ideal-weight individuals. University of Virginia professor Glenn Gaesser has estimated that three-quarters of all medical studies on the effects of weight on health between 1945 and 1995 concluded either that "excess" weight had no effect on health or that it was actually beneficial. And again, this remains the case even before one begins to take into account complicating factors such as sedentary lifestyle, poor nutrition, dieting and diet drugs, etc. "As of 2002," Gaesser points out in his book Big Fat Lies, "there has not been a single study that has truly evaluated the effects of weight alone on health, which means that 'thinner is healthier' is not a fact but an unsubstantiated hypothesis for which there is a wealth of evidence that suggests the reverse."

In regards to claims that losing weight is a way to help ensure a longer life, the article has this to say [Emphasis added]:

Tens of millions of Americans are trying more or less constantly to lose 20 or 30 pounds. (Recent estimates are that, on any particular day, close to half the adult population is on some sort of diet.) Most say they are doing so for their health, often on the advice of their doctors. Yet numerous studies--two dozen in the last 20 years alone--have shown that weight loss of this magnitude (and indeed even of as little as ten pounds) leads to an increased risk of premature death, sometimes by an order of several hundred percent. By contrast, over this same time frame, only a handful of studies have indicated that weight loss leads to lower mortality rates--and one of these found an eleven-hour increase in life expectancy per pound lost (i.e., less than an extra month of life in return for a 50-pound weight loss). This pattern holds true even when studies take into account "occult wasting," the weight loss that sometimes accompanies a serious but unrelated illness. For example, a major American Cancer Society study published in 1995 concluded in no uncertain terms that healthy "overweight" and "obese" women were better off if they didn't lose weight. In this study, healthy women who intentionally lost weight over a period of a year or longer suffered an all-cause increased risk of premature mortality that was up to 70 percent higher than that of healthy women who didn't intentionally lose weight. Meanwhile, unintentional weight gain had no effect on mortality rates. (A 1999 report based on the same data pool found similar results for men.) The only other large study that has examined the health effects of intentional weight loss, the Iowa Women's Health Study, also failed to find an association between weight loss and significantly lower mortality rates. In fact, in this 42,000-person study, "overweight" women had an all-cause mortality rate 5 to 10 percent lower than that of "ideal-weight" women.

It has also been known for many years that even when people do lose weight - whether via calorie-restrictive dieting, bariatric surgery (stomach stapling, gastric bypass, etc), diet drugs or other intentional methods, very few are able to maintain the weight loss for 5 years or more. In fact, studies have shown that as many as 95% of all diets fail to result in the intended weight loss or the dieter eventually regains whatever weight they did lose (and, in many cases, more).

The article also notes that it is physical fitness and activity that is more associated with overall good health and longevity than size.  A fat person who is otherwise physically fit and active is likely to be healthier - and have a longer life - than a thin person who is sedentary.  Perhaps, rather than focusing our national health resources on combating obesity, they could be focused on increasing physical activity in general.  As long as obesity itself is viewed as being some kind of scourge, fat people will find themselves viewed - and treated - as somehow being "lesser" than our thinner counterparts.  Focusing on actual fitness rather than obesity might help to alleviate at least some of that stigma, in addition to increasing overall health and reducing health-care costs - something that would be good all the way around.   

Service

Dave at No Code has a great piece reflecting back on the elimination of the draft and what impact that appears to have had on society.  While I'm not exactly a supporter of the draft itself, I think his final conclusion has a lot of merit, and that a program of that nature could do a lot to help young people gain a better connection with the idea that this country is our country, and we have both civic responsibilities and the right to have a voice in what is done here.

A repealing possiblity

From Representative Peter DeFazio's website:

DeFazio, Paul Introduce Bill to Repeal Bush's Blank Check for War

February 05, 2003

Press Release | Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416

WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement:

“I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.

“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.

“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”

The legislation introduced todaywould repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.


The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."

The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October, to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.

I don't know how much of a chance this bill has, but it's good to see that someone has at least decided to propose it.  As the press release notes, there have been a number of rationales offered for going to war against Iraq, but not a lot of evidence provided to back any of them up.  Combined with the way the initial resolution was handled - including the fact that the news of North Korea's secret uranium plant was withheld until after the vote (presumably to prevent it from "confusing" Congress or "interfereing" with Bush getting his way) - I think that Congress should repeal the initial authorization and reconsider the issue more thoroughly.

Also of interest, this entry at Stand Down (aka "No War Blog") discusses the near-complete lack of press coverage of this resolution.  It's a bit worrisome than none of the major news organizations seemed to consider a resolution this important to be worth mentioning.

Scary monsters

A participant in a mailing list I belong to posted today about North Korea's "warning" (read "threat") that they could attack pre-emptively, rather than waiting for the US to finish with Iraq.  She, understandably, noted that she found the idea scary.

I have to say I find that idea frightning as well, but what I find almost scarier is the way the administration has handled the entire situation with North Korea and the news of their nuclear program.

The Bush administration was initially warned (in a hand-delivered report) that North Korea was rebuilding their nuclear program in November of 2001, but that, according to an official at Lawrence Livermore Labs [one of the nations two nuclear weapons laboratories) who gave the administration that initial warning], and an "informed member of Congress", no one paid any attention to it because of the 9/11 attacks. There was also information that Pakistan was helping North Korea by giving them plans that show how to enrich uranium.  The National Intelligence Estimate, a report by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, confirmed these findings in June of 2002.

In addition, there are indications that Clinton's administration may have known that North Korea was doing research towards the goal of restarting their nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement as early as 1998 or 1999.  This information was also given to the Bush administration when they took over.  Why Clinton didn't do anything about it, I can't say, but part of why Bush didn't do anything when he first became President is reported to be that he was more worried about missile attacks and wanted to push the "Star Wars" missile defense project.

According to an MSNBC article:

"In June 2002, the intelligence community produced a National Intelligence Estimate that "conclusively" confirmed the North had turned from research and development to actual purchases of materials to construct a gas centrifuge facility to enrich uranium, according to a senior intelligence official.  The highly classified report was first disclosed by reporter Seymour M. Hersh in the Jan. 27 issue of the New Yorker magazine.

According to congressional sources, the document was not sent to the House or Senate intelligence committees, which were only briefed months after it was finished."

On top of all that, Congress was NOT told of the National Intelligence Estimate's confirmation that North Korea had begun purchasing materials for uranium enrichment, nor were they told that during an early October trip to North Korea, the Assistant Secretary of State had confronted North Korea about their having a secret uranium facility, and that they had CONFIRMED this to him.  Now, this was during the time that Bush was trying to get Congress to pass a resolution allowing him to go to war against Iraq if he felt it was necessary.  The news about what North Korea was doing was not given to Congress until AFTER they had passed the Iraq resolution.  In fact, IIRC, it was announced that same evening.  It's fairly common for news stories that the government doesn't want to get a lot of attention are released either on Friday nights, so that they won't hit the papers until Saturday (which is generally not a heavily read edition), or when there is already a big story in play, and they think that it will kind of get "lost" in the shuffle.

Our government has known for 4 or more years that North Korea was trying to break their agreement with us on nuclear weapons, and had known since June of 2002 that they had gone beyond research and was beginning to actually attempt to begin production.  They knew as of early October that they had a facility available to make the kind of Uranium that is needed to make nuclear weapons.

But rather than letting Congress know how serious the situation was, Bush kept rattling his sabre on the idea that we need to go to war against Iraq to prevent them from gaining weapons of mass destruction - and deliberately withheld the North Korean information, apparently to prevent Congress from thinking that there might be a more serious concern than Iraq.

I'm not saying that there is no reason to be concerned about Iraq - there very well may be, though I'm not entirely convinced yet.  But the way the North Korean situation has been handled is disgraceful, and the level of secrecy and manipulation involved is ridiculous. If anything, it makes it more obvious that there is something other than just the possibility of Iraq gaining WMDs going on with this - and, as with so many other things - serves as just one more reason I can't trust Bush.

Puzzles of the modern age....

"Aromatherapy" dishwashing soap?

Hey, is that a new car? No, it's a new automoblie....

Because I'm homebound, my doctor has to visit me in my home when I need care.  Luckily, I have found a wonderful doctor who is willing to do so.  Of course, because it's  a medical situation, it requires the intervention of my medical insurance, but I'm lucky there, too.  My coverage provides for my doctor to come to my home, and it doesn't cost me any more than if I were to go visit him in his office.

My doctor recently told me, though, that he's been having some problems with getting paid by my insurance company.  They keep telling him that he needs to have the visits pre-authorized, but then, of course, when he calls in to get it authorized they tell him it's not necessary - doctor visits in the home are covered.

Well, I finally called the insurance company today to try and clear things up, and discovered - much to my surprise - that the whole problem was simply a matter of terms.  It seems my doctor's office have been submitting the bills saying that he made a "Home Health Visit".  This, it turns out, is a big no-no.  "Home Health Visits", apparently, come from an agency - such as a "visiting nurse" program through one of the local hospitals - and must be pre-authorized.  If, however, he had been submitting his bills listing a "House Call", then they'd pay the bill without requesting any questions.

Now, maybe it's just me, but if you get a bill from a doctor's office, showing that the doctor had gone to the patient's home, and there were notes on the customer's files saying that she needed to doctor to come to her home, might it not make sense to either (a) realize that the "Home Health Visit" is actually a "House Call", or (b) just call the doctor's office and ask if maybe they meant to list it as a "House Call", rather than deny the bill? 

At least I can call my doctor's office now and let them know we've found the answer.... but you'll have to excuse me if I laugh about it more than just a little bit

A bit of good news to start the day

From an article on a recent LA Times poll:

WASHINGTON -- The share of Americans favoring President Bush's reelection in 2004 has fallen below 50%, while Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts have emerged as the leaders for the Democratic nomination to oppose him, a new Los Angeles Times poll has found.

Just 45% of registered voters said they are now likely to support Bush for reelection, while 40% said they were inclined to back the Democratic nominee, the survey found. Fifteen percent said they don't now lean in either direction

WTC Replacement Finalists

According to BBC reports, two finalists have been chosen for the new design of the World Trade Center.

Studio Libeskind

The Think Team

A separate contest will be held to design a memorial to those lost in the attack. 

Both the Libeskind and the Think Team designs feature towering structures that would become the tallest in the world, and it is expected that whichever one is chosen will take about a decade to complete.

Personally, I prefer the Think Team's design -- though I have to say that neither one of them really "speaks" to me the way I would hope a replacement for the WTC would.  Hopefully, whatever memorial is designed will have more of the kind of emotional impact I think the sight should have.

Odd news story of the day...

Producer Phil Spector arrested

Homicide investigation under way in Alhambra, Calif.

ALHAMBRA, Calif., Feb. 3 — Legendary record producer Phil Spector was arrested Monday for investigation of homicide after the body of a woman was found at a home in this Los Angeles suburb, authorities said.

I'd heard that Phil Spector was a real dog to his wife Ronnie, both during their marriage and after - making the divorce proceedings as unpleasant as possible - but somehow I just never thought I'd be hearing about him having murdered someone.

This is one of those stories I'll probably be following a bit....

Columbia - First launch... and last

The second-guessing begins

Washington Monthly has republished Gregg Easterbrook's 1980 Beam Me Out Of This Death Trap, Scotty - 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Goodbye, Columbia, an article he wrote about the apparent problems with the shuttle program a year before the first shuttle flight in 1981.  Sadly, even then, there were concerns about what might happen if some of the tiles from the underside of the shuttle were lost and how to effect a rescue if they did.  According to Easterbrook, they initially thought about installing a camera that would allow them to inspect the tiles once the shuttle was in orbit, but it was scrapped, in part because even if they knew that there were tiles missing, there was no feasible way to fix them.

Obviously, we don't know for sure if the tiles are, in fact, the cause of yesterday's disaster, but it's hard to dismiss the possiblity given that it was the left wing that was hit by the falling insulation, and it was on the left wing sensors that started going out and which recorded extreme heat - and possible drag - on re-entry.

Easterbrook has also written a new article for Time.com, arguing that the shuttle program needs to be shut down.  Personally, I don't know if I agree with him, but I have to admit he makes a fair amount of sense.  My lack of agreement stems more from the emotional attachment I have to the shuttle than from any actual logic. 

Something he point out, though, is that the shuttles we have now may have been repaired and updated periodically throughout their lives, but many of their systems and equipment are still based on 1970's and early 1980's technology - even though much better technology exists today.

Why did NASA stick with the space shuttle so long? Though the space shuttle is viewed as futuristic, its design is three decades old. The shuttle's main engines, first tested in the late 1970s, use hundreds more moving parts than do new rocket-motor designs. The fragile heat-dissipating tiles were designed before breakthroughs in materials science. Until recently, the flight-deck computers on the space shuttle used old 8086 chips from the early 1980s, the sort of pre-Pentium electronics no self-respecting teenager would dream of using for a video game.

My earliest memory is from when I was 4-and-a-half years old, when my family was on vaction, and my mother woke me up so that, first, I could see Neil Armstrong on TV as he made his first steps on the moon.  That part is kind of fuzzy, but what I remember so clearly, is when she took me outside, pointed up at the moon and said "That's where he is".  I had no real comprehension of what was happening, except that I knew it was something that had profoundly affected my parents, and that Mom thought it was important enough to wake me up so I could see it.  I knew it was something I wanted to remember.

Living near the debris field

This message was posted to one of the mailing lists I'm on.  It includes a note that the author has given permission for it to be passed on.

Nancy is on my MOreRescue group and lives in Nagadoches, where the shuttle fell to earth. She wanted everyone to have an idea of what they have been experiencing. It gives a whole different perspective. Pass it on with her permission. vk

---

For those of you who don't know, I work as a nite auditor at a La Quinta Motel in town. So I get to see the comings and goings of people in the wee hours of the morning when they are feeling a bit more open and talkative. Last nite was no exception.

We had the whole alphabet soup of groups still checking in after 11pm when I got there. The FBI, the DPS troopers, the FEMA people. The National Guard had a number of our rooms reserved, and it seemed to me the Guard personnel got younger looking as the nite went on. They were so proud of themselves in their uniforms! But some of them looked like they would really rather be home with Mom than out here doing what they were trained to do. They reminded me of boy scouts on a camping trip.

The newspapers were represented. San Antonio, Dallas, Ohio, California, Washington DC. Then London, The Associated Press, European Broadcasting, even Tokyo. Some of them had been called to Nacogdoches from trips they were taking in other countries, one from a vacation with the grandkids. They traded stories in the lobby about how big of a piece of debris they saw that day, it was like men swapping fish stories at a country store.

When Sharon dropped off the newspaper this morning she told me she has a guard in her front yard standing over a computer board, complete with serial numbers. (the board, not the guard.) She is torn between keeping him or planting an ivy on him.

When I got ready to leave this morning the traffic was light for a change. There was a film covering my car, I had to wash the windows so I could see out. I didn't speculate what that dust could contain.

Driving home I saw areas dotted with orange traffic cones with debris in the center. Each cone sculpture had one of the Boy Scouts standing guard over it until it could be processed, tagged and picked up. It was scary seeing my little town dotted with uniformed personnel - thank goodness they didn't have guns slung over their shoulders! I wondered what it would be like to live in a country where uniforms and guns were commonplace. I stopped to talk to one of the guards and look at "his" debris pile much as I would stop at a flea market booth. There were chunks of metallic things there that looked like giant car parts to me. One looked like a huge brake shoe, a couple of pieces looked like battery terminals for monster cars. A couple were coated with a white sheen. I took pictures - not digital, so it will be a while before they are developed. It felt ghoulish to stop, even worse to take pictures but I did it anyways. The guard had been there since 9am the morning before - almost 24 hours. I offered to bring him a meal but he pointed to a row of fruit juice containers and take out foods neatly lined up at the curb and declined.

There is an overall, almost carnival like feeling on the surface - a "where were you and what were you doing when you heard" and "how big of a piece did you see?" feeling. But underlying all the excitement of being in the spotlight there is an anxiety, a sadness in Nacogdoches that is almost palpable but just out of reach. (I'm mixing my metaphors, hopefully you understand if you've read this far.) Seeing those parts in the road surrounded by every day orange cones, seeing the Guardsman who is barely old enough to shave standing over them, washing away the film from my car windows. I cried on the way home today.

Nancy Hinds
Nacogdoches, TX
Independent

Comparative worth?

Over on the MeFi discussion thread, someone asked why the 7 shuttle astronauts deaths are worth more attention than the 40 people also killed yesterday in a train wreck in Zimbabwe.  This was my response:

I think the difference between the shuttle and train wrecks has less to do with the number - or relative "importance" - of the lives lost, and more to do with the number of people with an emotional investment in the event itself.

For many Americans, and for people around the world, space travel in and of itself taps into any number of feelings, from hope for the future to national pride to wonder and amazement at the technological achievement to the dreams of what they may want to try and do someday to who-knows-what else. When a space-travel related disaster occurs, it does more than destroy the space vehicle and kill the astronauts aboard - it also serves as a blow to each of those thoughts or feelings in each person who has them.

When we get hit with such a blow, we tend to have a need to try and comprehend what has happened - some kind of reassurance that our hope for the future, national pride,  wonder and amazement, dreams and, well, who-knows-what else were not misplaced, and that they still have meaning and relevance.  As such, we tend to want to gobble up all the news we can get on it, so we can make sense of it.

The loss of 40 lives in the Zimbabwean train wreck is tragic, and they deserved to be mourned as well.   The event itself, however, doesn't have the same depth of impact because we don't have that many thoughts, feelings or hopes tied up in our vision of Zimbabwean train travel as we do in our vision of space travel in general.

We tend to focus on the individuals killed in something like the shuttle tragedy because that is the human connection, and what each of those astronauts represents is the embodiment of all our feelings about space travel in general.  It isn't that their lives are somehow more important or worth more in some way - its that they have a symbolic value that we want to find a way to relate to.

Another perspective

An online friend of mine, Lisa Keele, recently moved to Egypt.  Since arriving, she has posted several interesting comments offering a look at how America and Americans are viewed in the Middle East.  In the case of shuttle disaster, she has also gotten an opportunity to know more of how Israel has been reacting to the tragedy.  In a message she posted earlier today, she noted:

[Quoted comment] >*  This flight DID feature the first Israeli astronaut ever.

[Response] This part has me so sad.  I feel so sad for the Israeli folks right now.  I

remember when the last shuttle blew -- remember, how we were all gathering around, watching *this flight* in particular, sending that teacher into space, how proud and excited we were??  It was like that in Israel this week.  This man was quite an Israeli hero before he ever signed up for a space mission, and folks have been so happy, so excited, so proud.

 

It just hurts.

I'd been hearing all day about the first Israeli in space, but it never occured to me at all that the people of Israel would probably be watching this mission as closely as we did the Challenger, or that today's tragedy would have  a similar impact on the Israelis as Challenger did for us. (Good old American Myopia.  Joy.)  I hope that Israeli children who may have been looking up to Ramon as a hero and possible role model won't let this scare them into abandoning any dream they may have for the possibility of space travel. 

Columbia FAQ

Here is an excellent FAQ on the Columbia tragedy so far.  It addresses (as much as is possible at this time) questions about whether or not terrorism might have been involved, why they didn't worry more about the thermal tiles on the shuttle's wing that may have been hit by the insulation that fell from the external fuel tank, why they didn't try to repair it in space, or dock with the ISS, or send a rescue shuttle.  It also features links to several good sites for additional coverage, as well as links to information on the individual astronauts.

One that made me choke up a bit

Mourning stars light the winter sky: On January 27, 1967, a fire inside what would later be named the first Apollo mission killed the crew of 3 on board. 19 years and a day later, seven lost their life when the Challenger space shuttle blew up as it raced to abandon the pull of Earth. Today, seven more lifes were lost as the Columbia shuttle re-entered the planet, the first tragedy registered during the final stretch of a space mission.

Read the rest of this touching tribute at Driver 8

Excellent comments on the Columbia tragedy

If you're not a regular reader of MetaFilter, you might want to take some time to read this thread on the Columbia disaster.  There's a lot of material there, but it's a very interesting discussion.

VO-Day

The new Virtual Occoquan is up - be sure to check it out for a sampling of the best of the Salon Blogs!

Poignant Irony

From the LA Times, 1/28/03:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Space shuttle Columbia's astronauts briefly interrupted their science work on the 17th anniversary of the Challenger disaster to remember their fallen comrades.

NASA's work force, in orbit and on Earth, observed a moment of silence Tuesday at the exact time that Challenger exploded in the sky Jan. 28, 1986. They honored not only on the seven Challenger astronauts, but also the three who were killed by a fire in their Apollo spacecraft at the pad Jan. 27, 1967.

At the launch site, flags flew at half staff for the second day in a row.

The two tragedies, separated by 19 years and a single day, represent the space agency's darkest hours.

"It is today that we remember and honor the crews of Apollo 1 and Challenger. They made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives and service to their country and for all mankind," Columbia commander Rick Husband radioed a few minutes before the airwaves went silent.

"Their dedication and devotion to the exploration of space was an inspiration to each of us and still motivates people around the world to achieve great things and service to others."

A Prayer

"They dedicated their lives to pushing the scientific challenges for all of us here on Earth. They dedicated themselves to that objective and did it with a happy heart and great enthusiasm. The loss of this valiant crew is something we will never get over."   -- NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe

May Odin, Allfather of the Vikings, welcome these modern explorers warmly, with open arms and full horns of ale.  And may Odin the Wise, who sacrificed himself to himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the runes, guide the investigators to the truth of the matter, that we may learn from this tragedy and prevent others in the future.  May Frigga, the Great Mother, who knows the sting of the death of one's child, give comfort to the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and others who hold these adventurers close to their hearts, that they will come through this knowing that the bonds of kin hold fast past death, and that even though their bodies may be gone, a part of their spirit will always remain.  So mote it be.

Random thoughts

I hope that the people who are finding parts of the shuttle will be honourable and mature and actually notify the police as they are being instructed to do.  This is one of those things where there will be people who want to keep pieces of the shuttle as ghoulish "souviniers".  Unfortunately, as we know from previous disasters, sometimes it is a fragment of debris that holds the answer to what it was that went wrong - and someone who thinks that keeping a small piece won't hurt anything could inadvertantly prevent investigators from being able to determine what happened -- and know how to prevent it again in the future.

As I noted in response to a comment on my earlier post, having watched more coverage now, I think it is unlikely that terrorism was involved.  The shuttle was too high in the atmosphere for any kind of a projectile to have reached it, and there is no visible indication of a missle streaming towards it - no extra contrail prior to the disintegration or any other indicator of that nature.  That would pretty much leave sabotage as the most likley means of a terror attack, and you know that with the first Israeli astronaut on board, security prior to launch would have been very high.

I did get a brief chuckle, however, in the midst of the dark news.  My husband and I have discovered that when we're watching extended coverage on a big news story, I frequently will make an observation to him about what we've been watching, and within a matter of minutes, the broadcaster will make a similar observation.  Well, I had just barely gotten done commenting to him on the odd coincidence that the shuttle with the first Israeli astronaut on board had exploded and begun raining debris down near Palestine, TX, when an MSNBC commentator mentioned that even though it was  unlikey that this is a terror attack, there would likely be conspiracy theories bubbling up due to the explosing happening over the President's home state, and that the shuttle with the first Israeli astronaut on board had exploded and begun raining debris down near Palestine, TX.   Personally, I think I just spent too much time doing the on-air when I was studying mass communications in college.

CNN has a note in one of their stories about a small problem that occured at launch which may have affected some of the tiles on the shuttle, though they had thought the damage was minor:

On launch day, a piece of insulating foam on the external fuel tank came off during liftoff and was believed to have struck the left wing of the shuttle. NASA said as late as Friday that the damage to the thermal tiles was believed to be minor and posed no safety concern during the fiery decent through the atmosphere.

It's impossible to watch today's events and not think about the day the Challenger blew up.  In 1986, I was living in Seattle and studying Mass Communications at Bellevue Community College. At the time, I was the school's radio station's (KBCS) program director, so when things went crazy, I was the one people called.  I woke up to hear the news that the shuttle had blown up on one of the local rock radio stations - a station known for playing pranks in bad taste.  My initial thought was that the story was just too outlandish to even possibly be true, and that the jocks had just taken this joke a bit too far. 

Then my phone rang.

It was the student disk jockey who was currently on the air at KBCS asking me what he should do - the AP wire teletype (this was a while ago, you know) - which rings a loud bell 10 times whenever emergency news is being sent over the wire - was clanging constantly, and people were calling in.  The shift he was doing didn't have a regular news segment, so he was at the station alone.  I told him I'd be right in and headed over to the station.

I spent the rest of the day dealing with the story.  I watched the coverage on TV, trying to comprehend the enormity of what had happened, called staffers in so we could get stories pulled off the wire or written based on the reports we were listening to and watching.  Several times, I got on the air myself to read the news, and I fielded a number of calls as well.

I think because I was so focused on gathering the news and getting it sent back out, it took longer for me to really comprehend what it was that had happened.  While I remember the things I did that day, I don't remember much of what I felt...  the memories have the sense of a dream to them - like I'm standing outside myself and watching what happened.  When I got home that night, it finally started to sink in, and I just broke down and cried.  It was probably the biggest tragedy that had occured during my "conscious" lifetime, and the feeling of sadness and dispair that permeated everything hit hard once it finally sunk in. 

In the years since then, I've seen the bombing at Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center destroyed, and in light of the massive losses we suffered in those attacks, I'm finding today's tragedy to have somewhat less of an emotional shock than the Challenger did so many years ago.  My heart goes out to the families and friends of the astronauts, and I worry what this will do to our future as a space-fareing people - I think space exploration is important.

But there's still a kind of emptiness that I'm feeling right now -- that after years of disasters - plane crashes, bombings, mass murders, train wrecks, and all the rest - part of me is starting to become a bit numb to the experience.  Each new disaster has a lesser impact than the previous, because as I grow older, they're no longer so shocking.  Equipment fails.  People can be cruel.  Death can reach us at any time and in any way.

The Shuttle Explosion

I can't believe another shuttle has blown up....  and with the first Israeli astronaut on board, there will almost certainly be questions about whether or not terrorism was involved.  I've only learned about this a few minutes ago, so I have no idea what has or has not been speculated on or what information is known, but I have to admit, that was my own first thought.

The Challenger explosion was traumatic, and could have seriously derailed our space exploration program.  A second shuttle explosion...  it's almost unthinkable.

Republicans who understand the meaning of "preserve"

I would like to offer a special note of "Thanks!" to Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Peter G. Fitzgerald of Illinois.  These 6 Republican Senators have sent a letter to the Republican leadership, expressing their concerns with the possible insertion of a measure into a pending budget bill that would allow oil companies access to the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve.

The letter noted:

"Because the opening of the Arctic Refuge to drilling raises a host of policy concerns, including serious environmental ramifications, we do not believe this issue should be injected in the budget process.  We believe that the Arctic refuge should be preserved and that the budgetary effects of oil leases in the refuge are incidental when considering the profound negative impact of drilling in the Arctic refuge." [New York Times, 1/31/03]

When these 6 Senators are added to the number of Democrat and Independent Senators who are viewed as unlikely to support any drilling in the ANWR, the measure would not have the support it needs to be added to the budget bill.  So, for a little bit longer, at least, the ANWR should be safe.

A recent poll by the Wilderness Society, and conducted by both Republican and Democrat firms showed that the general public is opposed to drilling in the ANWR, by a margin of two-to-one, even if our national oil supply is threatened.

Preserving the environment - no matter how "hippy-dippy" it might sound at times - is important.  What it seems many fail to grasp is that we do not exist above or separate from the ecosystem, but rather that we are very much a part of it, and if we don't take steps to protect it, we're not protecting ourselves, either.