A History of Swagger: This country has a history of swagger. So much of our history is about the waging of war and the glorification of violence. From the Revolutionary War, to the Civil War, to Andrew Jackson's devastation of the Indian, to the Alamo, to the Wild West, to Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, to LBJ's Vietnam, to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars, to the swagger of all swaggerers George W. Bush and his devastating slaughter in Iraq, his dead or alive mentality and his "bring em on" spewing -- no wonder there is violence in our land. Violence has been and is everywhere. It is in every city and every town, on every TV program and in much of film and there is always shock radio. Our country is saturated in blood, guns, violence, vitriol and vulgarity. No wonder there is violence in our land. We say we loath it but we, in fact and in part, love it.

We love our warriors, we love men who are macho, we love our bombs and we love our guns because all make us feel so powerful. We are not powerful though. We are perhaps, at our core weak, and the world senses it. We have succumbed at times to the lesser angels of our nature and we have shown the world how might does not often make right but makes misery and makes enemies. It makes Columbines, it makes VA Techs, it makes Wacos, it makes Oklahoma City bombings, it makes Ruby Ridges, it makes Vietnams and it makes Iraq.

We live in a country that cares more about its guns than it does about its people's healthcare. We need a change in leadership and a change in direction and we need it fast so that our constitutional government and the better angels of our nature do not succumb to the onslaught!

The Media and the Message: The coverage of the VA Tech shooting by the media has been wonderful. It has provided up to the minute knowledge of the events. The emphasis on the tragedy has been appropriate. However, the 24/7 coverage of it by MSNBC, CNN and other networks, I believe, becomes over done WHEN they are announcing the same news over and over and over again since there is no new news which has not already been reported. I suspect that the media saturation does contribute to our violent culture especially among youth which makes a copy cat scenario more possible. Overdone news coverage could provide rationale to many pathological personalities in this culture to gain entry into the macabre hall of fame no matter how dubious that distinction is.

I know we cannot go back to the days of the Huntley Brinkley Report but just a little less repetition by the news media might be exactly what the public really wants. The coverage of the Imus situation and the VA Tech utter tragedy is non-stop and while it is very very important, much of the media neglects other news out of, for example, Iraq which is a continual never-ending slaughter. Hugely important things are happening there which threaten the lives of our very young and very best. Further, more and more is emerging with respect to our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his impending testimony before Congress about his involvement in the firing of the US Attorneys. Some behaviors within the oval office itself possibly rise to the level of impeachable offenses. These stories could have a major impact on the very foundation of our republic.

Much as VA Tech will, I think, always have a place in our hearts there is other news as well which should not be neglected and it is vital that the public now be informed in equal fashion about it!

Vatican Veracity: My heart is heavy at this time of year. Although I was born before the Shoah it has always, since I was a child, formed my politics and my character. It was, I believe, perhaps, even THE defining moment in history of the Jewish people.

I was dismayed at the Vatican's dispute with Israel with respect to attending the Holocaust memorial because they did not like the swirling questions surrounding Pius XII's response or lack of it to the Holocaust. I wrote the email below to the Vatican:

It is dismaying that a dispute has arisen between the Vatican and Israel because the Vatican did not like the swirling questions many Jews and others have surrounding Pius XII's response or lack of it to the Holocaust. As a Jew whose politics has been shaped by the tragic events of WWII, I am supremely suspect of the Vatican's position with respect to the sanctity of Pius XII. I am suspect because any time institutions of power refuse to release ALL their information regarding a specific subject it emphatically gives the appearance that they have something to hide. It raises my suspicion.

If those secret documents could exonerate the wartime Pope then one would think the Vatican would rush to release them to settle the controversy surrounding Pius's involvement in the events of the Holocaust. Conversely, if there are embarrassing documents that indicate the Vatican through Pius XII was complicit in the horror, well, indeed, the unequivocal hypocrisy and the utter unconscionable attempt to make Pius XII a saint would be more dastardly than words can describe.

Until we know exactly what ALL the documents in the Vatican say about Pius XII and the Church of that era, until NONE is hidden from view and until the Vatican is honest, then the Jewish people and the world will never really know what Pius XII did or did not do; we will always have a question as to Pius XII's complicit acquiescence and indeed his contribution to the events of the Holocaust.

Pius was a rabid anti-Communist which leads me to think that the rise of fascist states in Europe such as Nazi Germany and Italy was possibly not that abhorrent to Pius XII. Fascists, of course, have been notoriously anti-Communist. I suspect, although I do not know this for a fact, that Pius XII thought perhaps the right wing dictatorships emerging were not so bad. Maybe he thought they were better than Communist states and if it meant sacrificing Jews he may have concluded so be it. The historical credo of the Church indicting the Jews for the killing of Christ could have given rationale in his mind that the Jews somehow deserved to suffer their fate. Maybe he thought, too, that Germany and Italy were anti-Communist states so he did not want to offend them by coming out vociferously against Nazi policies vis a vie the "Jewish question." I do not possess a great deal of evidence to affirm my suspicions since the Vatican refuses to release the pertinent documents but I tentatively conclude, because of the few statements I have read by Pius XII, that he did not do enough if anything to challenge what was to be the Jewish fate.

One would think a policy which resulted in the extermination of 2/3rds of the Jews of Europe would invite resounding criticism and outrage by a Pope. It appears it did not. The intense secrecy of the Vatican today makes my suspicion seem correct because the Vatican remains an institution which hides many of the documents relating the events of its history. Until the Vatican opens those documents up for close inspection and scrutiny for all the world to see or worse if it shreds them, I will always think Pius XII was part of the horrendous acts of that era and part of the attempted genocide of the Jews! To make him a saint in view of that would be more insulting and despicable than my words have the ability to convey. Perhaps, you can prove my suspicions wrong through release of the pertinent evidence.

Moral Bankruptcy at the Bank: There is no question in this world that there is one form of justice for the poor, one for the very rich and yet another for the very rich who happens to be president of the World Bank. The stain that is on Paul Wolfowitz is indelible and spreads throughout the world up to and including the World Bank. He has been the driving force from the formulation of the volcanic blunder of Iraq policy to the ever so unethical behavior as president of this prestigious institution.

He is involved in smarmy immoral conduct this time through his efforts to hire and significantly advance within the World Bank the monitory interests of a woman with whom he is sexually involved. This is yet another example of the fact that if one is rich and powerful one can get away with nearly anything. The World Bank which is supposedly involved in advancing the plight of the poor around the globe should be ashamed of the situation within which it finds itself because of the bad behavior of its president. The hypocrisy is glaring. This institution cannot pretend to be one thing, dictating to the underdeveloped world what they need to do to amend their corrupt practices and then allow the president of this Bank to be caught literally with his pants down involved in his own corrupt immoral behavior which taints the Bank.

The situation regarding the hiring of Paul Wolfowitz's girlfriend at a salary beyond the reach of most people, immeasurably affects the World Bank's efforts to improve the condition of the underdeveloped world because of this conditional deceptiveness. This is an ethical lapse of great magnitude and Paul Wolfowitz should get his just reward and be immediately fired!! Perhaps then can we say there is SOME justice in this sad conflagrant world!

This was written in response to an article by John Perazzo at the web site Frontpagemag.com (link below) which talked about the racial hypocracy of Al Sharpton and other black leaders. Al Sharpton according to Mr. Perazzo has had a particularly egregious history including but not limited to his involvement in Tawana Brawley case in New York City as well as the case of an inadvertent killing of a black child by a Hassidic Jew.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27826


Mr. Perazzo your article on Rev. Sharpton was riveting. Much of it I knew. If you will pardon the pun nothing is simply black or white. I try to be a fair person but it is ever so hard to know which side the angels will reside. The events you relate are indeed horrifically shameful. Being Jewish those events make my blood boil. Still, in this instance at this time, Imus did utter a simply awful comment. Should he be pilloried like he has been? I do not know. Part of me does feel bad for him to some degree. Sharpton perhaps would do well to review some New Testament which talks about turning another cheek or casting the first stone. Sometimes though, although I am not a believer, I think in Biblical fashion the more appropriate edict says one does reap what one sows.

The history of this country with respect to the African American all 500 years of it has been abominable. The black southern experience is an embarrassment. Why did our Founders, whom I think were more than brilliant, not foresee that someday, if the country survived, slavery would come back to haunt their descendants? How they missed that sagacity I do not understand except that slavery was big business. We have been paying for its occurrence ever since.

When one's people have been rendered powerless for hundreds of years one gets angry. Imus is part and parcel of that anger as was the O.J. Simpson verdict and perhaps also were the events that you have mentioned in your article. This is not an excuse it is merely an observation. It is simply too bad that our country from the very beginning did not see the hypocrisy of slavery. The fact that we had a civil war about it and shed blood over it was only the beginning. Alas I fear we have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind

Bad Black Rap: The media has been saturating the airwaves regarding the issue of finding a remedy for what I now call the Imus phenomenon. Some say the big purveyors of black racist comments are black rap music and ghetto slang itself which gives a permission slip to everyone saying it is okay to use that type of language. To some degree, perhaps, this is correct but I believe, too, it is the black person's right to say about his own group what he wants. I believe when a black person uses derogatory characterizations it is often a way for him to render powerless the hateful speech that whites have used to subjugate, demean and sometimes crush him. If the black man uses those words it weakens those words and I think it says to the culture those words, horrible as they are, have no power over him anymore. I believe, though, when a white person uses those words the old threat that whites posed historically to blacks reemerges. I believe the so- called conservative shock jocks often use the very hateful, mean, vituperative, and profane words they claim to oppose. There is a mean-spiritedness and a cruelty which exists in much of the media perhaps reflecting a large part of the country. I think everyone everywhere needs to reexamine their hearts. Perhaps, the Imus volcanic eruption will lead to a kinder gentler nation. I am not sure that it will but at least I can hope that it does.

A cancer on the body politic: I believe Imus is part and parcel of some typical "conservative" shock jocks in America. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about these radio/TV personalities. As a matter of fact they are the very essence of those traits they claim conservatism is against. They clamor and decry the vulgarization of America but they are the ones who most often generate callous, uncaring, hate filled rhetoric. Why do they do this? Because audiences listen and listeners turn into money. None of us is immune to it.

There is and perhaps always has been a cancer on the body politic of this country and it is the fact that the country has often not lived up to its ideals and many refuse still to admit this fact. An American conservative movement comprised of a so called "moral majority" has developed in the last fifty years. It has been designed to reject and deflect much of the academic criticism of this country with respect to most especially race and foreign policy. I suggest Imus's racist spewing has much to do with this phenomenon.

The modern conservative movement was a movement begun to counteract the late 60's cultural revolt. If the New Left called into question what historian Howard Zinn calls American exceptionalism the American Right rejected that criticism and became angry. From Vietnam to Iraq; from Mississippi to Boston this "moral majority" has refused to see the real immoralities of this country and created a reactionary movement in opposition to those who would illuminate our hypocrisies. Race is a part of it. It continues to be one sore on our body politic that festers; the cancer that will never go away. Imus is merely a reflection of an age old malady. Race concerning blacks in America has deep historical roots. Whites often cannot admit it and worse many do not care about it. We must care about it. The Imus volcanic eruption should teach us we must be very careful what we say and to whom we say it. We must confront our inequities as a nation or like cancer our malady will ultimately consume and kill us.

Remembering the Holocaust: Someone recently said to me in 100 years no one will even remember the Holocaust existed. I suspect, although certainly its occurrence has application to all people and for nearly every social relationship known to man, it will be primarily the Jew who remembers it if even they do. In a PBS documentary about the Holocaust, an expert was asked by the commentator if the Holocaust had any meaning or purpose whatsoever. He simply answered "no". Anger about that nearly approaches for me the anger I have of the event itself. To think that no one will care or that no one will remember that six million lives (great scholars and scientists included) are gone and that there REALLY is no good reason why or no lesson to be learned from the Shoah makes my blood boil.

I have seen the cartoon clip remembering the event which was attached to an email I received during Yom Hashoah last year and it seems this year world events have waxed worse. The Middle East, thanks to putrid US and western foreign policy for over a century and certainly presently, is now ablaze everywhere with more carnage, I suspect, to come. Israeli policy too has had its immense blunders and miscalculations. The Arabs are empowered. This is not good for the US and it is not good for the Jew especially an Israeli one.

I surely do not know what the answer is or why the Jewish people have been born to suffer for over 5000 years. Perhaps there is really no higher purpose to explain the tortured history of the Jews. The Holocaust though will always remain sacred in my heart and, perhaps, if there is indeed a God it will always remain sacred to Him too.

Lets hope for a better year.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.

I sent this to the Globe in response to their editorial in the Sunday Globe about embryonic stem cell research. The Globe's article asked the question are 200 cells or blastocysts in a petrie dish really a human being and George Bush's opinion that blastocysts in a petrie dish are human beings.


I cannot speak of George Bush's moral compass without raising my blood pressure to Olympian heights. George Bush vetoes an embryonic stem cell bill which would have used 100 to 200 cells growing in a petrie dish in fertilization clinics to help, perhaps, ultimately millions of full term human beings discard or reduce their disabilities. If the embryonic cells, which George Bush calls human beings, are not used to impregnate they will ultimately be thrown out. Not only will those cells be rendered useless but those real life human beings whom those cells may have helped will suffer and even die as well.

While allegedly caring so much about human life George Bush has dropped bunker buster bombs on innocent men, women and children. He has lied to take our country to war against another country which did nothing to us. He ultimately killed and maimed thousands of innocent human beings which he has termed collateral damage. The killing goes on. The enormity of Bush's hypocrisy is staggering. Bush is sinking in the quicksand of a immoral quagmire and pulling the rest of us down with him. Morality is truly relative. If human life means so much to George Bush he should end this truly immoral and unjustified war in Iraq, sign a stem cell research bill and begin to save real lives rather than kill them.

A Response to Rush: Rush Limbaugh thinks it is wrong that the 9/11 victims received millions and our troops receive a pittance. He thinks it's wrong that our Congress gets a raise and our troops get little. I agree ... in part:

Yes, I will admit this one time that blowhard Limbaugh is somewhat (although not completely) correct. It is ridiculous the compensation or lack of it our troops get. I am glad, however, that the 9/11 victims received their money because our federal and state governments were beyond negligent for the happenings of 9/11. Bush was warned "terrorists to strike buildings in US using aircraft" and he did nothing. All George Bush could say when he received that warning was "okay now you've covered your ass." Then he proceeded to go on vacation, clear brush in Texas and travel to Florida to read "My Pet Goat" to kids in an elementary school. Seven minutes passed before he understood the nation was under attack.

I believe both those killed in 9/11 are due their millions AND those killed and wounded in combat should receive the same just compensation. There is no doubt about that one. But guess what? Our president cut spending which included the benefits to survivors and families of those in the military. Now he will veto the military funding bill because Democrats have the unmitigated temerity to attach a deadline for withdrawal so the killing will stop. Imagine the nerve of them to want the troops home at a date certain. The treatment of our military or lack of treatment by this administration has been and is egregious. It has contributed to many severe injuries and many deaths.

The fault of Iraq (and I believe even of 9/11 too) lies at Bush's feet. He was horrendously negligent and purposefully criminal. Iraq is HIS war. He owns it lock, stock and barrel. Our dead should be (but are not) on his conscience if he even has a reptilian remnant of one. This war is criminal. He and his entire administration are criminals. He lied this nation into a war from which we will never in generations be able to extricate except by Congressional mandate IF they have the cajones to do so. He and his administration have perpetrated unconstitutional acts through the abandonment of habeas corpus, the use of illegal wiretaps, spying, the exposure of a CIA agent and for many other reasons. He should be tried for war crimes because he lied us into a war which has killed thousands and he has sanctioned the use of torture. He should be impeached for treasonous high crimes and misdemeanors as the Constitution instructs because those crimes so befit the founders intent.

The gas bag Limbaugh is right in part though. There is something rotten in Denmark when Congress gives itself a raise and our military is given peanuts and not enough body armor. Rush Limbaugh is not one to talk however. He has supported and does support the Bush fiasco that is Iraq. At this point after the man behind the curtain has been exposed and knowing the lies perpetrated to send our troops to Iraq, anyone who does support this war now is, in my opinion, complicit in it. All Bush knows how to do is drop bombs and watch while Rome burns. How Christian!

Render to Science what is Science: I wrote this to the Wall Street Journal which has a great section I just found which carries editorials created by the general public. I couldn't resist my favorite subject -- the historicity of religion and religion's impact on jet propelling the future scientific advancement of humankind into historical reverse. CNN carried an article by Dr. Collins who worked on the Human Genome Project but still tries to square science, the science of DNA and evolution with his belief in God which he amazingly sees as science too.

Dr. Franics Collins stated believer in God/Jesus and medical doctor working on the Human Genome Project certainly is a poor excuse for a scientist. It is NOT, I repeat NOT incumbent upon the atheist to prove the non-existence of god. It is incumbent upon the BELIEVER to prove the existence of god. One cannot prove a negative. There is, of course NO truth of the existence of God that has emerged. Even Collins says it requires a leap of faith but believes it as fact anyway which is on par with the facts of evolution and DNA. That is NOT I repeat NOT science. That is religion and belief NOT fact. Science is FACT and science is neutral with respect to the existence of God until such time as it can unequivocally be proven that a God exists.

As for the existence of Jesus which he says is true, there is NO, I repeat NO proof whatsoever as to the historicity of the existence of Jesus as there is NO proof whatsoever that much of the Old Testament is true or that the tenets of any other religion on the face of the earth are true. If Dr. Collins wants to believe in the man/God Jesus, the parting of the Red Sea or the tooth fairy FINE but do not pass this off as fact. Religion is NOT fact. It is a collection of stories based on other stories from other belief systems including ancient pagan beliefs.

We modern-day humans lose sight of the fact that Biblical stories have a cultural and historical context. They did not simply come out of nowhere. It would better serve mankind if Dr. Collins would admit to THAT truth and leave science to true scientists and religion to those who study the etiology of mythological beliefs.

James Carroll's article "Passover and the Passion" was brilliant and completely accurate. What most Christians do not realize when they are indoctrinated by their faith is that Christianity, indeed, had an early church history. Christians need to microscopically study it and understand most importantly the context of the tenets of their faith. There is a history behind the Christian story. Christianity was a competing faith among Jews. Never, I believe, in the wildest dreams of those who wrote the Gospels decades after Jesus' death, did they think that those passages would be used century after century by the Church and other Christians to exact their pound of flesh against the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Ultimately, the Holocaust and the killing of the six million had as its necessary historical precondition the proclamation of the perfidious Jew within the Gospel text itself. In my opinion, no matter how much the Church has tried to erase that stain and its villainous consequences for the Jewish people it cannot because it is there in black and white. What is not there in black and white is its historical underpinnings. People are often ignorant of the historical veracity of all Biblical text. Christians in particular often understand nothing of Christianity's roots first and foremost within Judaism. Many I suspect have feared that understanding the historical context of Christianity or any faith will undermine its credibility. Therefore, Christian authorities who have taught young children for millennia about that faith conveniently ignored and omitted the importance of its historical beginning. To say the least, the consequences of that omission have been profound.

The Machiavellian Mastermind: Who on earth can keep track of the corruption which has absolutely saturated our government? Our tax dollars are being used for partisan political purposes. I don't like it in Republican administrations nor do I like it in Democratic administrations. It doesn't matter who perpetrates it. It is still, ultimately, our money that is used and stolen.

Present day Republicans, though, have taken corruption in government to Olympian heights beyond the stratosphere. Who can keep track of all of the scandals? Karl Rove has probably been behind most if not all of the schemes and illegal actions from election fraud, outing of CIA agent Valerie Pflame, firing of the USA eight to many fund raising Hatch Act illegalities. In my opinion, Karl Rove knew about and sanctioned a plethora of nefarious Congressional and other illicit activities.

Yet, one of the highest perpetrators of this activity goes free, hiding behind executive privilege. If Congress investigates under oath no other Machiavellian mastermind in this horrendously corrupt administration, I pray every day that justice prevails and Rove through Congressional oversight is investigated by Congress and ultimately tried in a court of law for his egregious behaviors. I doubt he will be tried and perhaps he will not even be investigated. The Republicans have, through Bush's reign, in fascist-like fashion, usurped every governmental institution including the Supreme Court which will ultimately determine the outcome of the looming Constitutional crisis as it rules on the use of executive privilege.

I hope the august body of our Supreme Court leaves politics aside and places the rule of law first. I hope it finds that executive privilege does not apply to the particular Congressional investigations of Karl Rove and that it requires Rove's testimony before Congress in transcript and under oath. It is only in this way that the American public will be able to see the truth of what he and others have done. It is only in this way that the people can see if he should be tried in a court of law for the crimes he has allegedly committed against us. Perhaps, in this way, one day this great nation I thought I knew can return to the more honest decent nation I believe it once was.

Jeff Jacoby 3/29/07 editorial: Awww, Jeff what a saccharinely (is there such a word?) sugary -- okay incredibly sweet editorial "Messages to my son" was. How could anyone criticize your sentiments that you want your ten year old son to be kind, and do good?

I couldn't help but wonder though how a person would want that for his son and be philosophically conservative at the same time. Conservative thought, it seems to me, is more of the sink or swim, live or die, rise or fall on your own but don't expect government to help you when you are down variety. I thought it stood for government is not the solution it is the problem. I thought conservatives now want the poor or the sick to rely more on the good will of others or their church (or synagogue) for any help they need. If they can't get it there then do not true conservatives think those are the breaks because life is harsh? These conservatives are often not too kindly especially when it comes to the bigger picture.

You say to your son "Whenever we are startled or inconvenienced by the siren of an ambulance, I offer a prayer that the EMT's will arrive in time to help whoever is in danger." Well, that person on the other end of the siren better have more than a prayer. He better have good health insurance coverage because his fate certainly rises or falls on that. What more of a dirty concept to conservatives than national health care. The outcomes of having cancer, which is an equal opportunity employer, favors the rich who have insurance over those middle class or poor who do not.

Conservatives always SOUND so sweet but in reality crush the poor, do not lend a helping hand and in reality care more about the buck than the person. The conservative response to Katrina is example par excellence of that fact.

Conservatives often are perfectly willing to send other kids into battle to get killed or maimed in useless unnecessary wars based on lies while their own kids are going off to Yale. So when you are telling your son that above all else be decent, kind and honest, explain to him how you square the group you philosophically advocate for with those qualities you urge him to be.

The problem of the Patriot Act: I respectfully disagree with FBI director Robert Mueller who said it's not the Patriot Act that is the problem it is the implementation of the Patriot Act that is the problem.

When one gives government broad sweeping extra constitutional powers one can be sure someone somewhere in the government will abuse that power. For anyone in this country who has been a law abiding citizen who may disagree strongly with a government position to have to worry that someone may be looking in his mail, snooping into ones email, phone conversations or worry about other egregious infringements by government upon their rights we have become like those countries we have fought so hard against. This is a travesty. Worse than a travesty it takes up unnecessary time in our fight in the war against terror.

We need to be very prudent as to whom we investigate and limit our efforts to those people who indeed are nearly a certain risk. Wasting time, effort, manpower and money collecting humongous caches of information on those who clearly are benign entities is ridiculous and does more to make God forbid a terrorist act more likely because it drains the resources we need to use to fight the real threats.

Government becomes the problem when the powers the people bestow upon government are egregiously abridged. The Patriot Act, although I once benignly supported it, seems to have become the problem as those who enforce it can and will, if given the opportunity, most certainly abuse it.

Rovian Revenge: I used to think that Karl Rove was particularly brilliant. That's what everybody seemed to be saying. I viewed the DVD "Bush's Brain" and thought Rove was the sinister genius that everyone suggested he was. How else could George W. Bush, with his intellectual mediocrity and deficit, prevail not only once but twice without the puppet master pulling the strings?

Now I have changed my mind. Rove is, I have concluded, not that bright. In fact there is either a stupidity or smugness which leads to great stupidity that is the reason behind the error of the firing of the USA eight. This time I think Karl Rove has made a doozy. There was no reason on earth for Rove to orchestrate the firing of Republican US Attorneys especially, since there were only eight of them. Doing that changed nothing. Rove did not realize that removing USAs because they were not prosecuting Democrats with enough fervor or Republicans with enough restraint, was ethically problematic if not, indeed, criminal. That was, in fact, stupid.

His most egregious mistake -- a mistake which I think reflects the nature of extreme wing politics -- was that he never gave a damn about the FEELINGS of those eight Republican US attorneys. The colossal mistake was that he never thought that saying people were fired due to incompetence would hurt someone's feelings ESPECIALLY if that rationale was a false one against these eight USA's.

Perhaps Mr. Rove has never been on the other end of a cruel boss or on the other end of something that was said or done to an underling by a superior which was clearly wrong and not fair. It hurts. Not only does it hurt but it infuriates. Not only does it infuriate it makes a person somehow and in some way want to get even. Most times one cannot and one has to simply endure the shame and move on. In this case though, the shame, bad as it was personally that the rationale for firing them was said to be because of "poor performance," that lie was revealed publicly. THAT is what stung and that is what Mr. Rove was too stupid to realize! Now, because it is public, some completely justified revenge is possible and has, in part, already occurred. Rove's callousness and uncaring part of his twisted psyche came back and bit him in the posterior. For once in this sad administration I surely do hope justice ultimately prevails and Rove ends up behind the bars he so richly deserves!

Bush's Pathology: Response to Paul Slansky's article in HuffingtonPost.com. What a fabulous article "Deep Goat" is. Mr. Slansky is right on the money -- pardon the pun of an apt description for the Bush mafia. Ever since I read the story about Bush getting joy from torturing a frog, I realized there was something so dark and so fetid about him which chilled me thinking that THIS was our president. Underneath it all, underneath all the darkness must live a little boy who feels cerebrally not quite good enough and certainly not quite strong enough, scared and frightened that he is not quite up to the task of doing much of anything let alone assume the highest office in the world. It is sad, really, when one thinks about it. It would be one thing if he suffered his inadequacies alone but to drag us and the rest of the world down with him sometimes seems more than any country should bear although many put him where he is today. Like other tyrants, he did not attain power by himself. It would have certainly been better if George W. Bush suffered in silence and alone rather than inflict his psychopathology on the rest of us. His severely disturbed nature and that of others who helped him along the way has cost us thousands in lives and billions in treasure!

A response to Tom Hayden in the Huffington Post: Tom Hayden, with all due respect, the anti-Vietnam movement of the 1960's of which I was a part obviously did not do much. Yes, the US finally finally got out of Vietnam and a dictatorship was eliminated but really the Vietcong did not usher in a paradise. It's only recently that economic reforms have been initiated and the standard of living has risen.

The radical disruption of the 1968 convention was a huge mistake. The Democratic party was really the only friend we had despite Johnson's continuing of the war. I believe Humphrey would have ended it. Moreover, just like Nader did to elect George Bush, the radical movement, as I see it, ensured a never ending succession of right wing politicos. Our politics in hindsight drove the so called "moral majority" to the Republican extreme leaving Democrats with the taint of unpatriotic. It is unfortunate. When one thinks of the damage that has been inflicted by the Republican presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, and most especially the most extreme of right wing extremists George W. Bush we have reaped the opposite of what, I believe, we intended to sow. We did not have the majority of the American public's tactical support.

I hope it is not too late and that someday I experience the joys of Rooseveltesque leadership that brings creativity, academic excellence and humanitarian ideals to the presidency. I believe the radicalism of the 60's brought on to itself the worst of all possible worlds George W. Bush for not one term but two!

Anniversary Regrets: How well I remember shock and awe. It was the only time in my life in which I was aware of politics that I look back on myself with disgust. I am truly ashamed. Because the Iraq war was within close proximity of 9/11 I was intoxicated with rage at an Arab world that could perpetrate such a disgusting heinous act on the country I loved killing so many innocents. Not only was I enraged I believed what this administration said. I fell for their line because I thought they were telling the truth about all they uttered indicting Iraq as a monumental danger. I believed what they said because I was a civilian removed from the centers of power and those who know what I thought were the secrets of the world. I thought Bush and his minions knew things that I did not know and that he would not lead this nation into folly squandering lives and billions gambling the security of the world. I argued, often vociferously, in support much to the great consternation of many of my friends.

I ultimately turned adamantly against this war for so many different reasons seeing this president's utter lack of understanding of the historical context of Iraq and Middle East foreign policy. My friends still do not let me forget what my view was at that time. Unlike the president though, I have no problem apologizing. I apologize for my country's utter lack of understanding of historical context and its present leadership's incredible capacity and without conscience deliberately lie in order to perpetrate this utterly inhuman war to advance a delusional neocon agenda. George Bush and those with him have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind of this absolutely reckless foreign policy blunder. I guess some would say we get what we deserve as someone had to support Mr. Bush and his cronies. Thankfully, I can say without shame, in both elections I did not.

I sent this to Tomm Hartmann on Air America who was discussing the Second Amendment.

Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment: Tom Hartmann of Air America was discussing the etiology of the Second Amendment. He often, to support his opinion, delivers a historical rant about what the Founding Fathers thought in relation to current affairs some 300 years later. Sometimes, I think that his historical analyses as it involves contemporary events are ridiculous. He attempts to make a case for present day policies by historically reviewing the revolutionary war and post revolutionary war period. That can be futile. What "the founders had in mind," especially with respect to the Second Amendment, can often not, it seems to me, be determined and if it can be determined by various writings of our founders, to attempt to apply it to contemporary times is inane. The Second Amendment, of course states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What the Second Amendment meant to those who came out of the Enlightenment is different, I think, from what the Second Amendment means today. Our revolutionary fathers were about curtailing the power of the king. The king's standing army was a threat against people who had no guns. I think that is one general fair assessment of why they included the Second Amendment. They wanted the people to have the right to have guns to prevent a tyranny from oppressing any person in each state or that each state should have the right to defend itself from an invasion. The people in each individual state would be able to have guns just in case the government got out of hand or if another country invaded. The founders, I think, wanted the people on par with the government as well as each state to be able to defend itself individually and collectively.

American culture and society today certainly has evolved. The ownership of guns now has nothing really to do with the possibility of overthrowing the government. If one bought a gun with the intent of attacking the government especially now with respect to the Patriot Act they would be doing something treasonous and illegal. No one could overthrow this government with a gun or if a country invades it now is the federal government's responsibility to defend the people.

Guns presently are used not for defense against the government or foreign invaders but defense against individual criminals, sport or for collectors. The question is in this culture, forgetting the etiology of the Second Amendment which is, I believe, meaningless, do we need ad infinitum access with little oversight over the sales of guns even machine guns? The founders NEVER imagined our culture as it has metamorphosed today. Is the Second Amendment as the founders have written it even applicable to our current historical and social milieu? THAT is the question, I believe, one should debate. The etiology of our Second Amendment as it existed in the revolutionary period is nearly irrelevant to the question of gun control as it exists in contemporary times.

Rosie O'Donnell: I support Rosie. She is the only reason I watch The View and she is one of only a few who appropriately criticize this administration for the egregious corrupt and criminal acts which have cost lives. Although, I think Rosie O'Donnell perhaps could have phrased her opinion regarding the torture of terrorist suspects in general and KSM in particular better, I do not think that she needs to be held to Supreme Court nominee accountability. Professional news broadcasters themselves are certainly not held to those standards. She does not need to support her point of view with flawless evidence. My goodness, our president doesn't even do that. If he can articulate an intelligent sentence I breathe a sigh of relief.

Rosie is NOT a news broadcaster or an academician. She is another personality on TV with her own opinion protected by, of course, our First Amendment. I certainly hope she was NOT defending that poor excuse for humanity KSM but she has every right to debate the legality of this administration's use of torture to extract evidence which is what I thought she was debating. Personally, I have very mixed emotions about the use of torture. One part of me thinks if it can save our lives who cares about those immoral bastards who would perpetrate a 9/11. On the other hand if it extracts phony confessions or imprisons without trial an innocent person, it could do more harm to us than good.

Whether on The View, Oprah, or Larry King, this question is not only Rosie's right or any other American's right to debate, it is our obligation to debate it as citizens of a great democratic country.

I am responding to Colleen Roller's March 15, 2007 letter to the editor recording her disdain for The Globe's printing of the picture of two men kissing. Homosexuals have been a part of our species probably for as long as our species has been on the planet and homosexuals will continue to exist for all time. It is a genetic variation within our species. Therefore, I say get used to it. I would rather see two men kissing then shooting, maiming, and killing each other. I suggest Ms. Roller should indeed subscribe to The Boston Globe. It is the best and most professional newspaper to quote her phrase "for those of us living out here."

Dismayed about Deval: I voted for Deval Patrick but I have been very dismayed about Gov. Patrick's performance. I have written before and said I did not like the Cadillac, the drapes, the week long celebration, The Commonwealth paying for his wife's secretary and I ESPECIALLY hated the phone call to and for cronies with whom Gov. Patrick previously worked. Governor Patrick has been in his job only 2 months and he's taking a leave for his wife's depression? I do not understand that. I am sympathetic to depression and the havoc it can play in a family's life.

My father had a wife with severe emotional problems -- and I mean severe -- one daughter who died two weeks after birth, and his next daughter had polio. Ultimately my mother ended up a quadriplegic from a misdiagnosed benign spinal tumor and then a stroke, spent 20 years in a wheelchair, lots of time in home care and then in hospitals. My father took sole care of her for 7 years before she had surgery. He worked very hard, incurred huge medical expenses and took care of my mother, the house upkeep, cooking and even me in high school and he didn't take ONE not ONE day off from work. He went in every day without fail. If I, after two months of work, said I had to take care of my spouse because of depression how long would I have lasted at that job? About a minute and a half. I am always suspicious of a new hire when all of a sudden an excuse for an absence is given.

I wonder who is Gov. Patrick kidding? I am thinking Gov. Patrick cannot take the heat of the kitchen and that the job is not what he thought it would be. I am thinking he is in over his head and can't get out. In fairness I liked his handling of the illegals although it's dropped from the news and they are still in absentia. Gov. Patrick, I think, is simply not strong enough and cannot take the onslaught. What did he think that job would be like?

I hope I am wrong because I love having a liberal in a position of great power especially too now that a Supreme Court vacancy, because of Judge Sossman's death, has occurred but he must show that he can assume those responsibilities he signed on for irrespective of familial problems.

What did he think that job was all about? It should not be about accumulating as many perks as one can, it should not be about talking to companies to get them a favorable monetary result and, in my opinion, it really should not be about taking time off for his wife's depression as much as I am sympathetic to her and the family's plight. The Commonwealth has a lot of plights and we elected, and I voted for, Gov. Patrick to take care of them!

Letter to Patrick Fitzgerald: Patrick Fitzgerald, you have restored my faith in the system. The system works. I have become so cynical because of many events and things committed by this administration especially with respect to its policy in Iraq which initially I supported. I have been so dismayed at the huge number of illegalities committed whether by the former Congress or by the Executive branch. I was about to give up on expecting any semblance of justice.

You have provided me with hope and have conducted a simply SUPERB prosecution of Mr. Libby and I commend you enthusiastically and thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people. The people once again have prevailed. I continue to hope this will be the first in a long line of holding these egregious betrayers of the public trust to task for the horrific sins they have committed.

You are an admirable and honorable man. I thank you for your Herculean efforts and thank you for the restorative powers of faith in our system you have precipitated!

Pausing to think about Patrick: First it was the week long multi-million dollar inaugural, then it was the Cadillac top of the line limo, then it was the refurbishing of furniture,then it was state payment to Patrick's wife, then it was the powerless response on behalf of the homosexual community who supported Gov. Patrick, now the worst has happened. Perhaps Gov. Patrick is turning into a Republican! Did Governor Patrick place a phone call to former secretary Rubin now of Citicorp on behalf of a company ACC which owns Ameriquest whose board Gov Patrick was on to intercede NOT on behalf of the Commonwealth but on behalf of Ameriquest who is seeking capital from Citigorp? Gov. Patrick interceded on behalf of a company with another company to funnel cash to a company he was connected with? It has vague reminders of Republicans and Halliburton, et al. raping the taxpayer. This time it was corporation to corporation with nothing gained by the Commonwealth but it is still the same quid pro quo and somebody's pockets ultimately get lined. I was incredulous after reading the Globe story. I am getting sorrier and sorrier every day I read something pathetic Gov. Patrick has done which does NOT include the welfare of the ordinary citizen! Isn't Gov. Patrick savvy enough to know his every movement, his every phone call, his every action is scrutinized. Perhaps, next time he will think very carefully before he acts while he is an elected official of the Commonwealth. Perhaps, next time I will think more carefully about my vote!

Libby the Liar Part 2: It is great that the jury is being so scrupulous about examining every count in the Libby case. If that guy gets off though then I give up. If that is the case then our judicial system is intrinsically and impossibly flawed. This is an OJ Simpsonesque case and if the verdict does not hit -- no smash -- a juror in the face and that treasonous criminal gets off it will be yet another travesty of justice. Frankly, if I were on the jury it would have taken me about 3 minutes and 20 seconds to arrive at a guilty verdict. It is now 10 days. It's hard to believe it would take that long to convict him. Time will tell if yet another fiasco ensues and Bush, et al get away, as they continuously have, with perjury, treason and crimes against humanity.

Letter to Brian William Blog re: trip to Iraq: Brian, I wish you the best and am sure that both the technological and US military expertise that NBC has access to offers you some comfort as you undertake your dangerous journey to bring us your report. I personally, although a supporter of the war initially, have been completely astounded as to the political hack job that has been Iraq. Our so called Commander in Chief has been anything but. He has sacrificed our precious young blood, our treasure, our position in the world, regional Middle East security for a NeoCon fantasy cajoling the public into believing that WMD's would be found. Hussein is dead, now what? I would venture a guess that our Commander has not read ONE book about Iraq. What has he done to us? I shake my head in disbelief. I ask that you bring us the uncensored facts about just what is occurring as we yet again, I believe, proceed into folly. This era is not WWII. This country can no longer bomb itself into security. We bomb ourselves into more insecurity. This is a new kind of war if indeed it is a war. It is a world-wide defensive action that requires a diplomatic savvy, understanding of the region as well as a technological and computer expertise. This Commander in Chief has not the vaguest idea about any of that. We need a new day and new leadership if we can ever hope to end this nightmarish quagmire. I hope and pray you and our country remain safe.

Disastrous Disasters -- Responsibility of the federal Government: It's de ja vu all over again. The President exiting his helicopter, greeted by his political allies fawning over him and thanking him for what exactly? This is a prayerful country blah blah blah blah. All that we hear is platitudes. Guess what? Prayer is not going to rebuild a poor person's house even though they THINK it will. If God is so benevolent and kind, perhaps he could have redirected that tornado especially around a school. Maybe he just could have redirected that bus in Georgia so that the driver NOT go down the wrong lane. Or maybe the south is having so many disasters because it voted for George Bush and is regressive and inhumane on every social issue in this country! If God is all powerful then ... Why does no one ask THOSE questions? I say to our president YOU show me the money.

It's all well and good for the president to ask the citizens of this country to contribute yet again to another disaster. We have been called upon to contribute ad infinitum and we have answered the call. I can't help but feel, though, here we are the richest country on the face of the earth wasting billions in Iraq, billions lost and billions expended and more going to be expended. All that money! How many disasters could this Federal government have contributed to IF we had all that money back? Katrina, tornados, floods and so many other natural disasters our country has suffered during the Bush years could have been paid for entirely. Moreover, global warming, the probable cause of so much catastrophic weather could be reversed. I resent the American people being asked yet again to contribute. We DO contribute through our tax dollars. Too bad those tax dollars are not used to HELP our own people but are used to perpetrate one of the most destructive and costly wars in our country's history!!

Let's Get Al Gore: All my life I have yearned for a presidential candidate whom I could love. There were none. There were some I liked but none I could embrace as my parents embraced Franklin Roosevelt. I never loved any president as completely as they loved him. I wondered what that would be like. FDR was, of course, before my time and it was, indeed, a different time.

Suddenly, however, it perhaps has happened. Have my yearnings been answered? I don't know. What I do know is I love Al Gore. I have always thought our country lucky to have, in its darkest moments, a leader who emerged to pull us through. It happened in the revolutionary period, of course, with Washington, the Civil War period with Lincoln, during the Great Depression and WWII with Roosevelt but in 2001 when our country was so viciously attacked and indeed threatened with catastrophic damage there was ultimately no one there to lead.

Indeed, it was our country's misfortune to have a leader in the oval office who was so woefully inept, so sadly not up to the task of governing this nation, so communicatively challenged and intellectually incurious during this epically important time. Worse, the leadership that followed him as president into the office of the vice-presidency and Congress was phenomenally dishonest, violent and uncaring about illegalities and abridgments of power. We lost our innocence on 9/11 and we lost our ideals as a nation in its aftermath. Bush and his minions instead of doing the most important task of uniting us, turned their back on anyone who questioned their policies, catered to religious extremists, concocted an unnecessary war, disempowered and thus divided this country nearly worse than during the time of the Civil War period.

In my opinion, too, there is no Democratic candidate who is up to the task of assuming the presidency. Although I like Obama, Hillary Clinton and others, they simply, in my opinion, cannot win and are now beset by the child-like cattiness of infighting. Our Congressional Democratic victory in 2006 is not enough. We face the prospect of yet another Republican presidential possibility who will keep us quagmired in a business-as-usual mode which our country now can ill afford. We face another great divide and worse we face a catastrophic future.

We need if not a New Deal a New Day. We need a reverse course of years of horrendously dangerous policy both domestically and, most certainly, internationally. Perhaps things happen for a reason. Perhaps, Al Gore did not attain what was rightfully his in 2000 because he needed to do even more important things until the time was right for him to use that greatness he has acquired to finally lead our nation and reverse its suicidal course. We are running off a cliff and there is not much time.

I want Al Gore to claim his rightful place as President of this nation. Our nation needs him. We desperately need the intellectually savvy, verbally adept, honest and secure leadership he could provide. Nothing less than our survival is at stake. I believe we must prevail upon him to run. Someday maybe my faith can be restored in the historical greatness that I always thought was America and my dream of experiencing a great presidential leader will be fulfilled.

The Jesus Tomb: These arguments are ridiculous. There is absolutely NO, I repeat NO evidence that Jesus even existed. There is no historical evidence whatsoever. The Gospels are NOT, I repeat NOT historical evidence since they were written a good deal after the time Jesus is alleged to have lived. The Gospels are stories, folklore if you will. Each differs from the other and none is an account of the actual happenings. There is not even any evidence that Pontius Pilot controlled Judea or that Caesar Augustus ordered everyone to be taxed. He didn't. Nothing, no coins, no artifacts nothing exists to prove the existence of Jesus. Those who say there is are pure and simply lying or fantasizing. Even Josephus a supposed Jewish historian whom many claim said Jesus Christ lived has long ago proven not to be true, his writings about Jesus a forgery. Even IF somehow somewhere some way proof could be gleaned it would not make much of a difference. Who said Jesus' entire body had to rise? Perhaps people would say it was his spirit which rose. When it comes to verifying the historicity of the existence and factual exploits of Jesus it is NOT going to ever happen unless some document somewhere is unearthed that says unequivocally with a detailed description there was a man named Yeshua who claimed to be the son of God and was crucified. There are MANY stories from the ancient world that claim the same things that the New Testament claims as attributes of Jesus. The last ossuary found which "unequivocally" proved Jesus had a brother James was a forgery. The Jesus story cannot be proved. It is a story. An ossuary with names means nothing. Money means everything...natch.

This is sent in response to an article critical of the AJC written by Rabbi Wascow of the Shalom Center which seems to be going around the Internet. I offer this response.

I do not know one thing about the American Jewish Committee. I am a skeptic through and through especially if it has to do with politics or religion. I went to the American Jewish Committee web site and I enclose the link to it http://www.ajc.org

It carries the remarks by Larry Lowenthal at his 18th year celebration. You can read the text of his speech. There is really not much to disagree with and there is not much I really can disagree with as far as Rabbi Wascow's email which you sent as well except for one sentence.

To me the proof is often going deeper. Even George Bush's speeches often sound good on their face but delve a little deeper into what this man has really done, who makes up his entourage and if possible what they say in private then it becomes a different story.

I try to look at both sides of issues. There is no question to me that American foreign policy has committed egregious acts. Acts, through which, we reap what we have sewn. It MUST be reassessed and reworked if we are to live on this planet without perpetual and at some point, I think, catastrophic war. There must also be a solution to the Palestinian issue. Personally, I believe in a two state solution too.

However, angels do not exist anywhere. The problem is that religion uncompromising and extreme throws up roadblocks to peace everywhere. There is no arguing with people who think God is on their side, God put them where they are and there is especially no arguing with suicide bombers who kill thousands upon thousands of innocents and will not even argue their beliefs in the first place. There is no criticism of or rapprochement by much of the academic left or albeit in the Muslim world of Muslims who decapitate, burn and slaughter so many even of their own religion. Occasionally one hears a few but certainly not an outcry.

We must wade through, in my opinion, the supernatural hocus pocus sewers that are the monotheistic religions in their pure form. A daunting task. I am not even sure it can be done. Religion in my opinion is the single most threatening force known to man besides nature because it keeps free thought down and closes the door to dialogue and scientific truth. This is true probably of some in the AJC and it is no less true of certainly many in the Islamic world as well.

The sentence in Rabbi Wascow's article that I do not like was: "Indeed, they attacked a Jewish poet, playwright, and historian for questioning the possibility of a two-state solution when the most vigorous underminers of such a solution -- even more vigorous and more effective than murders by Palestinian terrorists -- have been the Israeli government." THAT I have a problem with. Both sides commit atrocities. Palestinians commit horrendous atrocities even against their own people. I venture to ask if Israel were to cease to exist as a Jewish state (a possibility) would there be peace in Palestine? I would not bet my wallet on it.

Many in all of the Islamic world, too, are not kidding when they say they want a second Holocaust and Jews should be driven into the sea. I take them at their word. The Jewish state unless annihilated (a possibility) is a reality. A two state solution is, in my opinion, the most desirable BUT when the left, as they so often do, start using phrases like the Israeli government is worse than terrorists they lose me and incur worse wrath of a lot of Jews. The title of Jimmy Carter's book did the same thing. If he truly wants peace he would not have used the title he did which sold his book but alienated a lot of others. A true mediator looks at both sides and tries at least to treat them equally and not inflame. Rabbi Wascow's title
"F*****T, the AJC" did nothing to advance his cause. It looked on the face of it profane.

There must be quiet dialogue with an attempt to diffuse not ignite. So far, on both sides, I see very few willing to do that.

Hearing Anna Nicole: What a circus the Anna Nicole burial hearing was. I can only wonder what Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and Letterman will do with a judge actually crying about the verdict. The judge, while I'm sure is a decent guy, was significantly less than professional. His court was theater of the absurd and his discussion was often ridiculous in the extreme. That proceeding could have been cut in half. I suspect the judge was crying not really for Anna Nicole but for himself because of the intense, in my opinion, deserved criticism of his own histrionic behavior. Judge, the proceeding is NOT about you it is about a dead woman and her burial. Fewer personal comments by the judge and more control over the proceeding should have been the order of the day!

Troop Trauma: The fact that our troops not getting the BEST care from our government makes my blood burn and smoulder. This government which is wasting billions on no bid contracts to their cronies and contributors talks a wonderful game in front of the cameras. Behind the cameras it is a different story all together.

They, as I have said in many writings, do NOT dive a damn about the little guy OR the soldier. Bush and his cohorts in crime care about one thing only MONEY. When will the people of this nation see -- I mean REALLY see? Republicans in general are not about us they are about the huge corporation and the billions of bucks it generates for THEM and their campaigns but NOT for us. They do NOT care about us. We need to yell that loudly at the ballot box. They need to be swept out of office entirely and for good and if/when Democrats are elected they too cannot be allowed to cater to the money givers whom they need to get elected. They must put their money where they say there mouth is and cater to the people who need protection and government services. That is what government should be about.

The sale of Iraq is a COMPLETE abomination and the inattentiveness to the needs and safety of our precious soldiers who give up their lives is nothing less than criminal. Criminals and treason occupy the White House. Is this who we want to care about our soldiers who are spilling gallons of blood for a policy that is INSIPID and unwinnable? When will America wake up? Our life's blood is draining out of us and we cannot even get a useless non-binding resolution passed.

A mature nation realizes its mistake, stops the mistake and moves on. We desperately need a SMART, capable, communicatively adept leader in office. That is NOT who we have living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. We have living there quite the opposite. Shame on this leader for not providing our troops with everything they need and shame on us for "electing" him not once but twice!

Anna Nicole Mania: I suppose by the very fact that I am blogging about this I contribute to the news frenzy about Anna Nicole Smith. So much news so much of the time about her! It is pathetic indeed. I try to analyze this phenomenon. What is there about this country that it feeds so incessantly on the meaningless? So much money has been made by the media with respect to this woman's death. I ask why. What has she done in her life, short of nothing, to deserve this attention? Someone must want to know these things. The news about her sells and sells big. It puts huge amounts of cash into media moguls' coffers. One thing I do know is it puts NO cash whatsoever in MY coffer. It puts no cash in anyone else's coffer except for the few involved directly in the case. So what is it about that attracts us so much?

If Marilyn Monroe, Jack Kennedy, or Robert Kennedy were alive and youthful today could they ever have gotten away with so much of their behavior. If Marilyn Monroe were young today and died as she did how much news would be devoted to that? My guess is she would be covered 24/7

I think Anna Nicole Smith tried and indeed did remind so many of Marilyn. People in this country have, I think, never let go of the Monroe phenomenon. People still want her resurrected from the dead. In lieu of that, Anna Nicole Smith will suffice. Now the media, growing in technological sophistication, can give many what they want ... another Marilyn. This time though we can examine all the minutiae of her life and death something which at the time of Marilyn's death was not possible.

After the Smith saga has ended we will, of course, like Billy Flynn suggests about the character Roxie in the movie "Chicago," go on to the next bit of news junk. Instead of the public wanting to examine the complexities of American foreign policy or the metamorphosis of the history of Islam and the western thought, the superficialities of our culture will prevail and we will be glued to the next Anna Nicole Smith saga wherever that may be. It's sad because Smith's life is over but our lives, although not over yet, hang in the balance of war and diplomacy but our public wants entertainment and six party talks do not provide that!

Libby the Liar: If I were on the Libby jury the fact that three other journalists said that they had learned about Valerie Pflame from Fleisher, Rove and Armitage would in no way let Libby off the hook. As a matter of fact I would be more inclined to think that there was a concerted effort high in the administration to out Pflame by nearly everyone within the administration's hierarchy so why wouldn't Libby be among those high officials who did the very same thing to try to get Pflame's name out to journalists to discredit Joe Wilson revelations that part of Bush's state of the union speech was a lie to justify invading Iraq. To me it just reinforces Libby's guilt. It will stagger me if, because of money and influence, Libby gets away with perjury. For him and all the others in that administration, though, including our vice-president the charge really should be treason!

Rebecca Riley: I do not know the guilt or innocence of any party with regard to death by an overdose of medication of four year old Rebecca Riley. There is no question, in my opinion, that physicians are too quick to dispense especially psychotropic drugs. There is, it seems to me, no clear understanding of what psychotropic drug to prescribe or what amount of a drug a physician should give. Psychotropic drugs it seems are thrown into a hat, picked out randomly and given to patients some of whom may be children, to try. We are told psychiatry is not an exact science. Its often trial and error.

It is also true we suffer from an obsessive American quick fix disorder. The doctors and the drug companies dutifully oblige. Our media is saturated with never ending, ceaseless drug advertising. Money is always in the equation. In my opinion in the case of Rebecca Riley, it will be determined that she was short changed by all parties involved i.e. the psychiatrist, the pharmacy, DSS and most especially her fractured, dysfuntional mentally disturbed parents. It does seem to me that a bright red flag should have gone up to the physician when a mother, of dubious mental stability, asked for more and more refills as the drugs became allegedly lost or allegedly degraded by water. Then again, doctors do what they have always done pushed pills for the drug giants. Many may, indeed, have good intentions and want to help people. In the case of this little girl, however, lack of profound oversight and error cost a little girl her life!

Mary Cheney's Baby: Mary Cheney is right her baby is a blessed event. She should tell that to her right wing buddies that jet propelled her father and his friend George into the executive branch. The fact that her baby is an anathema to the religious fundamentalists gives Wolfe Blitzer every right to comment upon it. Blitzer was not commenting on the right or wrong of homosexuals raising babies together. He was asking how she feels about doing something that her father's so called base thinks is abhorrent. How could Mary Cheney think that a John Kerry would have been worse than this Republican administration with respect to her and her partner's particular interests? Her father and Bush owe the fact that they occupy the White House to that very group that would like to negate her, her partner and their baby's existence and think that what she is doing is next to blasphemy in its evil. I am stumped as to how Mary Cheney supports her father's party without shooting herself in her very foot. Something does not compute. Obviously, Mary Cheney does not see it that way. The question is why.

What to do in Iraq: Money should be appropriated to support the troops already there redeploying them to other appropriate areas and not put other so called "surge" troops in harms way. Iraq needs to be divided into the three main ethnic compositions and the oil reserves then further divided fairly. The ENTIRE war has been a mistake from beginning to end costing dearly in lives and treasure. It was NOT executed properly in so many ways and probably should not have been executed at all. Sadam Hussein, as cruel a leader as he was, kept that country together. It is now fractured beyond recognition, millions have fled and thousands continue to die. Is this better than even Sadam Hussein? I think not but the Hussein era is dead and we must deal with what is. The war blunder is proof positive -- if we ever needed one -- as to what happens when a country has a cerebrally inept, intellectually bankrupt, communicatively challenged, incurious person holding the highest office in the world. In the final analysis the buck stops not with him but with us, the people, for electing a nincompoop and a nincompoop's entourage that goes with him in the first place.

The Debacle that is Iraq: George W. Bush has sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. However horrendous Sadam Hussein was, he kept that country together through the use of force. Is the force that the US has used and the thousands of tonnage of bombs dropped on Iraq made Iraq better? It is much worse there than Sadam Hussein could even have imagined perpetrating. The US never invaded Iraq for WMD's, nor to spread democracy but for a combination of revenge for 9/11, a neocon philosophic fantasy and, of course, the omni-present oil. Now Shites, Sunnis, and many many others are exacting their revenge on each other and sadly upon the US, our allies that are left and our unbelievably brave soldiers. We are at an existential impasse. There is, as Jean Paul Sartre would say, NO EXIT!

The Supreme Court -- PBS DOCUMENTARY: I wrote this to Justice Roberts after his interview for this documentary. If you have not seen this documentary I suggest you do not miss it.:

I watched PBS documentary about the Supreme Court. Although, I am not politically aligned with Justice Roberts, I wanted to email to say how much I enjoyed the various segments of his interview. He is obviously very well versed in the history of the Supreme Court and made, I thought, an excellent presentation and representation of the Court.

The foundations of our democracy are a wonder to me and are testament, even to this day, of the brilliance of these 18th century men of the Enlightenment. It is so interesting to see how the Supreme Court has evolved from barely an entity to one of the most powerful forces of US history. Our Constitution remains an exquisite document which lends itself not only to the law and its rigidity but also to the interpretation of that law and its flexibility. I thought Justice Roberts conducted a wonderful and informative interview. I yearned for more!

Another Otherworldy Tale -- A response to Rabbi Gellman: I just simply do not buy hocus pocus and what we WISH could be the state of man as what truly is. We WISH life to be a fairy tale where justice, truth, freedom and purpose prevail but is not. The hope that it WILL be I imagine is eternal but realistically that hope is usually dashed. It is dashed because we live in a real world where the attainment of power and wealth are at its core. This has been so nearly eternally since man, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, has been around. These wishful stories that fascism, war, totalitarianism and other injustices will die are only that ... wishes and nothing else.

The men of peace whom you talk about such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi were assassinated. RFK was assassinated. Rabin and Sadat were assassinated. Hitler was replaced by Stalin. Stalin was replaced ultimately with religious fanaticism. Who does the US choose as a leader in these critical times? George W. Bush, intellectually limited wager-of-war-based-on-lies, religious fundamentalist denier of the truth of science and abridger of human rights supreme interested more in his oil buddies, corporate money and revenge than he is in the survival of the human race and life on this planet.

The world today is a MUCH worse and more threatening place then ever in the history of our species. Powers (plural) have the ability to destroy all life on earth forever. More and more nations will probably achieve that dubious nuclear capability distinction. My guess is they are simply, if you will pardon the pun, dying to use it. The US for all its talk of freedom, democracy and justice has been involved in a plethora of wars all over the globe since its history and many, with the exception of WWII, were unnecessary. We have killed hundreds of thousands sometimes necessarily so but sometimes not. War now prevails over peace and religious fundamentalism prevails over rational thought. Lies prevail over truth. Man is a violent, power loving, and corrupt creature whose world is blowing up or drowning and whose fate seems dismal at best. There is no one, absolutely no one, to stop this descent.

I suppose we can look at a half full glass but I do not see it as such. I see life as Hobbs saw it for what I think it is: nasty, brutish and short. There are no saviors, there are no protectors there is only a continual line of men of folly globally who know exactly how to wage war but little of how to sagaciously wage peace. Worse, they couch their reason for violence in irrational religious insanity. If you want a fairy tale protector or ending read a book because that is the only place I think you will get one.

Beautiful Barbaro: That beautiful Kentucky Derby horse winner Barbaro was euthanized today ultimately due to his original leg fracture when he tried to run the Preakness last year. It is a sad ending to a magnificent animal.

I have long thought horse and dog racing are cruel and inhumane “sports.” Humans are simply using those beautiful animals for their own pleasure and, of course, big money while stressing the animal's body to Olympian heights. Barbaro’s legs just could not stand the stress of it. It makes me sad. People say why do you care it's just an animal but I truly do believe animals have an intrinsic value and just as much right to a life on this planet as humans do without interrupting their natural life cycle. In a way, I see no difference between humans and animals. We are all animals but endowed with different traits. Yes, our brain makes us cleverer but does that mean we have more worth, for example, than a horse which can certainly run faster or a dog which can hunt better or a bird which can fly? Humans can certainly build better mouse traps but I do not think that entitles us to use and abuse other species and I especially loath animals used by humans for immense profit.

I believe we are all meant to be on this earth and to use whatever our capacities are to survive. I do believe in ultimately letting the earth and nature dictate all of our fates without humans imposing their will and being the determining factor of everything. Barbaro and each human too are beautiful and unique in and of themselves. I believe, their natural life cycle should not be negatively dominated by anyone else. Yes, I agree Barbaro needed to be euthanized because his quality of life was reduced so significantly that leading a life free of pain was simply not an option for him. I do to an extent agree with that for humans as well. I believe endless pain and suffering is not what life is meant to be and humans surely should not contribute to that for any specie. Human sport killed Barbaro. At least I agree with one thing, Barbaro is not suffering anymore.

Little Miss Darkness err Sunshine: Perhaps I am unique. I simply do not for the life of me understand what people think is so wonderful about this film or why it is up for any Academy Award. I simply hated it. It was preposterous, ridiculous, inane, certainly profane and obnoxious. Okay, perhaps it said one should be who one is and persevere despite life's setbacks and with a loving family it will be much easier to get through the rough spots. I'll give it that. I suppose it had a message. Still, the way TO the message was insane.

Moreover, something else bothered me. The role of the grandfather made me squirm. The fact that he was disgustingly profane and obnoxiously revolting was compounded by what he said in the company of his granddaughter. There was some kind of, I thought, weird incestuous suggestiveness that I was not at all comfortable with. Would anyone be comfortable with a grandfather who got kicked out of his condo, sniffed cocaine and advised his grandson to bed every woman he can, staying in a hotel room with their female child? The kiddy beauty pageant at the end put the child pornographic icing on the cake for me and it did so by trying to be hilarious about it. There is NOTHING funny about a child being placed in a Jean Benet Ramseyish adult sexual role. NOTHING. This film said and did some uncomfortable things and more than once I was tempted to walk out. I didn't but I wish I had. This film disgusted me.

A post by Maureen Dowd:

This should be sent to every member of Congress and that den of stupidity the White House. Maureen Dowd is a one-of-a-kind magnificently brilliant editorialist. Her editorial is below.

Daffy Does Doom

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 27, 2007
WASHINGTON

Dick Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as “delusional.”

It was shocking, and Senator Durbin should be ashamed of himself.

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It requires an exquisite kind of lunacy to spend hundreds of billions destroying America’s reputation in the world, exhausting the U.S. military, failing to catch Osama, enhancing Iran’s power in the Middle East and sending American kids to train and arm Iraqi forces so they can work against American interests.

Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam.

You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.

In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he’s “out of line” when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.

Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, “It won’t stop us.”

Such an exercise in democracy, he noted, would be “detrimental from the standpoint of the troops.”

Americans learned an important lesson from Vietnam about supporting the troops even when they did not support the war. From media organizations to Hollywood celebrities and lawmakers on both sides, everyone backs our troops.

It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery.

“Bottom line,” Vice told Wolf, “is that we’ve had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.” The biggest threat, he said, is that Americans may not “have the stomach for the fight.”

He should stop casting aspersions on the American stomach. We’ve had the stomach for more than 3,000 American deaths in a war sold as a cakewalk.

If W. were not so obsessed with being seen as tough, Mr. Cheney could not influence him with such tripe.

They are perpetually guided by the wrong part of the body. They are consumed by the fear of looking as if they don’t have guts, when they should be compelled by the desire to look as if they have brains.

After offering Congress an olive branch in the State of the Union, the president resumed mindless swaggering. Asked yesterday why he was ratcheting up despite the resolutions, W. replied, “In that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.” (Or preordained it.)

The reality of Iraq, as The Times’s brilliant John Burns described it to Charlie Rose this week, is that a messy endgame could be far worse than Vietnam, leading to “a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now,” and a “wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world’s flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there’s complete chaos in the region?”

Mr. Cheney has turned his perversity into foreign policy.

He assumes that the more people think he’s crazy, the saner he must be. In Dr. No’s nutty world-view, anti-Americanism is a compliment. The proof that America is right is that everyone thinks it isn’t.

He sees himself as a prophet in the wilderness because he thinks anyone in the wilderness must be a prophet.

To borrow one of his many dismissive words, it’s hogwash.

Tragedy at Lincon/Sudbury Regional High: The violence and death of a student in the safety of his school would have been unthinkable in other eras. The most contraband which I brought to school was gum; the most dangerous weapon a pencil. Profanity and violence directed toward a student or teacher was not even a thought. Something has gone terribly wrong. Hoping to free ourselves from some of the ridiculous societal shackles of the 50's we, I think, reaped what we did not want exactly to sew.

I believe there is a general crudity which exists in this country, illustrated in our culture by the language used, the lack of civility in discourse and, worst of all, in the exhibition of violence without care or concern for the feelings of another. We are exposed to it every day, when we turn on television, watch the evening news, go to the movies, turn on the computer or simply walk into a mall. There is a cacophony of voices screaming at and not listening to each other. Until adults, liberal and conservative alike, learn to treat each other respectfully and to impose upon themselves self censorship, vulgarity and violence will be a way of life so that what happened in Lincoln Sudbury Regional High School will become not the exception but the rule.

Notes on a Scandal -- notable: This was a superb and wonderfully acted film. The entire cast including, of course, Judi Dench (Barbara) and Kate Blanchett (Sheba) gave sterling performances. The film has much to say and there is much to think about. I thought the movie was about loyalty, altruism, friendship, sadness, emptiness and purpose in life. It was about the unexpected and unanticipated outcomes of life. It was about morality and it was about loneliness.

Barbara is an aging, single and devastatingly lonely history teacher who develops an emotional and even sexual attachment to the comparatively youngish, very pretty, newly hired, insecure art teacher, Sheba. Sheba's problematic family life adds to her loneliness. She is married to an older man and has two children who present her with hard-to-manage unanticipated consequential situations. One of her children is a seemingly rather difficult teenage girl and the other is a son with Downs Syndrome.

Wading through her loneliness and difficulties, Sheba commits an immoral act which Barbara inadvertently observes; the stage is set for unforeseen consequences. There is too much in this movie to relate the ensuing events nor would I want to be a spoiler. There are pertinent questions, though, I think a viewer of the movie could keep in mind.

Why do people do what they do? When must we say no to one's impulses? Where is the line we and society draw and is it ever understandable when we cross that line? What is the nature of friendship? Ayn Randian questions always plague me. Are people really altruistic or do we do things because, in the end, we alone need to do them? Does self-interest always prevail and does it doom us? Barbara befriends Sheba and Sheba develops a great misplaced trust. Because of that events unfold and Sheba's world is upended. Barbara, I think, really cares about no one except herself and yet I built up an intense empathy for Barbara whose loneliness literally drips from every pore of her being. Is she evil? Is she completely pathologic as she flits from one receptive flower to the next? Is Barbara's reaction to life understandable? Does Sheba reap what she alone has sewn through her immoral act? Who is the more immoral of the two? What is betrayal and is it ever right? Barbara after all, I think, really does not betray because of a sense of right but because of a jealous sense of wrong that she feels was committed against her.

Personally, although some kinds of altruism, I think, exist, I do believe most people do what it is in their own self interest to do. Barbara did not offer to help Sheba through her difficulties out of an altruistic friendship she offered to help Sheba because she needed and wanted to possess her. Sheba committed an immoral act without thought of consequences to anyone including her family because she, too, needed to do so. The two protagonists were using people to satisfy their own urges and remedy their own disappointments in life.

I do believe we as a society need to create morality and set certain albeit arbitrary standards because, in the end, humans are still primitive beings. Left to our own devices we would do anything we want and a kind of social anarchy would and does often prevail. This film was riveting. I highly recommend it.

I loath the George W. Bush presidency: The damage he has done is staggering. He and his entire administration are like flypaper. We simply cannot rid ourselves of his ineptitude. I loath him because of his cerebral failure. His policies are a reflection of his lack of intellect. I cannot believe we have a president who is so limited and our government is so powerless, even with a Democratic majority, to rid us of this scourge.

This psychologically and intellectually impaired president will simply veto everything the Democrats pass and Democrats won't have the cajones to override immoral vetoes. Whether it's ethics reform, stem cell research or the Iraq debacle he will veto all of Congress's attempt to rectify the horror he has wrought. He is a disgrace. I believe our people got what they wanted especially those so called conservatives of the mid-West and south. Many of them have paid the ultimate price with either their own life or that of their child and other loved ones. Bush is the gift that keeps on giving...and giving and giving and giving.

Because of 9/11 I supported the Iraq war initially because I emphatically thought Iraq possessed WMD's. I thought our government absolutely knew things we did not and would never take us to a huge war based on lies this time. I thought this time our government would make sure to follow military advice.

Sometimes I wonder, what if the US did not act in Iraq and left Hussein and his sons alone? Would he/they then have been in competition with Iran to build a nuclear bomb? That question can never be answered. What we do know now is that the terrorists in the form of Al Quaeda who attacked us on 9/11 and other terrorists from all over the region are certainly in Iraq now. They were not in Iraq under Hussein. Hussein suffered no tyrants except the tyranny of his own regime. It is possible that that regime if left in place would have ensured a terrorist free zone. We will never know.

Further, I also wonder if the Iraq War was not a pretext to ultimately bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities. If so it seems this could not have gone worse. Perhaps Bush didn't care how it went IF he could position our troops in Iraq to provide support for an ultimate air and sea attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

There has been so much death and destruction on all fronts for seemingly absolutely nothing. Certainly Islamic fanatics will not be getting 72 virgins in heaven. What total insanity their cause is. On the other Christian hand certainly, too, Revelations is a story book joke as well. If, however, Bush believes in it then I do not know who is crazier Bush or the Islamic fundamentalists. Maybe it's a tie but the joke certainly is on us.

The Good Shepard -- the etiology of the CIA: I think I enjoyed this film more than most. Perhaps I enjoyed it because I am a very political person and think so often about national and international issues. I am constantly trying to figure out which side is really right. It seems each decade I change my mind. Perhaps it is because history and its analyses change from era to era. With the exception of the moral superiority of WWII, US policy becomes, I think, questionable, throughout the cold war era and beyond. Perhaps no one is all right and no one is all wrong. This country has done some nasty things BUT so has every other country. International politics is not soft and cuddly and if one needs a teddy bear I suggest the CIA, FBI, etc. is not for you. This film, I agree, seems not to take a firm stand although it surely does give one pause as to US interrogation techniques. I think one can relate much to contemporary events and arguments against (and for) torture.

The definite flaw, in my opinion, is the aging process of the actors. Angelina Jolie remains twenty something from decade to decade as does Matt Damon as does Tammy Blanchard and others. It was hard to tell the difference between the ages of Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie's and their son. That made it hard to follow and believe.

I did love the performances though and I loved the subject matter despite the film's lack of statement. Perhaps every film does not have to hit one over the head (so to speak) telling us its definitive point of view but rather should spark discussion of, in this case, power politics and its necessary bedfellow -- immorality. How far would one go to protect oneself, one's family or one's country even if it meant that you had to commit an immoral act to do it? That is a good question and I cannot think of a better time in history to ask it. A warning: It is a long film but I did not look at my watch once!