Flush Bush in 2004!

Amish in the City? (or Reality TV is Truly Terrible Trash Television!)

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:02:11 GMT

As spiritual cousins to the Amish, Mennonites feel a particular distaste at the prospect of an Amish-based "reality" TV show proposed to air this summer on UPN.

After plans for Amish in the City emerged in late January, we thought such a preposterous concept would soon vanish on the shifting tides of taste. Unfortunately, we misjudged the network's determination to make Amish in the City its latest prism of comedic distortion, this one directed at an already misunderstood, and often exploited, faith group.

The premise of the show calls for a group of Amish young people to move in with city-dwelling Gen Y'ers, with the resulting disjunction generating millions of dollars in laughs for UPN. The expectation, apparently, is that the Amish youths will "freak out," as network honcho Les Moonves said, when they see the debauchery available in the combustion-driven world.

Whether this will make "interesting television," as Moonves also asserted, we leave to the masses already gorged on The Osbournes and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

But that such a show is an insult to the Amish, or even to Christians in general, stands without a doubt. [I'm not sure how such a show would be an insult to garden-variety Christians more so than to anyone else, but OK...] In fact, a lot of "reality" TV is insulting - to the people involved and even to the viewers who bask like radishes in its headache-inducing glow. It is also an insult to those whose insurrection scuttled CBS's proposed New Beverly Hillbillies series, which was just Amish in the City with a cee-ment pond.

[As someone who pays very little attention to 99% of anything having to do with TV, I hadn't heard about the protest that arose from this proposed show, but the group that ran a newspaper ad against it made some excellent points. A lot of things confuse me in life, but there's one thing I'm pretty sure about: we don't have much chance of evolving beyond our current human condition if our most popular forms of humor stay confinded to those that ridicule and degrade the different and the disempowered. I'm a big fan of political/social satire that highlights foolishness and faulty thinking on the part of the famous and powerful, but capitalizing on ignorance and prejudice to make fun of people like the Amish and the rural poor is a very different thing—and a very tasteless, unenlightened one a that!]

We encourage anyone who opposes such programming to complain not only to UPN, but to its sponsors. If UPN can't see the emptiness of such a show, perhaps a threat to their advertising coffers will prove more enlightening. And if this fails, just boycott the show, or take a lesson from the Amish themselves and throw your TV on the brush pile behind the barn.

After all, an unwatched show is almost like no show at all.

I did not know until I was educated by a Judging Amy episode (besides Gilmore Girls, my favorite currently-airing shows are CBS dramas, although I don't get to see them that often) about the fact that Amish young people who are coming of age are encouraged to spend a year in the "real world" before deciding of their own free will whether or not to join the church themselves and live out their lives in the Amish way. That in and of itself is pretty darn enlightened and speaks profoundly to the wisdom of the Amish culture.

Even an editorial on the CBS website speaks out against the UPN show idea! (Not that CBS itself would have any right to decry stupid reality shows, but I guess this guy is allowed to have his own opinion, which is reassuring!)

This guy, who does have a name, which is Lloyd Garver, has another great opinion piece on the political distraction value of the anti-same-sex-marriage hysteria of Bush and his right-wing friends. He starts out on a comic note: "When I first heard the term 'same-sex marriages,' I was against them. I figured just because a couple is married, why should sex always have to be the same? All right, I didn't really think that about same-sex marriages, but I also didn't think they would become such a big deal. I guess my fingers slipped when I was taking the pulse of America, because boy, was I wrong."

He goes on to ask some of the questions I myself have asked: "In the past two weeks, thousands of gay couples were married in San Francisco. Is your respect for marriage smaller than it was two weeks ago? Is your marriage less important to you now? Do you love your spouse any less than you did before the 'Valentine's Day weddings?' If your marriage is affected by the marriages of some strangers, don't blame the bride and groom. Blame your marriage." Indeed. "What about all those celebrity weddings — like Britney Spears' — that seem to make a mockery of marriage? Should we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding flighty famous folks from tying the knot? What about that cousin of yours who married that guy that everybody knew would treat her horribly and eventually leave her? Should there be a constitutional amendment to prohibit that kind of unfortunate marriage?" How about a law requiring pre-marital counseling? Maybe even one requiring pre-divorce counseling! Sounds much more reasonable to me that a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-family, anti-marriage Constitutional amendment!

And here's the most important question: "If you're against gay marriages for legal, ethical, or emotional reasons, you're certainly entitled to these feelings. But do you believe it's such an important issue that things like national security, the economy, and foreign policy should be pushed aside so time and money can be spent on passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit them?"

Garver's article isn't just about SSM but more generally about the way hysteria over "threats to our nation" caused by "sexal immorality" serves to keep us from focusing on important issues. Another recent example is the whole Janet Jackson breast silliness. Garver writes: "Faster than you could say 'Lewinsky,' Congressional committees were formed to investigate 'Nipplegate' and other offensive fare being foisted on us by machines with an 'off' button. But how long did it take for a committee to be formed to investigate why we received such poor intelligence on Iraq before sending over American soldiers to risk their lives?" And perhaps more importantly: what real power does this commission have, and will we actually know the outcome of its investigation any time in the next decade? I keep asking: where's the moral outrage in this country over real threats and atrocities like the Dubya regime's new "pre-emptive" war policy and its incarceration of hundreds of people, including children, in an illegal prison in Cuba?! As George Carlin said, our priorities are seriously screwed up. Really, truly warped.

Hair-Brained Humor

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:46:08 GMT

DEMS SHOCK AS KERRY'S HAIR SPLITS! - 01/23/2004 - The Democratic Party is in turmoil tonight after the shock announcement that Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry's hair has split from the party and is to run as an independent ...

So I'm not the only one who thinks there is soemthing odd about that man's hair!

Computerized Voting

Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:32:48 GMT

"The core of our American democracy, members, is the right to vote. And implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question [^] the privacy of the vote, the security of the vote, and the accuracy of the vote. It troubles me, and it should trouble you." —Kevin Shelley, CA Secretary of State, December 2003

Verified Voting Campaign
True Majority: The Computer Ate My Vote
The California Voter Foundation's Voting Technology Page

"Age is not a factor in determining detention"

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:33:31 GMT

How can age not be a factor??! We are violating international law! You can't hold a 12 or 13-year-old boy at a military prison facility—it's barbaric! It's mind-boggling! Thank the Goddess that we did not mistreat them (although apparently the one boy was abused at least early on in his ordeal), but that hardly makes it all OK! Is it not absusive to kidnap these children from their country, steal them away from their families and friends, and imprision them in a foreign country half way around the world?! Is that not a human rights violation? A war crime? I don't care if they had been made into fighters by the Taliban (which they all deny!)—would that have been their fault?! Most Americans don't think kids their age have the maturity to decide whether to have sex; we don't allow them to drink or vote (or drive, at least for the youngest one!); and yet somehow they're mature enough to be held as "enemy combatants" in a military prison?!!

It is no wonder they world despises us! We are delusional—at least our leaders are, along with those Americans who support their activities! Thankfully they were treated reasonably well and educated and allowed to play. I am so very grateful to the Universe for any amount of sanity on the part of our military and our leaders. But that doesn't make the absurd injustice of their kidnapping and year-long imprisonment in any way less appalling! And it's still going on: there are still juveniles imprisoned right now by our military. Where is the public outcry?! The public goes into immediate action when an American child Asadullah's age is kidnapped! Is an Afghan child not as valuable and precious as an American one?! Are we a nation of zombies made blind and braindead by the deceptive war propoganda of the current Administration?! What the hell is going on?!

What's worse, screwing an intern or screwing the country?!

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:27:07 GMT

A letter to Salon.com in response to this article (to which I was alerted by True Majority):

What I want to know is when the Democrats are going to start taking some of this information seriously and going after Bush in a big way. Information comes to light every day about how Bush has lied, about sinister neo-con plans to build a military empire and squash all dissent, about the myriad ways in which in three short years the Bush administration has made us less secure, less free, less healthy, and less well-off, but the Dems just don't seem to take it to heart. There's far more serious a case for impeaching Bush than their ever was for impeaching Clinton, but the Democratic party seems unwilling to take any definitive action against Bush, despite many calls from the American populous, and many of us would sure like to know why!

The truth about 9-11?

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:16:24 GMT

I've seen some sites on the web that have presented some elaborate challenges to the official story of what happened on 9-11-2001. I don't know if I should take them seriously or not. But a group called the "Family Steering Committee" has put forth some tough questions for GW Bush, and this is a serious group, made of substantial, accomplished individuals who ought to be taken seriously. So I wrote e-mails to the government's 9-11 commission as well as to Bush and to my Senators and Congressional Rep.

To: info@9-11Commission.gov
From: Madeline Althoff
Subject: Make Bush Answer the Tough Questions!

Dear Committee,

You should extend your investigation, and specifically you should insist that President Bush answer the tough questions put forth by the Family Steering Committee (http://www.911independentcommission.org/). Many different people and groups have questions about how 9-11 could have happened and what exactly did happen, but this group in particular is made of extremely qualified, respected indidviduals who deserve to be taken very seriously. If this tragedy could have been prevented, no matter who is responsible, even if it is President Bush, the American public has the right to know. You are the only ones currently empowered to make sure the truth is known and steps are taken to ensure that this kind of national security failure never happens again. Please go above and beyond to make sure nothing has been overlooked and no one has been exempted from your fact-finding mission.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Madeline Althoff
*****************
San Jose, CA 95129

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:00:54 GMT

Or, More Proof that Dubya and Right-Wingers are Full of Shit

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Arlington, Virginia The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Wedding Church And State (From TomPaine.com)

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 04:37:22 GMT

Susan Jacoby's forthcoming Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism will be published in April by Metropolitan Books. The author is also director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York.

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus, the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

Today's Religious Right is completely out of touch with the thinking of our esteemed "Founding Fathers" and with the nature of our Constitution, which "was written and ratified by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians equally fearful of entanglements between religion and government... the men of faith who helped frame the Constitution were confident enough of the strength of their religion that they did not feel obliged to enlist the aid of government to promote their personal beliefs." [Apparently today's evangelical Christians are less confident in the strength of their religion to hold its own without the benefit of unconstitutional government support!]

My comments: The RR always likes to believe that the Founding Fathers were a group of pious traditional Christians, which is so much bull-dookey: they included Deists, Unitarians, and other "unorthodox" types. Most importantly they were not interested in creating a theocracy: far from it! They were products of the Enlightenment, and they were champions of the separation of Church and State.

Bush is un-American! Patriot Act is un-American!

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 03:47:42 GMT

Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

"President Bush's endorsement of this mean-spirited amendment shows that he is neither compassionate nor concerned with the rights of all Americans," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. They serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt. Amending the constitution to deny them the same rights we all take for granted just isn't very American."

Learn More about the Proposed Amendment

Some good news from the ACLU: "In response to a public outcry, the Justice Department has decided to quash a series of grand jury subpoenas issued to anti-war protestors in Des Moines, Iowa. However, the ACLU still has serious concerns about why the subpoenas were issued in the first place and the broad scope of the Justice Department's inquiry."

An open letter to President Bush

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:46:49 GMT

The author of this letter, the Rev. Meg Riley, is the director of the Faith in Action office (of the Unitarian Universalist Association) in Washington D.C.

An Open Letter to President Bush

February 24, 2004

Dear Mr. President,

This morning you felt compelled to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as existing only between one man and one woman.

You say that this will create "clarity." I would like you to share this clarity with my first grade daughter on her school playground, when the children, imitating their role models as they always do, will take up the issue. Because I dread those conversations with every fiber of my being.

Challenged by another child, my daughter will declare forthrightly that of course her two moms are married. After all, we have wedding photos in our home, as any couple does. They show her two moms, fifteen years ago, in front of our Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Smiling, with many of our friends and family members around us.

You see, we have not yet discussed with this seven year old, precocious as she is, the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She knowsonly that we are her parents, the only ones she's known. She knows that we got married in our church, as her aunts and uncles did, and that our neighborhood and church, her school and social circle, involves a significant number of kids with two moms and a few with two dads. She knows that we provide the only stability, the only bedrock, that she has ever known.

Of course she knows that there are people who say that two men or two women cannot be married. She knows that, not very long ago, some people said that no one could marry someone of a different race, but now of course we no longer believe that. But I haven't yet been able to break it to her that some people want to change our Constitution to say that our family isn't part of "We the people". I just haven't found a way to fit it in between soccer and karate and church.

Tonight I will sit her down, after we've done her homework, and have the conversation that I hoped I could avoid. I will tell her that you, the President of the United States, have decided that only a man and a woman can be married, and that you want to make that part of our Constitution. Yes, the document she adores from watching Liberty's Kids and reading Magic Treehouse books. I will tell her that I don't believe this change in the Constitution will happen, not enough people will vote for it. But it does mean that people may say very mean things to her at school about our family. She will be afraid. I will project confidence and good humor, but I will be afraid, too.

I do not want to teach my daughter that the President of the United States does not include our family in the people he serves and protects. I do not want to say to her that the very flag she loves will be waved by people who believe that it does not belong to our family.

Please, Mr. Bush, tell me how I should conduct myself "without bitterness or anger" at this time, as you instructed me today. Come over to my house tonight: you look at my daughter's eyes as they absorb the fact that you, the first President she has ever known, thinks she can no longer be included in the very Constitution of this land. You tell me how to "conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country." Because I am at a loss.

Sincerely,

The Rev. Meg A. Riley
Unitarian Universalist Association
Washington, DC

My comments: What can I say, really? It takes my breath away. The most amazing thing, though, is that there is no chance of it affecting in the least the imbecile we call President, even if he should read it, because I don't think he even has the ability to imagine the perspective of someone very different from himself. It's a stage of human development he's never achieved, and probably won't in this lifetime. But perhaps it could affect some other people, perhaps some people unsure of where they stand in this "debate".

It has to become about real people. Human beings, with lives, jobs, families, just like everyone else. It's too easy when it's just about ideas, traditions, doctrines, theories, politics...too easy for people to say, "yeah, this is what I believe, and I have a right to believe it", without having to consider the very real human beings and relationships and families that stand in limbo at the heart of this issue. The children and parents, the loved ones, the communities, the loving couples, they are all this issue is about. Everything else is rhetoric.

Dubya will never understand that, because he's really nothing more than a spoiled child wearing Daddy's boots and playing emperor. Nothing in his life has given him the ablity see beyond himself and his sense of the world...

But the evolution of the human race depends upon the ability of people to open their minds to uncomfortable ideas, and it's happened a million times before, with a million things most of us now take for granted, and I have to have faith that it will happen again. And it already is happening with today's young people, so it's only a matter of time. And that's what the religious conservatives know, in their hearts, and because they fear change and growth and forward movement, they want to do whatever they can to stop it, but they can't—I have to have faith that we as a human race are better than that, smarter than that, more fair, more compassionate, more able to change and grow towards greater love and greater harmony, embracing all aspects of our humanity... I have to believe that we are capable of so much more than those who believe we are "fallen" could ever imagine...

I have to believe that we are moving toward the creation of a world where all are valued, all are honored, all are encouraged to reach their full potential... I have to believe that there is more Gandhi and MLK Jr., Dorothy Day, Mother Jones, and Cesar Chavez, Del and Phyllis, Gavin Newsom, and Meg Riley, more people like Pastor Michael, this woman, and these two (people who make an effort to reach out, to seek understanding, to bridge divides) in us as a human race than there is Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Jesse Helms, Dr. Laura, the Pope, Dick Cheney, Arnold Schwarzenneger, or George W. Bush... I have to believe that we are more, ever so much more than the least imaginative among us... I have to believe all of this to go on every day. To get up and to make an effort. And I have to love the human race in spite of all of its failings, because it is in humanity that I put my faith, in our inherent wisdom and goodness, in our ability to grow and create and achieve understanding...

For the day that is coming when all will be well on this lovely blue-green paradise we call Earth will not be heralded by apocalyptic horsemen and orchestrated by a God on a throne who accepts only some and rejects others. No, it will be heralded by loving words and loving thoughts and loving deeds, by increased cooperation and decreased division, by increased understanding and decreased fear, by the laughter of children and the wisdom of sages. And it will be orchestrated by a million tiny voices calling in unison for peace and freedom and justice for all. I have seen the Promised Land in my mind, in my heart, in my dreams, and I am not alone, so I will have faith in the potential of the human race, and I will work for justice and empowerment and unity, and the Spirit of Love will guide us, somehow, and we will find our way. So mote it be.

Goodnight. :)

Nebulous "Threats" to our Nation's Future

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:41:49 GMT

Same-sex marriage rights seem to be the only thing on my mind right now, but it's not terribly surprising, since it's a major news issue at the moment...

For example, earlier today I was visiting with my mom and sister (we had met with my older sister and niece and had a wet weather "fieldtrip" to Ikea, my first time, quite a store), and we went into a Starbucks, so my mom could get some coffee, and I took a look at the local Palo Alto newspaper, and of course it's a font page story that a thousand people will have been married in San Francisco over this long weekend, with hundreds being turned away because City Hall is simply overwhelmed!! (I had to blink back tears again!)

People have come from other cities and other states, waited hours and hours in line, and are ready to camp out on the sidewalk, just to make a public declaration of a loving committment that others can do so easily any day of the week in any city in the country. It's just so absurdly ironic... People are lining up to uphold the marriage institution by joining it, and some fools want to "protect" it by turning them away! What are they so afraid of? As I've read a number of conservatives say, can gays possibly make any more of a mockery of marriage as a serious institution than straights already have?!

And yet here is a quote from a random conservative, writing to a US Senator, that sounds like so many other conservative claims, and yet makes no sense at all...

"The traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be preserved, for the sake of our nation's families and our nation's future."

My response: Or what??! Just what the hell is it you fear-mongerers think is going to happen if gays and lesbians get married? How is society going to be anything but better and more stable for it?! One thousand same-sex couples have been married in San Francisco this past weekend. Whether or not their marriage certificates eventually get voided by some court decision, for right now, they have marriage certificates, and they have had the same chance to make public their committment that straight people get every day of the year.

And has the world ended? Has California or San Francisco dropped off into the ocean? Has God smote Gavin Newsom? Have the city's children suddenly morphed into some crazed, depraved, heathens destined to carry out the destruction of the human race? Has everyone in San Francisco suddenly forsaken heterosexual sex and reproduction? (I think my sister and brother-in-law and niece who are redecorating and shopping and excitedly awaiting the birth of my new nephew Gordon would be shocked to hear that!) :P

It's all just so ridiculous! People predicted that interracial marriage, and the end of slavery, and women ordained as ministers, and the teaching of evolutionary biology, and women voting, and black people voting, and women working, and who knows what else(!) would bring about the end of human civilization, and yet here we are, driving SUVs, writing weblogs, drinking lattes, sending rovers to Mars, occupying other countries, and using way more than our fair share of the Earth's resources here today in the good ol' USA. It's amazing how life goes on despite every so-called threat to the foundations of human civilization...

Bishop Spong condemns Bush Administration for lies about Iraq war

Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:55:58 GMT

Jane from Adelaide, South Australia asks: "How did you feel when your daughter joined the Marines and was deployed to Iraq during the war, while you were so outspokenly opposed to that war?"

Dear Jane,

I respect each of our children and trust them to make the proper decisions for their lives. It would not occur to me to try to make my children abide by my convictions or attitudes, even if I could. So I trust them to live as they decide.

I opposed the war for lots of reasons that are now, even after the capture of Saddam, overwhelmingly being shown to be right.

The war hype was not related to reality. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attack. Attacking Iraq was a policy decision made before the Bush Administration took power on January 20, 2001.

There were no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no atomic capability.
There was no germ warfare that could be made ready in 45 minutes.
The American case was so weak that major allies would not join the war effort.
The propaganda that called these troops "Coalition forces" was stretched beyond reasonableness. It was an Anglo-British [I think he meant Anglo-American] force with a sprinkling of others. [A tiny sprinkling at that!]
The cost of the war was grossly underestimated. The cost of reconstruction has only recently begun to be embraced.
The "pinpoint" new precision weapons that were supposed to minimize civilian casualties were a joke since we know that some 14,000 Iraqis died, about half of them innocent citizens.
There was no exit strategy.
Terrorism is not fought with bombs and missiles. Terrorism is fought by addressing the causes of despair and hopelessness that give rise to a willingness to die in order to inflict pain on those the terrorists hold responsible for your pain.
The truth about this military adventure was never told.
The benefits do not offset the loss of more than 500 American lives.
Unilateral military action breaks trust in the family of nations.

I think the war was fought for three unspoken reasons:

1. The first President George Bush had made a mess of the first Iraqi war. Not only did he not complete his mission but he encouraged dissident Iraqis with promises of help to rebel against what he thought was a crippled Saddam Hussein. They rebelled, received no help and were murdered by Saddam, while that first President Bush stood by meekly, hoping to ride his "victory" to a second term in the White House. He failed. His son, the second President Bush, wanted to clean up his father's mistakes.

2. Iraq had oil reserves, which American oil interests wanted. Neither North Korea nor Libya, both of which posed a greater threat than Iraq to their neighbors and to the world with their known arsenals of destructive weapons were invasion targets. In these places we sought a diplomatic or "negotiated settlement." The difference? Neither North Korea nor Libya has oil.

3. After 9/11, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told the Bush administration that they could not survive politically if American military personnel continued to operate from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. needed a Middle Eastern country to solidify its military presence in that region. Iraq was the choice. These facts mean to me that this present administration has not been honest with the American people. They, therefore, do not have my trust.

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, for more than twenty years and is one of the leading spokespersons in the world for progressive Christianity. He is the author of 15 books including the bestselling Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Living in Sin, Liberating the Gospels, and Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Note: I got text because it was posted to mailing list I'm on. It's from Spong's e-mail newsletter. In order to receive the newsletter, one must pay a fee at this site. I'm disturbed that he's selling his ideas for $35 $25 (apparently there's been a recent markdown!) a year... What kind of bizarre money-making scheme is that John?

Lesbian couple, together 51 years, married today in SF :)

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:55:35 GMT

[SFGate]
S.F. defies law, marries gays
LEGAL BATTLE LOOMS: City Hall ceremonies spur constitutional showdown, injunction threat
February 13, 2004
By Rachel Gordon

In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.

A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could. [It's just so absurd when you think of it, the religious right, the supposed champions of committed relationships and the social stability they provide, doing everything they can to keep people from getting married. What a farce...]

"A barrier to true justice has been removed," said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians. ...

Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act. By early Thursday, employees in the county clerk's office, in consultation with city and civil rights lawyers, had changed marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral, replacing the words "bride" and "groom" with "first applicant" and "second applicant."

At 11:06 a.m., two icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, took their wedding vows, kissed and embraced, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States. ...

My comments: Hooray for Del and Phyllis! (It's a rare newspaper article that brings tears of joy to one's eyes!)

Stupid fucking moron conservatives! How can they be so fucking blind? When will they simply open their eyes to the beauty of love in its myriad forms and stop trying to draw lines in the sand and boxes around people? ...I guess the answer's probably "blowin' in the wind", but at least, on this one bright February day there was a little beauty and celebration in a City Hall rotunda... Blessed Be.

(Here's a little more of the sweet story...)

Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life" in place of "husband" and "wife".

Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.

"I asked Del, and she said OK," Lyon said. "We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible. Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.'" [Awwww! It's just so sweet! I can just see them, these 80-year-old ladies, lesbian rights pioneers, 51 years of love and companionship... And indeed a lot has changed in the world since they first got together...but there's still a long way to go!]

About 20 people witnessed the ceremony. Many of them were moved to tears as the couple were wed, using borrowed rings.

According to another article by the Rocky Mountain Telegram, "Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done. 'Why shouldn't we' be able to marry? Lyon asked." Indeed.

Also:

On the same day that San Francisco entered uncharted territory, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend the state Family Code to define a marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.

I hadn't heard about this, but I guess it was first announced a few weeks ago...

Leno to counter Bush on gay marriage: Bill would recognize licenses, boost benefits by Rona Marech, on Jan. 24:

The bill Leno plans to introduce in the Assembly next month would prohibit the denial of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in California. The bill would expand on AB205 -- the domestic partners bill that takes effect in 2005 -- most significantly, by allowing gay couples to file joint tax returns, claim an exemption from property reassessment upon the death of a partner, and travel across state lines without jeopardizing their marriage rights.

In addition, the bill would confer a range of federal rights on gay couples, from immigration rights for foreign-born partners of American citizens to the right to Social Security benefits.

"It was disgraceful for the president of the United States to pander to his radical right-wing supporters out of his own concerns for re-election," said Leno, D-San Francisco. "This puts me and my community in the position of taking one of two actions: Either continually playing defense or taking proactive steps. Rather than playing defense and explaining why we don't need a constitutional amendment, this (legislation) moves forward in a positive fashion."

Leno's bill does not conflict with Proposition 22 -- the initiative California voters passed in 2000 -- which prevents California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples married outside the state, Leno said.

Leno -- who proved his ability to get controversial civil rights legislation through the Legislature with a series of bills including AB205 and a transgender rights bill -- plans to have 20 co-authors lined up by the time he introduces the gay marriage bill on Feb. 12. "We'll take it from there step by step," he said. ...

The 40-day prisoner

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:48:31 GMT

(from Occupation Watch)

[Al-Ahram Weekly]
The 40-day prisoner
8 January 2004
By Karim Gawhary

Mohamed spent 40 days in an American prison in Iraq after being arrested in August while driving through the streets of Baghdad. The 44-year-old owner of a small take-away food stall was never a major criminal figure; none would expect his arrest to be announced at a press conference with the words, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him". But Mohamed's story is a prime example of what prisoners less prominent than Saddam Hussein are subjected to at the hands of the occupiers. ...

Mohamed, the only prisoner who spoke some English, soon became the official camp translator, and he also became friendly with some of the soldiers. "A lot of them were homesick," was how he described their state of mind. One of the soldiers had just lost his father, and the wife of another had given birth; and none of them had the chance to go home. "When I get home," a sergeant told Mohamed, "I will never again vote for George Bush." The same sergeant, by now on friendly terms with Mohamed, checked the computer regularly for any details about his release. And finally the news arrived. "Tomorrow you're to be released, and you'll be freer than any US soldier here."

"All the best, and sorry for the unpleasant situation," said an officer to Mohamed as he was leaving the prison, adding that, "there was actually no reason for you spending the last month here."

Mohamed was a changed man when he returned home, a fact confirmed by his wife. Now he is afraid to drive and spends most of his time at home with his family. "The only way of guaranteeing that nothing like this will ever happen to me again is to emigrate," he says. He is thinking of moving with his family to one of the Gulf states, but is somewhat reluctant since he does not want to have "to start again from scratch". ...

My comments: Too many casualities, too many prisoners in Bush's foolish war...

The wrong side of history, By Daniel Patrick Welch

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:47:03 GMT

I've not to date supported a primary candidate. As a radical, leftist, progressive, I would support Kucinich, but it just seems too depressing to put a lot of personal energy into a lost cause...I'm too much of a realist... Early on I looked at some of the candidates' pages, and I liked the ideas of Gephardt and of Dean... I probably wouldn't have given much thought to Clark, having as much distaste as I do for the military, but it means a lot to me that Michael Moore and Madonna have endorsed Clark. He also seems like a genuine individual. It also means a lot to me that he has been solidly against the war. So has Dean. I've seen some people advocate a "Dean/Clark" ticket. I think I'd prefer a "Clark/Dean" ticket, but either way, I don't have much positive feeling for Kerry or Edwards. Of course I've always said "Anyone But Bush", but the primaries aren't over yet, so it's still worth discussing...

The following piece by Daniel Patrick Welch (gotten from the Smirking Chimp) is so good and so important that I'm reprinting it here in its entirety.

We were all lied to. We're used to it. If Westmoreland's body counts and Watergate and Iran Contra and the Savings and Loan and the first Gulf War didn't teach some of us, then I guess some of us were never meant to learn. The fact is that some of us bought it, and some of us didn't. It's a big, glaring, important distinction, one that, without indulging hyperbole, divides the whole of history and places us on one side or the other.

This is not parlor politics or polite, gentlemanly disagreements with our colleagues "from the other side of the aisle." It's a long, older struggle: call it revolution and counterrevolution, progress and reaction—whatever you choose. But those of us who froze our asses off while being herded like cattle along 3rd Avenue in Manhattan a year ago were not "misled." We, and the ten million who marched with us the world over last February 15, we refused to be misled—indeed refused to be led at all by the liars and their sycophants who packaged and sold this war. The world, it can be safely said, from the overwhelming hostility now aimed at the US, was not misled. History itself was not misled, only sidetracked by a power whose bloated military "strength" defies all need or rational excuse.

The world is waiting, too, to see on which side of history post-Bush America will decide to right itself. Will it abandon its insane military buildup, and actively disengage from its designs of global domination? The question weighs heavily on the futures of our children. For it does seem, despite its tenacious hold on power and it almost limitless resources, the Bush administration is despised not only by most of the world, but also by most of the same electorate that never gave it any mandate in the first place. All this talk of "electability," as if it were some scientific postulate that could actually hold some concrete meaning, all this talk merely inflates defeatism. Bush the mighty cannot be slain! Why not? He's a criminal and a liar, who in any decent society would have been removed from office long ago.

The question is, what will replace the Bush junta? It is a sweeping question, one which, given the pummeling the world has taken at its hand these past few years, should be a grand one. Akin to the rebuilding of Europe, say, or the end of the cold war. There was a similar opportunity then, when we talked of the "Peace Dividend." But it was handled by men with small minds and greedy palms, and the New World Order busied itself instead with more wars, and the global dominion of a tiny handful of gigantic corporations roaming the globe, looking for every last pocket of opportunity to wring for cash.

Now we face a similar choice, and I suggest we should entrust it to a government whose vision is as broad as the epoch requires. John Kerry, alas, does not fit the bill, despite his meteoric rise to frontrunner status since the Iowa caucus. I do not dislike him; have voted for him against republicans when it seemed the wise thing to do, and I imagine I could do so again if the alternative were an extension of the Bush Destruction Machine. But I do not want him to be my president, and until I have no other choice, I will oppose his climb to the top of the anti-Bush heap. A translator friend from Brazil, who has chided me for focusing narrowly on the US elections recently, had this to say: "...the world doesn't want to know how or if the president will be elected. What the world wants to know is how Bush or Not-Bush will affect their lives. Think about that!"

See—it is not, unfortunately, just about Republicans vs. Democrats. Both parties have been complicit in the enormous bloating of the military industrial complex about which that famous Republican, General/President Eisenhower, so sternly warned us before leaving office. When push comes to shove, we need people in government who ignore expediency and do that which, in their hearts and in their intellect, they know to be right. This is rendered all the more important by the disintegration of independent thought in the US, the consolidation of corporate media, the immense pressure and resources controlled by the right wing in this country.

There is an inner clock, one that keeps time despite the seeming sway of history and the drums of war. Some people have it, and most do not. I fault Kerry in this regard. I am not bashing him, so please spare me the hate mail—I am not capable of throwing the election by pointing out obvious flaws. Senator Kerry and the Democratic establishment may well do so by over looking them, however.

With regard to the Iraq war, I am quite sure that I will never forget, nor can I forgive, a vote in favor of the War Resolution. It is not just about pride or my frozen ass, but a deeper truth about leadership and trust. If indeed Kerry was duped, then he missed something most of the world did not, and is not fit to lead at such an important moment in history. The excuse that such a vote could be based on secret information to which the world was not privy is scarier still, as it enshrines a penchant for secret government and renders meaningless the very concept of rule by the people. Not that I favor any particular rationale for supporting a decision which resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of lives and the shredding of any remaining vestige of international cooperation—but I think scariest of all would be if he knew it to be wrong, but voted for it anyway, out of a willingness to play the game, to be a good soldier.

This, I have come to believe, is the most likely case, and it settles too well with a few other instances where conviction succumbs to expediency. Much has been made of Kerry's status as both a war hero and a war protester. The incongruity is not for nothing—they do seem to be opposite in many ways. And on closer inspection, the dissonance becomes apparent. Shortly after Kerry's Iraq vote, Brian Willson, former supporter and fellow Vietnam Vet wrote a stinging "Open Letter to John Kerry," which is as poignant as it is sad. Willson Writes:

"The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office."

Then, more recently, beyond the painful chapter that was Vietnam, comes the issue of gay marriage. I'm not gay (though not, to quote Jerry Seinfeld, "that there's anything wrong with that.") I am, however, in an interracial marriage, and the issue has a personal resonance for me. There are those in this country who are still not ready for interracial marriage. My own marriage would be invalid, and indeed illegal, had not earlier leaders decided that my civil rights need not wait until a majority was "ready" to recognize them.

No one is "pushing gay marriage," except, perhaps, for those couples who are ready to make that commitment to each other. A true leader does not allow the issue to framed by the right in this way. The courts have not been hijacked by "activist judges" (except for the type that installed the Jackass-in-Chief in the Oval Office). Jurists are simply moving toward an inevitable historic moment: a civil right enjoyed by one group cannot be denied to another, no matter how uncomfortable it makes anybody. Leaders who "seek the center" on issues of right and wrong for electoral advantage are not agents of change.

We do not recognize religious marriage in this country, and every pastor, priest, rabbi or justice of the peace must sign a civil license acting in the capacity of a state official. This is exactly why this issue sits at the nexus of the struggle to overcome reactionary forces in the US. The correct framing of the issue is right before our eyes: the right wing knows that it must pursue the idea—think of this for a moment—of a constitutional amendment to ban the extension of this right to a certain group. This is an outrageous concept, and should be met head on. Most people in the US now have family, friends, acquaintances, or workmates who are gay; speaking of "ready," I do not think Americans are ready to change the Law of the Land to pursue a bigoted witch hunt that would make Anita Bryant proud.

Kerry's so-called "doghunters" have been concerned chiefly with covering his right flank, always assuming that his left was immune to attack. But these stands represent a pandering to the right, which will be equally damning in a time where such pandering is not only unpalatable, but unnecessary as well. To return to the interracial analogy, there's nothing to warm the heart of a recalcitrant old white racist more than the brown face of a mixed grandchild. I have a similar bellweather: when Homer Simpson can ponder on prime time television whether his gay kiss or a kiss from his wife "is the best kiss I've had all day," I'm betting that America is not ready to put the genie back in the bottle—or the closet, as it were.

In fact, I think Americans are ready for much more than we are given credit for. The experience of the past few years has truly shaken people's consciousness. Broad sections of people are increasingly wary of a distortionist, toadying press; increasingly demanding of true health care reform, and not just a further bloating of the insurocracy. Even some polls have shown that large majorities back key elements of a progressive agenda. In an irony that must make the candidate scream, one caucus in Washington ratified all ten points of Dennis Kucinich's platform, while giving two thirds of their delegates to other candidates. The world is full of cautious, blow-dried, Ken-doll politicians with their finger in the wind. Caution and timidity will predictably yield what they have thus far: a suffocating stalemate fought on the right wing's turf—and lost, often as not—where two halves of a giant party wrangle over middle class white votes. What we need is the steely determination in the face of power that makes real change possible. We will get that through an election which electrifies a movement and sweeps republicans out of power with a broad vision for real change.

Will Tim Russert grill Bush?

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:44:03 GMT

Will Dubya flub his way through or become noticeably entangled in his own lies?

David Corn of The Nation offers Tim "Eight Questions for George W. Bush"...

Tim Russert, the Grand Inquisitor of Sunday morning, is scheduled to have George W. Bush in the witness chair for a full hour on the next Meet the Press. ...This will be high drama, as the nation's politerati--and millions of others--watch to see if Russert gives Bush the hot-seat treatment.

There is, of course, much to ask Bush about. Did he decided to use military force against Iraq before 9/11? Where are the WMDs he insisted were there? Why is he using phony budget numbers? Did he engage in less-than-proper business dealings before he entered politics? Why he has misled the public while promoting his policies on stem cells research, global warming, and missile defense? Why has he opposed certain homeland security measures and not adequately funded others? It's a long list, and I'm sure Russert is busy preparing his own queries. But in an unsolicited act of kindness, I have crafted eight questions for Russert--several on matters in the news, a few on issues that have received less attention. ...

Another writer at The Nation, Naomi Klein, has some material Mr. Russert would do well to take a look at. I'd love to see The Dummy in Chief try to explain the nefarious activites of a certain "Research Triangle Institute" and its cushy contract deal empowering it to pressure local Iraqi governing councils into, among other things, privatized curbside waste collection systems... Ms. Klein offers hope that the Bush administration might be forced into allowing the formation of a truly sovereign Iraqi state: "unshackled by debt, unencumbered by inherited contracts, unscarred by US military bases and with full control over its resources, from oil to reparations." Some people claim miracles do happen... That one would be enough to shake the foundations of even the most hard-core atheist!

Finally, yet another Nation columnist, Matt Bivens, presents what would be some truly fabulous material for Russert to use, particularly on a Sunday morning...

God and the President

In his late 30s, soon after an evening of talks with evangelist Billy Graham, George W. Bush declared himself a born-again Christian.

Does he therefore believe -- as born-again Christians often do -- that even good and kind people are doomed to Hell, unless they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior?

Does he believe that Jews and Muslims are ultimately damned? If he doesn't believe that, then is he saying one can reject Jesus Christ -- yet still go to Heaven? If he does believe that, then does the inevitable damnation of the majority of humanity ever enter into his Earthly calculations? ...

Please oh please oh PLEASE keep the government out of my bedroom!!

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:09:15 GMT

Massachusetts court insists upon full equality

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:26:42 GMT

The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous. It is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists in not a reason to insist on less than the constitution requires.
—The Massachusetts Supreme Court

And so it seems that come May there are going to be a lot of weddings in Massachussetts! Hooray! Attention brides and grooms to be: you'd better get those hotel reservations now before the whole state's booked up for 6 months straight (no pun intended)! ;) More on the Massachussets court's ruling...

But of course it won't be for too long or spread too much farther without the right-wing putting up a noisy fight—and attempting to amend state and federal constititutions to enshrine anti-gay discrimination...

Of course Shit-for-Brains had to have his say. He's condemned the Massachusetts ruling and seems set to endorse efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. For more on that: For progressives: Don'tAmend.com. For conservatives: Leave Marriage to the States.

From: "Top Ten Reasons for Conservatives to Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment":

And lastly, whats the real danger here? I mean, if gay "marriages" are recognized, does that somehow diminish my own marriage...or yours? No. Does that mean heterosexuals will suddenly stop pining for the opposite sex and "turn gay"? No. Will gay marriage mean men and women will stop having children and doom mankind to eventual extinction? Come on.

So it's going to be interesting... But throughout it all I'll just keep reminding myself that no matter what happens, the children are our future. :)

U.S. Image Abroad Will Take Years to Repair, Official Testifies

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:21:59 GMT

Even as Bush-appointed US officials admit that "America's standing abroad had deteriorated to such an extent that it would take many years to restore it", the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds Americans "supportive of the president's handling of the war against terrorism". What can one conclude but that perhaps Americans truly are as stupid as much of the world thinks we are... *sigh*

Margaret D. Tutwiler...the State Department official in charge of public diplomacy: "Unfortunately, our country has a problem in far too many parts of the world..."

The findings were the result of an extensive bipartisan study led by Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria. The panel asserted that American prestige had dwindled, that much of its charity was overlooked and that its overall approach lacked strategic direction. ...

But does Bush care? Apparently not. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), the House appropriations subcommittee chairman who requested the report, called the Bush Administration's response to the findings "lackluster" and "disappointing."

More on Israel and Palestine...

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:55:57 GMT

As somewhat of a follow-up to my recent post regarding Israel and Palestine ("On the life and death of Rachel Corrie") I want to highlight several recent articles from The Electronic Intifada. The first, "The bittersweet lives of Palestine's children", is heart-wrenching, a simple recounting of the simple goings-on of one family—but a family living out its life in what anyone who takes the time to look can only describe as very distressing conditions...parents and children and extended families, trying to go about the business of living and learning and loving, despite the terrible weight of oppression, disenfranchisement, and constant violence...

The next article highlights hypocrisy on the part of Israel: "If it's against Jewish law, why is Israel doing it?". However I don't find this at all surprsing, because I don't see Israel as a "Jewish" state in a religious sense. I'm pretty sure that it's officially a secular state, and I think its leaders have little if any interest in Orthodox Jewish laws and codes—their concerns are those of politicians: power, wealth, prestige, personal gain... A film I saw that took place in Israel seemed to indicate that the Israeli state is, if anything, suspicious of Orthodox or particularly ferverent religious Jews...

Finally, regarding The Wall, "The US Media and the Wall: Thomas Friedman and 60 Minutes", of which I think few Americans are even aware...hopefully this will change a little with this recent media coverage... It just boggles my mind how Americans can blindly support Israel without really having a clue as to what it is actually doing...

One bit of good news I did see recently is that Sharon seems to have indicated that Israeli settlers will have to leave the occupied territories—hooray!!! Here are 3 NYT articles on the subject:

Sharon Says He Plans to Remove 17 Settlements From Gaza
February 2, 2004
By Terence Neilan

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel said today that he had given an order to plan for the removal of all 17 Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, causing consternation among settlers and politicians.

"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Mr. Sharon said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "It is my intention to carry out an evacuation — sorry, a relocation — of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements." ...

My comments: Apparently much doubt remains as to whether action will result from talk on Sharon's part, but we can certainly hope! Not surprisingly the settlers themselves aren't keen on the idea (apparently they claim that "a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would embolden terrorists"—huh??? A unilateral Israeli withdrawal is exactly what the "terrorists" are fighting for! I can't fathom what would make these wacko settlers think it would result in more attacks!), but I think it's entirely tough shit for them, because they never should have moved into the occupied territory to begin with!! If they didn't, they should have known that what they were doing was wrong and that eventually they would have to leave. As for the Palestinians, they're not holding their breath, but as a Palestinian cabinet member put it, "If Israel wants to leave Gaza, no Palestinian will stand in its way."[!]

Angering Settlers, Sharon Says Most May Have to Leave Gaza
February 3, 2004
By James Bennet

Sharon said Monday that he might seek to evacuate almost all Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip, outraging members of the settlement movement he helped create. ...

My comments: It does seem strange that he's always been a strong supporter of the settlement movement, and now he's making these big claims—I hope it's not all a ruse... Yasir Arafat claimed Sharon was only planning on removing 17 trailers: "What, so they can replace them with another 170?"

Sharon Ready for Referendum on Scrapping Settlements
February 4, 2004
By REUTERS

Sharon's plan to remove almost all settlements in the Gaza Strip has enraged settlers and their rightist patrons, putting his coalition in jeopardy, but he won rare backing from the United Nations Wednesday.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised the plan as "a first essential step" and said he hoped Sharon would extend it to the West Bank.

Polls show most Israelis favor scrapping Jewish enclaves exposed to a Palestinian uprising, both in Gaza and the West Bank, where Sharon plans to leave most settlements alone. ...

Palestinians seeking an independent state have welcomed the Gaza initiative from the erstwhile patron of Jewish settlements. Talks to set up a summit with his Palestinian counterpart Ahmed Qurie were resumed Wednesday, but no date has yet been set. ...

How absurd: the US Dept of Education is making an ass of itself!

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:19:45 GMT

So Bush can lie all he wants, take us into a perposterous war based on lies and falsified evidence, make all kinds of promises he fails to keep, but a FedEx courier makes a mistake, and 30 top students from Berkeley don't get to compete for Fullbright awards??! What a farce! Punishing the students for a mistake that is the fault of FedEx and/or Berkeley is totally unfair and wrong. Where is the sanity?! Fuck the Bush administration! Arrgh!

[The New York Times]
Missed Pickup Means 30 College Students Lose Chance at Fellowship
February 5, 2004
By Dean E. Murphy

A missed courier pickup, an honest clerk and an unyielding federal bureaucracy have conspired to deny 30 college students here the chance to compete for a prestigious Fulbright research grant.

"It seems surreal to me," said Mary Ann Mason, dean of the graduate division at the University of California, Berkeley. "It is an unnecessary, foolish, tragic incident."

The students, all enrolled in doctoral studies, got the news on Tuesday night from the university's chancellor, Robert M. Berdahl, that their applications were disqualified because they were late. Dr. Berdahl had earlier flown to Washington in a failed bid to persuade education officials in the Bush administration to change their minds. ...

Same-sex couples seek religious unions

Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:38:59 GMT

As the right-wing ever more loudly and vehemently spews its obnoxious anti-gay rhetoric about "God's will" and "Biblical law" and "sin" and "decency" and "tradition" and the "moral fabric of America"...and on and on, more quietly, and ultimately more spiritually and more faithfully, dozens and hundreds and thousands of same-sex couples are choosing to declare their vows to one another in religious ceremonies. Sometimes they do so within religious movements (such as Paganism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism) and Christian denominations (such as the United Church of Christ, Congregationalism, Friends (Quakers) & the Metropolitan Community Church, some congregations within United Methodism & Presbyterianism, and some dioceses of Episcopalianism) that openly welcome them, and sometimes they do so even within such officially condemning movements as Roman Catholocism. In defiance of any and all traditional religious doctrine that opposes their very existence, gay and lesbian couples are refusing to deny their natural human spiritual and religious needs and desires and are instead creatively seeking out ways to have them met. Hallelujah!

(Looks like the religious right is spinning its wheels deeper and deeper into the mud to me.)

Today's kids: "Live and let live"

Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:19:29 GMT

It's not always the case, but today I love teenagers! :) The children are our future...la..la..la... *grin*

(Note: Right now this is on the linked website, but I'm not sure how long it will be there, so I've downloaded it, so it will always be here on this blog.)

January 22nd, 2004: What are your thoughts on same-sex marriages?

"Anybody should be able to do anything they want."
Cassandra, 13

"If they're happy, they can get married if they want. Who cares?"
Stephanie, 13

"I think it's perfectly normal and people should respect them for who they are."
Jasmine, 13

"It's their choice on what they want to do."
Bryan, 14

More on US soldiers in Iraq: an interview

Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:51:53 GMT

O2- I want to talk about this and tell people how bad it really is in Iraq. It is a complete fucking slaughter and it is only going to get worse. The attacks in the last month or so have been meticulously well planned and executed. We are seeing a level of sophistication that the chain of command did not ever expect. Many of the officers knew that they were going to be dealing with well trained Iraqi army and militia units. There might or might not be outside support and insurgents, but I know the Iraqis are more than capable of messing up your day. These guys have been trained to fight guerilla style and they don't give up. We are in deep shit now that they have started to get more organized.

O1- I don't think that some of the higher level planners expected this kind of resistance and guerilla activity. We tried to tell them months ago that it wasn't just Ba'ath party members and Saddam supporters. Some of the most highly trained guerillas are Shiite and Kurdish. We are going to be in some real trouble if the Kurds ever decide to join together with the Shiites and fight against us. Throw the Sunni radicals into the mix and it's total chaos with our guys stuck smack in the middle. It's one giant cluster fuck and the US soldiers are going to be the one that gets hurt and killed. That country is on the brink of civil war right now. Years of subdued hatreds are now boiling over. That is why you see all the different targets that are being hit by the car bombs.

O2- Yeah, we are in a real meat grinder right now. The real danger is that the whole country will erupt in civil unrest and the US troops will be caught between many different rival factions. I don't look forward to going back there, but I don't have a choice.

My comments: What a nightmare. I hope the UN can do something. Kofi Annan was in Washington yesterday and met with Dubya (poor Kofi) and said: "We are going to go there [to Iraq] to help the Iraqis, to help them establish a government that is Iraqi, a government that will work with them to assure their future, in terms of political and economic destiny." I hope so.

Budgets of Mass Destruction

Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:19:25 GMT

[New York Times]
Budgets of Mass Destruction
February 1, 2004
By Thomas L. Friedman

It should be clear to all by now that what we have in the Bush team is a faith-based administration. It launched a faith-based war in Iraq, on the basis of faith-based intelligence, with a faith-based plan for Iraqi reconstruction, supported by faith-based tax cuts to generate faith-based revenues. This group believes that what matters in politics and economics are conviction and will — not facts, social science or history. ...

The Bush team's real vulnerability is its B.M.D. — Budgets of Mass Destruction, which have recklessly imperiled the nation's future, with crazy tax-cutting and out-of-control spending. The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit is expected to total some $2.4 trillion over the next decade — almost $1 trillion more than the prediction of just five months ago. That is a failure of intelligence and common sense that threatens to make us all insecure — and people also feel that in their guts. ...

My comments: I sure hope more and more of them do.