HOW EMPHASIS AFFECTS MEANING

While listening to a radio show about Abraham Lincoln on WBUR's "The Connection" today, I heard a recorded reading of the Gettysburg Address. The speaker also referred to the Emancipation Proclamation.

All my life I have heard those words pronounced with either the accent on the second word, "proclamation", or no emphasis on either word. I didn't realize how flat, lifeless and meaningless the phrase sounded until the speaker spoke with a strong accent on the word Emancipation. That way, there's meaning, emotion and power.

Say it out loud both ways and see for yourself.

Similarly, the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" is always pronounced with the emphases on of, by and for. This reduces the phrase to some autonomic abstraction, again with no emotion or power. Say it out loud with minor emphasis on the of, by and for, but with major emotive emphasis in each case on the word "people.": "...of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE..."

The difference is like day and night. It's as if I never heard these words before. I was as moved as if I had been there at Gettysburg.

It seems so obvious after the fact. Why does this happen? It may be our tendency when learning or teaching our history by rote--as so many of us did, and I bet still do-- to reduce famous quotes to some mindless rhythm with all the life and dynamism of iambic pentameter. "This is the forest primeval. The murmering pines and the hemlocks..."--daDUM, daDUM, daDUM, and on and on, ad infinitum. We carry this flatlined boredom with the phrases all of our lives, until that pronunciation becomes the commonplace, as does their meaning.

The inflection and accents define the concepts in ways the author surely never intended, and makes them not only boring, but deprives them of their passion, power and beauty. It's sheer luck, I think, that it also doesn't deprive them--so far--of immortality.

In a time when our leadership seems to be doing its best to subvert this profound concept, it's worthwhile to say this out loud a few times every morning. Maybe it could help convert that sense of political fatalism and despair many feel to confidence that "...a new nation, conceived in liberty... shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE shall not perish from the earth."

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Don't you get so tired of hearing the same tired and untrue phrases used by conservatives from, it seems, the day they came crawling out of the primordial ooze? Phrases like "tax and spend liberals." In the manner they've perfected of accusing others of the very malfeasances they themselves thrive on, and making it stick by constant repetition, so they have done with this one. Which administrations spend more? Think expansion of government (an example of the linguistic tomfoolery right there); think deficits. Yes, they sometimes cut taxes, but for whom? This is nothing to be proud of. And during Reagan-Bush, my taxes went up.

Since the Massachusetts Judicial Court decision about same-sex marriage, we are hearing once again from the right the complaint about courts practicing "judicial activism", that being an egregious affront to civilization. The courts should not be creating law, after all, or deciding public policy. That should be left to the noble hearts who in Congress--but only when the Right has a majority. Otherwise the courts are merely correcting bad legislation that will bring about the downfall of western civilization* or worse.

We hear that phrase used whenever any court decides in opposition to any position held dear by the right. We always have. I first heard it from a constitutional law professor in college, a "strict constructionist"--code for idiot, I later realized, (as "judical activism" is code for "we don't like that decision"). Under 'strict constructionism", we never would have had a right to privacy as we understand it today, and all that it implies and means to us today, as that right is not literally articulated in the constitution, but is the result of decades of court decisions, activism in service of the fulfillment of the founder's dreams in a world they could not foresee, and in the cause of human dignity.

Judicial activism is what the courts do. It's what they were created to do. It's their job, dammit. That's why it's so important to not appoint whackos and idealogues like Thomas and Scalia to the courts, and why the federal court Bush appointees who would judicially activate the most extreme hardships on us and further reverse decades of social progress must be stopped at all costs.

But let's get to the main point--the hypocrisy of these phrases, for if the 2000 Supreme Court decision appointing Bush president is not the crown of judicial activism, then the world was created in six days.

So if it suits them, it's fine. If not, it's "tax and spend"--oops, I mean "judicial activism."


*Ghandi was once asked what he thought of Western Civilization. "I think it would be a very good idea," he replied.

LOVE THE SIN, NOT THE SINNER

Has anyone figured out yet that I detest organized religion? You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Love the sinner, not the sin. How many times have we heard that? What does it mean?

Here's another variation. Recently Newsweek ran an article about the Episcopal Church and the fallout over the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop. Apparently the magazine printed a photo of people holding vulgar signs in protest of the consecration. Jill Kinsella, Dir. of Communications for Christ Church-Episcopal in Plano,TX, wrote in to decry that "both legitimate camps in this debate agree that the group in that photo (known to many) is so outlandish and hateful as to be irrelevant to anyone except police departments. We are saddened...that all orthodox Episcopalians might be painted with the broad antigay brush that this photo depicts. The orthodox believers in our church have been very outspoken against the new bishop...[but] we have been careful to express our dissatisfaction in a respectful pastoral manner that is aimed at the behavior, not the person." (Emphasis supplied.)

At the behavior, not the person. Love the sinner, not the sin.

How boorish. What a terrific example of willful self-deception, self-congratulatory blather, and an attempt by the real sinners to expiate their own sins.

But it doesn't hold an ounce of water, because the obvious, intrinsic and inalienable fact is that for LGBT people there is no distinction between the person and the behavior. The person is the behavior. The behavior is as intrinsic to the individual as air is to the human body. This is not rocket science.

But it may as well be to the ignorant hypocrites who have convinced themselves that this is a legitimate distinction, and spout it with such offensive and self-righteous piety. They are good people, we are supposed to conclude, because they love us in spite of our sins or behavior.

This specious distinction becomes just another example of the bankruptcy of any true moral code in these people and institutions.

Rather than buy them the respect and legitimacy that they crave from us, it reveals the cravenness in their hearts and their bastard illegitimacy.

So screw you, Kinsella, and all your weasel-mates in all the other churches that try this same gambit. You are exposed, you have no clothes, and you are fooling only yourselves. Please go directly to hell, do not pass god, do not collect 200 mea culpas.

A COMMON ENEMY (That's us, folks)

Here's an interesting article about the origin and status of the Arab world's attitute towards the US. It was sent by a friend, and can be found on Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1214-03.htm


Saddam an Important Symbol in the Arab World
by Joyce M. Davis

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein may be under lock and key, but experts warn that the anger at the United States that he came to symbolize in the Arab world and Iran is far from contained. It still seethes in every capital from Rabat to Tehran, in the streets if not always in government.

"To some extent, Saddam was a measure of the depth of the region's alienation from the West," said James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. "He symbolized the anger; he symbolized the divide."

Yet with Saddam's regime relegated to history, the danger is that Iraqis and other Arabs will see a common enemy in the Americans who destroyed him, and keep fighting to end their occupation of Iraq.

Arab and Muslim anger is rooted in a long history of humiliation, by British colonial rule, by the creation of Israel, by poverty, by the failure of U.S.- backed governments to allow open democratic government and more broadly by the perceived inability of some Arab and Muslim countries to succeed in the modern world.

When American troops invaded Baghdad last spring, Iraqis rushed to topple statues of Saddam. It was a pivotal, yet for some Arabs humiliating, moment in the region's history.

The rampaging Iraqi men didn't rid themselves of Saddam's evil; they needed American Marines to do that for them. Other Arab leaders didn't send armies to liberate the Iraqi people; President Bush did. And even the feared Islamic jihadees (holy warriors), for all their threats of suicide bombs and terrorism, proved too weak to defeat the Arab leader they hated most.

The fact that it was hated Israel's friend and protector that toppled Saddam wasn't lost on millions of Arabs.

As a result, according to Suleiman Nyang, a political scientist at Howard University in Washington, although Saddam wasn't beloved in the Arab world, his demise is seen in the Middle East and beyond as another sign of Arab weakness and degradation at the hands of the West.

"If it is a humiliation for the Arab people, it is one that Arabs themselves are accountable for," he said. "It is unfortunate that a guy like Saddam Hussein should have remained in power for so long. The Arab people don't fight for their freedom the way other people fight for freedom."

And any gratitude for what the United States did expired quickly, as attacks against American troops picked up speed amid popular discontent at the sight of U.S. soldiers patrolling Iraqi streets and neighborhoods.

"It is a very painful experience that the Arabs are undertaking," said Clovis Maksoud, a former Arab League ambassador to the United States and the United Nations. "There will be a lot of soul searching, a period of ferment. Profound changes are going to take place."

Saddam's regime was built on the mid-20th-century version of Arab nationalism, a secular, socialist ideal espoused by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt from 1956 to 1970, and the late Syrian President Hafez Assad, who ruled from 1970 until his death in June 2000, succeeded by his son Bashar.

By emphasizing their common language, culture and heritage, Saddam's Baath Party proposed that Arabs could achieve self-determination, independence from the West and a revival of their once-glorious civilization. Arab nationalism was the antithesis of Islamic militancy, which promoted unity under the banner of the Muslim faith.

Like other secular Arab leaders, Saddam despised and feared the growing popularity of Islamic movements. He was especially leery of the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq, whom he feared might launch an Islamic revolution like the one that took over neighboring Iran.

Even before Saddam's downfall, many Arabs had abandoned the movement he represented. Their secular leaders had proved to be despots, more concerned about holding on to power, enriching their cronies and crushing all efforts at democracy. Their powerful patron, arms supplier and role model, the Soviet Union, had collapsed.

Arab nationalists had proved unable to recapture Arab land from Israel; and some, such as Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein, even had abandoned the struggle and signed peace treaties with the Jewish nation.

In the eyes of many Arabs, their secular leaders had become little more than puppets of successive foreign powers, from the British colonialists to the Soviets to the American invaders.

Increasingly, Arabs turned to a new movement to redress their grievances: militant Islam.

After Saddam's defeat in the first Persian Gulf War, he tried to recast himself as a born-again Muslim, summoning the faithful to support him in his self- proclaimed jihad against Western imperialism. The pose won him little support from devout Muslims, who didn't believe that the same Saddam who had brutally crushed religious parties and routinely violated nearly every principle of Muslim life had suddenly become a defender of Islam.

Yet with Saddam's regime relegated to history, the danger is that Iraqis and other Arabs will see a common enemy in the Americans who destroyed him, and keep fighting to end their occupation of Iraq.

© 2003 Knight-Ridder

SADDAM DAMMIT

After two days of All-Saddam All-The-Time, I have only three observations:

1) In all of the TV footage of Iraqi citizens celebrating the capture, I saw no women. Not a one.

2)This is the worst news I've heard since the economy was picking up a little. Oh it's good news for the Iraqi people who have feared his return; and it's good news in general for the world, to diminish such a cruel man.

But just as there never was the slightest doubt that the mighty US military would quickly vanquish the Iraqi government and army (and so what?), we knew Saddam would eventually be captured.

I hoped it would either be bungled or happen after the election. Hey, it's situational ethics. But paranoia is just having all the facts. Is it possible the capture--and the forthcoming trial--were planned, timed and staged to help win the election? There's no doubt that the evils of Saddam will be exposed in the trial, that it and the horrors that he inflicted on Iraqis will be frontpage news all over the world. This can and will be used to support and justify Bush's actions.

The rightwing's money and propaganda machines, well-honed after twenty five years of dedicated thinktank activity and laserbeam focus, have already made Bush more formidable an opponent in 2004 than many of us have been willing to admit. Even with the perfect Democratic candidate, even with all Bush's obvious vulnerabilities, even with all of the lies and calumnies of this administration regarding this war and just about everything else, even with tens of millions disgusted with this presidency, even with the blatant attacks on the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in general, even with insane deficits that further the neocon goal of bankrupting the government so it can't afford social programs, even with the dismantling of enviromental protection and medical security, even with the fact that we are far less safe than we were before the empire-building wag-the-dog neocon dream of invading Iraq came true --oh, we could type for another hour--even with all this, it will be a tough battle.

But planned, or lucky break for Bush, the capture happens now, and so far it's not bungled. (I have hope.) There's no denying the boost this gives Bush in the campaign. It's the buzz.

The trial may also further expose the long dark history of complicity with and support of this regime by America--but not Bush's America, and his machine will make good use of that; and Bush has already prepped the way for this by acknowledging past American support of undemocratic (what an understatement) regimes in a recent speech.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have not found the magic bullet in their campaigns, and their sniping at each other is not useful. With this news, are they going to need some divine intervention to beat the Axis of Evil?

It's worrisome, but it just means we have to redouble our efforts, be yet even smarter, and speak out even louder about all the egregious actions of the Bush usurpers. There is simply no other choice.

3) So we shaved the guy. We showed him being inspected for lice, throat examined, etc, but still there were doubts this was Hussein-baby. How come we didn't see him being shaved? And how come that's all the video we saw, anyway? That's the most newsworthy and interesting?

IT'S WINTER--RETURN TO FLORIDA

A friend sent this link to a video about Katherine Harris and the Florida voter list scrubbing in 2000. It's good.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

MISERABLE FAILURE

Some clever geek has provided us with a bit of fun. Google the phrase "miserable failure" and the first link on the page will be...well, you'll see.

The third link is a Gephardt page that leads off with his quote from the 9/4 presidential debate: "This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy and on the economy and he's got to be replaced." Here's the link to that page: http://www.amiserablefailure.com/plugin/template/gephardt/220/*

The second link--at least as of today--is a great Atlantic Monthly article by Jack Beatty inspired by that phrase. "Will Bush be re-elected? Only if voters wittingly ignore his long list of failures while in office," begins the piece. It's so good that I'm reprinting it here, but the web page is http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-09-24.htm:

"With one phrase Dick Gephardt has defined the issue to be decided next November. Can a "miserable failure" of a president win re-election? Bush's victory would testify to a civic failure more dangerous to the American future than any policies implemented or continued during a second Bush term. A majority would have demonstrated that democratic accountability is finished. That you can fail in everything and still be re-elected president.

You can preside over the most catastrophic failure of intelligence and national defense in history. Can fire no one associated with this fatal chain of blunders and bureaucratic buck-passing. Can oppose an inquest into September 11 for more than a year until pressure from the relatives of those killed on that day becomes politically toxic. Can name Henry Kissinger, that mortician of truth, to head the independent commission you finally accede to. You can start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of Americans and as many as 7,000 Iraqi civilians—adjusted for the difference in population, the equivalent of 80,000 Americans. Can occupy Iraq without a plan to restore traffic lights, much less order. Can make American soldiers targets in a war of attrition conducted by snipers, assassins, and planters of remote-control bombs—and taunt the murderers of our young men to "bring it on." Can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nation building—and pass the bill to America's children. (Asked to consider rescinding your tax cut for the top one percent of taxpayers for one year in order to fund the $87 billion you requested from Congress to pay for the occupation of Iraq, your Vice President said no; that would slow growth.) You can lose more jobs than any other President since Hoover. You can cut cops and after-school programs and Pell Grants and housing allowances for the poor to give tax cuts to millionaires. You can wreck the nation's finances, running up the largest deficit in history. You can permit 17,000 power plants to increase their health-endangering pollution of the air. You can lower the prestige of the United States in every country of the world by your unilateral conduct of foreign policy and puerile "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric. Above all, you can lie the country into war and your lies can be exposed—and, if a majority prefers ignorance to civic responsibility, you can still be reelected.

Even Republicans must be capable of applying a cost-benefit analysis to this record of miserable failure. Their tax cuts on one side, the burden of Bush-begotten debt on their children on the other. And surely even Republicans breathe the air befouled by those power plants. I have it on good authority that the conservatives in the party do as well. Surely they must question the judgment of a President who proposes to turn Iraq into what James Fallows calls "the fifty-first state" in order to bring democracy to the Middle East—the kind of do-gooder fantasy conservatives have long ridiculed in liberals.

But the election won't be decided by Republicans and conservatives. Most will sacrifice independent judgment to ideology or party and vote for Bush. No, swing voters will pick the next President. They vote the man not the party, character not ideology. Many voted for Bush in 2000 because they liked him better than Al Gore—applying the standards of product acceptability to a job that entrusts its holder with the power to blow up the planet. Well, do they still "like" Bush? I fear many do. After all, he has spared them the embarrassment of having to discuss sex with their children. Swing voters like Bush's "image" as a strong leader, a CNN pundit claims. Are they incapable of looking behind that image and seeing the weak President who stayed away from the White House on September 11 because his Vice President said it was not safe for him to be there and whose PR people lied to cover up his failure of leadership? John F. Kennedy, as R. W. Apple wrote on the front page of The New York Times on September 12, remained in the White House throughout the Cuban missile crisis knowing that it would be hit in any nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

The Founders feared that the republic would succumb to corruption without republican citizenship—without citizens who could transcend privatism and hold elected officials to account, demanding probity and competence, and judging their performance against both the clamorous necessities of the time and the mute claims of posterity. They made property a criterion for voting because it secured a measure of economic independence. Property-less wage laborers, they feared, would vote as their employers instructed them to. The extension of democracy to those who could not rise to the responsibilities of republican freedom would corrupt the republic—hasten its decay into oligarchy or mob rule.

For all their worldliness the Founders were naïve to regard property as a shield of incorruptibility or the property-less as inherently corruptible. Their core insight, however, remains valid. A republic can be corrupted at the top and bottom, by leaders and led. The re-election of George W. Bush would signal that a kind of corruption had set in among the led. Our miserable failure as republican citizens would match his as President."

THE PLEDGE

The Pledge:

We hold this truth to be self-evident:

Having George W. Bush as President has been and will continue to be a disaster.

We will not let our partisanship towards any particular candidate for President cause us to lose sight of this basic truth. As such, we pledge ourselves not to become enablers of any campaign designed to divide us in our struggle to remove Bush from power. We pledge that no more will we be:

Tools of those who would disrupt the Anybody-But-Bush movement.

Partisans who would rather bring down the other guy's candidate than find reason to elevate our own.

Dupes who will automatically assume that anything negative about the other guy's candidate is more likely to be true than the negative things said about our guy.

Fools who lose sight of the ultimate goal: the defeat of George W. Bush on November 2nd, 2004.

We will uphold this pledge to the best of our ability.

We will encourage others to do the same.

This we do solemnly swear.

Signed, your blog host
Arthur Cohen

You can sign the pledge at:
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/pledge.htm

DEAN ELECTABLE?

Nicholas Kristof, NY Times columnist, summed up his concerns that the Democratic party was doomed if it nominated Dean: "Many Democrats so despise President Bush that they don't appreciate what a strong candidate he will be in November, and they don't grasp how poorly Mr. Dean is likely to fare in battleground states," he said.

He states that Dean is unelectable for three reasons, as supported by a recent Pew poll where Bush beat Dean, 52 percent to 41 percent:
1) Geographaphy. Instead of being a good old boy that can win the south or at least the Reagan democrats, as the last three democratic presidents apparently did--Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. "Not another Michael Dukakis," he says.
2) Style. "Angry bluster rouses the party faithful, but it frightens centrists... today's liberal disgust could [help Bush]by leading to a nominee like Mr. Dean, who warms the hearts of the party's core but leaves others cold.
3) Biography. "Mr. Dean may be the one Democrat who is even more blue-blooded than Mr. Bush...Mr. Dean doesn't even pretend to be particularly religious, and that's a major political weakness in the battleground states.

He also described the [confederate flag episode] as a 'huge contretemps,' and I seriously doubt that anybody who publicly uses the word "contretemps" can ever be elected president.

Is that just a clever remark, or a good point?

They're all good points. Decrying the fact that those points are legitimate does no good. It's the state of the union.

But it's still bothersome that Democrats and liberals are repeating this particular zeitgeist over and over again--Dean can't beat bush--since that only helps reinforce that conclusion in the minds of the public and helps create a self-fulfilling prophecy. One can't help think there is a more than a bit of arrogance in these kinds of commentaries themselves.

Nonetheless they will continue, and continue to undermine Dean all the way.

On the other hand, Kristof reminds us of a poignant Adlai Stevenson anecdote.

After one of Stevenson's typically brilliant campaign speeches, someone shouted out to Stevenson from the crowd that he had the votes of all thinking Americans.

Stevenson shouted back, saying that wasn't enough: "I need a majority!"

KERRY'S F-WORD

The media blatherers are having fun today about Kerry's F-Word.

The AP reports today that when asked in a Rolling Stone interview about the success of rival candidate Howard Dean, whose antiwar message has resounded with supporters, Kerry responded: ''When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything?' Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.''

The expletive drew a rebuke from White House, which suggested an apology might be in order. ''That's beneath John Kerry,'' the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said on CNN's ''Late Edition.'' ''I'm very disappointed that he would use that kind of language,'' Card said. ''I'm hoping that he's apologizing at least to himself, because that's not the John Kerry that I know.''

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bush called Adam Clymer of the New York Times a "major league asshole". Unlike Kerry's profanity, this was a profane direct insult to an adversary for which no apology was ever issued.

Let's also note some great historical lines from Dubya:

Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.
-George W. Bush, March 2002, as reported in Time.

You no-good fucking son of a bitch, I will never fucking forget what
you wrote.
-George W. Bush, to journalist Al Hunt in front of his 4-year old
daugher, 1987.

"Pussy."
-George W. Bush, 1988, in response to a question about what he and
his father are talking about when they're not talking politics.

This White House has problems with some H-words: Humility, of which it has none, and Hypocrisy, of which it has an infinite supply.

But there is a real problem over an F-word in Kerry's campaign. It's Failure. Next year, will we be saying about his campaign, "he fucked it up?"

OH LIGHTEN UP!

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent
life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none
of it has tried to contact us.
--Bill Watterson

Then-Senator John Ashcroft, in a response five years ago
to the FBI's intent to examine internet financial
transactions and personal email "all in the name
of national security: "Why should we grant government
the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real
time to our communications across the web? The right
to protection from unlawful searches is an
indivisible American value."

BONO OH NO

Irish rock star and AIDS advocate Bono on Wednesday at an interview at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C., said he was "infuriated" that Congress has not yet passed the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill that includes funding for President Bush's global AIDS initiative, Reuters/Yahoo! News reports (Reuters/Yahoo! News, 12/3).

Bono, you putz. Are you paying attention? Is this giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

There's plenty of reasons why this bill should be stalled or killed.

Environmental? Check this out: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/02/17/ed.edit.envirobush.0217.html

Overtime pay?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1807-2003Nov20.html

Fairness?
"However, the vast majority of lawmakers who voted for the spending package did not know it included these pet projects and special interest favors. That is because at the behest of GOP leaders the House waived an internal rule that required lawmakers to have at least three days to review the spending package before voting on it.

Rep. Jeff Flake, a conservative Republican from Arizona, condemned his own leadership for scheduling a vote on the omnibus spending bill only a few hours after they made it available to members.

“ It’s the ugliest thing I’ve seen,” he said shortly before 338 of his colleagues voted for it. “The ugliest part is in the report which we won’t see for a few days. We can’t even get a copy of it yet.”

“ They waived the rule giving us three days to look at it,” he added."

And on and on. Bono: Your brain--don't leave home without it.

Rumsfeld wins British ‘Foot in Mouth’ prize

This award, which was first given in 1993, is for a truly baffling comment.
The 2003 winner is United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for comments in a press briefing.

“REPORTS THAT say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there are things we know we know,” Rumsfeld told the briefing. "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said, “We think we know what he means. But we don’t know if we really know.”
Rumsfeld, whose boss President Bush is often singled out by language critics for his sometimes unusual use of English, took the booby prize ahead of a bizarre effort from actor-turned politician Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman,” was the odd statement from the new California governor.
Previous holders of the award include U.S. actress Alicia Silverstone and British chancellor Gordon Brown. Last year’s winner was actor Richard Gere.

Here's the list of prior winners:

2002: Actor Richard Gere who said: 'I know who I am. No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe and somebody said I was a snake, I'd think 'No, actually I am a giraffe.''

2001: Artist Tracey Emin, who explained 'When it comes to words I have a uniqueness that I find almost impossible in terms of art - and it's my words that actually make my art quite unique.'

2000: Hollywood star Alicia Silverstone for her comments quoted in the Sunday Telegraph.

'I think that [the film] 'Clueless' was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness.'

1999: Former England manager Glenn Hoddle. When asked by Trevor McDonald to explain his controversial comments on people with disabilities, he said:

'I do not believe that. At this moment in time, if that changes in years to come I don't know, but what happens here today and changes as we go along that is part of life's learning and part of your inner beliefs. But at this moment in time I did not say them things and at the end of the day I want to put that on record because it has hurt people.'

1998: Cardiff MP Rhodri Morgan. In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman he was asked if he would like to be the labour leader of the new Welsh Assembly. Rhodri replied 'Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?'. After a long puzzled pause Jeremy asked Rhodri if that was Welsh for yes!

1997: Nick Underwood of Teletubbies Marketing explained that 'in life, there are all colours and the Teletubbies are a reflection of that. There are no nationalities in the Teletubbies - they are techno-babies, but they are supposed to reflect life in that sense.'

1996: No winner.

1995: No winner.

1994: Dr Gordon Brown MP for his 'New Economics' speech. He covered 'ideas which stress the growing importance of international co-operation and new theories of economic sovereignty across a wide range of areas, macro-economics, trade, the environment, the growth of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and the symbiotic relationships between government and investment in people and infrastructures - a new understanding of how labour markets really work and constructive debate over the meaning and implications of competitiveness at the level of individuals, the firm or the nation and the role of government in fashioning modern industrial policies which focus on nurturing competitiveness.'

1993: Former England cricket boss, Ted Dexter.

Ted desperately tried to explain away another England defeat at the hands of the Australians by saying 'Maybe we are in the wrong sign. Maybe Venus is in the wrong juxtaposition with something else. I don't know.'

(Although we did not yet have a Foot in Mouth award at the 1991 ceremony, we made a special mention of a quote by United States Vice President Dan Quayle.

'We offer the party as a big tent. How we do that (recognise the big tent philosophy) with the platform, the preamble to the platform or whatnot, that remains to be seen. But that message will have to be articulated with great clarity.')

STOP CONDEMNING POLITICIANS WHO DIDN'T FIGHT IN VIETNAM

Robert Fisk is only the most recent columnist to condemn George Bush for not fighting in Vietnam. In a recent column for The Independent, referring to Bush's not attending funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, he wrote:

"...But of course President Bush, our hero in the "war on terror", won't be attending their funerals. The man who declined to serve his nation in Vietnam but has sent 146,000 young Americans into the biggest rat's nest in the Middle East doesn't do funerals."

Now look, I like Fisk as much as I like most progressive columnists, and usually agree with him--or he agrees with me.

But let's get over using Vietnam against assholes like Bush.

I have friends who fought in Vietnam, and whom I respect. I had friends who died there. And I had friends who were brutalized by fighting there and were never the same.

But I have many more friends who like myself did not and would not fight that unholy war, and we have no regrets. For many of us, it was the more honorable thing to do--to reject this false war. For some of us, it was--and still is--good enough to have said no way. Whether it was out of pacifism, deep conscience, social or political protest, or just a common recognition that this wasn't WW2 and no way was I gonna die in a jungle for no apparent reason, all were honorable choices.

It was NOT dishonorable to avoid the draft, to do everything in one's power to not end up as cannon fodder for the McNamaras, the Johnsons, the Nixons, and the other fomentors of that atrocity. It doesn't necessarily make one a hero for resisting or avoiding--George Bush is a perfect example--but it's disgraceful and disgusting in 2003 to criticize anyone who chose that path.

And we do not accept responsibility for the fact that, as talking heads on TV seem fond of posing to candidates who did not serve, "others died in your place, how do you feel about that?" (you dirty draft dodger) That's a disgusting trap, that question. How do we feel? Of course we feel awful that over 50,000 kids died in combat, and maybe almost as many afterwards by suicide, OD, or related disease, abandoned by the government that caused their pain. Every sentient being does.

But how dare anyone try to make that our fault, we who did as much as we could to end that shameful war--and finally did. Those who are responsible are the ones who conned these innocent kids into thinking they were serving their country, and upholding the ideals of democracy. Those who are responsible are the ones asking those ignorant questions.

So let's stop using fighting in Vietnam as a litmus test. George Bush is still a scumbag, a liar and a hypocrite, but not because he didn't fight in Vietnam.

THE NEWS, THE CHURCH, AND THE POROUS CONDOMS

I tell ya, it's pretty hard these days not to sound Anti-Catholic. There's plenty to codemn the church hierarchy for, and for which I feel no hesitation or guilt, but heretofore I didn't want to condemn the followers of the church. It's too creepy to do that, given the rise of anti-Semitism in the world today.

But one has to take a stand. There is no longer any option. Passively following ignorant leadership of any faith or religious group is--well, its time is up. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. If Jews with brains (a subset I aspire to belong to) don't roundly condemn Ariel Sharon and all his sycophantic morons, and the idiot Orthodox fundamentalists in the settlements, then they are culpable. If Protestants with brains (hey, don't they run the country?) don't condemn the Anglican-Episcopal bigots, the Falwells, the Robertsons, the rest of the scum that hides behind religion the same way the Taliban and Bin Laden do, then they are culpable. And finally, if Catholics with brains don't condemn the Pope and his minions for the recent insanely ignorant and dangerous comments regarding condoms and AIDS (let alone their obsessive reactionary attacks on gays, even if obviously designed to distract us from the priestly scandals), then they too are culpable.

So for all the culpable and the few who aren't, here's a letter I wrote to the Boston Globe today. The Globe did well in investigating and reporting the pedophilia and coverups, but lately seems to have become a PR mouthpiece for the Church in its crusade against diversity.


Dear Editor,

There are some things that are irrefutable and unambiguous.

Global warming is one such fact. The Bush administration’s refusal to acknowledge it is not surprising, but no less unacceptable. Great harm will ensue, but mostly in the future, invisible to us now and thus easier to dismiss.

Another fact is that condoms prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. No one with any shred of credibility or conscience disputes this fact. No one, apparently, except the Catholic Church. The Church claims that the latex is porous to HIV, rendering them useless, and further that condoms lead to promiscuity—therefore no one should use them, and good Catholics, especially those with influence must openly fight against their use, to the point of changing public policy.

To what end? This may support their long-standing doctrine against contraception, but great harm also ensues. In this case the harm is death and suffering—not just to Catholics but to whole societies devastated by AIDS, and not in the future, but today, and extremely visible.

So it should be inconceivable that a major religious institution would advocate a policy that, given the facts, is tantamount to manslaughter.

Clearly it isn’t. Instead of filling the front page of this newspaper with every wag-the-dog utterance of the Church self-righteously condemning same-sex marriage or homosexuality, thus granting authority and legitimacy in a secular forum where none should exist, this paper and others ought to be shouting in 30-point type about a much more egregious aspect of this institution’s advocacy—one that, if successful, will lead to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. One that many consider to be as criminal, if not more so, than the centuries of tacitly sanctioned priestly malfeasance from which the Church is trying its best to distract us.

We are sacrificing the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan fighting “foreign” religious primitivism that inflicts the most horrible fates on the innocent, especially women, while we shrug at the policies of one of our own religious institutions that would do the same.

That’s what’s inconceivable.

Sincerely,
Arthur Cohen

I WON'T MAKE A PUN, OR VERSE.

An interesting radio show on poet Philip Larkin referred to the following light-hearted and uplifting poem.

This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.



And while we're waxing on, waxing off poetic, here's a slam-dunk:

Aubade

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off or unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anaesthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,
A small unfocused blur, a standing chill
That slows each impulse down to indecision.
Most things may never happen: this one will,
And realisation of it rages out
In furnace-fear when we are caught without
People or drink. Courage is no good:
It means not scaring others. Being brave
Lets no one off the grave.
Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.
It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,
Have always known, know that we can't escape,
Yet can't accept. One side will have to go.
Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring
In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring
Intricate rented world begins to rouse.
The sky is white as clay, with no sun.
Work has to be done.
Postmen like doctors go from house to house.

YOU THINK WE'D LET THANKSGIVING OFF THE HOOK?

So Thanksgiving as we celebrate it is as much divorced from its early colonial origins as Christmas is from anything remotely approaching its religious origins.

But so what. Fact is, we had one nice meal with the heathen. Apparently we momentarily forgot our early credo--skin anything that moves.

Herewith a few contemporary comments on this turkey of a holiday.

"I celebrated Thanksgiving in an old-fashioned way. I invited everyone in
my neighbourhood to my house, we had an enormous feast, and then I killed
them and took their land."
-- Jon Stewart, on The Jon Stewart Show


From a letter to the editor, Boston Globe, November 27th, 2003:

"SEVERAL YEARS ago, on Thanksgiving Day, I sat in my living room watching a football game. During halftime, one of the announcers went into the stands asking fans, "What does Thanksgiving mean to you?"

All of those interviewed gave predictable answers -- turkey dinner, gathering with family, giving thanks, etc. Eventually the announcer came upon a young boy about 5 years old, sitting with his parents. The boy was sucking on a lollipop, his baseball cap was askew, and he seemed very excited about the commotion caused by the approaching TV camera.

The announcer sat down beside the boy and asked him simply,what is Thanksgiving?

The boy straightened his cap, removed the lollipop from his mouth and replied excitedly, Thanksgiving is when the Pilgrims came to the Indians' neighborhood and said, "I like your house -- move!"

MEDICARE'S GOING TO NEED A MEDIVAC

All that's necessary for evil to triumph over good is one good PR campaign.

So the AARP supports this abomination of a bill, and screws its constituency, because over the recent years the organization's main focus has become insurance. Yep, it's one of the biggest. And the insurance industry is one of the biggest winners in this supersized ham sandwich.

With a rightwing ideologue as CEO, and it's raison d'etre now to support it's insurance business, it should have been no surprise that it would go for this bill. But it was. Most of us weren't paying attention. We thought that the major change at AARP was in the name of their magazine, from "Modern Maturity" (which was shattering our illusion that we were all Peter Pan) to "AARP The Magazine." But in reality they were being taken over by the pod people--the same ones who took over the government.

Check under your beds before you go to sleep.

QUOTES AND COMMENTS REGARDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." --George W. Bush.

(Yeh, but who's going to defend the sanctity of the presidency?)

"Don't believe the propaganda that says marriage has always been a static, solid pillar of society. Marriage has always been a social battleground, hotly contested, its rules shifting for each era and economy, each culture and class. The only thing that's remained static about marriage is its name - and the kind of vitriol it inspires whenever there's a change to its rules."
--E. J. Graff-"See Change"-American Prospect, November 20

(It's almost laughable to hear the rightwingers talk about "the traditional definition of marriage" or the "sanctity of marriage." What a bunch of ignorant poltroons. Ronald "Iran-Contra who?" Reagan spent much time trying to convince us that the real America was depicted on "Leave It To Beaver" or a Norman Rockwell painting, and we'd be so much better off if we could just return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. "Traditional marriage"--it's the Donna Reed version. In both cases, it's a land that never was. How much misery the sacred institution caused young women--often even pre-adolescent--who were forced to marry for the parent's or family's economic or political advantage is unquantified, but this was the norm even in the west until fairly recently. So much for romance, let alone procreation.

Just once you'd wish these numbnuts would use real history rather than the rose-colored perspective they've managed to get writ into our history books. Did you know that Davy Crockett hid under a bed in fear during the siege of the Alamo? Take that, you Texas swine.)

"Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens tooÂ…"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her 'tits.' "
--WorldNutDaily.com --"Traditional marriage in America comes to an end"-November 20

(i've already noticed the same effect. Why, the divorce rate just jumped to, what, 50%?)

"For better or worse, the nuclear culture war over gay marriage is here. We have a clear choice: We can wince or we can win.

The first thing we must do is stop dreading this war. We have had a long grace period where our movement has made great cultural strides with limited struggle. But did we really think episodes of Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy alone were going to carry us to the Promised Land?

Instead of dread, we should see this struggle as an unprecedented opportunity to educate America about our lives. For centuries our families have had to remain deeply closeted, sometimes masquerading as sisters, brothers, roommates or friends. We finally have our big chance to stand tall and show the world our beautiful, healthy, strong and stable families.

Let us parade couples in the media that have been together for 40 years. Let us hear the testimonies from adult children raised by gay families with the strong message: "Stop attacking our families." We need to show the American people the horror of long-term couples denied hospital visitation rights.

There is a real fear of a backlash among the GLBT people I have spoken to. But it is important to remember that there are two kinds of backlash. The first represents a genuine setback where Americans violently reject your message. The second is a phantom backlash, where the right wing goes ballistic, yet the majority of Americans remain unmoved by their diatribes.

If we are afraid of our shadow and tepidly defend our right to marry, a harmful backlash may become a self-fulfilling prophecy - because we will have failed to educate the people. But if we wake up and realize that we are in a historic moment and can guide our destiny, we will win this fight."
--Wayne Besen

(OK, Wayne, but it's "same-sex marriage," not "gay marriage." Get it, um, straight.)

THE CHURCH (sigh) AGAIN

Living in Boston, one gets used to the influence of the Catholic Church in social and political affairs outside of its purview. I hadn't realized why it's so much in our consciousness until I read this letter-to-the-editor from a friend. It seems that if the a church farts, it gets reported in the Boston Globe. Of course, the stories of the inbred pedophilia are newsworthy, but their reactionary and cruel advocacy on hotbutton issues are not. Yet:

Dear Editor:

For two days in a row, the Globe has run a story -- front page and top of the fold -- with the opinions and attitudes of the Catholic Church about homosexuality, gay marriage, the Episcopal Church's decision to ordain an openly Gay bishop, and contraception ("Bishops condemn same-sex unions" 11/13/2003, and "O'Malley details gay-marriage stance" 11/12/2003).

It is bad enough that the Catholic Church has carte blanche to lobby our legislators in any and every way they see fit, including threatening excommunication of Catholic legislators and issuing letters to be read "to the faithful" in tax-exempt church buildings, all while not paying a cent in taxes to the Commonwealth. It is bad enough that they want everyone -- not only Catholics -- to be bound by their superstitions, their Canon, and their dogma. But for the Globe to give them top of the fold, front page coverage, day after day, from which to espouse their bigotry and hypocrisy is just too much.

Are you a public newspaper, or an organ of the Church? Make up your mind.

Mary-Ann Greanier


It appears they already have, Mary-Ann.

IT WAS FORTY YEARS AGO TODAY

What is it about JFK that enobles him so in our memory? It certainly wasn't many of his policies or actions--Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Judith Exner. Was it the Cuban Missile Crisis, where indeed he seems to have saved the day, if not the planet? Was it his initial timidity and wavering but finally fortitude in the civil rights battles?

Maybe.

For me, it's simple. He spoke eloquently and consistently of a vision filled with hope. He used his youth, looks and charm to cajole and persuade us to live lives of meaning, to be at our best, and to see a future that we could control (in a time when things seemed frighteningly out of our control).

Oh, he spoke so well. If the substance didn't always live up to the eloquence, no matter. We were empty slates back then. He filled them with grandeur, and made us feel like we were the best and the brightest.

Listening to JFK could make your heart soar.

Listenting to Bush speak is like fingernails on the blackboard. My heart sinks when he opens his mouth.

Maybe it's just the warm glow of nostalgia. I'll take it.

WHO DA LIBERAL?

In an interview around midnight last Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Howard Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "reregulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "reregulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

During a chat about the Democratic candidates a few days ago, we were discussing the new conventional wisdom among those left of center that Dean was hardly a liberal. A friend pointed out that Dean's interest in reregulation was as liberal as you can get.

While being wary of opportunism, we ought to allow people the opportunity to grow and change. As Dean seems to be moderating a number of his positions that heretofore were seen as conservative, can we trust him?

Who knows? Can we trust any of them?

Instead of condemning change by relegating all of it to "waffling" or "flipflopping," maybe we should give some of them the benefit of the doubt.

For a while, anyway.

MIND AND BODY or INDUSTRY

A thought hit me during those cozy moments of awakening on a Saturday morning with no pressure to get up, luxuriating in the beams of sunlight coming through the blinds.

And that was: Isn't it interesting that so many conservatives seem to want to control our bodies and our minds, but not our industries and businesses. Which sector needs control more? Which one, uncontrolled, does more damage to the human spirit and human dignity (let alone human health and wealth)?

Is that what the culture war is really about--not what vision of morality and commonweal will prevail, but what we as a society will control?

WIGGLE ROOM

Mass governor Ovenmitt "The Idiot" Romney, Attorney General Tom "The Putz" Reilly and others are claiming the court decision provides "wiggle room" to enact civil unions in lieu of marriage. They claim the decision is unclear, or ambiguous, and that the reason for the stay of 180 days is to afford them the opportunity to find alternatives to actual marriage.

Not so.

Outside legal specialists, including Laurence H. Tribe, professor of
constitutional law at Harvard Law School, sharply dismissed any notion that
the court was leaving Romney or the Legislature any option other than to
accept same-sex marriage and implement its ruling.

"He must have read a different opinion and not the court's decision
which I read very carefully yesterday," Tribe said, when told of Romney's
interpretation of the justices' 4-to-3 decision.

"I think that the court could hardly have been clearer about the
proposition that the basic definition of marriage has to be broadened for it to meet the requirements of the state constitution," Tribe said. "Certainly just listing benefits won't fit the court's theme."

"The Legislature is encouraged to look through the hundred different
provisions of state law in which marriage enters the picture, and make sure
the references to his and hers and other terms written with the assumption
that marriage is between a man and a woman are made consistent with the
court's own opinion," Tribe said.

Of course, that won't stop the opponents from trying their best to circumvent, block, twist, or challenge the decision, and that's really no surprise. One irony is that as long as they fight the decision and keep the debate inflamed, the more people will be talking about it, and the more likely other state challenges will appear. Based on the Massachusetts decision, some speculate other sympathetic state courts will also rule in favor of same-sex marriage. But this decision was based on the Massachusetts constitution exclusively, and no other factors--though the judges made a point of acknowledging that there is no reason in general why same-sex marriage should be prohibited.

Other state constitutions may not of course have such language that can be interpreted the way our's was.

Perhaps more importantly, some have speculated that it would be a mistake for the Rebublicans to use this as a wedge issue in the election, since it will backfire on them (see below SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CULTURE WARS AND THE ELECTION). It seems hardly likely that they will heed these warnings (hooray), and the internal wranglings in Massachusetts will inflame them even more.

As so many have noted, the next six months are going to be lively. The culture wars go nuclear.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFEND BIBLICAL MARRIAGE

(Written by a friend, submitted as a letter to the editor to the Boston Globe)

Dear Editor,

As Governor Romney and Attorney General Reilly work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, G-d wouldn't want us to pick and choose which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:

* Marriage in Massachusetts shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) (This is where Governor Romney's resurrection of the Death Penalty will come in handy.)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

* Since marriage is for life, neither the Constitution nor any state law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

Sincerely,

Mary-Ann Greanier

"A GREAT WOUND TO HUMAN DIGNITY"

A top Catholic theologian on Wednesday criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, saying it sanctioned a "moral disorder against God's creative plan."

Gino Concetti, a theologian who writes for the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romanoi called Tuesday's ruling, which declared Massachusetts' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, "grave and presumptuous" and told Reuters, "This is a great wound to human dignity that can never be justified." The Catholic theologian went on to attack homosexuality itself saying, "It contradicts the natural order, which established a union founded on heterosexual relations."

Again no surprise, but this putz wouldn't know the natural order or God's creative plan if they crawled up his fundament and shouted glory.

But nevermind, the Vatican has discovered its own wag-the-dog ploy. Sam Sinnett, president of Dignity USA, believes the bishops were increasing their rhetoric against the GLBT community to distract parishioners from new reports on the sex abuse crisis that are expected at the beginning of the next year. Stay tuned.

Francis DeBernardo, the executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic group serving the GLBT community, noted Concetti's remarks were "without basis." "They choose not to approve same-sex marriage; I don't see why they have to do that in the secular world. We don't see Vatican leaders opposing laws about divorce when the church is opposed to divorce," DeBernardo asserted.

Let's note that this is the same institution that recently allowed a senior spokesman, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, to tell a BBC Radio audience in October that condoms are useless in preventing the spread of HIV (because the virus seeps through the porous latex) and therefore should not be used. Jesus Christ!

What's clearly the real wound to human dignity that can NEVER be justified is the hateful, ignorant and hypocritical nonsense being vomited forth from an institution that by itself is one of the most prolific causes of suffering in recorded history.

"They act as if they still believe the sun revolves around the Earth, and the Earth around the Vatican," said Sam Sinnet.

If the Islamic terrorists are so convinced that the West is embarking on a new crusade, then why the hell aren't they going after the prime movers? I for one would have little sympathy if the Vatican were vaporized. (Sorry, Michaelangelo.) In fact, that's the best way I can think of to begin to restore human dignity to the millions of LGBT folks these primitives have grievously wounded, and soothe the souls of the those killed and maimed over the centuries by them and their followers.

At long last, sirs, have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?

At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?

One of my favorite lines of all time, and you can apply it to so many people today, isn't that fun?

How the Right Wing Nuts Came to Power

All will be revealed in this terrific article:
http://gaytoday.com/viewpoint/111703vp.asp

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CULTURE WARS AND THE ELECTION

The usual suspects in the GOP and the religious right are gearing up to make this decision and its ramifications a major issue in the election.

Some on the left are expressing some fear that this will help propel Bush to his first election victory. One friend who worked so hard over the last two years fighting the proposed Mass constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, and for this decision, said she would give it all up for now if otherwise it meant Bush would win. The delicious joy we are feeling after the decision is, in some progressive circles, being muted or contrasted with fear of what this will mean in 2004.

The disappointing but not surprising noncommittal response of most of the Democratic frontrunner candidates on the issue--all oppose "gay marriage" but support civil unions--is seen as a strategic move, and justified by some pundits because of fear that simple approval and support of the court decision would doom their campaigns.

But that's the absolutely wrongheaded approach. These candidates should be running with and in support of this issue as fast as their quivering limbs will carry them.

"The radical right is demanding a cultural war and calling for a civil war within the Republican Party at a level not seen since the 1992 Houston convention," observes Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "The last time I checked, that led to the defeat of the first President Bush." He further said, "The closer the Republican Party gets to fueling this cultural war and having a national debate about basic civil rights, the closer they get to a very dangerous path. There is a real split in the White House about which path to take. Some see this as a great wedge issue against certain Democratic candidates. Others fear that a cultural war could supersede tax policy and other issues Republicans can win on."

Joan Venocchi, one of our favorite Boston Globe columnists, wrote today:
"In 1992, the GOP's right wing took over the convention and podium in Houston to declare a mean and supposedly holy war against Americans whose beliefs are different from its own. In a speech to delegates, Patrick J. Buchanan stated it as plainly as can be: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." Buchanan's theme was reinforced by other conservative political and religious leaders who scared the country on prime-time television.

That November Bill Clinton won the White House. Bush's defeat was due partly to his failure to address the nation's stagnant economy. But the ousting of an incumbent was also the country's reaction to the ugly, narrow intolerance displayed in Houston, not by Bush personally but by others in his party.

Is it better for Bush if the election turns on the sanctity of traditional marriage or the long-range merits of "Iraqification?" Republicans should be careful what they wish for."

If it's smarter for the rightwinger blatherers to not make same-sex marriage the defining issue in the election, then we needn't worry, for they surely will.

And some of us are looking forward to this. The morally reprehensible and indefensible positions that those on the other side of culture wars will continue to prattle on about, will not stand. They will surely try to argue that this court decision will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. The emptiness of that pitch will become apparent after 180 days.

So I say to George W. Bush and his minions, "Bring it on!"

NOBODY DOES IT BETTER: MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT JUSTICE JOHN M. GREANY'S CONCURRING OPINION IN THE LANDMARK DECISION.

Justice Greaney, in an opinion concurring with the majority, took the
unusual step of describing how he hoped citizens would respond to the
court's decision. Even opponents of same-sex marriage, he said, should do
more than offer "grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority."
Same-sex couples, he wrote, are "our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends"
who volunteer in schools and "worship beside us in our religious houses."
"We share a common humanity and participate together in the social
contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth," Greaney wrote.
"Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and
to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do
so because it is the right thing to do."

Tradition and religious belief should command respect, Greaney
also wrote, "but as a matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of
tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a
hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are
deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of
the opposite sex and their families."

As the culture war heats up, and we hear more of the shrill, coldhearted
and hateful diatribes of the morally bereft who like the Taliban and other
Islamic fundamentalists, hide behind religion to shroud their unrelenting
need to control the social agenda such that it protects their hegemony
and fear-based ignorance, we should take heart in Justice Greany's remarks.

Read it again:
"Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and
to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do
so because it is the right thing to do."

OUR OWN DAMN APATHY

Henry Miller once said you can get something from any book, even a bad one.

Is this corollary true--'you can get something from any person, even a bad one'?

Sorry, instead of "bad" I meant to say "maybe the most vile person on the planet after Ann Coulter, Slobodan Milosevitch and the guy who played Anakin Skywalker in 'Attack Of The Clones.'" See, it's Bill O'Reilly.

He said recently "...the country's not interested in an independent candidacy. Maybe in 10 years they will be,but right now, you have 50 percent of Americans who don't know anything - they're totally disengaged from the process, the 'Mall People.' They don't know anything, don't watch the news or listen to radio or read the newspapers."

That's the 50% who don't vote. Some even brag about it.

"It is not terrorism that is holding us hostage, but our own damn apathy when it comes to participating in our own democracy," says Mary MacElveen, contributing writer and researcher to liberalpatriot.org

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL, PART 19

Troubled media mogul Conrad Black's father's dying words to his son were "Life is hell, most people are bastards and everything is bullshit."

On the other hand, Jean Kerr said, "The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty in the morning feeling just plain terrible."

THE SECOND SHOT HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD: THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DECISION

As I write this, the day after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial CourT rules that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gives the state 180 days to come with a structure to implement the decision, the backlash is in full swing. Mass governor Ovenmitt Romney already promises a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That's not all that comes between a man and a woman. Me, for instance, but that's another story.

The backlash is no surprise to anyone. The jerks, creeps and nimrods are already foaming at the mouth, calling it the end of western civilization. We are reminded of what Ghandi said when he was asked what he thought of Western civilization: "I think it would be a very good idea."

I can't wait to read what those charming Nigerian Anglican Bishops have to say. They already declared that the confirmation of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire would bring about the end of Western---oh you know. They took their flock of 17 million and split from the other Anglicans. So far, nobody's noticed.

What's left for them to say about this event? "OK, western civ is gone, but this is even worse than when the Jews killed Christ. I don't care what the Pope said about that, screw the Pope. No wait, let those jew homos screw the pope, that son of a bitch. We're Anglicans, goddammit. And didn't you see Mel Gibson's movie?"

Before too long, someone's going to have to answer The Question: How does same-sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage? You notice that so far all the nimrods do when asked that question is repeat the conclusion. Or they whine about how allowing same-sex marriage redefines marriage. And?

I'll tell ya, next time I see them at the I93 rest stop, I'm going to give them a piece of my mind. Or something.

As this culture war heats up, and it sure will--there's an election, after all--they're going to have to be a lot more articulate than that. That's asking a lot of people who think promoting abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of STD's, but we, never daunted, charge at the windmill.

Meanwhile, we look forward to lots of really colorful June weddings with nary a set of matching bridesmaid's gowns in sight. For that, at least, the entire country should be on their knees in gratitude. Or something.

MICHAEL JACKSON SHOCKER

I'm shocked, shocked that the noseless wonder would be arrested and accused of molesting children. Who could have imagined such a thing?

Apparently one of his attorneys is Johhny Cochran, so of course Jackson will not get convicted, because "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

MOLLY IVINS LATEST COLUMN

Call Me a Bush-Hater

By Molly Ivins, The Progressive
November 14, 2003

Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.

Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similar phenomenon.

Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to – our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse.

For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts – all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.

And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion-dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater.

After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every right-winger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky. And who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden?

"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy."

I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.

One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal – milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese – is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago – attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."

To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only president we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that.

But, onward. So George Dubya becomes president, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own conservative and dick for compassion.

His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that's how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich.

By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education and then fail to put money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, and then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy? We go along with the war in Afghanistan, and we still don't have bin Laden.

Then suddenly, in the greatest bait-and-switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction, and our president "without doubt," without question, knows all about them, even unto the amounts – tons of sarin, pounds of anthrax. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us.

By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, "Wha the hey?" We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Mr. Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a President.

Chuck, honey, it ain't just the 2.6 million jobs we've lost: People are losing their pensions, their health insurance, the cost of health insurance is doubling, tripling in price, the Administration wants to cut off their overtime, and Bush was so too little, too late with extending unemployment compensation that one million Americans were left high and dry. And you wonder why we think he's a lousy president?

Sure, all that is just what's happening in people's lives, but what we need is the Big Picture. Well, the Big Picture is that after September 11, we had the sympathy of every nation on Earth. They all signed up, all our old allies volunteered, everybody was with us, and Bush just booted all of that away. Sneering, jeering, bad manners, hideous diplomacy, threats, demands, arrogance, bluster.

"In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will," says Krauthammer.

You bet your ass it was. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and turns out not to have weapons of mass destruction.

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred.

Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies.

If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

Molly Ivins, a syndicated columnist out of Austin, Texas, is the co-author of "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America."

THE MASTER OF DOUBLESPEAK: What Bush says vs. What he does

I found this post on the Yahoo group, Citizens for Legitimate Government. It's a chronology of Bush saying one thing and doing another.

The group address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CitizensForLegitimateGovernment and the website is: http://www.legitgov.org


Children's Hospitals

Bush Rhetoric
"This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality.There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded." - Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01


Reality
Bush's first budget proposed cutting grants to children's hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children's hospitals.


First Responders

Bush Rhetoric
"We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. " - Bush, 3/27/2002

Reality
Bush had been saying that he was proposing $3.5 billion in "new" money for first responders. However, his budget tried to cut more than $1 billion out of existing grants to local police/fire departments to fund this. Then, in August of 2002, Bush rejected $150 million for grants to state and local first responders. Bush's decision prompted the President of the Firefighters Union to say, "President Bush, don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe." The President of the Virginia firefighters association said, "The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity."

Ethanol

Bush Rhetoric
"I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy." - Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02

Reality
According to the AP, Bush's 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]


Even Start

Bush Rhetoric
Under the headline "Bush lauds Albuquerque woman for volunteerism" the AP reported on Bush's visit to New Mexico to tout Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program. "One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important.And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you." - Bush, 4/29/02


Reality
According to the Associated Press, Bush proposed "to slash funding 20 percent for the Even Start program, which offers tutoring to preschoolers and literacy and job training for their parents" - the very program he was touting in New Mexico [2/4/02].


Housing

Bush Rhetoric
"Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership." He also went on to talk about his experience meeting the residents saying, "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." - Bush, 6/17/02

Reality
According to AP, "President Bush's proposed 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, announced Monday, phases out HOPE VI" the program Bush visited and touted in Atlanta. "Renee Glover, executive director of the Atlanta Housing Authority said. 'We didn't anticipate that HOPE VI would be eliminated.'" [AP, 2/5/2003]


Port Security

Bush Rhetoric
"We're working hard to make sure your job is easier, that the port is safer. The Customs Service is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about." - Bush, 6/24/02]

Reality
The President's 2003 and 2004 budget provides zero for port security grants. The GOP Congress has provided only $250 million for port security grants (35% less than authorized). Additionally, in August, the President vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative which he specifically touted.


Retirement Security

Bush Rhetoric
Bush in Madison "calls for worker pension protection
"We've got to do more to protect worker pensions." - Bush, 8/7/02

Reality
Just four months after touting pension security, Bush's Treasury Department announced plans to propose new rules that "would allow employers to resume converting traditional pension plans to new 'cash balance' plans that can lower benefits to long-serving workers. Such conversions are highly controversial. Critics contend that they discriminate against older workers in violation of federal law" [Washington Post, 12/10/02]

Labor

Bush Rhetoric
"Our workers are the most productive, the hardest working, the best craftsmen in the world. And I'm here to thank all those who work hard to make a living here in America." - Bush, 9/2/02

Reality
Bush's 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.

Border Security

Bush Rhetoric
Bush touts border security with Canadian Prime Minister Chretien in Detroit
"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security." - Bush, 9/9/02

Reality
While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no additional money for this. Additionally, in August, Bush vetoed $6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally, he vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative. His 2004 Budget slashes total total "Border and Transportation Security" by $284 million.

Fiscal Responsibility

Bush Rhetoric
"One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility." Bush, 9/16/02

Reality
Less than 6 months after this pronouncement, Bush proposed a budget that would put the government more than $300 billion into deficit. As National Journal noted on 2/12/02, Bush's own 2004 budget tables show that without Bush's tax and budgetary proposals, the deficit deficit would decline after 2006, but with Bush's proposals the deficit would grow indefinitely.

Vocational/Technical Ed

Bush Rhetoric
"I want to thank the good folks here at Rochester Community and Technical College for your hospitality.The most important issue -- the most important issue for any governor in any state is to make sure every single child in your state receives a quality education." - Bush, [10/18/02]

Reality
Bush's 2004 budget proposes to cut vocational and technical education grants by 24% ($307 million). His budget also proposes to freeze funding for pell grants for low income students.

Veterans

Bush Rhetoric
"These men and women are still the best of America. They are prepared for every mission we give them, and they are worthy of the standards set for them by America's veterans. Our veterans from every era are the finest of citizens. We owe them the life we know today. They command the respect of the American people, and they have our everlasting gratitude." - Bush, 11/11/02

Reality
According to a letter sent to the President by the major veterans groups, Bush's 2003 budget "falls $1.5 billion short" of adequately funding veterans care. [Independent Budget, 1/7/02].

The Disadvantaged

Bush Rhetoric
Bush talks about the importance of funding foodbanks at a DC Food Bank
"I hope people around this country realize that agencies such as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contributions are down. They shouldn't be down in a time of need. We shouldn't let the enemy affect us to the point where we become less generous. Our spirit should never be diminished by what happened on September the 11th, 2001. Quite the contrary. We must stand squarely in the face of evil by doing some good." - Bush, 12/19/02

Reality
The 2003 and 2004 Bush budgets proposes to freeze the Congregate Nutrition Program, which assists local soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs. With inflation, this proposal would mean at least 36,000 seniors would be cut from meals on wheels and congregate meals programs. Currently, 139,000 seniors are already on waiting lists for home-meal programs. His 2004 budget continues the freeze.

No Child Left Behind

Bush Rhetoric
Bush talks up the need for education funding at the one-year anniversary of the No Child Left Behnid Act [1/8/03]
"This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform." - Bush, 1/8/03

Reality
The President's 2003 budget - the first education budget after he signed and touted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush's 2004 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation.

Veterans

Bush Rhetoric
Bush touts the importance of veterans medical care at Walter Reed Army Hospital [1/17/03]
"Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way." - Bush, 1/17/03

Reality
Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].


Medicare

Bush Rhetoric
Bush touts the need to adequately fund Medicare in Michigan [1/29/03]
"Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America." - Bush, 1/29/03

Reality
Under Bush's proposal, there should be a roughly $40 billion increase in Medicare each year for a decade. However, Bush's 2004 budget proposes just $6 billion - 85% less than what would be needed to meet his goal. Additionally, his budget would leave 67% of the total $400 billion pledge to be spent after 2008. [Bush Budget, pg. 318]

Boys & Girls Clubs

Bush Rhetoric
Bush about the importance of the Boys and Girls Club of America [1/30/03]
"I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country.The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." - Bush, 1/30/03

Reality
In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. IN his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million).