Mark Time

The Dangers of Being a Majority Supporter of a Minority Group

If you're like me, you're in a unique minority.  I'm white, male, straight, middle-aged, middle-class, live in the suburbs, protestant.  I'm a member of every majority group.  I AM WHITE BREAD.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), my genetic and environmental background have combined to form a desire for justice in my ethical framework.  I want to work hard for a society where personal attributes like gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic background do not have any effect on how a person is perceived.  We have a long way to go, but I really want to help get there.

This has drawn me to support, actively and passively, civil rights groups that I do not belong to.  In general this is fulfilling work - I am doing something to help people other than myself (a very Christian activity) and helping to reshape the world into a better place.

Unfortunately, I have found that there are a number of pitfalls to this activity.  Recently, I experienced some of them again.  My comments on the Washington State "Defense of Marriage Alliance" proposal drew some strong negative comments from members of the gay community, here and on other blogs and forums.  This echoed some more personal experiences that I had working even more closely with the Presbyterian gay rights movement about 12-15 years ago.

So, for your edification and to help me get past the pain recently experienced, here are some thoughts on what can go wrong when a member of the majority tries to work on behalf of a minority group.  These are generally addressed to the majority person trying to work on behalf of the minority.

1.  You will never be a member of the group.  Ironically, this can make you a 2nd class citizen in the minority's community.

Don't forget this - you are not and will never be a member of the minority (well, with sexual orientation or economic status that's not strictly true, but you get the idea).  Some members of a particular minority are likely to view anyone not of that minority with serious doubt as to their commitment to "the cause".  In some cases, there will never be trust of a non-minority person.

As long as you are willing to toe the party line, you are probably safe from criticism.  The minute that you choose to criticize the beliefs or tactics of the minority group (or even one faction of that group) you become open to having your sincerity doubted.  You may be attacked for being a 5th-columnist (someone who attacks from within) representing the oppressive majority or a group of such people.

In today's civil rights movements, an insidious concept has been invented - a pathological fear or hatred of the minority.  This is true in some cases - burning a cross on the lawn of a black family shows a tendency to dislike black people.  However, this concept of psychological fear or hatred of a group has been turned into a widely-used insult.  Nowhere is this clearer than with the gay rights movement.  "Homophobia" is the term used to label those who do not believe that homosexuality (or bisexuality or transgender inclinations) is fully acceptable in today's society.  A breakdown of the term itself would lead one to believe that homophobia is talking about fear of homosexuals.  (or perhaps fear of homogenized milk?)  In actual use it is an insult hurled at those who do not support full societal acceptance of homosexuality.

The problem with this insult is that in many cases the root definition is not true.  Most anti-gay people are not afraid of gay people.  They do not cringe in fear, crawl under their beds (or into closets?) and lock their door when two men walk down the street holding hands.  They have (to some degree and depth) made a personal judgment of the ethics and morals of homosexuality and rejected it.  No fear - just a personal decision.

So, back to our intrepid non-minority volunteer.  If you choose to openly criticize the beliefs or tactics of the minority group (or often any portion of it), prepare to be labeled with all of the bad attributes of those that you've chosen to fight against.  You will be seen as "one of them" and not "one of us".  Your words will be devalued.  In short, the minority will try to make you feel as held down and victimized as they do.

Even worse - members of the minority itself experience this.  One member of the gay rights community talked to me about how any gay person who challenges the tactics of the group gets labeled as "self-loathing".  He's got his own internal homophobia.

I'm sorry - but this is all BS.  It's just the use of names and labels in an attempt to control that majority volunteer.

2.  Members of the majority will decry you as well.

In order for there to be a civil rights struggle by a minority group, there must be members of the majority to oppress them.  (Side note - the oppression might no longer exist, but the fact that it once existed is enough to prolong the cause.  Ask a left-handed person.)  If you choose to be publicly associated with a minority group, you may draw the ire of members of the majority.  If you support minority group Z, you will be labeled as a Z-lover, and probably as a Y-hater.  You will be told that you (are you ready for this) have hatred towards your own people - your own self-loathing.

If the majority group has chosen to level morality charges against the minority, you will be open to them as well.  For gay rights, your sexuality and sexual behavior may be questioned.  You may be a "closeted gay".  In racial conflicts, this used to lead to your ancestry being questioned - that you aren't as "pure" as you thought.

Paradoxically, this criticism is often easier to take than the criticism from the minority group itself.  You are at least pointed in the right direction - you are taking fire from the front - from those that you have chosen to battle in your drive for equality for the minority group.  The attacks from the minority group will more often come from behind, forcing you to battle on both fronts at once (and stand sideways, apparently).

3.  You will be told that you "can't understand" what the minority group is going through.

This is true.  You truly are unable to feel the day to day pain caused by attacks on you for what you are.  You might be part of one minority other than the one that you are speaking of, and in that case your pain is somewhat transferable.  If you are a member of more or less every majority - you truly are unable to feel the pain.

HOWEVER, you obviously have a reason to be battling on behalf of the minority.  You are expending energy and feeling pain (and joy sometimes) as you work for the cause.  These emotions may pale in comparison to what a member of the minority is going through, but you feel them nonetheless.

You are lucky in that you have an escape route - you can simply stop working on behalf of the minority.  It's easy to melt back into the passive center of your majority group.  However, this too comes at a cost.  In order to stop the pain from your work on behalf of the minority, you must feel a different kind of pain caused by your decision to ignore your ethics and morals.  In order to avoid the pain caused by this work, you cause yourself new pain by not being true to yourself (and in some cases, not being true to your religious beliefs).  For those altruistic enough to try to help people without helping themselves in the process, turning your back is actually painful - an self-inflicted assault on your soul.

So what do you do?

Majority people helping a minority - remember that you truly cannot feel the pain of the minority.  Remember that you are working with wounded people - people who are under attack for being what God made them.  They will sometimes react illogically to you and to themselves.  Be sensitive, and try to learn as much as you can.  Avoid hot buttons.

Minority groups dealing with help from the majority - be patient.  Those who want to help you fall into two groups - those who truly care and those who want to appear to care.  Members of the latter group will generally fall away over time.  The former group are the folks that you want to keep - people who are doing this for no personal gain (other than maybe satisfaction of doing the right thing).  Help them understand the pressures that you face.  Teach them about your community.  And remember that they are unlearning behaviors taught to them by ignorant people - they will come around in time.

All - everybody has the right to their opinion.  Sometimes asserting that opinion may cause pain.  Sometimes that opinion is right.  Sometimes it is wrong.  Sometimes it is ignorant.  Educate each other.  Avoid using the tactics of hate and marginalization on each other.  You're all facing in the same direction trying to accomplish the same goal - don't confuse each other with the enemy.

Gay Civil Unions in NJ - February 23, 2007

Governor Jon Corzine plans to sign the NJ Civil Union bill into law tomorrow (Thursday, 12/21/06) at the Trenton War Memorial.

The law takes effect in 60 days - in order to give various departments time to create/update regulations.  That makes February 19 the first day to get licenses.  That's a state holiday (President's Day) so February 20 is the first practical day to get a civil union license.  There is a 72 hour waiting period in NJ, so the first practical day to get married (I refuse to use the term "unioned") is Friday, February 23, 2007.

Invite me to the wedding - my company makes great wedding gifts!

In somewhat related news - yesterday the Governor signed legislation to add "gender identity or expression" to the list of banned discrimination categories.

New Jersey Civil Unions - passage and other things that were changed at the same time

Yesterday, the NJ legislature passed a bill that will create civil unions between two people of the same gender, with the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages.  The term "marriage" was not used, the term "civil union" was used instead.  The governor is expected to sign the bill shortly - he has indicated that he will.

I have read the bill.  The writers of the bill were very comprehensive in granting equality to gay civil unions and marriage.  It looks like somebody did a search for the phrases "marriage" and "spouse" in state law and the bill amends each section to add civil unions.  There was clearly some intelligence involved - it wasn't just a simple cut and paste.

I support civil unions and I believe that they should be labeled marriages.  I believe that they should be recognized in churches as well - including my Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination.  I hope that the gay rights activists will be satisfied with equality under a different name, and will let enough time go by before pushing hard to get the term changed.

While modifying the bill, a few other things that didn't pertain to gay people were changed.  Here's a list of some of them, and some other interesting stuff in the bill.

Any child born to a partner in a civil union becomes a child of both partners.  The same goes for adoptions.  Those children will be treated equally by the law as those born to married heterosexual couples, particularly in terms of divorce, custody and child support.

Interestingly, the law concerning sanguinity and marriage was modified.  The NJ restrictions were rather loose - first cousins have always been allowed to marry but you can't marry your aunt or uncle or niece or nephew.  The modification was done simply by adding the same gender to each line - brother was added to the sentence about men, sister was added to the sentence about women.

The marriage license law was changed.  The old rule had the license issued in the hometown of the female.  If she was not an NJ resident, the license was issued in the hometown of the male.  If both were non-resident, the license was issued in the town where the wedding is to take place.  The new law changes it to allow that a marriage/civil union license may be issued in either party's hometown - for both homo- and heterosexual couples.

NJ law concerning marriage of minors (under 18) requires the consent of a parent (and for under 16, a judge).  However, there was an old law that said if a minor boy managed to make any woman ("of good repute") pregnant and was arrested for sexual intercourse with her, he could marry her immediately without consent.  This clause has been removed.

Anyone who could perform marriages can now also perform civil unions.  I believe that this includes lots of clergy who would rather not do so ....

Premarital agreements (aka prenuptial agreements) are now also allowed for civil unions.

Civil unions can be nullified for all of the same reasons that marriages can be annuled, EXCEPT for impotence.  Interesting.

Name changes are allowed for either partner in a civil union - just like marriage.  Ditto for divorce - you can go back to the name that you were using before the union/marriage.

"Civil union status" is added to the list of discriminatory areas prohibited by law in NJ housing, employment and the like - alongside "marital status".  "Affectional or sexual orientation" have been on that list in NJ for some time.  This means that it is now illegal to refuse to rent to a couple who are in a civil union.

Domestic Partnerships (the precursor to these civil unions, which had far fewer privileges) are no longer allowed for couples of the same sex.  They continue to be allowed for couples over age 62 (a group where an actual marriage could cause negative tax implications).

A New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission will be established to study the implications of this law and determine whether or not it should be changed and/or added to.  That commission will also study the option of removing the Domestic Partnership laws.  The commission will report back every 6 months for 3 years.

Any Civil Union from another state that is legal in that state will be recognized in NJ.  I suspect that this includes Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and California.

Interesting changes.  Only 2 things change for heterosexuals and those changes are minor and to the benefits of the parties involved.  The rest is simple equality.  I approve.

The Bigots are Coming

US Army Specialist Eric Rivera was recently killed in the line of duty in Iraq.  His funeral is scheduled for this coming Friday, December 2 in Atlantic City, NJ.

The Westboro Baptist Church (mainly composed of the family of Rev. Fred Phelps) of Topeka, Kansas has announced their intention to protest at Rivera's funeral to show that Rivera died because the United States supports fags.  (No, I didn't make that up.)  Apparently, they believe that 9/11 happened to the US because of gays, and that our soldiers are fighting to support a gay america.

This group is the group responsible for many states writing laws restricting protests at funerals (or at least at military funerals).  NJ is one of those states, and NJ law prohibits any protest within 500 feet of a funeral or funeral procession for one hour before, during and one hour after a funeral.  Also included is a clause banning the obstruction of entry into a funeral or related building or procession.  The penalty is up to 6 months in jail.

These people make me sick.  They make me ashamed to be a Christian.  I am nearly motivated to violence by their actions.

I hope that a number of my fellow citizens will show up and give them the treatment that they deserve.

UPDATE:  Within 24 hours of posting this, I have received 8 hits from cox.net in Topeka, Kansas.  Interesting.

NJ Gay Activists - Pause While You're Ahead

Gays and lesbians in NJ are celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Wednesday that will eventually give them the right to marry or enter an equivalent union.  However, some don't believe that the decision goes far enough.

In this article, Steven Goldstein (the head of Garden State Equality) is quoted as saying that he will continue to fight for the term marriage to apply to gays and lesbians until there is "blood on these knuckles".  He continues:  "We will outwork, outplay, outthink and demolish the other side".  The Garden State Equality website says:

Those who would view today's Supreme Court ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong.  So help us God, New Jersey's LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100% marriage equality.  Let decision makers from Morristown to Moorestown, from Maplewood to Maple Shade, recognize that fundamental fact right now.

My day job is that of an IT Project Manager.  In both my college days and in the years since, I've received training in change management.  One fundamental principle of change management is that you must leave those impacted by the change enough time to process the change and make it a part of their world view.  Attempting to force a change upon masses who may not agree with the change in a short period of time by fiat is a bad idea - the change is doomed to be actively resisted at best and to fail at worst.  The bigger the change, the bigger the amount of time required to process it.  Any attempt to force change to happen faster merely causes a backlash against that change.  In the workplace that results in passive and aggressive behavior:  refusing to use the new process, intentionally working slowly to punish those forcing the change, excessive sick days, negative comments passed behind the backs of those making the change, etc.  In society, imagine failure to recognize the change as the best case, with actual violence as the worst case.

When a minority (numerically) wins a victory over the majority, they must behave as a good winner.  That means acknowledging the loser's value even though they have not triumphed, and choosing not to emphasize the loser's attributes/mistakes/ability.  "Yay, we won!" not "Yay, you lost!"  Then, the losers need to be given space to grieve for their loss and incorporate the new reality into their worldview.  Pressing for the next concession immediately is only going to infuriate those who are already wounded by the decision.  That puts them in fight or flight mode, and with societal change flight isn't really a possibility.

This is a huge gain - in NJ in 178 days gays and lesbians will have full spousal rights after getting married/unioned.  It's a complete win in all except the name.  Take the win, act gracefully, and if the term "marriage" is really so important come back later and push for it.  Come back in 2, 5, 10, 20 years and have the law changed to match what society is (will already be) doing - recognizing gay unions as marriages.  And that's what my title means.  It's not "quit while you're ahead", it's "PAUSE while you're ahead".  Give the straight, non-supportive community time to process the change in their lives and build a track record where the world doesn't end when the gay couple next door get married.

Let's face it, time is on the side of the gay community.  Polls show that gay rights are increasingly supported by the public, and that the support is more positive among those who are younger.  Time will finally erase the stigma incorrectly applied to non-heterosexuals, but it will take time.  Just as it has taken time to reduce racism and gender bias.

Winners have a responsibility to losers to ensure that the loss is not so painful that the losers walk away from the game (or worse, change the rules to cause the winners to lose next time).  Losers have a responsibility to accept the loss and act graciously towards winners.  Both must do this because next time, they could be on the other side.

This principle is too often lost in today's society, religion, and politics.

NJ and Gay Marriage

In case you missed it, the NJ Supreme Court made an important ruling on gay marriage yesterday.  In a 4-3 vote, the court ruled that while the NJ Constitution does not guarantee the right to "marry" to gay people, the court requires that the NJ legislature in the next 180 days pass laws to give all rights, privileges and responsibilities of married straight couples to committed gay couples.  Those include:

1. a surname change without petitioning the court (after a marriage or union)
2. ownership of property as tenants by the entirety, which would allow for both automatic transfer of ownership on death, and protection against severance and alienation
3. survivor benefits under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act
4. back wages owed to a deceased spouse
5. compensation available to spouses, children, and other relatives of homicide victims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act
6. free tuition at any public institution of higher education for surviving spouses and children of certain members of the New Jersey National Guard
7. tuition assistance for higher education for spouses and children of volunteer firefighters and first-aid responders
8. tax deductions for spousal medical expenses
9. an exemption from the realty transfer fee for transfers between spouses
10. the testimonial privilege given to the spouse of an accused in a criminal action
11. the requirement for an employer to extend health care coverage to a spouse
12. statutory leave to care for an ill spouse
13. the requirement that a bequest is automatically revoked to a spouse after a divorce
14. the requirement for an estate to pay for support and maintenance of a surviving spouse when a will is contested
15. parentage, custody, visitation and child support rights when a child is born during a marriage
16. support requirements after a divorce (alimony)

It is important to note that the minority set of 3 justices in this case filed a dissent stating that they would prefer to grant marriage rights to homosexuals immediately rather than letting the legislature take action.  That means a 7-0 unanimous vote for gay marriage in some form, and a 4-3 split on whether or not to use the word "marriage".

At least one state legislator has announced her intention to create an amendment to the NJ constitution restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  Another legislator has announced his intent to create and amendment to the NJ constitution to specifically redefine marriage to include gay couples.  Yet another legislator has announced his intention to impeach all justices involved.

I applaud this ruling.  I want to make my feelings and beliefs very clear.

While growing up, I was subject to the misconceptions and outright lies about gay people told to me by my parents.  I remember one conversation in the car at about age 13 in particular - so vividly that I remember exactly where on the street we were when it took place.  In that conversation, my parents informed me that all gays were diseased, that they all had sex with anybody and regularly had multiple partners, and that they were all drug addicts.  In their defense I will state that we do have one gay cousin on my mother's side who at the time did fit all of that.  My parents' bigoted attitude is shocking to me, particularly given their more permissive and understanding attitudes towards racial issues, gender issues, and even those of other religions.  Since then their attitudes have softened a bit but they are still against homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular.

Luckily for me, my church activities brought me into contact with homosexual people.  At events like the Synod meeting and the Presbyterian Youth Triennium I came in contact with Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC - now known as More Light Presbyterians).  I discovered a group of people who had the same life issues that I had - going to work, buying groceries, changing cat litter, etc.  These were folks wrestling with the same issues that I did - issues of faith, issues of life.  Unfortunately, these folks also had other issues - being accepted in society, being accepted in the church.

Shortly after that I found that I had some gay friends at college.  Again - just regular folks who prefer romantic partners of the same gender.  All of the same joys and concerns were there, including building solid romantic relationships with one person and searching for a lifetime partner.  The only difference was that I couldn't talk to others openly about these friends for fear of what others might do to them.

And that has continued until today.  I have one good friend that I met through camp who is a lesbian and in the middle of her search for a soulmate.  She may have found that soulmate now and I celebrate as I watch that relationship grow.  She's having to make up for lost time - the issues that society (and particularly the church) have with her sexuality have slowed down her personal growth in relationship areas but she's moving along now and will probably catch up soon.

So - to be clear.

I am in favor of full equal rights for homosexuals.  I include bisexuals and transgendered people in that group.

I am in favor of full marriage rights under the name "marriage" for a joining of two people of the same sex.

I am opposed to polygamy.

I feel that polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia are often linked to homosexuality by those whose arguments against homosexuality are weak.  This linkage is false.

I am in favor of full rights including marriage for homosexual couples within the church.  I have read the biblical arguments for and against.  I remain unconvinced that the Bible passages used to prohibit homosexuality are actually speaking of a committed relationship as opposed to temple rituals or prostitution.  Additionally, there is clear speech from Jesus regarding marriage, but there is also clear speech from Jesus regarding divorce and we seem to be free to ignore that as well.  In short - in the face of contradictory biblical arguments I must go where the Spirit leads me, and that is this position.

I believe that all parties in this debate must learn to speak to each other.  The folks at both extremes talk past each other.  On the one hand, the gay lobby fails to take into account the beliefs and fears of those who oppose them.  On the other hand, the anti-gay lobby fails to take into account God's creation of gay people, the fallacy of choice of sexuality, and the effect on people's lives that accusations of antisocial behavior hold.

I look forward to the day that I can attend the wedding in NJ of my friend mentioned above.

Back to the Old Days

Yesterday ... North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon. (CNN Article)

For years and years, Americans grew up knowing that their world could end at any moment, ended by a nuclear war.  From the 1940's and 1950's through 1989, Russia and China were the nuclear enemies.

In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down.  This was the end of communism in Europe, and later in the Soviet Union (now called Russia, for the most part).  In 1994, Russia announced that their nuclear weapons were no longer sitting on the pad pre-aimed at the United States.  The nuclear sword of Damocles that had hung over our heads since birth was no longer a threat.

Today, Russia is fairly stable and a sometimes-ally of the United States.  China is a major trading partner with the US and currently not considered a direct threat (though their industrialization shows that this may change in the future).  The other nuclear powers (United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) are not considered to be threats to the United States.  With today's test, North Korea is the first nation considered an enemy of the United States to have nuclear weapons.  The Sword is back.

I feel most for those born after the early 1980's.  These kids and young adults were born without the fear of imminent nuclear annihilation.  The rest of us "knew" that at any moment, somebody might do something somewhere and that the result would be a bright flash and then whatever your religious beliefs say happens.  These youngsters are dealing with it for the first time.

Don't worry - life goes on.  You just have to assume that today is not that day.

 

We Are All Brits Today

The prayers and determination of my family (and undoubtedly most of the USA) go out to the people of the United Kingdom and especially to the victims and their families.

Hopefully, this event will wake up those who want to coddle the Islamic extremists who are perpetrating these atrocities.

Thanks to Bull Moose for reminding me to post this.

On-going updates at The Command Post.

Louie Louie and Benton Harbor, MI

Paula Dawning, the Superintendent of Schools in Benton Harbor, MI, has banned the McCord Middle School marching band from playing Louie Louie this weekend in the town's Grand Floral Parade.  (AP Story via Yahoo)

Apparently, she's concerned about the "raunchy lyrics".  As far as I know, NOBODY knows what the lyrics to the song are.  However, the ability to play it must be a human instinct - I've never seen a marching band use any sheet music yet all marching bands are able to play it instantly with or without a conductor.

I sent the following letter to Ms. Dawning urging her to reconsider:

Dear Ms. Dawning,

I read a news story today stating that you had banned the McCord Middle School band from playing the song "Louie Louie".  I would urge you to reconsider.

At age 36, I fondly remember my years playing music in school.  I strongly believe that my musical experiences, in addition to being fun, were a major part of the foundation that was built for my future success.  I played in the school's band and jazz band, and ultimately was a member of the NJ All-State Band and All-State Orchestra.  I went on to be a member of the Rutgers University Marching Band and Pep Band.

Music is important in many ways to a student.  It builds confidence through public performance.  It builds character through the discipline required to practice and learn your instrument.  It builds the ability to work smoothly in groups.  Evidence shows that music builds mathematical ability as well.

And "Louie Louie" is an important tradition in marching bands.  I have never been a member of a marching band where that song was not played.  I have never met anyone who belonged to a marching band that did not play that song.  In fact, "Louie Louie" seems to be more of a natural instinct - I have never seen any sheet music for it but I've also never seen a band that didn't know how to play it - nearly flawlessly on the first try.  If you leave a marching band alone long enough, it will spontaneously play "Louie Louie".

I feel that I must address the question of the lyrics.  While I've never met a band that didn't know "Louie Louie", I've also never met ANYONE who knows the lyrics.  In the 1960's, the FBI investigated the allegedly obscene lyrics and concluded that they were not obscene, and in fact were "unintelligible at any speed".  I have seen many, many Internet websites purporting to have the lyrics - and no claimant has any better claim than any other.  The song has just never been understandable.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision, and allow the band to play "Louie Louie" this weekend.

Sincerely,

Mark Smith

Ms. Dawning may be reached via e-mail at pdawning@remc11.k12.mi.us .

UPDATE:  (5/6/05) - The superintendent has relented.  After hearing from a majority of parents (and not just the single complainer), she has decided to let them play Louie Louie in the parade.

And I got a nice note from the band director in response to my e-mail above, which I had forwarded to him.

(42.360007,-071.087870 in decimal degrees)

This will be the first and only time traveler convention (since you can attend from any era, multiple conventions are unnecessary).  Come and meet time travelers from the past and future.  Introduce your grandchildren to your grandparents (you'll probably have to pick up some of them first).

Please note that the date is in reference to the Gregorian Calendar in use at the host time.

I'm posting this here, as I believe that my blog will become so popular that transcripts should be available well into the future!

Judicial Overkill

Michael Mayo, of the Sun-Sentinel in Florida talks in his column about judicial overkill.

Male juror Stacey Forbes, age 19, was arrested and sentenced to 4 MONTHS in jail for lying on a juror questionnaire.  He has been arrested twice before for minor drug offenses (but never convicted), and answered "no" to the question asking if he'd been arrested.  According to him, he thought that they'd meant convicted, not arrested.  He's a high-school dropout with reading problems.

In Broward County, Florida, failing to show up for jury duty gets you at most a $100 fine.  Showing up and accidentally lying on the form?  4 months.

This is out of control.  The kid apologized for his mistake, but activist Judge Eileen O'Connor (a Bush appointee) has decided to use him as an example.

He's currently free on bond awaiting appeal, but has to report to authorities 3 times a week and has a 1am curfew.  Here's hoping that the Appeals Court has better judgement (and is less fascist) than Judge O'Connor.

Note that Mr. Mayo has posted her office phone number in his column.  Feel free to use it.

Anthrax - Here We Go Again

Over three years ago, several Anthrax-tainted letters were handled at the Trenton Main Post Office in Hamilton, NJ.  That building was closed from October 18, 2001 until yesterday - March 14, 2005.  Trenton Times Story  My mail was delivered from that building before it was closed (and may be again).  The building was fumigated and essentially gutted and rebuilt.  I still have mail in special baggies from the irradiation facility that was finally received in January, 2002.

The same day (March 14, 2005), anthrax was again detected at external mail processing facilities for the Pentagon.  Fox News Story

It's time to be afraid of your mail again.  What may be scary here is that the mail was already irradiated, but the anthrax organism was found on filters at the plant.  Perhaps it was already-killed anthrax (I hope so), but you really don't know.

My tips for being afraid of your mail:

1. Keep all mail outside of your house until opened/discarded.
2. Discard any mail that you don't intend to open (advertising, etc).  This probably includes mail that doesn't have a return address, or mail with a "suspicious" address (misspelled - handwriting doesn't match return address).  Go ahead and recycle it - it's probably clean.
3. Open all mail outside of your house (perhaps on a porch or in the garage).
4. If anything untoward falls out of the mail, DON'T GO BACK INSIDE.  Get someone to call 911 for you.  Try to stay where you stand, to avoid spreading whatever it is.  Don't panic - most powdery substances in mail turn out to be hoaxes.  Back in the fall of 2001, my company (a direct mail company) had at least a dozen hoax envelopes containing salt, talcum powder, etc.
5. Wash your hands it hot soapy water after opening ALL mail.

Good luck, and let's hope it's a false alarm.

Help, or Get Out of The Way

Varifrank has posted this gem in his blog about Europeans' reaction to US tsunami aid.

Unprofessional - maybe.  Absolutely the right thing to say - definately.

My Wife and Airport Security

My wife is flying to Houston today.  For various reasons (mainly including her boss), she didn't buy the ticket until two days ago.

Because of that (and presumably her last name of Smith), she got a little extra treatment from the TSA.  She was unable to get a boarding pass from the ATM-like machines - she had to go to an agent at a desk and present her ID.  They also searched the heck out of her laptop bag, thinking that they saw a pocketknife.  It apparently was part of a computer cable.

She hadn't boarded yet when I spoke to her, but I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled her aside for another ID check at the gate.

At one point, the TSA was talking about implementing a "trusted traveller" program.  I think they should - it would avoid silly searches of legitimate people.

Dead Pool 2005

Laurence Simon is running the Dead Pool again for 2005.  In order to participate, you have to have a blog (or be willing to make a small contribution) and select 15 identifiable people (not your neighbor - someone whose death will show up in the news) who you think/hope will die in 2005.  The year boundary is marked by the ball in Times Square.

It's a little late to announce this, but if you can get your list together in the next 34 hours, you can enter by following the instructions at:  Dead Pool

I have made my picks, and will be announcing them in a delayed post to be shown on January 1.

FLYi Bomb Threat

I was going through my traffic statistics, and I found someone searching on bombs at airports with today's date.

I did some digging and found this:  FLYi bomb threat

It seems to be nothing, but it's worth looking into.  Luckily, my wife flew home from her business trip yesterday.

Death Penalty for Overdue Library Books

It used to be a cliche - sentencing someone to death for an overdue library book.

Now, Bay City, Michigan is moving in that direction.  (CNN Story)

The Bay County library system director is asking the Library Board for permission to seek arrest warrants for patrons keeping books past due and ignoring repeated notices.  He also wants to levy criminal fines and jail time up to 90 days.

According to the article, a particularly heinous offender has $1,200 worth of books out (not the fine, the value of the books), most for over a year (and mostly sci-fi - could easily be me).  One has to wonder how much it will cost the county to prosecute him and keep him in jail.  Library fines currently run 5 to 10 cents per day.

This guy is nuts.  I can see wanting to make a point, but there's gotta be a better way than arresting patrons.  Maybe embarass them in the newspaper?

Chemical Spill Near My Office

This is taking place 2 buildings away right now.  The spill occurred at 9:45am - or about 2 1/2 hours ago.  The road into our industrial development is closed to incoming traffic - anybody from here who leaves is stuck.

I took a walk next door to the post office and bought some stamps.  There is a single news chopper hovering overhead, and a news SUV was parked at the post office.  (The post office is probably screwed up as well - nobody can get in or out.)

I'll update if there's more news.

UPDATE 12:40pm - The link above has a better story now.  Apparently they've opened the road again.

Morals and the Right Wing

I've been meaning to write a post on morals, and the right-wing's attempt to control them since Bush's re-election.  About how the ultra-right "bring back Puritanism" folks feel that they have a mandate after the very close election to turn us all into Bible-thumpers.

However, Michele of A Small Victory said it better in her post "Check your Morals at my Door".

Michele has it right.  The basic difference between the rational left (not the loony left) and the rational right is this:  The right wants to control your behavior, and the left doesn't want anybody to control anybody's behavior.  That's a simplification, but correct in basic premise.

I prefer the left.

Election's Over - Group Hug or Fight Harder?

I'm worried.

The election is over. I voted for Kerry. I suppose that I could consider my vote wasted, but my state was actually won by Kerry so that really isn't true. One of the major reasons that I voted for Kerry was a lack of trust in Bush and Bush's role as a divider rather than a uniter (maybe that's two reasons).

What we've been left with is a polarized country. This election caused such divisions that people were defacing election signs, Kindergarten teachers were telling their charges how their parents should vote, and families and co-workers were having heated arguments. I remember the 2000 election, and the talk wasn't about which candidate was evil - it was about which candidate was better (or worse, for those who took the "lesser of two evils" tack). Nobody called either candidate a fascist dictator. This year, things were just plain ugly.

This year's campaigns were about fear. On the Republican side - fear of terrorism and fear of non-conformists (led by non-Christians and gays). On the Democratic side - fear of unemployment and fear of a military quagmire. I watched all 4 Presidential and VP debates - the candidates spent most of their time talking about how terrible the other guy is rather than how good they are or what they will do.

This fear and attack attitude spread into the general populace. I had family members telling me how bad Kerry was and how a vote for Kerry would cause terrorists to attack. In the blogverse, it was even worse. The right-wing and left-wing went at each other day and night (often depriving themselves of sleep to comment) and used each other's words to fire up their own side. The right saw the left as "moonbats" in need of medication. The left saw the right as fascists trying to re-create the Nazi party.

The election itself came right down to the wire - 68,000 voters in Ohio. It could easily have been 500 voters in Florida again, or 10,000 voters in Missouri. What some right-wingers are calling a "mandate" was really only a 51-48 popular vote, and a narrow electoral win.

So the big question is:

Can we come together again?

For a short while after 9/11, the country came together united. We all flew our flags. We all gave money ($1 Billion in a week!) to support the victims. I even saw it on the road in increased courtesy by drivers. For a short time, we were united as a country.

The war in Afghanistan was supported by most of the country - only the staunchest anti-war people were opposed. This was a response to an attack on US soil and very few questioned it.

The war in Iraq was different. The pool of support for Afghanistan didn't quite translate into support for the war in Iraq. However, the majority of the populace did support the war in Iraq and their representatives in Congress echoed that point of view. Later, we found that the selling points used to justify this war were not entirely true - by error or deception. The cracks began to widen.

Enter the US Presidential campaign. The Democratic primary process was, in a word, goofy. The Democrats ended up choosing the candidate least offensive to the most people - not the best but the most acceptable to the hard-core party activists. Rather than having candidates drop out as a single leader emerged, we had candidates whittled away as they made errors on the campaign trail (some quite bizarre). On the Republican side, Bush was a no-brainer as the incumbent.

The campaign took a major swing into the mud pit. The Bush campaign repeated their assertion that a vote for Kerry was a request for terrorists to attack the US again. The Kerry campaign asserted that a vote for Bush was a choice to kill US soldiers in Iraq. It got particular bad towards the end where each campaign started making up their opponents' position - Bush claiming that Kerry was pro-gay and Kerry claiming that Bush would bring back the draft.

I spent the day and evening of Election Day hanging out at the Command Post chat room. I had expected the room to be a source of news - where each of us posted news that we found locally or nationally about the election in order to stay informed. Instead, I found the sewer of name-calling that the campaign itself had been. The Command Post readership is primarily right-wing, but the name-calling came from both sides in equal measure from each participant. Not all of the chatters were nasty, but the nasty ones more than made up for that and 75-90% of the traffic was worthless.

The election ended in a heap or tired, mangled American psyches. All of us have one heck of an election hangover.

The question remains - where do we go from here? In his concession speech, Kerry stated that it is time for America to come back together again. Bush asked Kerry supporters for their backing of his aims (though those aims are unacceptable to Kerry supporters). The only question in my mind is - do they mean it?

I fear that they do not. I can't see any reason for Bush to reach out to Democrats or even Republican moderates. There just isn't any incentive, and there is plenty of incentive for the Religious Right to grip the party more tightly than they do now. On the Democratic side, the party is in disarray. There's just so much infighting that the Democrats can't even work together to take back the White House. Elements of the Democrats seemed to be setting themselves up to win the NEXT election in 2008 (against someone other than Bush, and probably not Cheney either) rather than winning this one.

On the street, there isn't any incentive to change either. It takes a big change to shake someone's thinking processes. 9/11 provided that push, and the country showed it. Iraq provided that push again, and the country entered the division that we see today. I don't see what is going to shake us out of that mode.

I truly feel that the division will remain until there is a flashpoint. I think we're headed for a repeat of the late 60's here without the drugs. If the anti-war people and the people concerned about unemployment and underemployment ever manage to link up, they can be a major force in American life (not just politics - life).

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that I'm right. We're not going to be united any time soon.

A Useful Voting Test

Laurence Simon has come up with a brilliant voting test.

Basically, you give voters conflicting directions and if they fail to question them, their vote doesn't count.

It's a great idea. It combines a basic IQ test with a test that the person involved questions authority when necessary.

Unfortunately, we'll never implement it. Our system guarantees the right to vote to idiots and human sheep.

NJ Congressional Race Preview

This year, the Command Post Election 2004 board has asked me to be a local New Jersey correspondent for this year's election. I will be posting at that site starting November 1, 2004. This is intended to be fairly objective, though if it is skewed it will likely be due to my general support for liberal causes and Democratic candidates (a fair disclosure, yes?).

In order to get ready, here's a preview of the NJ Congressional races. All 13 House seats are up for election - neither Senate seat is due for election this year.

Summary: The incumbents are favored heavily in all districts. No House party balance shifts are likely from NJ.

First District: parts of Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties

The incumbent is Democrat Rob Andrews, who won in 2000 essentially unopposed. The challenger is Republican S. Daniel Hutchison, who beat his opponent in the GOP primary by only 12 votes.

The district is heavily Democratic, so this seat is unlikely to change hands.

Second District: All of Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties. Part of Burlington, Camden and Gloucester Counties.

The incumbent is Republican Frank LoBiondo, who has served the district since 1995. The challenger is Democrat Timothy Robb, who breaks with the Dems as a pro-lifer and pro-gun candidate.

The district is heavily Republican, but has elected Democrats in the past. Mr. LoBiondo was the first Republican in 20 years when he was elected in 1994.

Third District: parts of Burlington, Camden and Ocean counties

The incumbent is Republican Jim Saxton, who won in 2000 by 57-41%. That race was wider than expected. The challenger is Democrat Herbert Conaway, the NJ Assembly Deputy Speaker. Another interesting candidate is Edward Forchion, who describes himself as "NJ Weedman" and is running as the candidate from the US Marijuana Party.

Jim Saxton has held his seat since 1984, but this district is a tough one. This race will probably go to the incumbent, but will be one of the closer NJ races.

Fourth District: parts of Burlington, Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean counties

(NOTE: I live in this district)

The incumbent is the popular Republican Chris Smith. He's been consistently re-elected since he beat an Abscam defendant narrowly in 1980. He is a fairly conservative pro-life candidate, with strong support for (and from) veterans. His challenger is Democrat Amy Vasquez, who is running with next to zero budget.

This district consistently goes to Chris Smith, to the point where it's nearly impossible to find a sacrificial Democratic lamb to run against him. Ms. Vasquez's only hope is extremely long coattails from John Kerry.

Fifth District: Warren County, parts of Bergen, Passaic and Sussex Counties

The incumbent is Republican Scott Garrett, elected in 2002 after Republican Marge Roukema retired after holding the district for many years. The challenger is Democrat Dorothea A. "Anne" Wolfe, who has held many "behind the scenes" political posts.

This district is strongly Republican, to the point where the Democrats have been forced to run candidates who were more conservative than the Republican in an attempt to win. However, Campaign & Election lists the odds as 7:3 Republican - the 2nd closest race in NJ. This race bears watching.

Sixth District: parts of Middlesex, Somerset, Monmouth and Union counties

(NOTE: This district contains Rutgers University, the NJ state University and my alma mater.)

The incumbent is Democrat Frank Pallone, who defeated his opponent in 2002 soundly by a 68-32 margin. The challenger is Republican Sylvester Fernandez, a former Bell Labs engineer and native of India.

This race is likely to go to Pallone, but may be closer than usual given the shifting populace.

Seventh District: parts of Hunterdon, Somerset, Middlesex and Union counties

The incumbent is Republican Michael Ferguson, serving his 2nd term. Interesting, he lost to Frank Pallone in the 6th district in 1998, and moved to the 7th district. The challenger is Democrat Steve Brozak, a retired USMC Lt. Colonel who served in Iraq as recently as 2003.

This district is moderate, and Mr. Brozak is running hard by challenging the ethics of Rep. Ferguson. The DC Political Report website has this race as 4:3 Republican - the closest in the state. If a seat turns over, this will be the district.

Eighth District: parts of Essex and Passaic counties

The incumbent is Democrat Bill Pascrell, a longtime politician from the area. The challenger is Republican George Ajjan.

This race seems to be pretty solid for the incumbent.

Ninth District: parts of Bergen, Hudson and Passaic counties

The incumbent is Democrat Steven Rothman, serving his fourth term after a landslide (70-30) in 2002 and sitting on the powerful House Appropriations committee. He was first elected in 1996 to replace Bob Torricelli, who won the Senate seat that year. The challenger is Republican Edward Trawinski.

This seat is the strongest lock for any NJ incumbent with a real opponent.

(Side note: Mr. Rothman spoke to my high school social studies class in 1986 while he was mayor of Englewood, NJ. His cousin was one of my classmates. From what I remember, he's a nice guy.)

Tenth District: parts of Essex, Hudson and Union counties

The incumbent is Democrat Donald Payne, serving his 8th term as NJ's first and only African-American congressman. This year as in recent elections, there is no Republican opponent. The closest challenger is Green party candidate Toy-Ling Washington.

This district is expected to be a landslide for Payne. Nobody is going to be staying up past 9:30pm for this race (polls close at 9pm).

Eleventh District: Morris County, parts of Essex, Sussex, Somerset and Passaic counties

The incumbent is Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen, who is serving his 5th term. The challenger is Democrat Jim Buell, who has experience on the Mt. Olive council.

This is the most Republican district in the state, and will probably remain in control of the Republicans in this election.

Twelfth District: parts of Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset and Monmouth counties

The incumbent is Democrat Rush Holt, who allows his constituents to say "My Congressman IS a rocket scientist". He was elected in 1998 by defeating Republican Michael Pappas, who was successfully linked to extreme conservatism after singing "Twinkle, Twinkle Kenneth Starr, now we see how brave you are ..." on the House floor before Clinton's impeachment. The challenger here is Republican Bill Spadea, who has chosen to label himself conservative against "liberal" Holt.

This race has been the most likely to change parties in the past, and could be close this year. Rush Holt is fairly well-liked by his constituents and has managed to hold his own here.

Thirteenth District: parts of Hudson, Middlesex, Union and Essex counties

The incumbent is Democract Bob Menendez, who is the first Hispanic to hold a leadership post in either house of Congress as chair of the House Democratic Caucus - the #3 Democratic spot. The challenger is Republican Richard Piatkowski, who has served in several Middlesex county Republican posts.

The district is strongly Democratic except when the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot with corruption. In this race, it is expected to remain Democratic this time around.

This district includes Jersey City, the NJ riverfront opposite the World Trade Center site and center of evacuation efforts on 9/11.

Blaming the Victim

In Boston, 21-year-old Victoria Snelgrove was killed by police firing "pepper balls" into a crowd of revelers celebrating the Red Sox victory over the Yankees in the American League Championship series. (AP Article via Yahoo)

The mayor blamed the revelers for her death. Apparently, someone standing near her threw a bottle at a mounted police officer, and another officer fired the plastic balls filled with pepper spray into the crowd. One of the balls pierced her eye and she later died of head injuries.

As a result, the mayor is storming about banning alcohol in Boston during the World Series, and asking colleges to expel any students involved in criminal activity.

I think we have two problems here:
1. The fans rioted some.
2. The police overreacted. According to the story, the police are supposed to avoid shooting the pepper balls at people's faces - something that clearly didn't happen.

I think that the rowdy fans take responsibility for the riots, but that the police have ultimate responsibility for Victoria's death. Training was clearly broken in the use of pepper balls anywhere near someone's head.

(Disclaimer - my brother is a police officer. He probably wouldn't be too happy about what I've written here.)

Freedom of the Press?

Sinclair Broadcasting has fired a reporter and chief of it's news department's Washington bureau for making comments in the media critical of Sinclair's decision to air an anti-John Kerry "documentary" just a week before the election. (Yahoo News Story)

In case you've missed the story to date, here's a recap. Sinclair Broadcasting is controlled by right-wing executives. They're highly critical of John Kerry. They have ordered their 62 broadcast stations to pre-empt programming (in some cases major network programming) in prime-time next week to air the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal". This documentary is a scathing account of John Kerry's anti-war activities after returning from Vietnam in the early 70's. It's being called by some as the right-wing equivalent to "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Here, Sinclair has clearly crossed the line. Most journalists are careful not to criticize their news organization's owners, but in many cases when they feel the need to do so they do. Usually, they aren't fired. In this case, Sinclair took retribution against one of it's objective news reporters for not toeing the company line in the election. That is wrong.

For that matter, airing the documentary for free is wrong and shows partisan control of the media in many markets. Imagine what would happen if ABC (for example) required all of its stations to air "Fahrenheit 9/11"? This free program is clearly a donation in-kind to the Bush campaign from Sinclair, and as such (given the value of air time) it exceeds the limits allowed by federal election law. It should be stopped.

--------------

Side note: Can you remember when campaigns used to talk about how good THEIR candidate was, not how bad the OTHER candidate is? I think I vaguely remember this from my childhood, but I'm not sure.

Presidential Debate #1 - after picture

(I may flesh this out later - I have a meeting in 15 minutes but I wanted to get my thoughts down before I talked to others.)

John F. Kerry

Overall, I thought Kerry did a good job. He was weak in the first half of the debate - constantly criticizing Bush without offering his own plan. When Jim Lehrer finally asked him point blank about his plan, he started offering about 50% plan and 50% criticism.

I was comfortable with his plans. Many others are likely to complain that his Iraq plan is too vague, but I think he said what had to be said. We will leave when we can, we will bring in more help, and we will train the Iraqis to take over.

I don't know what the whole thumb thing is about. I know that it's not polite to point, but the thumb thing is weird too.

Kerry generally appeared much more Presidential than he has in the past on the campaign trail. He also appeared more Presidential than Bush.

George W. Bush

Mr. Bush was on the defensive far too often for this debate. He came across as whiny and shrill. Like Kerry, he settled down and was better on these points later in the debate.

I still don't agree with many of Bush's policy decisions, but I do admire the fact that he sticks to them. He did fail to pin the "flip-flopper" label on Kerry. You can expect consistency from Bush.

I was very surprised that Bush managed to use a 5-syllable word ("vociferously") correctly and also pronounced it correctly. There were several points where real intelligence showed through the "common folk" facade. Bush did show that he's not an idiot - but I still can't understand why he wants us to think that he is an idiot.

Format and General Decorum

I was pleasantly surprised that the candidates followed the format more or less successfully. Kerry lost points here by using his time to reinforce a previous point rather than answering the current question several times. Bush lost points here by being the first to break the rules - by demanding (on several occasions) the one-minute discussion time. Jim Lehrer had made it clear that the one-minute discussion time was at HIS discretion.

The only real difference between the candidates showed in their reactions to each other's speech. I was surprised that the TV coverage showed the other candidate while one was speaking. I'm sure I'd read that this would not be allowed. Anyway, Kerry took the lead here. He nodded when Bush scored a point against him. This showed respect for his opponent. Bush on the other hand scowled and grimaced when Kerry said something that upset him. I got the sense from Kerry that he respects Bush as a person and a leader, but Bush seems to have nothing but contempt for Kerry. That probably explains the diplomacy problems that Bush is having in the world.

Winner: I declare this a tie. Kerry might have led slightly on the intangibles, but otherwise they were even. Kerry did improve his standing in my mind as a result, however.

Presidential Debate #1 - before picture

First, a little background.

I'm a basically liberal/libertarian kind of guy. I believe in gay marriage, unlimited access to abortion (coupled with morality standards that keep most people from wanting them), some governmental support of lower income/disabled people and gun control. On the other hand, I believe in some standard conservative ideals: small government, a focus on law and order (and obeying the law), the death penalty and general hawkishness on defense. Admittedly, the intersection of these beliefs causes some contradictions and on individual issues I have to make individual decisions.

Since I've been able to vote, I have usually voted for the Democrat in races. The few exceptions involve cases and races where the Democrats chose to run someone more conservative than the Republican. In any race where I can't really decide, I choose the Democrat by default because they general agree with me on more issues than not.

However, in this year's Presidential contest, I'm pretty much undecided. I don't really like Bush. After his election in 2000, I remember asking my wife "How long do you think it will be before he invades Iraq?" That was before 9/11. I will give him credit for handling 9/11 well initially (well, except for the part where he kept reading to the kids while the Towers burned) - probably better than Gore would have. However, I have serious problems with Bush's conservative policies and the erosion of civil rights after 9/11. On the other hand, the Democrats put up a pretty sorry candidate this year. I would have preferred Edwards to be the Presidential candidate.

So, what do Bush and Kerry have to do to get my vote tonight? Don't forget that this is a foreign-policy focussed debate - no commentary on domestic issues here.

George W. Bush

Mr. Bush has to answer for the lies told before the Iraq invasion. We were told that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction - none have been found in over a year. It was implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (mention both in the same paragraph in the State of the Union speech and you make that implication) - it looks like Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Saddam Hussein prior to his downfall. I haven't heard any plausible answer to why those inaccuracies existed. I am forced to agree with the left wing - this war was not about WMD, and not about terrorist threats to the US. I saw this war coming at the 2000 election - it's all about getting the guy his Daddy didn't get, and who threatened his Daddy.

Secondly, Mr. Bush has to come up with a plan for cleaning up and exiting Iraq. The situation now is worse than it was when "major hostilties ... ended". There is no security in many cities, and the US military has essentially retreated from parts of the battlefield. It's clear to me that there was no plan for winning the peace - just for destroying Saddam. I want to see a plan. Note that I didn't say see a timeline - I understand that these things take time. I do want to see a plan.

What did we gain from the war in Iraq? We supposedly liberated a nation from a dictator, but it looks to me like they were better off before. If we are going to claim the liberator prize, we need to finish the job. But beyond that, what were the tangible gains to the US? Oil? (nope, oil is up to $50/barrel) Fewer terrorists? (nope, they are blowing our Army up daily) Stronger allies? (nope, most of our allies bolted over the war and few have joined us to replace them) Foreign policy is supposed to be about protecting the interests of the United States of America - so what interests were helped here?

On terrorism, I want to get an honest assessment of the threats still pending against us. I'm not so naive as to think that the terrorists have given up. However, each new announcement from the government seems to come when Bush's poll numbers take a dive. We either need enough information to be able to form the opinion that some threat was actually in existence and stopped, or we need fewer warnings. The pattern really does look like the warnings are designed to provoke fear in the US voting public for political gain. And how about giving me something to do about terrorism? I'd be happy to take on the work of past wars - plant a victory garden, recycle metal, sacrifice a little food or join Civil Defense. Now, I'm just being asked to sit home and worry.

I don't really have an issue with pissing off most of the world. We are Americans - we are who we are and the world will just have to learn to work with us. However, Mr. Bush must have a plan for dealing with the effects of that decision. I heard a lot about reducing dependence on foreign oil in one of the post-9/11 State of the Union speeches - but no action.

And for Pete's sake - pronounce words correctly. You went to my father's Alma Mater at Yale - I know that they taught you better than saying "nu-cu-lar". And don't make up words - you often misunderestimate how it looks when you do that. I have only a Bachelor's degree from a state school (well, Rutgers is a particularly good one) - I expect the President to be at least as literat