Paramedics called to the store found VanLester unconscious on top of a DVD player, surrounded by shoppers seemingly oblivious to her, said Mark O'Keefe, a spokesman for EVAC Ambulance.

No advocate [for equal marriage rights] has been able to identify a principled moral basis for the requirements of fidelity and exclusivity in marriage as they wish to redefine the institution.

Love is a restless and impatient passion, full of caprices and variations: arising in a moment from a feature, from an air, from nothing, and suddenly extinguishing after the same manner. Such a passion requires liberty above all things; and therefore ELOISA had reason, when, in order to preserve this passion, she refused to marry her beloved ABELARD.

"How oft, when prest to marriage, have I said,
Curse on all laws but those which love has made:
Love, free as air, at sight of human ties,
Spreads his light wings, and in a moment flies."

But friendship is a calm and sedate affection, conducted by reason and cemented by habit; springing from long acquaintance and mutual obligations; without jealousies or fears, and without those feverish fits of heat and cold, which cause such an agreeable torment in the amorous passion. So sober an affection, therefore, as friendship, rather thrives under constraint, and never rises to such a height, as when any strong interest or necessity binds two persons together, and gives them some common object of pursuit. We need not, therefore, be afraid of drawing the marriage-knot, which chiefly subsists by friendship, the closest possible. The amity between the persons, where it is solid and sincere, will rather gain by it: And where it is wavering and uncertain, this is the best expedient for fixing it.

Bremner says his programme is a contribution to this Big Conversation. Historians should examine it as an encapsulation of the dinner party conversations of a metropolitan bien-pensant left. Blair is awful, the government is a failure, nothing works, everything's worse, time for a change, we're bored. Why the vehemence? The Iraq war and all its foreign policy disasters are reasons to censure Blair. But this nihilism set in long before the war.

Mr. Sullivan, I was present for the surprise visit by the President. It was truly wonderful to be there, and my buddies and I really are grateful that President Bush would take a real risk to come see u. He flew about 12 hours to spend 2 hours with us, he served food to the troops, but he never got a chance to eat himself, at least not until he got on the plane, I'd imagine. For 2 hours, the President walked amongst us, not a receiving line where we came to him, stiff and formal, but coming to us, reading our names on our uniforms and greeting us by name. He looked me in the eye when he shook my hand, he joked with some, whispered to others, spoke a little Spanish to my friend. 2 hours of almost non-stop motion, how exhausting after a 12 hour flight! He did it to be with us, and we appreciate it.

Editor -- President Bush visiting Iraq for Thanksgiving? His arrogance and overblown self-importance really exposes him. Bush doesn't do his job by bringing the troops home. Instead he flies for a photo-op with them to use in his re-election campaign. He was there a total of two hours.
These men and women in the military are not protecting me, and I do not want or need their protection. Bush should get off the big lie that they are there to protect me as an American. I would rather die than be protected in that way.
I am ashamed to be an American as long as Bush is in office.
CHERYL MERRILL
San Francisco

The evening news on the popular French TV station TF1 led with Bush's visit to Iraq today, and its Baghdad reporter referred to the "anti-American resistance" in explaining why the trip was so dangerous. www.tf1.fr (streaming video under "20h" at lower right of "News" box). Evidently, this term is catching on as the French expression for those who hope to drive the Americans out and bring Saddam back to power. You know, like the French resistance that fought so bravely against their Nazi occupiers in the last war.
I believe this expression is pretty new. I googled "resistance anti-Americaine" (both with and without the accent mark on "resistance" and with and without the hyphen) and turned up essentially nothing except an old Vietnam reference and a November 13 article in the Nouvelle Observateur entitled "Iraq with the Anti-American Guerillas," which textually refers only to the "resistance" in careful quotation marks.

The bomb blasts of November 20, 2003 may have signaled Turkey’s Israelization. That is why people felt this different fear — and much higher levels of personal insecurity.
They knew that radical Islamic terrorists did not show any mercy, not even on a Ramadan day. These terrorists did not make any distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims. Isn't that the same fear they feel in Israel?
Day after day, whether there is a break of two days or a week-long interval, there is always at least an attempted suicide bomb attack — and the constant realization that the peaceful daily routine has been broken.
Isn't this the fear of the people in Israel — when they go to a bazaar or a shopping center — that they worry whether they will see the end of the day alive?
Isn't it one of the reasons why Jews in Israel have developed the custom of never leaving the home with a bad word to one another? They leave their home always with a kiss and a smile on their face — thinking it might be their last memory of their loved ones.

The challenge which the Chief Rabbi issued last year, remains as relevant today: why is the liberal left not sufficiently concerned about the growth of anti-semitism? On this year's anti-war march in Paris, Jewish peace activists were beaten up by other demonstrators. There were less dramatic confrontations on London's million-strong march. It did not matter to the attackers that Jewish writers and activists have been vocal against the Iraq war. Nor did the attackers care that many criticise the current Israeli government's policies towards the Palestinians. Their victims were targets just because they are Jews.
Even the police are now being more proactive in pursuing people spreading virulent anti-semitic literature or inciting religious hatred. Could not the liberal left, which in an earlier era vigilantly sought to protect Jews from prejudice and bigotry, rediscover its old values?

Allow me to make a radical suggestion here, which quite obviously I don't think is radical at all. I submit that I believe that gay marriages, on average, are likely to be more stable and happy than straight marriages -- that is to say, more likely to be "model" marriages in which the two partners are committed to each other in a loving fashion. And the reason for this, naturally enough, comes down to sex, as in, sex is not why gays and lesbians will get hitched.
Come on, you abstinence types. You know sex plays a significant role in marriage among the conservatively religious, who trend toward marrying younger than other groups. Indeed, it's one of the selling points: You can have all the sex you want! And God approves! But I submit that someone who marries for access to sex -- or has it in his or her unspoken top three reasons, as I strongly suspect any heterosexual human who reaches his or her early 20s as a virgin might -- will find he or she has a weak pillar in the marriage after the first bloom of sexual activity wears off. And you know how humans are when it comes to sex. They're all screwy for it. It makes them do things like have affairs and try to serve divorce papers on their wives in hospital recovery rooms and whatnot.
Now, take your gay couple. He and he (or she and she) don't have the same hangups about sex and marriage, for the simple reason that gay people have never had the need or expectations regarding marriage and access to sex. They have ever had their sex independent of the marriage institution. So it would seem reasonable to suggest that if a gay couple decided to marry, the fevered idea of finally getting to have sex (and the irrationality such a desire can bring) would not be one of the major motivating factors. Instead the decision would be based on other more, shall we say, considered factors, like basic compatibility, shared life goals and expectations, and a genuine and well-regarded appreciation for the other, in the relationship and out of it.

I have not yet read any article explaining how the frustrations of the oppressed Muslims of the world are alleviated by this deed, or how the wickedness of American foreign policy has brought these chickens home to roost, or how such slaughters are symptoms of "despair." Perhaps somebody is at work on such an article and hasn't quite finished it yet. (I have noticed, though, a slight tendency on the part of this school to shut up, at least for the time being.)
There is a vulgar reason for this reticence. In recent attacks from those gangs who have been busily fusing Saddamism with Bin Ladenism—and who didn't start this synthesis yesterday—it has been noticeable that Saudi citizens (the week before last), or Iraqi citizens (every day, but most conspicuously in the blasting of the Red Cross compound in Baghdad), or Indonesian citizens (in the bombing of the Marriott in Jakarta in August), or Moroccan citizens have been the chief or most numerous casualties. To this, one could add the Christian Arabs whose famous restaurant in Haifa was blown up, along with its owners, on Yom Kippur. I sometimes detect a strained note in the coverage of this. Why would the jihadists be so careless, so to speak? Have they no discrimination, no tact?

We stopped going to Catholic Mass some years ago in the Army. We'd go to these Catholic churches, and when you're Catholic, of course, going to church is a duty. But we'd walk out of the church and say 'God,' and we'd complain about the homily. One night I walked out of the church when the priest said that we should never have fought the Revolutionary war and every war was bad. It was 4th of July. It was an outrageously political statement. I just never felt right when people in the church would take these overtly political positions especially when I felt like I was a good Christian, I was serving my country, and I just didn't feel like I deserved to be lambasted by the priest on the 4th of July.

Regardless of how they might feel about same-sex marriage, many potential voters might look at the candidate or party stressing the issue and wonder what planet they come from, to dwell on issues like this when far more important priorities are at stake. Whether voters see the war in Iraq as essential to our national security and the fight against terrorism or as an ill-advised quagmire, few people put the gay marriage issue above it on their list of priorities. Then there's the economy. Some voters see it as finally turning around as a result of the president's aggressive round of tax cuts. Others see it as faltering, with too many people unemployed or underemployed and the president not doing enough to fix it. Still, jobs and the economy are likely to be more prominent on most people's radar screens than civil unions or gay marriage.

"Gov. Dean raised prescription costs for seniors in his state when he needed to balance the budget. He called himself a 'balanced-budget freak,' " protests John Kerry. On Medicare, Kerry tries to spin Dean: "Are you going to slow the rate of growth? Because that's a cut."

This was Istanbul's September 11. They thought they were safe from the war on terror because they thought all Muslims were brothers. Now they know otherwise, and are unified in their condemnation of the terrorists, who cannot be "true Muslims". The fact that the terrorists staged this attack in the last days of Ramadan has added to their outrage. But no one is in any doubt why the city has become a terrorist target. How its residents respond to their new status depends very much on how much support they get (or fail to get) from the allies who dragged them into this. As one shopkeeper put it, "Surely, now that we have suffered this, the EU must open its arms to us." If it doesn't, or if the US gives the impression, as it has sometimes done in the past, that it is taking Turkey's "sacrifice" for granted, the sense of betrayal could be huge... As we sit drinking coffee around the corner from the British consulate, gazing calmly at yet another high-sided vehicle that could be carrying 500lbs of cheap explosives, my brother has difficulty keeping up the front. No matter how hard he tries, his memories of the first and nearest bomb keep crowding into his mind. The worst part was seeing the dead in the street and recognising their faces. He tells me about the disembodied hand he saw sticking out of a mound of broken glass. He can't help wondering if this was the hand that detonated the bomb that killed his neighbourhood. "It's not just politics," he says. "They're attacking our way of life."

"Their destiny will be the same as it was in Vietnam," Wathban said. "The Americans left their allies there and they were killed. I think the same will happen here."

We understand the reservations several Church leaders have expressed about extending this civil union into some sort of pastiche gay marriage, which would be in breach of so much Judaeo-Christian teaching. But that is a religious issue. What is proposed is a civil matter. It is wrong to oppose a sensible and modest civil reform for fear of where it will ultimately lead. Allowing gay people to affirm their relationship within a civil contract does not undermine the institution of marriage. It might even reinforce it. We will all benefit from greater recognition of stable relationships, of whatever kind.

Not since the Civil War has the American political system been so polarized, or America's communities engaged in so comprehensive a cultural Armageddon. In this national hour of crisis, the binding force of the Constitutional framework is more critical then ever.
 Now comes a movement, calling itself conservative but emulating these very radicals in taking the cultural war into the heart of foundational framework, attempting to rewrite the Constitution (albeit by due process) in order to achieve its political goals. I am referring to the movement for a Federal Marriage Amendment that seeks to take an institution previously under the jurisdiction of the states and federalize it; that seeks to take an institution now contested as part of the culture war, and define it constitutionally as a way of resolving the conflict. In other words, it is a movement to achieve a Roe v. Wade decision in reverse.

Triumph: I can't believe the government is paying for this interview. That's what I can't believe. My money that could be going to Pekinese hookers is instead going to this, you know, public radio that is obviously more slanted than my [dooda] after I [shagged] a St. Bernard.

US President George Bush is “totally at odds” with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.
Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.
He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.
“He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.
“He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks.”
Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was “totally at odds” with his media image, went on: “I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.”

George Bush blew that war. I think he'd had only 300 Americans killed and I think he felt at the end of the war that day, it would be a great record. So he didn't want to go on one more day. If he'd gone on one more day there might not have been 100,000 Iraqi killed. But in any event, war is merely one of the horrors that face us. If you're going to take an absolute liberal position, as for instance Victor did, and said let's do it through the UN, the fact of the matter is the UN is not competent to find out where all the nuclear things are buried. We're going to miss the KGB before it's all over because they were good at that. The CIA is probably pretty good at that. You need that kind of information.
We're entering an extraordinary world where all the old signals are off. It used to be that Third World countries were wonderful little places that were terribly exploited. Now they're ugly places that are run by maniacs very often. We have to face that fact. If you keep using liberal jargon forever you will finally die in your own platitudes.

Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fifty-five years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year.

Normally, a liberal Democrat who claims to be a fiscal conservative would pose no danger to a conservative Republican. But Bush's spending record is so awful (non-military expenditures up 8.7 percent in 2003) that Dean, for one, might make headway on the issue. After all, his fiscal record as Vermont governor wasn't all that bad. At the least, he could use the spending issue to take the edge off his liberalism and embarrass Bush. And no doubt former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his new book in hand, will travel the country, arguing that deficit reduction spawned the late 1990s boom.

Just some notes from the UK
- Thur 6 pm news BBC, only about a minute's coverage on the demonstration!!
- Wed 7 pm news Ch 4, a postive headline about Bushs speech!!
- General, lots of people in the media condemning the demonstrations!!
- Dinner party at mine Wed night, room fell silent when Bush spoke followed by applause!
I think the visit has gone down pretty well!

They have essentially suckered thousands of newbies, mavens, and just plain folk into blogging, solely to get return links in the form of the blogrolls and citations. This is, in fact, a remarkably slick grassroots marketing scheme that is in many ways awesome, albeit insincere.
Unfortunately, at some point, people will realize they've been used. This will happen sooner rather than later, since many mainstream publishers now see the opportunity for exploitation. Thus you find professionally written and edited faux blogs appearing on MSNBC's site, the Washington Post site, and elsewhere. This seems to be where blogging is headed—Big Media. So much for the independent thinking and reporting that are supposed to earmark blog journalism.

The queen gave her toast, noting that, unlike presidents, she was not term-limited. The president smiled, Prince Charles did not. When the queen finished, the president raised his glass, but Her Majesty did not return the gesture, instead waiting for the American national anthem to begin. Hearing the music, Bush put down his glass and placed his hand on his heart, then took it off, then put it on again. "The Star-Spangled Banner" over, he clinked glasses with the queen, then turned to clink glasses with Princess Anne, who was already sipping from hers.
The awkwardness continued after Bush's toast, when he again picked up his glass to clink with the queen, who stood motionless, waiting for her own national anthem. Bush put his glass back down and, as the orchestra played "God Save the Queen," winked at somebody in the audience. Finally, the anthem finished, president and queen consummated their clinks.

Instead of directly forbidding same-sex partners to marry, a federal marriage privilege protection measure would make it a criminal offense for state or local officials acting "under color of law" to issue a marriage license to persons of the same sex. Constitutional authority to pass this measure comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, buttressed by the Republican Guarantee clause (S. 4 of Art. IV) and the Necessary and Proper clause (par. 18, S. 8 of Art. I).

Many a reporter has hitched a ride onto Page One with the leak of intelligence much rawer than the stuff in Feith's memo. You can bet the farm that if a mainstream publication had gotten the Feith memo first, it would have used it immediately—perhaps as a hook to re-examine the ongoing war between the Pentagon and CIA about how to interpret intelligence. Likewise, you'd be wise to bet your wife's farm that had a similar memo arguing no Saddam-Osama connection been leaked to the press, it would have generated 100 times the news interest as the Hayes story.

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law... Without the right to marry - or more properly, the right to choose to marry - one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry."

Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) ("The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity").[22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.

Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fifty-five years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year.

Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.

The Massachusetts Constitution requires that legislation meet certain criteria and not extend beyond certain limits. It is the function of courts to determine whether these criteria are met and whether these limits are exceeded. In most instances, these limits are defined by whether a rational basis exists to conclude that legislation will bring about a rational result. The Legislature in the first instance, and the courts in the last instance, must ascertain whether such a rational basis exists. To label the court's role as usurping that of the Legislature, see, e.g., post at (Cordy, J., dissenting), is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of judicial review. We owe great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues, but it is the traditional and settled role of courts to decide constitutional issues. The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded."

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of 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.

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Mr Bush seems to very much enjoy bombing people and making with the wrath and the vengeance. This offends our sense of fair play.
A clarification here, the vaunted sense of British fair play means fair play just for the British. When ruling the world, we were entirely justified in sending gun ships up Chinese rivers to support the opium trade and would have very miffed if some Yankee upstart had been going around shouting “no blood for dope” at Disraeli. Burger-scoffing surrender baboons in the war against yellowism, John Bull would have said. Jingoism? We invented it.
Mr Bush on the other hand seems to believe in fair play just for the Americans, which is very disturbing and amoral.

I heard this last night on Marketplace and was stunned (although at this point, I shouldn't be). PBS' business-oriented show did a story on how the British feel about Bush's visit. The two politicians they spoke to: George Galloway and Ken Livingstone. No mention was made of Galloway's past, his expulsion from the Labour Party, his taking money from Saddam, nothing. He was just a member of parliament. Speaking to the mayor of London might have been appropriate, but they never mentioned his quotes calling Bush the greatest danger to the planet. It was a disgusting attempt to present bias as fact.

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate... The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

The ICM poll also uncovers a surge in pro-war sentiment in the past two months as suicide bombers have stepped up their attacks on western targets and troops in Iraq. Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters.

I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime...
Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees.
Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.) became hollow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars.
I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference.
I’ve hated George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war. It is I who was oppressed and I don’t want any one to talk on behalf of me,
I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam’s nest to set me free, and it is I who desired to die gentlemen, because it’s more merciful than humiliation as it puts an end to my suffer, while humiliation lives with me reminding me every moment that I couldn't defend myself against those who ill-treated me.....
Believe me, we were living in the "kingdom of horror".
Please tell me how could the world that claims to be civilized let Saddam launch chemical weapons on his own un-armed people?
Shame..
Can anyone tell me why the world let Saddam remain and stood against America’s will to topple him? ... You all owe the Iraqi people an apology.

Yesterday, allegations of new evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda contained in a classified annex attached to Feith's Oct. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were published in the Weekly Standard. Feith had been asked to support his July 10 closed-door testimony about such connections. The classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy, according to a senior administration official familiar with the matter.

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
The analysis of those events follows:
The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.
An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:
Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.
The analysis of this report follows.
CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."

One of the three most common blog posts is, "I just met Joe Schmoe of schmoeme.com and, wow, he's just liked I thought he was going to be."
Well, Andrew Sullivan is not what I thought he'd be...

The Conservative Movement cannot allow itself to become mired in an issue right now, which has not even risen to the level of attention that would justify presidential leadership – especially an issue that would require a constitutional amendment. We don’t know how the courts will rule in the various states where same-sex marriage is being weighed. Therefore, to invest enormous energy, time and attention to this issue only serves to squander opportunities to get actions on other more pressing conservative matters, such as privacy issues and out-of-control federal government growth.

The amiability that greets a Westerner almost everywhere outside the Sunni triangle, and even there when American troops are not around, masks a reflex commonly found among people emerging from totalitarian rule: the sense of individual and collective responsibility is numbed, often to the point of passivity. The Iraqis' instinct to blame their rulers for life's hardships, engendered by Mr. Hussein's regime and at the same time silenced by it, is the Americans' burden now.

Gesturing toward the smoking hulk of the headquarters where at least 19 Italians and 13 Iraqis died, I asked the crowds if they thought America and its allies should pack up and go home. In the clamor that followed, I asked for quiet so that each man and boy could speak his mind. Unscientific as the poll was, the sentences that flowed expressed a common belief.
"No, no!" one man said. "If the Americans go, it will be chaos everywhere." Another shouted, "There would be a civil war."
"If the Americans, the British or the Italians leave Iraq, we will be handed back to the flunkies of Saddam, the Baathists and Al Qaeda will take over our cities," another man said.
Nobody offered a dissenting view, though many said it would be best if the Americans achieved peace and left as soon as possible. These people, at least, seemed concerned that America should know that the bombers, whoever they were, did not speak for the ordinary citizens of Iraq.

The files contain the only surviving copy of the draft Conservative manifesto for an expected snap general election in 1978, which James Callaghan decided against holding. Mrs Thatcher clearly felt that the manifesto was too soft, especially on the trade unions. Her comments are scrawled over the document. "This paragraph is pathetic", she wrote next to one passage.

It's really bad here. Yesterday Radio 4 PM Programme they had an American 'expert' commenting on the American failures in Iraq. Of course it was some guy from the Clinton administration. Channel 4 had Americans who hate Bush and showed them preparing for their protest. Will Michael More be joining them? It wouldn't surprise me.
The BBC is working the country into a frenzy regarding the upcoming Bush visit. Personally, I would love to go up to London and hold a placard welcoming the President but I fear for my safety. The Mall looks great with all the flags but I have no doubt it will all be trashed. We're getting reports that anarchists will storm Buckingham Palace. The papier mache effigies of W are nearly complete. (Don't these people have jobs??).
I can't get any break from it. I was on a school inspection this week in Southampton and a weedy member of the inspection team cornered me and starting in on Bush and how she had marched against the war, etc. This was not the time nor place to express political views of any type. I simply informed her that I was a New Yorker and that my sister and brother-in-law had lost eight neighbours in the World Trade Center and I wholly support President Bush and the fight against terrorism. Silence.
Your column this morning is absolutely right - these people have forgotten 9/11.
After 22 years in Surrey we're looking to move to America.

Churchill's doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. "For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists - probably with Communists."

what the president has given voice to are convictions central to the liberal tradition. Freedom is not just good for Americans or for the British. It is good for all people everywhere, because it reflects a universal aspiration, a permanent inclination of the human heart. While forms of government for securing individual rights will vary, as will the choices individuals and peoples make about how to take advantage of the blessings of freedom, no individual wishes to be imprisoned, tortured, or enslaved. Individuals should not be forced to be free, but free nations may be compelled to use force to counter the threat posed by governments that subjugate their own people and threaten the liberties of other nations.

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

Fisk’s third stay in Baghdad lasted from the end of August to late September. Fisking involves both commission and omission. Once again, he reported nothing from Kurdistan, nothing about the return of the Marsh Arabs to their immemorial home. A journey to Basra provided a single story designed to show that the editor and publisher of a new paper there was a stooge who would give no trouble. Nothing about the new central bank, the opening of lines of credit or the currency reform. Nothing about goods and services, or supplies to hospitals. Nothing about markets. Nothing about private lives. Not a single interview with American officials or Iraqis trying to reconstruct their country. Nothing about Ahmad Chalabi. Fisk seems only to have haunted the prison of Abu Ghraib and the mortuary of Yarmouk hospital, exclusively searching for American brutality.

FMA-sanctioned civil unions would entitle gay couples to all the rights and privileges of traditional marriage, including the right to be sexual active with one's partner. But by virtue of the fact that sexual activity is not a prerequisite, they enable fundamentalists to believe that the law is not "endorsing" homosexual activity. An FMA civil union permits homosexual sex, but does not legally require it, and I guess there's enough distinction there to satisfy some fundamentalists that the law isn't "promoting" homosexuality. Since sex is only an option, rather than a requirement, the fundamentalists are mollified by the fact that the civil union law is not "encouraging" anyone to have homosexual sex in order to take advantage of the law. I apologize for the long-winded response, and for what its worth, in the end I largely agree with you. Civil unions under the FMA can confer federal benefits on couples who may have no real bond with each other, and it seems to me that opens the door to all kinds of fraud. If you leave the sexual/romantic prerequisite in, you uphold traditional marriage values. Take it out, and I think you replace traditional notions of marital relationships with a cold, impersonal business partnership.

It is no easy thing to shoot or blow up young men and women because they wear American uniforms. Indeed, the soldiers are themselves oppressed members of America's vast underclass. Many don't want to be here; joining America's mercenary army is the only way they can afford to attend university. Others, because they are poor and uneducated, do not understand that they are being used as pawns in Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s cynical oil war. Unfortunately, we can't help these innocent U.S. soldiers. They are victims, like ourselves, of the bandits in Washington. Nor can we disabuse them of the propaganda that an occupier isn't always an oppressor. We regret their deaths, but we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America... In this vein we must also take action against our own Iraqi citizens who choose to collaborate with the enemy. Bush wants to put an "Iraqi face" on the occupation. If we allow the Americans to corrupt our friends and neighbors by turning them into puppet policemen and sellouts, our independence will be lost forever. If someone you know is considering taking a job with the Americans, tell him that he is engaging in treason and encourage him to seek honest work instead. If he refuses, you must kill him as a warning to other weak-minded individuals... To victory!

In addition to all the flights that had been canceled on Sunday, the weather was terrible in Baltimore and the flights were backed up. So, there were a lot of unhappy people in the terminal trying to get home, but nobody that I saw gave the soldiers a bad time. By the afternoon, one plane to Denver had been delayed several hours. United personnel kept asking for volunteers to give up their seats and take another flight. They weren't getting many takers. Finally, a United spokeswoman got on the PA and said this, "Folks. As you can see, there are a lot of soldiers in the waiting area. They only have 14 days of leave and we're trying to get them where they need to go without spending any more time in an airport then they have to. We sold them all tickets, knowing we would oversell the flight. If we can, we want to get them all on this flight. We want all the soldiers to know that we respect what you're doing, we are here for you and we love you." At that, the entire terminal of cranky, tired, travel-weary people, a cross-section of America, broke into sustained and heart-felt applause.The soldiers looked surprised and very modest. Most of them just looked at their boots. Many of us were wiping away tears. And, yes, people lined up to take the later flight and all the soldiers went to Denver on that flight. That little moment made me proud to be an American, and also told me why we will win this war.

It fell to Chuck Colson, the leader of Prison Fellowship and perhaps the most unifying figure among social conservatives today, to find a solution. On October 15, he succeeded in getting more than 20 groups to come up with a common position. They agreed that the amendment would prohibit gay marriage. It would also prohibit the states and the federal government, including both the courts and the legislatures, from providing any benefits to people that were contingent on their being involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. The amendment would, however, allow state legislators to extend the particular privileges of marriage to gay couples -- just not as gay couples. People not in gay relationships would also have to be eligible.

Whether the amendment agreed upon by the groups at Colson's meeting would ban "civil unions," then, is not a yes-no question. It would allow civil unions so long as eligibility for them is not based, even in part, on the fact, supposition, or presumption that the people involved are having sex. The amendment would thus make it theoretically possible for gay couples -- and cohabiting straight couples -- to have any of the benefits of marriage, except for governmental recognition of their relationships as equivalent to those of married people.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships.

If Saddam's regime and survival are threatened [by invasion], he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal... If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons... Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons.

I was struck with the matter-of-fact way Dr. Lewis referred to the Al Queda, and Wahabi, assumption that, of the two great super-powers, they had defeated the more menacing of the two. The Islamists not only have taken credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have also assumed that the soft-Americans would be much easier to defeat. According to Bernard Lewis, the September 11 attacks were to have been the final, devastating blow to America. Twenty years of seeing American casualties at the hands of Islamist Jihadists followed by American retreat and withdrawal, gave them the impression that the same would happen when the fight was finally brought to American soil. The Arabs have been shocked at America's reaction.
Surprisingly, Dr. Lewis attributes that shock to keeping the Jihadists from making any further attacks on American interests around the world since 9/11. By no means does he see it as assurance that future attacks won't happen, certainly our vigilance is required. Instead he would have us look at the way the Islamists have responded.
To continue centuries of experience in playing two enemies off against each other, the Arabs needed to find a counter to America. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arabs have increasingly looked to Europe and to factions within America to act as the counter force for them. Adding to Islam's crisis is the practical inability of Europe to counter America’s power. Although they may have the will, they do not have the means. Predicting the Arabs' response to that is one of our tasks.

The war in the Persian Gulf could end within weeks, but what if it drags on? Many people assume that a protracted war will deepen the current recession, delaying the US recovery from late 1991 to mid-1992 and raising the peak unemployment rate from 7.5 per cent to as much as 9 per cent.
The lesson of history, however, is that wars cause booms not recessions.
Every US war in this century has been associated with rapid growth and falling unemployment.
The economic costs of war - primarily inflation - came after the peace treaties. Military conflict is awful, but it need not result in economic disaster.

Democratic strategists have blamed the Massachusetts senator more than his campaign, saying he is known to be a candidate who doesn't take advice well or likes to split his staff into competing camps. Indeed, his presidential campaign is layered with high-priced advisers, some of whom have duplicative roles and are roughly divided into two factions: those based in Washington, where Kerry has been a senator for 18 years, and others from his home town of Boston.

The tactic will not only backfire on al-Qa'eda, say security officials, but will help the intelligence services gain support in a conservative society where tribal taboos prevents people from informing on other clan members. In slaughtering women and children, the terrorists broke the code that binds tribal Muslims, handing police a unique opportunity to infiltrate the dozens of terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia, where al-Qa'eda gains much financial and ideological support. Information from tribal leaders and the public on terrorist activities soared following last May's attacks on western compounds in Riyadh, enabling police to smash a huge number of cells and arrest more than 600 suspects in the past six months.

When asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros, who is Jewish, said European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States. "There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that," Soros said. "It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies." "If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish," he said. "I can't see how one could confront it directly."

The billionaire financier said he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last month's speech by Malaysia's outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, "Jews rule the world by proxy." "I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world," said Soros, whose projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various political causes around the world. "As an unintended consequence of my actions," he said, "I also contribute to that image."

Many people ask whether we have heard the President's speech. Yes we have. Immediately the Chorus of AlJazeera, Al Arabiya, etc. and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc, started their spoiling, doubt-sewing, bitchy insinuations, interviewing this character from Egypt and that "analyst " from Syria etc. (seldom is an Iraqi asked, or if they find one, a well known former close associate of the Saddam regime or someone like that). Pretending to be objective, pretending to be "balanced", they try their best to kill the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Mr. Rumsfeld thought the war could showcase his transformation of the military to be leaner and more agile. Paul Wolfowitz thought the war could showcase his transformation of Iraq into a democracy. Dick Cheney thought the war could showcase his transformation of America into a dominatrix superpower. Karl Rove thought the war could showcase his transformation of W. into conquering hero. And Mr. Bush thought the war could showcase his transformation from family black sheep into historic white hat.

Suddenly there are fears about Iraqi crop dusters spraying death on the Mall, about the nation's capital being another Nagasaki... Having covered President Bush's efforts to demonize the Iraqis, I understood the motive behind Secretary Cohen's alarmist performance art. We are talking about a world-class monster who strangles people with his bare hands, gasses entire villages, assassinates members of his family and uses babies as shields. Wondering if the Clinton crowd has the spine for its first big crisis is giving me a bad case of the jits. The suspicion lingers about these alumni of make-love-not-war that they are not entirely comfortable with things military ... Even with George Bush's sometimes scattered style and Colin Powell's inhibition about the use of force, the Bush-Baker-Cheney-Powell-Schwarzkopf team still gave the impression of command ... I want Madeleine Albright, the most virile of the lot, to stop wearing picture hats around the Mideast. Saddam Hussein is not threatening Ascot. I fret that toothy Tony Blair is no Iron Lady.

I was peaceably eating my penne at lunch the other day when my friend, another reporter, told me he thought Washington was in imminent danger of being gassed, germed, VX'ed or anthraxed.

So we are on notice: An attack very likely will be attempted. The only question is when, and by what technique. It could be months; it could be a year; it could be years. But it will happen, and each of us need to pause and think about that. If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today would be able to honestly say that it was a surprise, because it will not be a surprise.

[Y]ou would need a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy for the House of Windsor at the end of such a week. The pay's good, the hours are hardly onerous and the perks - free travel, lavish accommodation and hot and cold running servants - are to die for. But the near daily humiliations involved in being a Windsor at the start of the 21st century must surely be starting to outweigh the purely material benefits of the royal life.

The panel will discuss current ethical issues facing journalists and professionals including: how organizations facilitate and sometimes promote unethical behavior; whether it is appropriate for professionals and others to profit from their unethical behavior; and the role of educational institutions in instilling integrity in future professionals.

If we are outnumbered in particular theaters, it is only through laxity, not through an absence of resources. This is a country, after all, that bickered over the cost of a single destroyer in 1937 and then built over 87,000 warships less than a decade later when it was at war. If we are convinced that Iraq must be stabilized, and Syria and Iran must cease aiding and abetting the terror and killing of Americans, then surely we have the resources to defeat our enemies in short order. The problem is not might, but will — or perhaps worry about our affluence, gas prices, and self-image.
In the last two years, on each occasion when the United States finally said "enough is enough" and began to apply itself in earnest — after the fourth or fifth week in Afghanistan, pouring it on through a sandstorm in Iraq, or rounding up terrorist cells here at home — the enemy was impressed and faltered. And in contrast, each time we caught our breath and thought we were done — allowing the Taliban to sneak back into Pakistan in droves, watching looting with impunity, concerned more about immediate reconstruction than the destruction of the Iraqi Baathists, or worried about pressuring neighbors not to allow terrorists into Iraq — our enemies became emboldened. We are all products of the Enlightenment and value sobriety and moderation, but that ensures neither that our enemies share such confidence in reason nor that predictability is a virtue in war.

In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has, and I quote, "barely reached the Arab states. They continue this freedom deficit, undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."
The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences for the people of the Middle East and for the world.
In many Middle Eastern countries poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling, whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead.
These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems and serve the true interests of their nations.
The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long many people in that region have been victims and subjects; they deserve to be active citizens.

If [Bush] gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard.

The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

A CBS poll in late August found that 53 percent of Democrats wanted the United States to either increase troop levels in Iraq or hold them steady, versus 37 percent who wanted to decrease the number. By last week, that figure had reversed itself. In a late October Washington Post/ABC News poll, 54 percent of Democrats said the "U.S. should withdraw forces from Iraq to avoid casualties," while only 40 percent wanted to keep them there.

Is it too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq and for this column to admit its mistake in having vehemently opposed it from the outset?
At issue here is whether the Iraqi people have benefited from the overthrow of the Baathist regime and whether the American occupation will eventually benefit their country even more. I’m convinced — and berate me here from your patriotic bleachers, if you must — that what we have seen in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in recent months may turn out to be the most serendipitous event in its modern history... Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution.

This already lousy status quo was volatile and unstable. Saddam Hussein's speeches and policies were becoming ever more demented and extreme and ever more Islamist in tone. The flag of Iraq was amended to include a verse from the Quran, and gigantic mosques began to be built in Saddam's own name. Even if, as seems remotely possible, he was largely bluffing about weapons of mass destruction, this conclusion would destroy the view maintained by many liberals that, for all his crimes, Saddam understood the basic logic of deterrence and self-preservation. (That he was "in his box," as the saying went.) Not only was he able to defy the United Nations, but with French and Russian collusion, he was also increasingly able to circumvent sanctions. The "box" was falling apart, and its supposed captive was becoming more toxic. As he became older and madder, there emerged the real prospect of a succession passing to either Odai or Qusai Hussein, or to both of them. Who could view that prospect with equanimity?

Novelist Gregory Maguire is a prominent figure in the world of children’s literature. Best known as a fantasy writer, Maguire, forty-nine, has written more than a dozen books for children. He also writes for adults. A musical adaptation of his adult novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West opens this month on Broadway, with lyrics and music by Steven Schwartz (Godspell), and Joel Grey as the Wizard.
A Catholic faith and vision suffuses Maguire’s work, and is explicit in novels and stories such as Missing Sisters and “Chatterbox.” ... A practicing Catholic, Maguire is also a gay father of three.

I must share with my children my faith, its dramatic promise and possibilities, its murky history and contradictions, the guidance it can lend, and the challenges it must pose. Andy and I will tell them — when they're old enough — about the courage it took to adopt them in this climate, about the heartache the church from above can sometimes provoke, and the help that the church from below sometimes can provide. We will choose not to whitewash the complications, and will hope the children see us as brave and devout, not craven and hypocritical. That is what I wish for my children: not to be indoctrinated, but to question, and perhaps to be persuaded to value the gospel message as I do.

I sometimes feel the Vatican says of the fringe members of the church: "The Church: Love It or Leave It." I stay in the church because I must, because it is the mystical body of Christ; it is the most palpable metaphor or nexus in which my frail human spirit and frailer body can know itself to be at home. In the church, when I take Communion, I am joined by my dead father, by my dead mother, by the unremembered relatives who passed their faith along through the centuries. I am joined by the children of my children, by everyone who cherishes the gospel of love, and who strives, however inconsistently, to put others before one's self.
And I deal with the pain, in part, by continuing to be a Catholic as an act of defiance as well as an act of faith (and are they different things, even?).

There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.

I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized. If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Regarding your post titled "Anti-Semitism Watch I," the site where this appeared, "Al Jazeerah.info," is, in fact, not associated with the Al Jazeerah network, but is run by a man named Hassan El Najjar, who is an associate professor of sociology at Dalton State College in Georgia. I've run into Mr. El Najjar's site before, but from the looks of things, he is getting a bit more sophisticated in his deception. However, he at least now notes at the bottom of his page that he is not associated with "Saudi or Qatari websites with similar names;" this wasn't the case some months ago (Jeez, even the guy's disclaimer's are somewhat disingenuous). In addition, please note that he has evidently also acquired the web address "Amazonepress.com."

I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq
Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.
I'm a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn't the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs.......yawn, yawn--just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over.
I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.

If you think that Iraqis aren't doing enough, then you're being mislead by your media. Thousands of people are applying to be members of IP, FPS, and the civil defense force. They are begging for the security to be in their hands. We know how to handle those scum. The Americans are more interested in being nice and all about human rights and free speech and stuff. We have our own Law and court systems which we can use but the CPA won't allow us to. They are being too lenient and forgiving on our expence. If you think that is what is required to build a successful democracy then you're too deluded. You don't know the first thing about the Iraqi society.
Iraqis are providing intelligence to the CPA hourly. Just ask the soldiers here. Iraqis are cooperating in every way they can. They're losing their lives for it goddammit. If you aren't seeing it on tv, it isn't my fucking problem.

Of course it’s a new-media story, and of course it wouldn’t have happened five years ago. I’ve been following Big Media’s coverage of the flap over The Reagans, and just two days ago I noted with interest and amusement a wire story claiming that CBS would be pleased by the controversy, since it would inevitably increase the series’ ratings. That is soooooo last year. Those of us who blog, whatever our political persuasions, know better. Boycotts of Big Media have always been feasible in theory. (Newspapers, in case you didn't know, take cancel-my-subscription-you-bastards letters very seriously—if they get enough of them.) In practice, though, they rarely worked, because it was too difficult to mobilize large-scale support quickly enough. No more. Fox News, talk radio, and the conservative-libertarian sector of the blogosphere have combined to create a giant megaphone through which disaffected right-wing consumers who have a bone to pick with Big Media can now make themselves heard.

"There's a name for Catholics who dissent from church teachings. They're called Protestants. As someone who's really a Catholic - and if you asked me, I'd say I consider myself a Catholic - it's something that you hope doesn't interfere with your citizenship, but that's reality. What I'm saying is, a lot of Catholics who were totally faithful to the church started to assimilate, but the assimilation was not simply in terms of 'I'm a Catholic, and I'm also an American.' It was also giving in to the Protestant secular ethos of the United States of America."

Genital fiddling is unique to guinea baboons, but other primates invade each other's space in similarly challenging ways. White-faced capuchin monkeys, for example, stick their fingers up each other's noses in greeting.

Hereditary Peers By-Election Result
Nominations for the by-election to replace Lord Milner of Leeds closed on 24 October.
11 candidates registered to stand for election, as follows:

Lord Biddulph
The Earl of Carlisle
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
Lord Grantchester
Lord Hacking
Viscount Hanworth
Lord HolmPatrick
The Earl of Kimberley
Lord Monkswell
Viscount Samuel
Lord Vaux of Harrowden

The result was announced by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House at 3 pm on Thursday 30 October 2003.
Three votes were cast. Lord Grantchester received two first-preference votes and Viscount Hanworth one. Lord Grantchester was therefore the successful candidate.

Some Americans may share the views of the Republican congressman who said that progress in Iraq was "a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." (Support the troops!) But whether or not you think troop losses are important, there's growing evidence that our Iraq strategy is unsustainable.

"If any of the Democrats want to win, they will need to get my vote. I understand that this sort of statement will ring of self-grandeur in such a way that it may dissuade you from reading further, but consider this:
Unlike in your email of the day, I knew no one who died in September 11th. But nonetheless, I consider myself in many ways a "September 11th Republican." That is, before September 11th, I was a passionate Democrat. I voted for Clinton twice, campaigned on behalf of Al Gore (despite the fact that the man had no personal charisma). And in my heart, I guess I sort of want to be a Democrat, primarily because all of my friends are, and I want them to like me. And I want to think of myself as a caring humanitarian (which embodies liberalism at its best) rather than a calculated realist. But I can't. Not after September 11th. Not with the raving lunacy that has captured the Democratic party. Not when National Security is considered dispensable, if considered at all. Not when the Democrats fault George Bush for creating French obstruction. Not when the Democrats secretly applaud American deaths because it proves George Bush is "wrong." Not for a party that hates the South, the West, anything not New York (I'm from New York, so I can say that) or San Francisco, or anyone who feels proud flying the American flag. And above all else, not for a party that panders to the protesters who waive signs blaming "the Zionists" for the world's ills. No. This former Democrat, this September 11th Republican, will vote for George Bush."

"We have to prevail," Mr. Gephardt told reporters. "We have to bring democracy to Iraq. We cannot fail. If you think Afghanistan was a terrorist training camp, you wait. If you leave Iraq, it will be a terrorist training camp the likes of which would make Afghanistan look simple. In our own deep self-interest, to prevent future acts of terrorism, we have to succeed."
He, too, proceeded to criticize Mr. Bush. "We need a president who can get the world to work together with us to solve this problem," Mr. Gephardt said.

I attended a doctor's party the other night with my partner. A film-maker myself, I always find this other world interesting to say the least - another "bubble".
I settled into a chat with a young doctor, born in the US of Egyptian parents. He was charming and very 'LA' - well-coiffured, soft-spoken and well-dressed. We chatted a while about his world in the forensics department at LAPD which I found interesting as a film-maker. We started chatting a little about the Middle East. I assumed he knew I was Jewish. And I thought, wow, what a great place America is - I can chat with an Egyptian as a Jew without any of the sorry overtones of the current crisis in the mid-East; Jew and Arab are bonded by our common Western upbringing.
I expressed reasons why I supported Israel, we both agreed Arafat was a bandit, but he explained why the Palestinian cause had such support in Arab countries. It was a very civil, pleasant conversation despite our differences...
And then it started coming out... I listened, because I wanted to hear what anti-Semitism was about, and also because I was in a situation where my partner's professional colleagues were involved and I didn't want to cause a scene... Clearly, this doctor was fooled by my South African accent, and didn't conceive of the fact I could be Jewish.
The diatribe began with the stuff about how Jews truly control the American government and society - how policy in the mid-East was completely driven by Jewish American interests - this was the same man who had agreed with me moments before how many of the problems in the Mideast were the result of Islamic fundamentalism and corrupt Mideast governments. But, of course, the US intervenes there because of a Jewish plot. OK, my feathers were ruffling, but I realized what a great opportunity this was to be a fly on the wall of what people were saying when they didn't know I was Jewish.
And then came the clincher... this educated doctor, a US citizen, told me in all seriousness how there was a detailed Jewish plot that if Al Gore had become president, he would have been assasinated so that Joseph Lieberman could assume the presidency of the United States. Since the Jews knew they would never get a Jewish president elected directly, the Lieberman VP bid was a Jewish conspiracy to gain control of the presidency by underhanded means.
I felt sick in the pit of my stomach. What was really worrying was he felt safe to say what he did in a gathering of middle class physicians in a wealthy neighborhood of Los Angeles.

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.
Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

The first and second squads of my platoon share the bottom floor of a two-floor barracks. It's an open bay and we do most of our squad-level classroom type training here. If you are wondering what an open bay barracks is like, watch the beginning of Full Metal Jacket. It's just one big room with a bunch of wall lockers and bunks, except ours is seriously run down. A few days ago we're all working on disassembling and assembling the M249 machine gun (aka "SAW" for squad automatic weapon). Once again, I had the best time behind Dan. I think I could have beat him, but I believe that the politically intelligent thing to do was to just let him win. I think there is more value in him feeling superior than there is for me in the gratification of beating him. Or I could just be full of shit and this is my elaborate excuse for not beating him. :) It's probably a little of both. Anyways, after the guys got tired of this, we started working on taking it apart and putting it back together while blindfolded. This can be really tricky, by the way. While James (another city cop in real life) was taking it apart, he was having trouble with one of the parts and asked, "Does anyone have a Gerber? [multi-tool]" and he puts out his hand. Without missing a beat, M______ says, "Yeah, here.", whips out his dick and puts it in James's open hand. Everyone was on the floor in tears. For about a good ten seconds, James didn't seem to know how to handle this unprecedented violation, and continued to work on the weapon before finally taking the blindfold off and making an attempt at trying to find some sort of physical retribution for the affront. This incident has become a source of much discussion and the jury is still out on who is more gay: the guy that touched a dick or the guy that let a guy touch his dick. One could literally write volumes about the homophobically homoerotic undercurrents in the infantry.

More US troops have been killed since "peace" was declared than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself.

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element has been tentatively named "Governmentium". Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". You will know it when you see it.

The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage.

It seems to me that far too many liberals believe that once you've ticked the Brotherhood Of Man box on your spiritual census, this gives you the right to be as big a bastard as you choose to be in your private life. The sexual duplicity of "enlightened" men is legend; be it the liberal lawyer Michael Mansfield with his wife and mistress installed in the same hotel or the Tory-hypocrisy-slaying Angus Deayton snorting cocaine off the bodies of hookers in seven-star bunk-ups when his partner was pregnant with their child. And the Alpha Male role model of these awful males is, of course, good ol' Bill Clinton, sticking cigars up the help between bleating on about human decency.
It is partly my suspicion that if you scratch a member of the Brotherhood Of Man, you're likely to find a woman-hater, which makes me suspicious of the current alliance between socialism and extreme Islam. Being anti-racist is admirable, but if one is not equally anti-sexist, then it makes a nonsense of the argument, and leaves one woefully wide open to accusations of hipocrisy of the silliest, sleaziest kind.