And now for something fun for you kids out there

According to Broder, early on Kerry was seemingly naive about what he'd encounter if he used his Vietnam experience in his campaign:

When he chose to make his Navy combat in Vietnam the principal metaphor for his dedication to public service and the proof of his toughness in a time of terrorism, he might have guessed that the skeptics would not remain silent. In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record


So Kerry didn't get people would be against his war record, before they were for it.. or the other way around

The only thing that will save the country -- and end this breach in its leadership -- is that the boomers are now in their sixties. Another generation will eventually come to power, and the country will finally be spared from constantly refighting these same battles. .



I umm Guess i agree

Posted by Joe Gandelman on August 24, 2004 | Permalink

the blog this came from is good stuff

What another part of John Kerry's vietnam Record is untrue

John Kerry in 2001 says he supported the war in the begining

John Kerry in 1970 said he applied for a deferment, doesn't sound like some one who wanted to "Win" and who believed in the war

John Kerry in the commencment speech urged the Us out of the war

So John Kerry is attacking Dick Cheney and the folks who got a deferment that HE was denied for

i am shocked that this is all untrue... really i am

and now some nice religous flavor

The person who undertakes to harm my people
shall not have his fiery actions reach me.
In fact, they shall recoil with his hatred to him,
and shall keep him far from a good way of life.
Wise One, hatred does not save one from a bad way of life.
(Gathas: 11-8)

Summary Substance: With the Divine Fire which gives light, warmth, and strength to our spirit, and Good Mind which makes us think clearly, one can be sure that those who come to harm the righteous, fail in their attempts. Their hatred recoils and they suffer from it. Those filled with hatred simply cannot enjoy a good life.

Pondering Points: Hatred does not save. It drowns.

and north of the border

"He failed to condemn the specific attacks on John Kerry's military record. We don't need to hear a politician's answer but unfortunately that's what we got -- that's what the American people got today."

so saying all these kind of Ads are hurtful to the process isn't enough is it...

you want him to beat and wail his chest?

Groups with ties to the Democratic party have released ads saying that Bush's father used his influence to get his son into the National Guard -- thereby avoiding active duty in Vietnam.

Kerry declined to call an end to those ads.


this would be great if

A) it wasn't at the end of the article

and

B) this wasn't the headline

Bush stops short of condemning Kerry attack ads

Why does Hollywood have to ruin things

"Ellen is a strong comedian and she has always done material about God and questions about God," said Jerry Weintraub, who produced the original movie and also will oversee the remake

sounds as quality as the Battle Star remake

ok, the reason george burns polayed god was he had the whole "so freakin old he must be wise" thing and the great comic delievery


ugggg

Wow More great news coverage from AP

Bush Criticizes Anti-Kerry Television Ad

1 hour, 24 minutes ago

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday criticized a commercial that accused John Kerry (news - web sites) of inflating his own Vietnam War record, more than a week after the ad stopped running, and said broadcast attacks by outside groups have no place in the race for the White House.


AP Photo



Latest headlines:
· Calif. Lawmakers Vote to Switch Primary
AP - 59 minutes ago

· Documentary Focuses on Kerry in Vietnam
AP - 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

· Bush Criticizes Anti-Kerry Television Ad
AP - 1 hour, 24 minutes ago



All Election Coverage





"I think they're bad for the system," added Bush, who had ignored calls to condemn the ad while it was on the air.


(this from something i posted saturday)

Kerry Urges Bush to Demand Attacks Stop

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer


The White House and the Bush campaign have denied any direct connection with the Swift Boat group. "The president has made it repeatedly clear that he wants to see an end to all" advertising from outside groups, said Brian Jones, a Bush campaign spokesman.

So John, you have Shrapnel huh

Something that hit my email


The Boston Globe stated Kerry campaign is removing military documents from Kerry's site that have been questioned. Another fun fact related to Kerry's "shrapnel"...... Kerry had an MRI in February and MRI's are not allowed when the patient has shrapnel in his or her body.

"Kerry's thigh has shrapnel, records show"
- The Boston Globe, Michael Kranish, April 24, 2004
"Senator John F. Kerry has shrapnel in his left thigh as a result of an injury sustained in the Vietnam War, according to medical records displayed by his presidential campaign yesterday.".................. "The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the documents wrongly portrayed Kerry's service. Edward Peck had said he -- not Kerry -- was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat. The website had described Kerry's boat as being hit by rockets and said a crewmate was injured in an attack. But Peck said those events happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a request to explain why the records were removed."

See Boston Globe Article

-------

From "Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)" at http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article248.html

"Patients need to tell their physician if their body contains any ferromagnetic objects such as shrapnel, a pacemaker, or aneurysm clips. These patients cannot undergo MRI study. Ferromagnetic objects are attracted by the MRI's magnet."

-------
The New York Sun March 30, 2004...

"In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Mr. Kerry's surgeon, Bertram Zarins, said the senator has a partial tear of the subscapularis tendon in his rotator cuff. Dr. Zarins said the injury stemmed from a mishap in January on the Kerry campaign bus in Iowa."

""The senator was walking down the aisle and the bus suddenly lurched. Senator Kerry grabbed a railing and wrenched his shoulder," Dr. Zarins said. Mr. Kerry later complained of shoulder pain. In February, he underwent an MRI test that revealed the tear."

"Dr. Zarins said he and Mr. Kerry initially opted for a wait-and-see approach regarding the shoulder, hoping that the pain would abate. It did not."

Ten Questions I would ask President Bush-Rant

under the same realm of whimsey;

#1) Mr. President; Haliburton and many of the other companies that recived no bid or secret bid contracts for Iraq have now turned out to have cheated the government out of funds. Do you feel in hindsight a competative process would have served the american public better?

#2) Mr. President; since supporting the war was not in the geopolitical intrest of China, Russia, France, or Germany why did you continue to press for a solution through the united nations knowing they would block you?

#3) Mr. President; and if your advisors didn't tell you the above obvious facts why are they still around?

#4) Mr. President; You have stood up for executive secrecy on the Cheney energy commission, do you feel with the animosity this created that you should have choosen a more transperent process?

#5) Mr. President; Since you could have arrested 7 members of the september 11th attacks with the proper use of laws that existed on september 10th why did you push for the Patriot Act?

#6)Mr. President; As it often takes more then 2 terms for the great policies of an administration to work, why did you choose a vice president who could not run for the whitehouse in 2008?

#7)Mr. President; Do you regret not going to Vietnam while many other men did, and died?

#8) Mr. President; What do you feel if you only serve four years in your office your Presidency will be remembered for?

#9)Mr. President; What is one thing you hope to do in a second term that will make America a better place to be?

#10) Mr, President; What single thing you have done in your life do you regret most?

Rant: Ten Questions I would ask John Kerry

If some how, I could move the heavens and the earth and have the ability to sit John Kerry down to a taped interview I would ask him ten questions.

The nature of questions would probably prevent the interview from ever taking place

Question #1: Senator Kerry; as many members of V.V.A.W and many of the Witness at the Winter Soldier hearings were proven at the time never to have served in Vietnam, do you repudiate the use of their fraudulent statements by yourself during the anti-war period?

Question #2: Senator Kerry; do you feel guilty that you were able to use a system designed for servicemen and women who were injured on three occasions to exit Vietnam while other men died?

Question #3: Senator Kerry; Why have you spoken so little about your public service as a prosecutor, Lt. Governor, and United States Senator?

Question #4: Senator Kerry; do you regret calling members of POW-MIA advocacy groups "hucksters" and "liars"?

Question #5: Senator Kerry; do you find the awarding of a lucrative contract to your cousin by the government of Vietnam after your pow-mia commission closed its books a act reasonable people could find suspect?

Question #6: Senator Kerry; other then the previous commission can you name one major action you have done on behalf of veterans?

Question #7: Senator Kerry; having served in one of the worst war's in our nations history, how were you able to justify supporting cut backs to military budgets by a third? These actions lead to cuts in man and materials which leave our army not at a strong state of preparedness

Question #8: Senator Kerry; while others did propose cuts to the CIA, knowing what you know now do you feel that your proposed cuts were a bad idea?

Question #9: Senator Kerry; as some one who has had to fight in the tough world of new england politics why did you use such expresions as "I voted for the 87 billion dollars, before i voted against it." when you know exactlly how voters would take it?

Question #10: Senator Kerry; In all your years of service what action that you have personally taken, do you regret most?

More news you won't see covered

KANSAS MEETING AT ISSUE -=- By THOMAS H. LIPSCOMB Special to the Sun

A Vietnam veteran who said he remembers John Kerry participating in a
1971 Kansas City meeting at which an assassination plot was discussed
says an official with the Kerry presidential campaign called him this
month and pressured him to change his story.

The veteran, John Musgrave, says he was called twice by the head of
Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, while a reporter for the Kansas City
Star worked on a follow-up piece to a New York Sun article about the
November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a
plot to kill U.S. senators was voted down. Asked by The New York Sun if
he felt pressured, Mr. Musgrave said, "In the second call I did." Mr.
Musgrave said Mr. Hurley said Mr. Kerry had told him "he was definitely
not in Kansas City."

According to Mr. Musgrave, Mr. Hurley said, "Why don't you refresh your
memory and call that reporter back?"

A spokesman for Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign, David Wade, last week
issued a statement to the Sun, following a week of denials, that said
"we accept" Mr. Kerry's presence in Kansas City as a "historical footnote."

By then, the recollections of six witnesses, along with minutes and FBI
records, placed Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting.

But the news of the calls from the campaign to Mr. Musgrave may move the
episode from what the campaign is describing as a "historical footnote"
to a matter that involves the contemporary behavior of Mr. Kerry and his
campaign.

Mr. Musgrave said he received three Purple Hearts in Vietnam. After the
third Purple Heart for wounds by three 7.62 rounds, one to the jaw and
two to the left chest, Mr. Musgrave refused the standard release from
further service in the combat zone offered Marines with three Purple
Hearts and tried to return to his unit, he said.

But because of the extent of his injuries he was retired from the
Marines with full disability and sent home, he said.

Mr. Musgrave said, "I told Hurley it was my first meeting as a state
officer of the VVAW, and I remember John being there. I remember what I
remember."

When asked whom he is supporting in the presidential election, Mr.
Musgrave replied, "I am undecided. But I am sure not voting for some guy
who called me a liar."

Mr. Hurley did not return calls for comment for this article.

Another related episode in which the Kerry campaign had to handle
questions about Vietnam Veterans Against the War involves a statement by
Mr. Kerry himself.

At a Capitol Hill press conference on March 11, 2004, Mr. Kerry was
asked by a reporter if he thought his credibility had been affected by
his close association with Al Hubbard, a key VVAW colleague of Mr.
Kerry's who had appointed him to the leadership of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War.

Mr. Hubbard claimed to be a wounded Air Force officer who had served at
Danang during the Vietnam War. He appeared with Mr. Kerry many times,
including the "Meet the Press" interview after Mr.Kerry's Senate
testimony about American "war crimes" in Vietnam.

But Mr. Hubbard was never in Vietnam, was never wounded, and was not an
officer, as subsequent research and Mr. Kerry himself have pointed out.

Mr. Kerry answered this month that he had not spoken to Mr.Hubbard since
the week of April 19, 1971.

Yet the Kerry campaign now apparently accepts that Mr. Kerry was at the
November 12 to 15, 1971,VVAW meeting. Mr. Musgrave said he remembers
that at that meeting, Mr. Kerry challenged Mr. Hubbard's continuing to
maintain his false claims to being an Air Force officer wounded at Danang.

"Hubbard sort of sat there with his eyes downcast and Mike Oliver really
did all the arguing for him," Mr. Musgrave said. "And suddenly Hubbard
got up and said he was having an ulcer attack and had to get to New York
immediately to see his doctor and ran out of the room.You would think we
didn't have any doctors or hospitals in Kansas City."

In addition, the New York Times reported on an August 29, 1971,
fundraising party for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which "Mr.
Kerry and Al Hubbard, another veteran, explained some of the aims of the
organization."John Kerry's Role as a Vietnam Anti-War Activist Poses
Challenges to His Campaign


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans' Letter to Federal Election Commission
By Republican National Committee
CNSNews.com Information Services
August 23, 2004

(Editor's note: What follows is a letter from the Republican National Committee to the Federal Election Commission, responding to the Kerry campaign's FEC complaint. As CNSNews.com reported on Friday, the Kerry campaign complained that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was illegally coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign.)


The Honorable Bradley Smith
Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.


Dear Commissioner Smith:

The Commission is about to receive a frivolous complaint from Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. baselessly alleging illegal coordination between Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. and a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. This complaint should be promptly dismissed since, as the attached verified transcript demonstrates, Mr. Kerry's own spokesman, Tad Devine, could not present even one piece of hard evidence to back up the Kerry campaign's allegations.

Sadly, the Kerry campaign is misusing the Federal Election Commission's process to distract attention and gain free publicity concerning charges for which it publicly admits it has no evidence.

The Bush-Cheney campaign flatly denies any coordination with Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. 11 C.F.R. 109.21. Furthermore, Mr. Devine's own performance demonstrates that the Kerry-Edwards campaign also has no evidence of illegal coordination. The Commission should act pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1) and dismiss this complaint immediately.

As the attached CNN Inside Politics verified transcript shows, Kerry campaign spokesman Mr. Devine is basing his charges solely on a newspaper article, "...it's in the New York Times today." However, not even this newspaper article presents evidence of "coordination." What has been reported are the Kerry campaign's unsubstantiated charges along with the explicit denial from the Bush-Cheney campaign. In fact, after inquiring about the alleged coordination reported in the New York Times story referred to by Mr. Devine, Wolf Blitzer, based on an earlier interview with a reporter who wrote the New York Times story, corrected Devine by stating, "They don't have any hard evidence backing it up." This complaint is based on nothing more than the Kerry campaign's false accusations, having them reported in the media, and then the Kerry campaign referring to the published false accusations as proof.

As you know, the statute, 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1), states that any complaint filed with the Commission must be signed and notarized and made under "pain of perjury and subject to the provisions of section 1001 of title 18." The Commission must deal with this complaint in an appropriate matter.

Respectfully,

Thomas J. Josefiak
General Counsel



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Respond to MoveOn PAC’s Ad Campaign
Author:
Dated: Monday, August 16 2004 @ 09:00 AM PDT
Viewed: 11151 times
For Immediate Release
Monday, August 16, 2004

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Respond to MoveOn PAC’s Ad Campaign

The following statement by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns a new ad campaign announced today by MoveOn PAC.

“We find it odd that MoveOn PAC would question the right of a group of veterans to voice an opinion on a legitimate issue-an issue first raised by John Kerry-and now the centerpiece of his campaign,” said Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, U.S. Navy (Ret.), founder and chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (www.swiftvets.com). “The 300-plus veterans who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have every right to participate in a public debate concerning the controversy surrounding John Kerry’s military service record. We were there. We served alongside John Kerry and we know the history of his service. We will not be silenced.”

-30-

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

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Van Odell
Author:
Dated: Thursday, August 19 2004 @ 02:00 PM PDT
Viewed: 13294 times
For Immediate Release
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Van Odell

A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.

The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.

The mine’s detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.

All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry’s boat. Kerry fled.

Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry’s leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This "single act of meritorious service" -– the chief requirement of the Bronze Star -– should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.

To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -– the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the "spot report" on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry’s report was fiction -– a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real.

To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Jack Chenoweth
Author:
Dated: Thursday, August 19 2004 @ 02:00 PM PDT
Viewed: 12075 times
For Immediate Release
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Jack Chenoweth

I am outraged by Michael Dobbs' attack on Larry Thurlow and his Bronze Star award.

The reason the citation mentions "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" is because it is based on the "spot report" that John Kerry submitted. Any and all awards presented for actions on 13 March 1969 would be similar, if not verbatim, regarding enemy gunfire, because the only information submitted to the chain of command was falsified by Kerry.

Mr. Dobbs also grossly mischaracterizes my statements, and probably those of Richard Pees as well, when he states that we "do not remember coming under 'enemy fire.'" He needs to go back and review his notes. I emphatically told him -– as I’ve told countless other reporters -- that there was no enemy gunfire from either bank at any time, that the only event of the day was the mine under PCF 3, followed by suppression fire from all of our boats.

Mr. Dobbs is entitled to take whatever position he wants on the issue of who is telling the truth, but it is not right for him to mischaracterize my remarks so that it looks like I didn't "remember" whether there was enemy fire. I remember vividly. There was no enemy fire.

Something from the SanFransico Chronicle

www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jig Is Up For Kerry
VIEW FROM THE RIGHT
- Adam Sparks, Special to SF Gate
Monday, August 23, 2004




John Kerry surrendered the election to George W. Bush this month when he finally came out and said exactly what he would do in Iraq. After months of equivocating over how the president misled the American people with all those phony WMDs and teasing us that he had a secret plan for Iraq, the Democratic candidate for president said he still would have given the president the authority to go into Iraq even without any evidence of WMDs. Wow, what an admission!

That's a position slightly to the right of Bush, who never went quite that far. The president removed Saddam, in large part, due to faulty intelligence; Kerry would have voted to give the president the authority anyway, regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs. What does this admission do to his campaign?

It sinks it. Kerry has been under pressure to straighten out his views on the war: Bush demanded that Kerry tell the American people whether he would have supported the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, and, in response, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

That comment probably sealed the coffin for his presidential hopes, and the Lefties are squealing in contortions with this latest declaration. because so much of the leftist wing of the Democrat Party is made up of Deanie-weenies, who are both Saddam appeasers and unabashed peaceniks. This latest and startling revelation, that Kerry would also have pushed for a war of liberation in Iraq whether or not any WMDs were there, now means he should lose a good 10 percent of the vote -- those of the peace-at-any-price voters who have been turned off now that they realize there isn't a great deal of difference between the two major candidates. These people won't cross over and vote for Bush; they just won't go to the polls at all. Why bother? Kerry is now more gung-ho than Bush. He must have taken that Vietnam thing at the convention just a bit too seriously.

Here's how the president reacted: "Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the antiwar candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq."

Bush added, "After months of questioning my motives, and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up."

Veteran Kerry watchers should not be surprised. As a member of the U.S. Select Senate Committee on Intelligence during the Clinton years, he repeatedly warned Americans about Saddam's WMDs before Bush was elected -- a minor detail left unmentioned during the Kerry campaign. I guess that makes him the original WMD liar.

Soon after Bush was elected, Kerry's prevarications and flip-flopping began; click here to see his unfiltered statements on video. Don't blame Kerry for spouting bad intelligence, though; it's not his fault he missed 38 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 49 public meetings during his eight years as a committee member.

Cockeyed Response

By their actions you will know them; forget the campaign promises. Let's look at Kerry's leadership in the Senate. New York's World Trade Center (WTC) was first bombed on Feb. 26, 1993; Americans remember that this event was a precursor to 9/11. Fortunately, the bomb did not go off with as much strength as the terrorists had planned; if it had, thousands of people would have died. As it was, during this first disaster, eight lost their lives, and 1,000 were injured.

Kerry swung into action. Not immediately, but soon. OK, maybe it took him a year to make the decision -- but, hey, better late than never. Unbelievably, in 1994, Kerry's response to the WTC bombing was a proposal to cut $6 billion in the budget for the nation's intelligence agencies. Most Democrats panned the bill, including Dennis DeConcini, then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who warned that it made "no sense for us to close our eyes and ears to developments around the world which could ultimately save U.S. lives and resources." Sen. Daniel Inoue, D-Hawaii, also a member of the committee, said Kerry's proposal "would severely hamper" intelligence efforts.

Fortunately, it was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 75-20, with even old lefty Sen. Ted Kennedy voting against the measure. That's gotta hurt. Of course, Kerry still whines that we don't have enough human intelligence on the ground. Is he referring to himself?

In 1997, he mused on the floor of the Senate, "Why it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?" Kerry knew then about the global threat al Qaeda poses. Is this how he and Clinton prepared us for the war on terror?

And then there's his response to Bush's announcement last week of the largest return of troops since the start of the Cold War, in which the president promised to bring back to the United States 70,000 troops from units originally deployed in Europe and Asia as a presence to deter communist aggression. This move should please all those antimilitary types in Europe and the United States. However, to everyone's surprise, Kerry said he's against the decision, which he calls "hasty." The Cold War ended in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was torn down, and that decisive candidate, John Kerry, now calls the president's decision to finally bring the troops back "hasty"?

Christmas in August for Bush

Here's the latest on how presidential contender Kerry may be embellishing the truth. Kerry wrote about his Vietnam tour of duty in an op-ed column in The Boston Herald in October 1979, saying, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border, being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies, who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

How many lies can you count in this statement? There are three. First, Nixon was not president in December 1968; second, the South Vietnamese, predominantly Buddhists, don't celebrate Christmas; and, third, Kerry was never in Cambodia.

These revelations were highlighted in the just-released book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out against John Kerry," by John O'Neill (who succeeded Kerry as officer in charge of PCF 94, a "swift boat" patrol craft) and Jerome R. Corsi. The authors report that three of Kerry's five-man swift-boat crew denied they or their boat were in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 and that the other two refused to comment.

Jeh Johnson of the Kerry campaign came out last week with a very sheepish, flip-flopping correction (what else would you expect?) that parses a sentence in a way that would make Clinton green with envy: "I believe he has corrected the record to say it was someplace near Cambodia; he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia, but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia." Come again? Ironically, Kerry used his original comments about his time in Cambodia to talk about government duplicity. He should rename his campaign theme "Hype is on the way."

Kerry vs. the First Amendment

On the heels of the release of the critical book "Unfit for Command," a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are running an anti-Kerry commercial in battleground states. But Kerry and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would prefer you didn't see it: They're pulling out all the stops with intemperate threats of lawsuits against any of the TV stations that dares run the commercial.

Gee, I wonder whether Kerry's running mate John Edwards, that boyish multimillionaire former personal-injury attorney, had anything to do with this novel strategy of defeating the First Amendment? They know not many people will read the book, so Kerry has prepared an all-out ground assault against this "air war" on the part of his fellow veterans. Kerry, with the DNC, has threatened libel suits against all TV stations that run the ad.

Rather than sue after the ad comes out, they're trying to intimidate TV stations into not running it. They're going for the throat. Regrettably, some stations have caved in to the cheap threats. (You're welcome to see the commercial at the center of the hoopla.)

This very unusual tactic of threatening TV stations with legal action is very aggressive, but it shows Kerry is fearful of an examination of his Vietnam record. The threats are not real, though; Kerry has no intention of suing anyone. Does he really want a libel trial in which all his exploits will be cross examined? Unlikely. Here's the letter from his lawyers to the stations, threatening legal action, and here's a rebuttal from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Where are all the liberals who defend the First Amendment? They're nowhere to be seen, and their absence in this controversy is perplexing. It must mean liberals will fight to defend free speech only when it's speech they agree with. The rest of the time, the First Amendment be damned.

Majority Approves of President

Now that we all know Kerry is more warlike than the president -- after all, he would have removed Saddam without any evidence of WMDs -- Bush's job approval in the latest Gallup poll is now at 51 percent, almost identical to Clinton's 52 percent rating in August 1996 and President Reagan's 54 percent mark in August 1984. Last week, USA Today reported that "no president who has been at or above 50 percent at this point in an election year has lost."

Last week, a Gallup Poll reported Bush ahead of Kerry, 50-47, with likely voters, a turnaround from a month ago today, when Kerry was ahead in the same poll -- until the Democratic National Convention, that is.

In addition, The Washington Post came out last year with a historical analysis of why it would be very hard to unseat Bush, and that finding is still true today. The president has near-unanimous approval of Republicans, whereas the Democrats are split between those who want the United States to take a proactive role and pre-empt the terrorist groups in the Middle East and those who want to just sip their lattes and practice their French.

There will be few crossover voters from Republicans to Kerry, but the opposite is not true: Veterans and active-duty military will go for Bush. Remember how Gore wanted every vote counted in 2000, except for those from overseas military voters? In addition, Christians who go to church regularly are increasingly overwhelmingly pro-Republican, and moderates are similarly crossing over to the president.

The Democratic primary was hotly contested, but there was no question of Bush getting the Republican nod. The Demos really would like to be excited for Kerry, if they could figure out just who he is and what he stands for -- this week. The Kerry strategy of campaigning on the basis of not being Bush is, unfortunately, not enough to win an election. As of now, with most of Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans on the warpath against him, it looks as if his swift boat to the White House has sprung a leak and is sinking quickly.

Adam Sparks is a Bay Area writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com.

The Kerry campaign are idiots

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2004
Kerry stands by '71 atrocities claim
Campaign official insists Democrat was right about war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – John Kerry stands by his claims in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam regularly, and as a matter of official policy, committed war atrocities against innocent civilians, according to a top campaign official.

John Hurley, national director of Veterans for Kerry, denied on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that Kerry had overstated the case against the war when he returned home as a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

A new ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth targets Kerry's comments in 1971 as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

"John Kerry testified in 1971 to atrocities being committed in Vietnam," said Hurley. "So also, the Toledo Blade has won a Pulitzer prize this year for the reporting on atrocities in Vietnam. General Tommy Franks has said John Kerry spoke the truth when he testified in 1971. The My Lai massacre was a fact of life back then. What they have done (in this ad) is they've taken a piece of John Kerry's testimony, left out the part that says he was reporting, repeating the testimony that was given in Detroit at the Winter Soldier hearings, and presented it as his. And that's wrong."

Kerry, however, was the national spokesman for the group that conducted the widely discredited investigation. He was also an active participant in the hearings, not just a reporter taking notes. In 1971, Kerry also implicated himself in the commission of war crimes and atrocities.

In fact, Kerry began his testimony to the committee stating that he was representing all those veterans who participated in the hearings.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command," he told the committee.

Kerry went on to explain: "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Kerry added: "The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped."

Yesterday, Hurly agreed with the testimony and said Kerry stands behind it.

"Absolutely," Hurley said. "He's a leader. He came back, and he spoke the truth."

Asked repeatedly by Wallace if Kerry had overstated what happened in his testimony in 1971, Hurley emphatically said no.

"John Kerry says that he regrets the use of the language that may have offended some people," Hurley said. "He is not -- he stands behind the facts of his testimony. He stands behind the facts that atrocities were being committed in Vietnam."


In fact, some of those presenting horror stories at the Jane Fonda-sponsored Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit had misrepresented themselves as Vietnam War vets – even using the names of other veterans who did not attend the hearings. Several veterans provided sworn affidavits that others spoke in their names.



Come on Kerry Campaign, you can apologise for the false soldiers everyone knows about

more denials in the NJ governor scandal

N.J. SEX SCANDAL

Cipel: I was threatened to keep quiet

Woodbury Country Club
Suffolk Mattress Company
Giovanni Rosso
AWS
Granite Countertops
Giovanni Rosso




THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

August 23, 2004

TRENTON - A former aide at the center of the sex and political scandal in New Jersey said he was told by associates of Gov. James E. McGreevey to be quiet or face deportation, according to his attorney.

Golan Cipel, an Israeli national and former homeland security adviser, is the man the governor was referring to when he acknowledged that he had a homosexual affair and would resign, McGreevey administration sources say.

After Cipel left state employment in August 2002 following questions about his qualifications, the "governor's representatives" visited Cipel at his home and warned him not to go public about his relationship with the governor, Rachel Yosevitz told The Philadelphia Inquirer for yesterday's editions.

"They made it clear that the governor would do as he pleased and that if he wanted to have him deported, he would have him deported," Yosevitz told the newspaper.

McGreevey's lawyer, William Lawler, denied the allegations. "That is not true," he said.

Cipel, who returned to his family's home in Israel last week, said he was harassed by the governor. Cipel's attorneys said McGreevey harassed Cipel, who denies being gay, more than a dozen times during the eight months he was on the state payroll.

The last "sexual assault" occurred in August 2002, according to Cipel attorney Allen Lowy, who has refused to specify the conduct involved.

McGreevey said he engaged in a consensual relationship with another man, whom administration officials have identified as Cipel.

Yosevitz told the newspaper that Cipel is expected to return to the United States this week and will decide whether to sue. The statute of limitations for a lawsuit would expire at the end of August, which is two years from when Cipel left state government.

McGreevey first met Cipel during a trip to Israel in 2000, where Cipel was working as a spokesman for a local government. McGreevey later asked him to come to the United States to work on his 2001 gubernatorial campaign.

Cipel's work visa was sponsored by McGreevey's biggest campaign contributor, Charles Kushner. Last week, Kushner pleaded guilty in federal court to making illegal campaign contributions and to trying to obstruct a campaign finance probe. Kushner hired prostitutes to obtain compromising videotapes and photographs of a witness cooperating with the federal investigation.

McGreevey's aides said Cipel wanted $5 million to keep quiet about his relationship with the governor. Cipel's attorneys have declined to discuss the negotiations.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

The Discovery of Planet Earth

The Discovery of Planet Earth
By Tzvi Freeman


I want to tell you about the greatest discovery of the millennium. It wasn't the printing press. It wasn't America. It wasn't even vaccination. The greatest discovery of the millennium happened near its very end.

It was the discovery of Planet Earth.

We were trying to get away from Planet Earth -- ever since we had to leave the garden. We built temples reaching to the heavens, to transcend our earthly bounds. Cities to lock out the earth's wildness, as though we were not a part of it. We told her she was a dark and lowly place, that we needed to escape her to reach our destiny. We ravaged her, raped her, paved her. Our dreams were dreams of overcoming Earth.

Until finally, in the ultimate of all dreams, we escaped her. We told her, "Earth, we don't need you anymore! After all, you are just one little planet in an awesome universe! We are going out there to conquer planets bigger and better than you. We shall become masters of the stars, of the galaxies!"

We got to the moon. The moon was barren. We sent probes to Mars. Mars was dead. To the icon of beauty, to Venus. She was dressed in poisonous, burning clouds. And then the pockets of American Congress were also barren to fund our useless dreams.

It was then that we looked back from outer space and discovered something we had never imagined. A shining jewel in the vast darkness. Never before had we known her beauty. The most beautiful planet a mind could dream of.

It was then that we realized everything our spirits ever wanted was here. That we need her and she needs us. Our destiny is hers and hers is ours. For we are one.

We discovered Planet Earth.

We need to save our Planet Earth. There was one other time she was in peril, and then there was only one man who could save her. Not that he was the only righteous man. There were others. There was Methuselah and his disciples.

But Noah was not just a spiritual man. He was, as the Torah says, "A man of the Earth." According to our tradition, Noah invented the plow.

So, G-d looked down at the world He had made and how its soul had been ripped out of it, and He saw these people who prayed and meditated and transcended the bounds of body and earth, and He said, "You people are not the solution. You are part of the problem. Only Noah, who knows to bond body and spirit, heaven and earth, he alone can save My world."

In our century, during the most horrible crimes of humanity, we have seen how spiritual people were quiet. The ravaging of humanity and of the earth has happened with their permission.

But now we have discovered Planet Earth. We have discovered spiritual fulfillment and G-dliness within her. And we know that if we cannot make peace with her and with each other, we will not survive much longer.

The Creed of Noah

At the dawn of creation, G-d gave the first human being six rules to follow in order that His world be sustained. Later, after the Great Flood, he charged Noah with one more. So it is recounted in the Book of Genesis as interpreted by our tradition in the Talmud. There will come a time, our sages told us, that the children of Noah will be prepared to return to this path. That will be the beginning of a new world, a world of wisdom and peace.

For most of Jewish history, circumstance did not permit our people to spread these principles, other than by indirect means. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe began speaking about publicizing them as a preparation for a new era, he was reviving an almost lost tradition.

What fascinates me is the breathing room they provide. They resonate equally in a hut in Africa or a palace in India, in a school in Moscow or a suburban home in America. They are like the guidelines of a great master of music or art: firm, reliable and comprehensive--but only a base, and upon this base each people and every person may build.

According to the sages of the Talmud, there are 70 families with 70 paths within the great Family of Man. And each individual has his or her path within a path. Yet, there is one universal basis for us all.

Anyone who lives by these rules, acknowledging that they are what G-d wants of us, is considered by our tradition to be righteous. That person is a builder with a share in the world as it is meant to be.

The creed of Noah is a sacred inheritance of all the children of Noah, one that every person on the face of the earth can recite every day. And if enough of us will begin to say these same words every day, we will see a different world very soon. Sooner than we can imagine.

Here is a phrasing of the Creed of Noah, according to ancient tradition, with a touch of elaboration:

I, child of Noah,
caretaker of our precious planet earth,
accept upon myself the responsibility for peace and oneness in our world,
as accepted by Adam and by Noah,
transmitted by Moses and his people over the ages:

I will not worship anyone or anything other than the One Creator, who cares for the creatures of our world, renewing the Act of Creation at every moment in infinite wisdom, being life for each thing.
In this is included prayer, study and meditation.

I will not show disrespect for the Creator in any way.
This may be seen to include respect for the beauty and life of the Creation.

I will not murder.
Each human being, just as Adam and Eve, comprises an entire world. To save a life is to save that entire world. To destroy a life is to destroy an entire world. To help others live is a corollary of this principle. Every human being that G-d has created is obliged to provide for others in need.

I will respect the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a most divine act. The marriage of a man and a woman is a reflection of the Oneness of G-d and His creation. Dishonesty in marriage is an assault on that Oneness.

I will not take that which does not rightfully belong to me.
Deal honestly in all your business. By relying on G-d, rather than on our own conniving, we express our trust in Him as the Provider of Life.

I will not cause needless harm to any living thing.
At the outset of his creation, Man was the gardener in the Garden of Eden to "take care of it and protect it." At first, Man was forbidden to take the life of any animal. After the Great Flood, he was permitted to consume meat--but with a warning: Do not cause unnecessary suffering to any creature.

I will uphold courts of truth and justice in my land.
Justice is G-ds business, but we are given the charge to lay down necessary laws and enforce them whenever we can. When we right the wrongs of society, we are acting as partners in the act of sustaining the creation.

May the nations beat their swords into plowshares. May the wolf lie down with the lamb. May the earth fill with wisdom as waters cover the ocean floor. And may it be very soon in all of our lifetimes, sooner than we imagine.




By Tzvi Freeman. Excerpted from a speech delivered before the 18th International Peace Conference, held in Munich in Fall of 1999. Tzvi is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth published by Adams Media.




The content on this page is produced by Chabad.org, and is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with our copyright policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chabad Online Network
A division of the Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center
In everlasting memory of Chabad.org's founder, Rabbi Yosef Y. Kazen
© 2001-2004 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center

Review coming tommorrow

Vampire: The Reqiuem is out

and well it rocks

i'll say more later

No No only We get to have equal rights

Yes Larry is laying the smackith downith on a gay news source.... Stay with me this all works out

REFUSING TO SUPPORT ENDA without trans protections also makes no sense legally. HRC has made the peculiar claim that gay people sometimes endure discrimination because they are effeminate men or butch lesbians and won’t be protected unless ENDA is trans-inclusive.

But they have not offered up even a single case to back up their claim. In fact, HRC and the trans activists have it exactly backwards, and they know it.


Ok here is a thought spanky, now lets stay with me here

So because people view their gender display as manish ( and discriminat against them for that) then they are screwed

"Oh gee gosh we did it cause you were so mannish"

helllooooo

Courts have already ruled that existing federal and state laws that protect against gender bias protect transgendered people. Those rulings aren’t universal, but they offer more federal protection than gays currently enjoy.

So if i were to go to work in a dress your saying i wouldn't be fired

cause i can tell you if i acted gay people at work would for a while be peeing themselves for fear i accused them of firing me fore being gay

What’s more, if ENDA passed without explicit protections for “gender identity and expression,” transgendered people would still in many cases be winning newfound workplace rights.

If they are gay

what you mean you don't care about the ones who are straight

well how enlightened of you

Which is a more likely scenario: HRC’s worry that a gay man might be fired by a boss who is gay-friendly but nonetheless intolerant of effeminate men? Or an anti-gay boss who fires a male-to-female transsexual because “he’s a faggot”?


well, considering the effeminate man doesn't make people "comfortable"

or is "disruptive"

transgender people actually have to have medical treatment done usually ya gay folks just say "hey i'm gay" like Saul on the road to damascus

A transgendered person fired for being perceived as gay or due to anti-gay bias would be protected under ENDA even if it only adds actual or perceived “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights law.

even though in Boston a judge ruled that such actions empower those people and thus cannot be used as a legal protection for people who aren't gay


If legislation can be achieved that wins some civil rights for some people — in this case, almost all of HRC’s constituents — that is better than nothing. Just as domestic partner registries are better than nothing, civil unions are better than DP registries, and neither should be sacrificed indefinitely until gay couples can marry

all GBLT people are equal, some are just more equal then others

If HRC and the Task Force are right, then civil rights laws for African Americans and women should have waited for gay rights and trans protections as well. And existing federal hate crime laws based on race and religion shouldn’t have been passed until they could be amended to add protections based on gender, handicapped status, sexual orientation and (of course) gender identity and expression.


hey ya know what, each of these previous groups had a single organization to represent them

HRC represents BOTh

so thats an irrelivent argument

if gay people were part of the naacp fighting for gay rights then your argument would have a basis in reality

It would be wrong and immoral for us to expect others to be treated unfairly until we are treated equally. And it is just as wrong and just as immoral for transgendered people and their P.C. allies in gay rights groups to expect the same.

so, in an organization they are members of, it is wrong to expect their organization will fight for them

ya know what, that happened in the women's suffrage movement. the people who wanted more rights didn't want to push for sufferage

the sufferagetts broke off and they got the job done

so would HRC be better or worse without transgender people?

huh, this is intresting news

Counterculture protests are big business
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 22, 2004

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

NEW YORK -- Raging against the machine requires some heavy bankrolling, and the fatter coffers of the anti-establishment crowd are easing the strain of battle.
And many of the groups planning protests here during the Republican National Convention next week stand to benefit directly from the blossoming wealth of well-funded, anti-status quo forces.
For instance, WBAI-FM in New York, part of a legion of self-proclaimed "Peace and Justice Radio" stations, is also part of community radio giant Pacifica, whose Pacifica Radio Foundation claimed $13 million in revenue for the 2002 tax year.
Another example is the New York Civil Liberties Union, which two weeks ago opened a temporary satellite office on Eighth Avenue, two blocks from Madison Square Garden, where the Republican National Convention convenes Aug. 30. It claimed assets of $1.6 million on its 2003 tax form.
A.K. Gupta sold $11,000 worth of advertising in less than a week for the Indypendent, turning the 16-page, 15,000-circulation biweekly newspaper into a 24-page guide to the protests here with a press run of 200,000 this week.
Even the Protest Warriors, a conservative anti-protest protest group -- which is really rebelling -- is leasing loft space a few blocks from Madison Square Garden for its headquarters as it tries to disrupt the disrupters, and never mind the pricey New York real estate costs.
Such wealth among the so-called counterculture is dwarfed by the billion-dollar megaphones used by the two major political parties, of course. But multimillion-dollar groups such as Pacifica and the American Civil Liberties Union are every bit as politically formidable as a midsized political action committee or a D.C. lobbying firm.
It's the earnest image that often throws the public off.
"Many of these groups are portrayed as ragtag groups, but it turns out that many are heavily financed by people like [billionaire financier] George Soros and the Tides Foundation," says David Martosko, research director for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies and citizens advocating consumer choice.
The center also operates a Web site, activistcash.com, that tracks the finances of a number of foundations, nonprofits and government agencies.
"Much of this money comes from nearly 600 big philanthropies that have a net worth well over $30 billion," Mr. Martosko said. "And every year, around 5 percent of that wealth gets passed around to the groups who do these protests."
The publishers of pro-protesting magazine Clamor started their own tax-exempt group, Allied Media Projects, in 2002. This allows them to receive cash from larger organizations, such as the Tides Foundation, a munificent giver to the world of liberal causes.
Clamor co-founder Jason Kucsma acknowledged that the magazine has received money from Tides, and added that the group's tax-exempt entity was done at the urging of Wade Rathke, a veteran activist and chief organizer of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 100.
"If there is a lot of money going around, we aren't seeing it." Mr. Kucsma said. "We do what we can with volunteers. And this is my only job, and I don't get a salary."
For Mr. Gupta, his selling prowess dovetails nicely with his activism. He has done ad sales before and knows a niche market, which, for the Indypendent, is the anti-President Bush crowd.
"My sales pitch for this was 'anti-Bush,' " said Mr. Gupta, standing outside the Washington Square Methodist Church near New York University, handing the free newspaper to anyone who would have it. "That's all I had to say, and they were ready to spend."
Money is the devil in the details of a demonstration, the often-unidentified factor that keeps everyone guessing.
"We get that question a lot, about who is funding us," says Kfir Alfia, co-founder of Protest Warrior. "But we are totally grass roots. Printing signs is very inexpensive, running a Web site is also inexpensive. I don't think people have a realistic idea of what it takes, financially, to run an organization like ours. It really isn't that much."
At an organizational meeting last week for United for Peace and Justice (UPJ), tables were stacked high with freshly printed glossy posters disparaging the president. It had the feel of a we-the-people gathering and the buzz of overthrow.
UPJ spokesman Bill Dobbs said the group benefits from contributions large and small, and is allowed tax-exempt contributions from the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, which promotes nonviolent social and economic justice efforts.
Last year, Mr. Dobbs added, the group raised and spent approximately $750,000. But the Aug. 29 march is expected to draw as many as 250,000 people, requiring more resources, he said.
"We hire more people and we raise money on the spot through donations for stickers and leaflets," he said.
Some groups simply refuse to speak about their finances. The New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York chapter of Planned Parenthood did not return calls. The two are jointly putting together an Aug. 28 rally for women's rights.
Planned Parenthood of New York City reported revenue of $18 million in 2002. The group's tax form reported $5.6 million of that came from government grants.
Some of the demonstrators that are preparing to rally against the Republicans, though, are truly self-funded and independent, says Mr. Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom.
"Which is good," he says. "And the large number of the rank-and-file protesters who are part of a bigger group are not aware of the level of higher financing their cause is receiving."






Copyright ) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

Is it true what they say about freemasonry?-essay

Is it true what they say about freemasonry?

Depending on who “they” are the answer is most of the time a big NO.
Freemasonry is not a great repository of esoteric knowledge, not some secret cabal of elite men in the community, not some cabal of the politically connected men, and sadly like all human beings not even up to the ethical standards we set for ourselves. I will try to communicate a bit from my own journey what Freemasonry is from my perspective in the organization. I will also poke back at the Pro and Anti comments that are just plain wrong.

No Virginia, there are no worshiping of Goat heads. No rejections of Jesus Christ are present in any of the ritual, in fact the ritual quotes from the Old Testament and the Christian nature of the authors of the blue lodge ritual is apparent to any who have studied Christian symbolism much. We don’t have our own g-d, because there is but one g-d. No brother in the lodge presumes to say anything else in a formal lodge setting, even if they may want to.

And sorry we don’t purposefully ever draw blood or injure others (the incident in New York being a problematic exception). *YES* elements in the ritual can accidentally cause harm, but not if the Brothers doing them are well experienced and just don’t have a bad night. Now, some times the candidate can do things that cause injuries to happen as well but that can’t really be planned for. Other mishaps, well they happen to but also on the rare occasion that they become the source of Jokes after the meeting is over and for many years to come.

In some Jurisdictions you have to take pretty nasty oaths, things even if I could go into them from an obligatory aspect I wouldn’t –because they are nasty- but it is made clear at several points in the ritual everything you see is symbolic. Later on in your Masonic career if you join the Shiners they even have a ritual that explains that very thing about the penalties. I have been told by some brothers that some Labor unions have similar oaths. And that even Jesus made such oaths in the bible (I would have to look up the reference). But the “bloody oaths” of Masonry are of the Kin to those unions and old guilds who had such things. It is a trapping of the past used to punctuate the obligation process.

These oaths protect secrets that were already violated in England before they came to the states (and violated here again with the Morgan affair). In the modern age with the “evangelical” anti-masonry much of the information so many brothers would consider secret is out on the Internet. The Mormon Church has elements of Masonic ritual in their services (not every Masonic or Mormon source will agree to this fact, but based on what I have read I am reminded of the old Orthodox Jewish saying “Coincidence isn’t a kosher word)

I have seen Masonic Rituals online that I only have one possible source for doubt of their validity –I have not sat in lodge there-. I even used one such source to help me on some rough spots in my Masonic memory work.

Politically Lodges fit their demographics. From my experience in Florida most have served our country in time of war (Vietnam, Korea, World War II… I’d even swear some brothers were in WWI) most of them are middle class or small business owners, a very small number –I would say statistically equivalent to their community- are holding of any wealth. In my part of Florida, I’d be surprised if many of my Brothers voted Democrat (again because of the local community values). If I drove to Boston I am sure the opposite would be true.

The great “esoteric” elements of Freemasonry while they may be there have as much to do with the Freemasonry of today as the buildings of Londinum have to do with the city of London of today. While it is possible this esotericism pre-dated the Freemasonry of today it is also likely that the ritual of Freemasonry inspired the esotericism that many masons in the past (and today) find such meaning in. We don’t know a lot about the Period before the Grand Lodges were first formed, the further back you go the sketchier it gets. So while some great cabal of druids in the woods may have sat down in the lodge rooms of Scotland, its just whimsy and faith that you can base such an idea upon.

Our Grand Honorees aren’t picked by a secret process at all. The Honorary 33rd Degree of Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite is based on a formula of the membership of the valley in question. A slot is replaced when some one dies, and when a new “slot” is created it is done by appointment of those prominent masons who make such a call. And who gets appointed? People who donate a lot of money to the Scottish rite? You be they do. How about people who are prominent in Masonic body x, y, and/or Z? And how brother. People who are famous? Yep they get bumped to the head of the line. Hardly the “high priesthood” of Satan it is made out to be.

In York rite, the highest honorees have to be a Trinitarian Christian, and swear an oath to defend the Christian faith. Again, hardly a source of the great satanic evil we are made out to be.

If you find yourself in a Masonic lodge chances are you will find yourself in a room of men 60-70 years old. A decent bunch of 50 and 40 year old scrappers and a few “babies” in their twenty and thirty year old demographics. Depending on the lodge community you join a lot of Blue collar folks will be in your lodge, some exceptions apply based on the nature of your community.

Many states try to make it easier to join the lodge, and see less people returning. Many years have the lodges become a mill for people who wanted to join “the shrine” and they have had a real problem placing value in their own organization.

These men all try to live up to the high ideals of freemasonry, and do so to the best of their human ability but often slip (as humans are want to do.) the Brothers and the lodge will donate to the human family through charity as much as they are able. Out in the lobby or elsewhere off color jokes will be told, tales of Masonic ritual gone wrong, the occasional philosophical discussion, and a decent helping of Brotherhood.

In other words, not much different then the world outside, but we try our best to be.

More reasons not to vote for Kerry

The man won't even say any of these below actions were even wrong either

Kerry praised Ho Chi Minh!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Joseph Farah



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

You might think you've heard all the startling revelations about John Kerry's history from the new book, "Unfit for Command," by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi.

Think again.

As I finish reading this book, I continue to find – literally on every page – new information that stuns even me, someone who has watched John Kerry's career with skepticism and alarm for the last 33 years.

Take this, for instance.

On June 29, 1971, according to an FBI report, Kerry praised Vietnam's communist dictator Ho Chi Minh, comparing him to George Washington.

At the time, Kerry was serving as the point man for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The president of the organization was Al Hubbard, who claimed to be an Air Force captain who was severely injured during his service in Vietnam. It turned out Hubbard was a sergeant who never served in Vietnam. He did, however, as Kerry knew, serve the communist cause with great enthusiasm and distinction – making propaganda trips to Hanoi paid for by the Communist Party USA.


Kerry didn't distance himself from Hubbard even when the lies were uncovered. In fact, he rationalized them. Kerry didn't distance himself from Hubbard when he became aware, as an executive committee member of VVAW, that its actions were being coordinated and sponsored, in part, by the communists.

Furthermore, Kerry himself made two trips to Paris to meet with representatives of the enemy.

He was also present at VVAW steering committee meetings in which debates took place about assassinating three U.S. senators. Kerry, of course, did not report these crimes to any authorities. Kerry tried to say he had quit the organization before these meetings. Now he claims his memory is hazy about what took place – that he doesn't recall hearing any of these dire plots.

Of course, his fantasy about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 is "seared" in his memory banks. Yet, he has no recollection about his fellow executive committee members discussing murder plots.

the folks in New Jersey are going to be ok

Even Gay Democrats say 'Ummm he's not with us'

An openly gay freeholder from Hudson County became the latest official to call on Gov. James E. McGreevey to leave office immediately, saying McGreevey appointed an unqualified person to serve as his homeland security adviser, a man who now alleges the governor sexually harassed him.

"Initially, I was quite surprised and I thought it took a lot of courage," Freeholder Ray Velazquez, a fellow Democrat, said Friday. "But after a few days, I realized it was just the governor using his sexuality as a shield to protect himself from his own misdeeds in office."


Velazquez, 40, a lawyer who lives with his male partner and an adopted son, said McGreevey's actions perpetuate stereotypes "that gays are devious and cannot be trusted." He said McGreevey "mishandled his office."

"This is not someone who fought his fears about coming out of the closet and decided the time was right," Velazquez said. "This is someone who found himself in a corner, and he sat down and strategized."


looks like McGreevey aint going to get away with it. Lets hope the Democrats and republicans in jersey can come togther to run him out of office

and here is a possible replacement

the NY post gets it

KERRY CAMP FRETS OVER CAMBODIA TALE

By Deborah Orin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



August 20, 2004 --

THERE'S now some real angst in Dem ocratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false — and just didn't happen.

But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" — that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)

Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.

Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.

"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.



Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 — and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.

Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident — of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.

Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared — seared — in me."

Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute — Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas — yes or no.

For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out — thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade — Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.

The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?

The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story — even as much of the press tries to ignore them.

For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing — David Alston — after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.

A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe — for just one week.

This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story — until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday — bloggers have been examining it in detail.

On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.

Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story — and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.

Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility — and its liberal anti-Bush bias.

Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington bureau chief.

More news you probably won't see

So Canada is going to RAISE their military by cutting it

that is quality

Promise could gut military
Ships, jets may be scrapped to fulfill Liberal troop pledge

Chris Wattie; with files from Mike Blanchfield
National Post, with files from CanWest News Service


Saturday, August 21, 2004


1 | 2 | NEXT >>





The Canadian military may be forced to mothball all of its remaining destroyers and ground up to a quarter of its front-line fighter jets in order to fulfill a Liberal election promise to create a new, 5,000-strong "peacekeeping brigade."

Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, is to present options on the proposed new brigade to Cabinet by the end of the month, but Defence sources have told the National Post the military has been told to prepare drastic measures to pay for the idea.

In an article posted yesterday on the Web site of Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group said senior Canadian officers have been working in secret on finding a way to pay for the promised influx of new troops.

Under the proposal, the navy is to take all of its Iroquois-class destroyers, the flagship vessels from which commodores or admirals can command a task force of warships, out of service, while the air force is to ground as many as 20 of its CF-18s, a quarter of its entire fighter force. The CF-18 Hornet is in the midst of a $2.3-billion, six-year modernization program.

During the federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to add a new brigade of 5,000 troops to the overstretched and chronically underfunded Canadian military specifically for peacekeeping and "peace support" missions.

The military was caught completely off guard by the pledge, which senior officers believe Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, made hastily in the heat of fighting an early Conservative surge in the campaign.

One senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Armed Forces are worried they "are going to be perceived as being in bed with this cockamamie idea."

They also fear the plan could lead to the effective demise of the navy and air force.

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, said the Liberal government wants to make the Forces foot the bill for an election promise he said was made in haste without considering the cost.

"It's outrageous," he said. "They're talking about scavenging the navy and the air force to keep their promises. It's just smoke and mirrors ... they make the promises, but don't want to pay for them."

Analysts have estimated the cost of adding a new brigade at more than $2-billion and have cautioned it would take the military more than a decade to build up its strength from the current 53,000 troops.

Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group, estimated the cost at $1.5-billion for equipment, $750-million for infrastructure and approximately $400-million a year to maintain the additional soldiers. Defence officials say the Forces are already running a $1-billion annual deficit to pay for current operations.

Mr. O'Connor, a former brigadier-general in the army, said the army needs the extra troops but the air force and navy also need more resources. By stripping the budget of the other two services, he said the Liberals are "dumbing down the armed forces: They're reducing their ability to defend Canada and Canadian interests."

Much of the cost of the new brigade will have to come out of the existing National Defence budget. Military planners were told even before the election not to expect any increase in the $1.3-billion defence budget for at least two years, and officers say they are being asked to rush the plan through on the assumption there would be little or no new money to pay for it.

The government wants to have the peacekeeping plan ready for Mr. Martin to unveil when he visits the United Nations later this year, said one officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Options being considered include slotting the additional troops into the many regiments and brigades that are understrength, or creating a new brigade or some kind of specialized formation devoted to peacekeeping, Jane's reported.

While the air force and navy may be allocated some of the new troops, Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, a special advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff, told Jane's that "virtually all of the options have a heavy army flavour to them."

Mr. Martin has also backed down from conducting a broad review of defence policy, as he promised last December.

Mr. Graham announced last month that there would be no formal defence policy review, just an "in-house" examination with no public consultation.

But Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst at York University, said the government should conduct full public consultations. "To do it quietly in the night while you're just trying to scrounge money for the 5,000 peacekeepers, I'm not totally sure that's a candid approach to take with the public," said Mr. Shadwick.

"You could make a case intellectually for this 40 years ago, but not today," he said. "Even the word 'peacekeeping' is suspect. It's much more dangerous, much more demanding, much more likely to need the sort of skills that soldiers have."

(Ottawa Citizen)

Important story from the middle east ya probably won't see

Fatah splinter group calls for killing Arafat


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 21, 2004

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

A leaflet distributed over the weekend by a hitherto unknown group called Fatah – The Reformist Path called for replacing the Palestinian leadership and threatened to liquidate Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and many of his top aides.

It's not clear who stands behind the leaflet, but some senior PA officials have pointed a blaming finger at former security minister Muhammad Dahlan. They said that when Arafat saw the leaflet, he cancelled a meeting planned with Dahlan last week.

Dahlan has strongly denied responsibility for the leaflet, arguing that it was yet another attempt by his rivals to drive a wedge between him and Arafat.

This is the first time that a leaflet signed by a Fatah affiliated group calls for eliminating Arafat. Most Fatah leaders and activists who have been demanding reforms and an end to corruption in the PA have refrained from attacking Arafat personally, directing their anger instead at top officials in the PA chairman's entourage.

The leaflet, which is seen as yet another sign of growing tensions among the top brass of the PA, launched a scathing attack on a number of veteran Fatah leaders and PA officials, accusing them of stealing funds, lying, and collaboration with Israel. Among those mentioned are Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, Interior Minister Hakam Balawi, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, Fatah Central Committee members Hani al-Hassan, Abbas Zakariya al-Agha, and Sakher Habash, as well as Arafat and former PA prime minister Mahmoud Abbas.

"They are all standing as an obstacle to development and are a heavy burden on Fatah," the pamphlet said. "They must all go away before they are killed, and we mean what we say." It called for dissolving the Fatah Central Committee, which is dominated by veteran Arafat loyalists and for the establishment of an emergency leadership consisting of representatives of the young generation.

The leaflet also called for forming criminal and political courts to try all those who have abused their power and embezzled public funds.

One of the Fatah leaders whose name appeared in the leaflet told The Jerusalem Post that he was convinced that Israel and the US were behind it. "Israel and Washington are playing a filthy game with us," he charged. "Unfortunately, they have found some Palestinian puppets to assist them in their scheme."

Another Fatah official said he did not rule out the possibility that Dahlan and some of his followers in the Gaza Strip were behind the leaflet. "Now that it is clear that Dahlan has failed in his campaign against the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian people, he is resorting to these cheap methods of slander and bad-mouthing, he added."

Sources in Ramallah said the timing of the leaflet was "suspicious" because it came on the eve of a planned reconciliation between Arafat and Dahlan. The two were set to meet last week for the first time since Arafat aides accused Dahlan of launching a campaign to overthrow the PA leadership.

Arafat called off the meeting after the leaflet was distributed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, a source close to Arafat said on Saturday that the long-awaited meeting could still take place sometime this week.

"Obviously, those who published the leaflet were trying to sabotage any attempt at reconciliation between Arafat and Dahlan," the source explained. "Arafat is still interested in meeting with Dahlan."

Last week Arafat dispatched PA National Security Adviser Jibril Rajoub to a meeting with Arab journalists in Jordan to counter Dahlan's demands for reforms and allegations of widespread corruption in the PA.

"Dahlan lies whenever he opens his mouth," Rajoub told the journalists. "When he says that he is working with [jailed Fatah leader] Marwan Barghouti he is lying." Rajoub claimed that Dahlan met with Barghouti shortly before he was arrested by the IDF in Ramallah to seek his backing, but was turned down.

"Barghouti told him that if he wanted to take over he should go for elections in Fatah," he said. "But Dahlan's response was that he wants the authority through a popular uprising like that of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."

Rajoub scoffed at Dahlan's anti-corruption campaign, saying he should be the last person to talk about transparency and reforms.

Media Matters: A Devil's Bargain

Something really good and thought provoking here

Media Matters: A Devil's Bargain

By Frederick Turner Published 08/19/2004


E-Mail Bookmark Print Save



TCS






The "mainstream press" may be in the process of squandering a precious resource that its leaders no longer have the institutional memory to recognize as the source of its legitimacy and its living. In the last few years -- essentially since 9/11 plunged us into a new world, a new agenda, that the press did not understand -- the major organs of civilized journalism, once trusted by the billion most effective people on the planet, have given away their credibility upon a trifle.


Everybody now recognizes that such voices as CNN, the New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the major TV networks, the New Yorker, the Guardian, etcetera, are now the express and all-but-explicit advocates of a very special point of view, one with specific political goals. Those goals are certainly different from those of al-Jazeera or the socialist press, but they are in their own way as coherent, exclusive, and unquestioned.



This collective view emerged as a rather well-intentioned product of an age of wild hope, ill-informed academic speculation, and youthful optimism about the world. Nurtured in the great European and American universities, it was statist, existentialist, anti-religious, suspicious of any science that did not support its views, snobbish, pacifist, anti-technological, hedonistic in practice, puritan in theory, postmodernist in its tastes, committed to a social rather than an individual morality, hostile to the virtue tradition, sentimentally Romanticist in its attitude to Nature (which, in an unconsciously Creationist turn, did not include human beings), relativist about cultural differences, legalistic, optimistic about human nature, and deeply hostile to the marketplace. In one sense it was a nostalgia for the aristocratic European world of our collective rose-tinted memory, when the virtues of artists and intellectuals and university-educated people were recognized automatically, and merchants and financiers were "rightly" despised. In another sense it was a yearning for the dear lost days of revolutionary fervor, moral certainty, "free" sex and callow cynicism about tradition and respectability. It was escapist in its worship of Otherness -- cultural, social, political, economic, ideological, sexual, biological -- and conformist in its anxious attention to the next move of its "coolest" current leadership.



Harmless enough as a cultural phenomenon, one might think, though perhaps unhealthily centered upon the desires and dreams of a single very large generation of people born in the years following the Second World War. The problem arises when such a fashion effectively takes over the university system, as it did in the seventies and eighties, and then rises into positions of leadership in the great institutions of journalism. The journalistic Boomers themselves, who had often been trained by scholars who believed that there might be truth about a state of affairs that could be closely approached if not fully attained, usually knew when they were bending the truth and spinning for political advantage. Their leftist principles taught them that objectivity was desirable in the abstract and might again become feasible and desirable once the inequities of society were resolved. In any case, they felt, one should not lightly fritter away the legacy of credibility built up since the Enlightenment by the great authoritative institutions of civilization -- science, historiography, the serious newspapers, the great museums, the courts, and so on. But their younger followers and employees, postmodernist in belief-system, educated by ideologically relativist and politically correct junior professors, and increasingly deprived of the basics in logic, ethics, and inductive reasoning by their specialist education, were no longer capable of making any distinction between what was true and what was conducive to their social ideals.



Thus the scandals associated with such violators of journalistic trust as Howell Raines and Jayson Blair of the New York Times, Andrew Gilligan of the BBC, and Eason Jordan of CNN (who confessed that CNN had been going easy on Saddam Hussein for many years, with the implication that CNN had helped prepare a public attitude of sympathy for his regime and anger at the UN sanctions) are but the tip of the iceberg. Studies have shown that the huge majority of journalists and professors are liberal Democrats; no cause for alarm in itself, but troubling when the brakes of traditional critical analysis have been disabled, as they were by the deconstructionist ideology of the schools. And the general reader is beginning to realize that there is indeed a systematic bias in the traditional news media.



Part of the problem has been the rise in the popular interactive media -- talk radio and the Internet -- of an unabashedly ideological counter-movement on the Right. There is a long tradition in both Europe and the US of such partisan advocacy -- it used to be called "pamphleteering" and is a recognized and honorable part of a free and democratic society. It is a tradition that recognizes the distinction between opinion and fact, and bills itself honestly as opinion. Since the collapse of sympathy for communist and socialist causes throughout the nation when the abuses and lies of the old Soviet Union were revealed, there had been a depressing paucity of such pamphleteering from the Left, and what there was seemed pallid and bereft of ideas. In frustration, I believe, many young journalists in the great organs of record, rejecting the fact/opinion distinction, turned to the idea of using their new command over the means of information production to fight back. Remembering their professors' nostalgic stories of Vietnam protest, and indulgently encouraged by their Boomer editors, they took the war in Iraq as the ideal occasion for a counter-attack. They had a villain from Texas with an accent and an apparent ignorance of university manners, the smoldering resentments of the Florida recount, a wealth of horrific footage supplied by al Jazeera, and an expertise in spin provided both by their rhetoric professors and by the advertising profession (laundered through political campaign strategizing). How could they fail?



But what could they gain? Perhaps the next election, if the American people realize too late that their informational wells have been spiked. But if afterwards at least 40% of the public no longer believes the mainstream press and is, from the moment the election is over, furious about being lied to and vigilant to avenge itself on the perpetrators, the new president will be incapable of pressing home any of the programs desired by the aspiring Boomer professional elite that the press represents. So the gain might indeed be only a trifle.



The problem is that with the collusion of their editors the new generation of reporters chose to use their exalted position of trust in the Fourth Estate to prosecute their political ambitions, rather than -- as had the conservative talk show hosts -- doing it the hard way, by creating a soap box of their own and building a popular audience. Their anthropology and history and literary theory classes had taught them that every system of knowledge was just the servant arm of the regnant regime of power, and that therefore no respect need be given to institutions of so-called objectivity and research balance. Editorializing crept into the news pages and then right out onto the front page above the fold. The editorializing, with its suppressions, its half-truths, its word-choices, and so on, carried an odd double-entendre -- for the cognoscenti, an implicit acknowledgement that this was useful strategic rhetoric to be used for the campaign, and for the rubes, all the solemn garb of scientific or historical or judicial gravity. Talk radio is hilariously explicit about its leanings and its spin, and is honest at least in that. Internet bloggers assume that they cannot fool their readers into thinking that their propositions come from the oracular lips of Truth. They are thus more trustworthy, oddly enough, than the Gray Ladies of the traditional journalism.



In a way the recent attempts to create an explicitly leftist talk radio are rather laudable (though they seem to have failed). Certainly the Left has as much right to pamphleteer as does the Right. Michael Moore, too, though he quaintly insists on calling his work "documentary", has a certain honesty about him -- his untruths really don't pretend to be more than entertainment. He surely does not realize the propaganda value of his work to al Qaeda recruiters and its potential to prolong the war and thus cause more American and Iraqi casualties. The Arab world, which never had a free press, is not as sophisticated about such things as the American public. But Moore must have known that his work, with its falsifying elisions and juxtapositions, would be systematically refuted by internet fiskers, and that the mantle of art would cover his veridical faults -- and so he is not corrupting a medium or an institution that is corruptible, because it was never pure in the first place.



But for a while most of us felt that we had an established press whose canons, techniques, competition, and honorable tradition gave us news that was fairly reliable and when in error, honestly so, or at least the result of the coarsening and immediacy implicit in the medium. That trust is gone -- not just among Republicans and conservatives, but as the polls show, among Democrats, Independents, and liberals as well. It was bad luck for the Gray Ladies that their minions chose to break the tradition of trust just at the moment that powerful new media emerged from the boiling ferment of electronic technology, and that alternatives now exist. It may be that the old media are now self-destructing, and that like the medieval Vatican, the Ching Dynasty, the Holy Roman Empire, the French Academy, the Victorian Church of England, and the Communist Party, they are losing their hard-won authority because of wanton abuse.



So we set out now, like Adam and Eve at the end of Milton's great poem on the Fall, into a new informational world, a new period of history where we cannot rely on journalistic authority and have no guide as to what to believe. It is a fallen world, but it has a certain excitement. For we may now start learning about the current world from each other -- from Chinese or Iraqi or Israeli or Indian or Persian or Spanish or U.S. eyewitnesses, from bloggers and friends on the telephone and radio callers whose trustworthiness we must judge on our own -- just as we did before the great nineteenth and twentieth century newspapers came along.



Perhaps we could put it in an even more radical way. As such institutions as coffee-houses, town meetings, old fashioned barber shops, primary caucuses, soap box gatherings, debates, and suchlike fell into disuse, and the networks and newspapers took over, the Public itself began to disappear, to be replaced by a segmented demographic mass swayed by centralized journalistic voices and shaped by polls. What is now happening is that rather swiftly a new Public is forming, self-organizing around Google and link lists and blog chatrooms. And it will demand a new Res Publica.