Reason to Run? Nader Argues He Has Plenty:
The NY Times reports today that: "[Nader] has asked for a meeting with Mr. Kerry next month to make his case that he can offer fresh ideas 'field-tested by a second front,' and Kerry aides say a session is being arranged."
Go figure.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Vote ties civil unions to gay-marriage ban
Vote ties civil unions to gay-marriage ban
This illustrates the deep wisdom of democracy.
The outcome has tied together the interests of those who advocate legal indifference between gay and straight relationships with those of the Religious Right. Perfect and poetic justice for both, in my humble opinion. "I'm thrilled with the outcome.", said House Speaker Finneran. While not thrilling to me, it certainly is delicious.
Could Solomon have done better? And this from a group of legislators that as individuals is very unappealing (physically, expense-account paunch and comb-overs are abundant, they are from Massachusetts and so they don't speak English very well, and personality-wise they have a quotient of vanity and insecurity per capita that is higher than is found in any female beauty contest). How could such a wise settlement emerge from such sorry group as these? The answer is simple. If they didn't produce something like this, they would ALL be in peril of losing their gravy-train, ego-feeding existence on Beacon Hill. They are, in the final analysis, the elected REPRESENTATIVES of the people.
Here is the text from the Boston Globe:
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 3/30/2004
The Massachusetts Legislature voted yesterday to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, approving a proposed constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling that legalized same-sex marriages.
Governor Mitt Romney immediately vowed to ask the court to block gay marriages until voters can decide the fate of the dual proposal in November 2006. The SJC decision legalizing gay marriages is set to go into effect May 17, and Romney said he wanted to avoid confusion that he believes would result if gay couples married and then the voters banned gay marriage.
"The Supreme Judicial Court should delay the imposition of its decision until the people have a chance to be heard," Romney said at a news conference shortly after last night's vote.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, however, said minutes later that he would not take Romney's request to the SJC. Reilly said he believed that Romney lacked a valid legal basis for a stay, because the SJC has ruled twice in favor of gay marriage.
The SJC ruling would make Massachusetts the first state to allow gay couples to marry. The proposed constitutional amendment, on the other hand, would ban gay marriage but make Massachusetts the second state, after Vermont, to legalize civil unions.
The Legislature narrowly approved the amendment, 105-92, after the fourth intense day of debate in the past six weeks. The vote was met with a stunned hush by the gay-marriage supporters in the House gallery. It would ban gay marriage but establish civil unions that would provide the same state rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples through marriage.
Tenuous and shifting coalitions held together in the final vote, despite a series of parliamentary moves by liberal lawmakers to stop anything from moving forward. In the end, an amendment that was disliked by the political right and the political left was approved because it was the only measure that could draw the support of a majority of lawmakers.
"It took an awful lot of effort, and it is designed principally to find a comfortable consensus in the middle, recognizing that there are going to be people on both sides of the debate who hold sincere, deeply held, principled views," House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said after the vote. "I'm thrilled with the outcome."
A Boston Globe poll last month found that 53 percent of Massachusetts residents opposed gay marriage and 60 percent supported civil unions. In addition, 71 percent of respondents said they wanted voters to be able to define marriage, not the courts or the Legislature.
The measure will next be considered during the 2005-06 legislative session and would appear on statewide ballots for final approval if it is passed by lawmakers then.
Yesterday's vote, however, has no immediate impact on the legal state of gay marriages, which is why Romney is seeking a stay from the court. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said the governor is free to ask for a stay and said they would not play a role in that endeavor.
Gay-marriage supporters vowed to fight on despite the setback, with the next battle to be waged in the next legislative session. Speaking to supporters in Nurses Hall at the State House, Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said the close tally on the final vote was a victory in itself.
"Today, fear and prejudice won out over courage and over decency," Isaacson said. "Do not be discouraged. Today is a loss, but it's only the beginning of the battle, not the end."
Gerry D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said he would have preferred that the Legislature not tie a gay-marriage ban to establishment of civil unions. But he said he was pleased that lawmakers' vote would cast "a substantial cloud over any marriage licenses that might be issued" as a result of the SJC decision.
"Today's joint session rejected the activist ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court," D'Avolio said. "Thousands of concerned Catholics, at a time of great trial for the church, refused to be silenced and rose to the occasion to make their voices heard as never before."
The final version of the amendment differed slightly from the one advanced by the Legislature earlier this month, but it cannot be changed again if lawmakers want to advance it to the November 2006 ballot. Besides banning gay marriage and creating civil unions for same-sex couples, it would make clear that gay couples united in civil unions would not be entitled to federal marriage rights and benefits.
Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees, one of the amendment's main sponsors, touted the proposal as a way to protect the traditional definition of marriage, while ensuring that gay couples who marry starting this spring keep the rights they're granted even if the gay-marriage ban ultimately passes. Only banning gay marriage and establishing civil unions in the same stroke would make that possible, Lees said.
It is not yet clear what will happen to those couples who marry in the interim, but Lees said that at the very least, they would be guaranteed marriage's rights and benefits through civil union.
"It protects the rights and benefits of those gay and lesbian couples that are going to get married after May 17," said Lees, of East Longmeadow. "If we adopt one of the all-or-nothing amendments, it will create legal chaos."
Lawmakers who support gay marriage, however, blasted the amendment, saying it will roll back the civil rights of gay couples in the wake of the SJC ruling.
"This vote is a vote to take away legal protections from citizens of this Commonwealth," said Representative Elizabeth A. Malia, a Jamaica Plain Democrat who is openly gay. "Adding language that creates two classes of citizens will deny myself, my family -- and many people you know and love and respect -- their basic rights."
Many liberal lawmakers supported the measure on two preliminary votes yesterday, in votes they took to prevent what they viewed as more objectionable measures from passing. Their votes helped push the amendment forward, 116-81, and 111-86.
On the final vote, the gay-marriage supporters switched from yes to no, but a roughly equal number of conservative lawmakers switched from no to yes, allowing it to pass. "This amendment stinks, but at least gives the people a chance to vote for something," said Representative James H. Fagan, a Taunton Democrat who said he was voting for the final amendment only reluctantly.
Many House Republicans followed Romney's urging to support the measure in order to get something on the ballot, and they provided the crucial margin on the final tally. Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat, said that means Romney personally can be held responsible for the amendment, even though he has come out against civil unions.
"There were enough `no' votes to kill this," Barrios said. "The governor is in the unique and curious position of now creating civil unions, despite every promise to the contrary."
Opponents of same-sex marriage were generally pleased with the final vote, but were still upset that they couldn't get on the ballot a simple proposal on gay marriage, one that isn't tied to civil unions. Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Freedom to Marry Coalition, called it a "meager victory" that would essentially blackmail voters into supporting something they don't want so they can protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo said that tying together a gay-marriage ban with establishment of civil unions was like forcing John F. Kerry supporters to vote for Kerry and George W. Bush at the same time. He predicted it will fail at the ballot box in 2006.
"We are giving the people a false choice," said deMacedo, a Plymouth Republican. "All of you people . . . in a rush to get something to the voters, you are getting nothing to the voters."
The crowds inside and outside the State House were smaller than they were two weeks ago, when the Legislature last met in a Constitutional Convention to debate the gay marriage issue. But the atmosphere was intense, with the two sides mingling outside the House chamber. Dueling chants resulted in a cacophony of rhythms and shouts.
State Police Lieutenant Paul Maloney said authorities were closely monitoring demonstrators inside the State House to head off potential confrontations and said officers had to intervene to prevent possible violence more often than they have at previous Constitutional Convention meetings. One lawmaker, Senator Brian A. Joyce of Milton, received a telephone death threat, prompting heightened security around Joyce and the House chamber.
Even as debate continued on the House floor, eyes were already focusing on this fall's legislative elections. Crews warned that voters across the state will be well informed of the votes their legislators took. The Heritage Alliance, a newly formed political action committee, released a list of 10 legislative candidates, eight Republicans and two independents, who are planning to use Democratic lawmakers' support for gay marriage in their campaigns against incumbents.
Like the three previous days of the convention, yesterday's meeting was rife with political posturing, procedural maneuvering, and temporary alliances. The day began with Republicans accusing Travaglini of trying to wire the convention by not allowing their proposals to come forward, and lawmakers switched their votes without knowing for sure what the final outcomes would be.
State Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat who supports gay marriage, said the fact that so many of his colleagues were uncomfortable with their votes bodes well for his side.
"I'm optimistic -- if it gets on the ballot, it will be defeated," Festa said. "There is a lot of division in their ranks, and that's good. The victory they've achieved is truly Pyrrhic."
Raphael Lewis and Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Matthew Rodriguez contributed to this report. Rick Klein can be reached at rklein(AT)globe.com.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
This illustrates the deep wisdom of democracy.
The outcome has tied together the interests of those who advocate legal indifference between gay and straight relationships with those of the Religious Right. Perfect and poetic justice for both, in my humble opinion. "I'm thrilled with the outcome.", said House Speaker Finneran. While not thrilling to me, it certainly is delicious.
Could Solomon have done better? And this from a group of legislators that as individuals is very unappealing (physically, expense-account paunch and comb-overs are abundant, they are from Massachusetts and so they don't speak English very well, and personality-wise they have a quotient of vanity and insecurity per capita that is higher than is found in any female beauty contest). How could such a wise settlement emerge from such sorry group as these? The answer is simple. If they didn't produce something like this, they would ALL be in peril of losing their gravy-train, ego-feeding existence on Beacon Hill. They are, in the final analysis, the elected REPRESENTATIVES of the people.
Here is the text from the Boston Globe:
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 3/30/2004
The Massachusetts Legislature voted yesterday to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, approving a proposed constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling that legalized same-sex marriages.
Governor Mitt Romney immediately vowed to ask the court to block gay marriages until voters can decide the fate of the dual proposal in November 2006. The SJC decision legalizing gay marriages is set to go into effect May 17, and Romney said he wanted to avoid confusion that he believes would result if gay couples married and then the voters banned gay marriage.
"The Supreme Judicial Court should delay the imposition of its decision until the people have a chance to be heard," Romney said at a news conference shortly after last night's vote.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, however, said minutes later that he would not take Romney's request to the SJC. Reilly said he believed that Romney lacked a valid legal basis for a stay, because the SJC has ruled twice in favor of gay marriage.
The SJC ruling would make Massachusetts the first state to allow gay couples to marry. The proposed constitutional amendment, on the other hand, would ban gay marriage but make Massachusetts the second state, after Vermont, to legalize civil unions.
The Legislature narrowly approved the amendment, 105-92, after the fourth intense day of debate in the past six weeks. The vote was met with a stunned hush by the gay-marriage supporters in the House gallery. It would ban gay marriage but establish civil unions that would provide the same state rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples through marriage.
Tenuous and shifting coalitions held together in the final vote, despite a series of parliamentary moves by liberal lawmakers to stop anything from moving forward. In the end, an amendment that was disliked by the political right and the political left was approved because it was the only measure that could draw the support of a majority of lawmakers.
"It took an awful lot of effort, and it is designed principally to find a comfortable consensus in the middle, recognizing that there are going to be people on both sides of the debate who hold sincere, deeply held, principled views," House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said after the vote. "I'm thrilled with the outcome."
A Boston Globe poll last month found that 53 percent of Massachusetts residents opposed gay marriage and 60 percent supported civil unions. In addition, 71 percent of respondents said they wanted voters to be able to define marriage, not the courts or the Legislature.
The measure will next be considered during the 2005-06 legislative session and would appear on statewide ballots for final approval if it is passed by lawmakers then.
Yesterday's vote, however, has no immediate impact on the legal state of gay marriages, which is why Romney is seeking a stay from the court. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said the governor is free to ask for a stay and said they would not play a role in that endeavor.
Gay-marriage supporters vowed to fight on despite the setback, with the next battle to be waged in the next legislative session. Speaking to supporters in Nurses Hall at the State House, Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said the close tally on the final vote was a victory in itself.
"Today, fear and prejudice won out over courage and over decency," Isaacson said. "Do not be discouraged. Today is a loss, but it's only the beginning of the battle, not the end."
Gerry D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said he would have preferred that the Legislature not tie a gay-marriage ban to establishment of civil unions. But he said he was pleased that lawmakers' vote would cast "a substantial cloud over any marriage licenses that might be issued" as a result of the SJC decision.
"Today's joint session rejected the activist ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court," D'Avolio said. "Thousands of concerned Catholics, at a time of great trial for the church, refused to be silenced and rose to the occasion to make their voices heard as never before."
The final version of the amendment differed slightly from the one advanced by the Legislature earlier this month, but it cannot be changed again if lawmakers want to advance it to the November 2006 ballot. Besides banning gay marriage and creating civil unions for same-sex couples, it would make clear that gay couples united in civil unions would not be entitled to federal marriage rights and benefits.
Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees, one of the amendment's main sponsors, touted the proposal as a way to protect the traditional definition of marriage, while ensuring that gay couples who marry starting this spring keep the rights they're granted even if the gay-marriage ban ultimately passes. Only banning gay marriage and establishing civil unions in the same stroke would make that possible, Lees said.
It is not yet clear what will happen to those couples who marry in the interim, but Lees said that at the very least, they would be guaranteed marriage's rights and benefits through civil union.
"It protects the rights and benefits of those gay and lesbian couples that are going to get married after May 17," said Lees, of East Longmeadow. "If we adopt one of the all-or-nothing amendments, it will create legal chaos."
Lawmakers who support gay marriage, however, blasted the amendment, saying it will roll back the civil rights of gay couples in the wake of the SJC ruling.
"This vote is a vote to take away legal protections from citizens of this Commonwealth," said Representative Elizabeth A. Malia, a Jamaica Plain Democrat who is openly gay. "Adding language that creates two classes of citizens will deny myself, my family -- and many people you know and love and respect -- their basic rights."
Many liberal lawmakers supported the measure on two preliminary votes yesterday, in votes they took to prevent what they viewed as more objectionable measures from passing. Their votes helped push the amendment forward, 116-81, and 111-86.
On the final vote, the gay-marriage supporters switched from yes to no, but a roughly equal number of conservative lawmakers switched from no to yes, allowing it to pass. "This amendment stinks, but at least gives the people a chance to vote for something," said Representative James H. Fagan, a Taunton Democrat who said he was voting for the final amendment only reluctantly.
Many House Republicans followed Romney's urging to support the measure in order to get something on the ballot, and they provided the crucial margin on the final tally. Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat, said that means Romney personally can be held responsible for the amendment, even though he has come out against civil unions.
"There were enough `no' votes to kill this," Barrios said. "The governor is in the unique and curious position of now creating civil unions, despite every promise to the contrary."
Opponents of same-sex marriage were generally pleased with the final vote, but were still upset that they couldn't get on the ballot a simple proposal on gay marriage, one that isn't tied to civil unions. Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Freedom to Marry Coalition, called it a "meager victory" that would essentially blackmail voters into supporting something they don't want so they can protect the traditional definition of marriage.
Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo said that tying together a gay-marriage ban with establishment of civil unions was like forcing John F. Kerry supporters to vote for Kerry and George W. Bush at the same time. He predicted it will fail at the ballot box in 2006.
"We are giving the people a false choice," said deMacedo, a Plymouth Republican. "All of you people . . . in a rush to get something to the voters, you are getting nothing to the voters."
The crowds inside and outside the State House were smaller than they were two weeks ago, when the Legislature last met in a Constitutional Convention to debate the gay marriage issue. But the atmosphere was intense, with the two sides mingling outside the House chamber. Dueling chants resulted in a cacophony of rhythms and shouts.
State Police Lieutenant Paul Maloney said authorities were closely monitoring demonstrators inside the State House to head off potential confrontations and said officers had to intervene to prevent possible violence more often than they have at previous Constitutional Convention meetings. One lawmaker, Senator Brian A. Joyce of Milton, received a telephone death threat, prompting heightened security around Joyce and the House chamber.
Even as debate continued on the House floor, eyes were already focusing on this fall's legislative elections. Crews warned that voters across the state will be well informed of the votes their legislators took. The Heritage Alliance, a newly formed political action committee, released a list of 10 legislative candidates, eight Republicans and two independents, who are planning to use Democratic lawmakers' support for gay marriage in their campaigns against incumbents.
Like the three previous days of the convention, yesterday's meeting was rife with political posturing, procedural maneuvering, and temporary alliances. The day began with Republicans accusing Travaglini of trying to wire the convention by not allowing their proposals to come forward, and lawmakers switched their votes without knowing for sure what the final outcomes would be.
State Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat who supports gay marriage, said the fact that so many of his colleagues were uncomfortable with their votes bodes well for his side.
"I'm optimistic -- if it gets on the ballot, it will be defeated," Festa said. "There is a lot of division in their ranks, and that's good. The victory they've achieved is truly Pyrrhic."
Raphael Lewis and Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Matthew Rodriguez contributed to this report. Rick Klein can be reached at rklein(AT)globe.com.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Face the Fetus - It's time for abortion rights advocates to stop denying reality.
Face the Fetus - It's time for abortion rights advocates to stop denying reality. By William Saletan:
Will Saletan makes an insightful argument. Unfortunately, though, the Left seems to be deaf, dumb, and blind these days. The key quote:
"You can argue that personhood begins at viability while admitting that human distinctness begins at conception. On the other hand, if you deny the human distinctness of the fetus, most people will stop listening to you. Given a choice between calling the fetus a child and calling it a pregnancy, they'll call it a child."
Will Saletan makes an insightful argument. Unfortunately, though, the Left seems to be deaf, dumb, and blind these days. The key quote:
"You can argue that personhood begins at viability while admitting that human distinctness begins at conception. On the other hand, if you deny the human distinctness of the fetus, most people will stop listening to you. Given a choice between calling the fetus a child and calling it a pregnancy, they'll call it a child."
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Five Kerry Homes Valued at Nearly $33M
Yahoo! News - Five Kerry Homes Valued at Nearly $33M How long do you suppose that a Republican with 5 homes worth $33M could run for President without the Liberal Media pointing this out ad nauseum?
Thanks, for supressing this one, guys. This is exactly the kind of anecdotal information that will make an impression in voter's mind about what kind of person The Candidate really is. Five?
Thanks, for supressing this one, guys. This is exactly the kind of anecdotal information that will make an impression in voter's mind about what kind of person The Candidate really is. Five?
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Sunday, March 21, 2004
America's First French President?
America's first French President
Mark Steyn writes:
"Of course, like many African Americans, he understands what it's like when people are prejudiced against you because of your skin. In Sen. Kerry's case, his skin is extremely thin. So it was inevitable that, when a voter named Cedric Brown, in Bethlehem, Pa., needled the candidate to name one of the world leaders who were supposedly desperate for him to beat Bush, within moments the senator would be snarling that it's ''none of your business.''
It's never a good idea in vernacular politics to leave the impression you're more comfortable with the global elite than with American citizens. Instead of the second black president, Kerry sounded awfully like America's first French president. "
Zing...a bull's eye.
Mark Steyn writes:
"Of course, like many African Americans, he understands what it's like when people are prejudiced against you because of your skin. In Sen. Kerry's case, his skin is extremely thin. So it was inevitable that, when a voter named Cedric Brown, in Bethlehem, Pa., needled the candidate to name one of the world leaders who were supposedly desperate for him to beat Bush, within moments the senator would be snarling that it's ''none of your business.''
It's never a good idea in vernacular politics to leave the impression you're more comfortable with the global elite than with American citizens. Instead of the second black president, Kerry sounded awfully like America's first French president. "
Zing...a bull's eye.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Bodies In Motion And At Rest
I was back in Michigan this week, which reminded me of this little book. It is worth reading. If you have read Thomas Lynch's "The Undertaking", you will not be dissapointed to hear his voice again.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Kerry Won't Say Which Foreign Leaders Support Him...
Tangled webs...
"Kerry, who last traveled overseas in late 2002, insisted he had talked to and met with foreign leaders who were rooting for him. He said during the town hall he talked to "several" in the past week and that all the conversations were not face-to-face. He said the leaders were "at all different levels" of government and said their support was fueled by dissatisfaction with U.S. unilateralism and "arrogance" in foreign policy."
"Kerry, who last traveled overseas in late 2002, insisted he had talked to and met with foreign leaders who were rooting for him. He said during the town hall he talked to "several" in the past week and that all the conversations were not face-to-face. He said the leaders were "at all different levels" of government and said their support was fueled by dissatisfaction with U.S. unilateralism and "arrogance" in foreign policy."
"...if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. "
In "The Boston Fog Machine" David Brooks does a nice job parsing (or trying, anyway) past statements of The Presumptive Nominee at moments during the 90s when the world's greatest deliberative body had to choose concerning the use of US Armed Forces overseas.
After 25 years as a banner-carrying Senate liberal, JFK must have many, many more enlightening quotes on the record. We will be dining on these for the next 8 months.
After 25 years as a banner-carrying Senate liberal, JFK must have many, many more enlightening quotes on the record. We will be dining on these for the next 8 months.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News - 11-Mar-04 - Robert D. Novak:
Kerry-Fonda link is as fair an issue as Bush's Guard service
The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News - 11-Mar-04 - Robert D. Novak:
Kerry-Fonda link is as fair an issue as Bush Guard service
On the same subject, here is the text of an email that was forwarded to me. In the Soviet Union material that the mainstream media would not carry (like this) was circulated on paper and called "Samizdat". Samizdat was the source of uncensored news in the days when the Soviet mass media were controlled by Party Idealogues...hmmmm.
REMEMBER JANE
KEEP THIS MOVING; ACROSS AMERICA HONORING A TRAITOR This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers, mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear. Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century." Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam.
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. In '78, the AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied application of a wooden baton. >From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the "Hilton"- the first three of which he was "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned, fed, clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.
At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me.
This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.
Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.
Kerry-Fonda link is as fair an issue as Bush Guard service
On the same subject, here is the text of an email that was forwarded to me. In the Soviet Union material that the mainstream media would not carry (like this) was circulated on paper and called "Samizdat". Samizdat was the source of uncensored news in the days when the Soviet mass media were controlled by Party Idealogues...hmmmm.
REMEMBER JANE
KEEP THIS MOVING; ACROSS AMERICA HONORING A TRAITOR This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers, mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear. Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century." Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam.
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. In '78, the AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied application of a wooden baton. >From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the "Hilton"- the first three of which he was "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned, fed, clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.
At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me.
This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.
Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.
United Press International: Madrid bombings carry al-Qaida hallmark
United Press International: Madrid bombings carry al-Qaida hallmark This morning we awoke to the news of the terrible series of bombings in Spain. BBC World Service DID NOT EVEN MENTION al-Qaida in their early AM reports, but had much to say about ETA. A very hasty judgement, it seems.
It is so sad to think of another country go through such an experience...
It is so sad to think of another country go through such an experience...
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Tony Blankley: Euro back-stabbers for Kerry
Tony Blankley: Euro back-stabbers for Kerry
Tony Blankley says it very well:
Whether or not [Kerry] actually met with any of these [foreign] leaders, I would suspect that he is right that they would much prefer to do business with a notional President Kerry. Doubtlessly, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev enjoyed dealing with President Carter more than with President Reagan. Weak American presidents who feel the need to apologize for America protecting its interests in the world are invariably favored by both our enemies and our competitive friends. The French couldn't stand our last cowboy president, Ronald Reagan. I am sure that M. Chirac will be glad to continue to kiss Mr. Kerry's hand -- as long as Mr. Kerry will kiss a lower, dorsal part of M. Chirac's anatomy. But I rather doubt John Kerry will get elected president by American voters while in that posture.
Tony Blankley says it very well:
Whether or not [Kerry] actually met with any of these [foreign] leaders, I would suspect that he is right that they would much prefer to do business with a notional President Kerry. Doubtlessly, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev enjoyed dealing with President Carter more than with President Reagan. Weak American presidents who feel the need to apologize for America protecting its interests in the world are invariably favored by both our enemies and our competitive friends. The French couldn't stand our last cowboy president, Ronald Reagan. I am sure that M. Chirac will be glad to continue to kiss Mr. Kerry's hand -- as long as Mr. Kerry will kiss a lower, dorsal part of M. Chirac's anatomy. But I rather doubt John Kerry will get elected president by American voters while in that posture.
Kerry and Annulment
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish
Andrew Sullivan notes Kerry's annulment, but not Kennedy's or the connection to the gay marriage debate.
I note personal fatigue!
Andrew Sullivan notes Kerry's annulment, but not Kennedy's or the connection to the gay marriage debate.
I note personal fatigue!
Monday, March 08, 2004
His Vanity Runneth Over: Kerry's First Big Gaffe
Politics News Article | Reuters.com
"A gaffe occurs when a politician tells the truth", according to Kinsley. If so, then this qualifies in spades. Maybe we should call a gaffe that is this superb a "Pandecenderance".
Reuters quotes The Presumptive Nominee thus:
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.
So let me get this right, Johnny-boy. You are telling me that voters in the US should choose you because weasels like Chirac and Schroeder support you? You weren't referring to Kim Jong Il's endorsement, I presume! That idea might be a huge winner in Cambridge. But, Johnny-boy, I don't think it will sell well in the Heartland.
The most amazing part of this incident is that Kerry would succumb to self-aggrandizement even if it required a remark so impolitic that not even Hillary's memorable gaffes ("I could have stayed home and baked cookies", "I'm not some little Tammy Wynette", and of course "vast right wing conspiracy') can top it.
"Beacon Hill, we have a problem!"
"A gaffe occurs when a politician tells the truth", according to Kinsley. If so, then this qualifies in spades. Maybe we should call a gaffe that is this superb a "Pandecenderance".
Reuters quotes The Presumptive Nominee thus:
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.
So let me get this right, Johnny-boy. You are telling me that voters in the US should choose you because weasels like Chirac and Schroeder support you? You weren't referring to Kim Jong Il's endorsement, I presume! That idea might be a huge winner in Cambridge. But, Johnny-boy, I don't think it will sell well in the Heartland.
The most amazing part of this incident is that Kerry would succumb to self-aggrandizement even if it required a remark so impolitic that not even Hillary's memorable gaffes ("I could have stayed home and baked cookies", "I'm not some little Tammy Wynette", and of course "vast right wing conspiracy') can top it.
"Beacon Hill, we have a problem!"
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Air Sickness Bag, Anyone?
Op-Ed Columnist: J.F.K., Marilyn, Camelot
MoDo sounds like an aspirant Lewinsky in this utterly sickening column.
JFK is really an amazing fellow isn't he? So capacious and complex! And so unlike that moron, W. Sigh! Swoon!
If this is any indication, there will be a run on air sickness bags between now and Nov 3.
MoDo sounds like an aspirant Lewinsky in this utterly sickening column.
JFK is really an amazing fellow isn't he? So capacious and complex! And so unlike that moron, W. Sigh! Swoon!
If this is any indication, there will be a run on air sickness bags between now and Nov 3.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
So Who Is It That Actually LIKES John Kerry?
This afternoon I talked with my Demo-leaning neighbor, who seemed surprised at the favorable press the past few days for JFK, especially in light of her very unfavorable opinion of same.
I live in MASSACHUSETTS, no less!
This election will be a cliffhanger just like the election of 1980 was a reported as a cliffhanger...very close until they counted real votes...and probably for the same reason as it was close in 1980...a mainstream press that is in denial.
I live in MASSACHUSETTS, no less!
This election will be a cliffhanger just like the election of 1980 was a reported as a cliffhanger...very close until they counted real votes...and probably for the same reason as it was close in 1980...a mainstream press that is in denial.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Micro-aggression Defined
[Registration Required]News from the NESCAC - The Tripod - News:
Here is the first definition I can find on the Web of "micro-aggression", which was explained to Andrew Sullivan when he visited Colby this week. Andrew links the concept to the Thomistic notion of venial sin, but the definition of "micro-agression" here is broader. Of course "racism, homophobia, sexism and xenophobia" are the campus equivalent of the Four Horsemen. I think this term has legs.
"Colby:
A panel discussion on Wednesday, Nov. 13 dealt with the issue of micro-aggression during Colby's Racial Awareness Week, held from Nov. 10 to 14. Micro-aggression was defined as actions or inactions by individuals that perpetuate the status quo of racism, homophobia, sexism and xenophobia. Students and faculty discussed the issue and the ways in which Colby students can battle this problem. The predominant suggestion was that white students needed to speak up in classes and not leave the onus of the discussion on the students of color."
Here is the first definition I can find on the Web of "micro-aggression", which was explained to Andrew Sullivan when he visited Colby this week. Andrew links the concept to the Thomistic notion of venial sin, but the definition of "micro-agression" here is broader. Of course "racism, homophobia, sexism and xenophobia" are the campus equivalent of the Four Horsemen. I think this term has legs.
"Colby:
A panel discussion on Wednesday, Nov. 13 dealt with the issue of micro-aggression during Colby's Racial Awareness Week, held from Nov. 10 to 14. Micro-aggression was defined as actions or inactions by individuals that perpetuate the status quo of racism, homophobia, sexism and xenophobia. Students and faculty discussed the issue and the ways in which Colby students can battle this problem. The predominant suggestion was that white students needed to speak up in classes and not leave the onus of the discussion on the students of color."
What honors Marriage? - A Letter to the Boston Pilot
Pilot Stories -2/20/2004 - Stay Alert
"The main threat to marriage is divorce."
This objection to amending our Massachusetts State Constitution makes obvious sense in a culture where half of marriages end in divorce. It conveniently ignores the history of the past few decades, during which the so-called Progressive movement has convinced many that divorce, rather than being stigmatized, should become "legal, safe, and common". The cost of this decision to our culture and in human suffering is huge, but it is unmeasured in Progressive accounting.
Yet, in the decades since the 1960s how well has the Church done to honor marriage? Is it not an indictment of the Church's practice that today divorce rates among Catholic couples, while perhaps slightly lower than the general population, are not significantly lower? Is it not also an indictment of our Church's practice that BOTH of Massachusetts' US senators -- two of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the state -- have obtained annulments of their first marriages from the Church itself?
With the blessing of the Church, persons granted an annulment can enter "again" into sacramental marriage. It is uncomfortable to contemplate the message such mindless decisions send to the spouses and the children of that first marriage (excuse me, of course in the judgment of the Marriage Tribunal this never was a true marriage because of whatever evidence was uncovered by these diligent, but morally blind bureaucrats). I can recall a college class 30 years ago where a very prominent and local priest-theologian shook his head in disbelief at the inconsistency of this practice, and the cruelty that these annulment decisions inflicted upon former spouses (usually female) and their children.
What we have learned to our sorrow during the past two years, is that within the apparatus of the Archdiocese of Boston, such easy forgiveness and such unaccountable bureaucratic decisions entirely slipped from any moral grounding were not restricted to the Marriage Tribunal.
If the Church in Massachusetts wishes to honor marriage, I humbly suggest that we begin by working to make our Sacramental marriages a stronger sign both within our Church and in the community. If, a few decades from now, the richness of our Catholic sacramental marriages stands in stark contrast to the sad condition of marriage in our state, this would draw people in droves to our Church and to Jesus Christ.
"The main threat to marriage is divorce."
This objection to amending our Massachusetts State Constitution makes obvious sense in a culture where half of marriages end in divorce. It conveniently ignores the history of the past few decades, during which the so-called Progressive movement has convinced many that divorce, rather than being stigmatized, should become "legal, safe, and common". The cost of this decision to our culture and in human suffering is huge, but it is unmeasured in Progressive accounting.
Yet, in the decades since the 1960s how well has the Church done to honor marriage? Is it not an indictment of the Church's practice that today divorce rates among Catholic couples, while perhaps slightly lower than the general population, are not significantly lower? Is it not also an indictment of our Church's practice that BOTH of Massachusetts' US senators -- two of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the state -- have obtained annulments of their first marriages from the Church itself?
With the blessing of the Church, persons granted an annulment can enter "again" into sacramental marriage. It is uncomfortable to contemplate the message such mindless decisions send to the spouses and the children of that first marriage (excuse me, of course in the judgment of the Marriage Tribunal this never was a true marriage because of whatever evidence was uncovered by these diligent, but morally blind bureaucrats). I can recall a college class 30 years ago where a very prominent and local priest-theologian shook his head in disbelief at the inconsistency of this practice, and the cruelty that these annulment decisions inflicted upon former spouses (usually female) and their children.
What we have learned to our sorrow during the past two years, is that within the apparatus of the Archdiocese of Boston, such easy forgiveness and such unaccountable bureaucratic decisions entirely slipped from any moral grounding were not restricted to the Marriage Tribunal.
If the Church in Massachusetts wishes to honor marriage, I humbly suggest that we begin by working to make our Sacramental marriages a stronger sign both within our Church and in the community. If, a few decades from now, the richness of our Catholic sacramental marriages stands in stark contrast to the sad condition of marriage in our state, this would draw people in droves to our Church and to Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
A Weak Candidate
A Weak Candidate from a Weak Field
The Dems are finished with their race. Sharpton and Kucinich have milked far more than their 15 minutes (ironic, is it not, how nobody in the press would ridicule them, or ask them some difficult questions about why they thought their candidacy was viable).
Now they are left with the less personable Massachusetts Senator with an ultra-liberal voting record spanning a quarter century, who was Lieutenant Gov to Mike Dukakis, and who before that in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee charged the American military with war crimes. Cook until done.
Who would Bush rather run against than John Kerry? If you gave Karl Rove his pick of the Dem field 6 months ago, he would have chosen Kerry in a close race over Dean, and now he has his wish.
The Dems are finished with their race. Sharpton and Kucinich have milked far more than their 15 minutes (ironic, is it not, how nobody in the press would ridicule them, or ask them some difficult questions about why they thought their candidacy was viable).
Now they are left with the less personable Massachusetts Senator with an ultra-liberal voting record spanning a quarter century, who was Lieutenant Gov to Mike Dukakis, and who before that in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee charged the American military with war crimes. Cook until done.
Who would Bush rather run against than John Kerry? If you gave Karl Rove his pick of the Dem field 6 months ago, he would have chosen Kerry in a close race over Dean, and now he has his wish.
Monday, March 01, 2004
A Sad Story
"Who's your Daddy?" or "Fools Rush In..." or "Disenfranchied Dads, Unite!"
Here is a rather sad article from today's Boston Globe about a case going before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court this week where:
"the SJC will decide whether a woman must pay child support for a boy, now 3, who was born to her former lesbian partner about three months after they broke up."
Wow! Once you get started with the fun of legislating from the bench, it is hard to stop, isn't it?
Professor dost protest too much, methinks
Essay: The Personal Jesus
In a Sunday NY Times Magazine Essay, Stephen Prothero writes that Mel Gibson "must be commended for so adroitly spinning the debate over his depiction of Jews into a battle between secular humanists and true believers". Prothero protests too much.
In the months before this film's release, it has been the subject of an increasing but unanimous wailing by our guardians of secular humanism. These, whether liberal religionists, academics or pundits, all found it quite discomforting to contemplate the creation and commercial success of such a Medieval film in 21st century America.
Is it not more likely that it was instead this chorus of stern Puritanic disapproval from true believers in the Sole Progressive World View that has cast this film as a battle, and that Mr. Gibson’s adroit spinning consisted only of keeping his mouth shut while the chattering classes did his promotional work for him?
In a Sunday NY Times Magazine Essay, Stephen Prothero writes that Mel Gibson "must be commended for so adroitly spinning the debate over his depiction of Jews into a battle between secular humanists and true believers". Prothero protests too much.
In the months before this film's release, it has been the subject of an increasing but unanimous wailing by our guardians of secular humanism. These, whether liberal religionists, academics or pundits, all found it quite discomforting to contemplate the creation and commercial success of such a Medieval film in 21st century America.
Is it not more likely that it was instead this chorus of stern Puritanic disapproval from true believers in the Sole Progressive World View that has cast this film as a battle, and that Mr. Gibson’s adroit spinning consisted only of keeping his mouth shut while the chattering classes did his promotional work for him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
