Bush v McCain 2000 smells just like Bush v Kerry 2004: Disgusting !!

John McCain's comment and confrontation to George Bush about Bush's participation in the smear campaign against McCain in the 2000 Campaign. Unfortunately it worked for Bush in South Carolina in 2000 so he has every reason to believe it will work for him again versus Kerry.

Note: When G.W. Bush became President in 2001, a close friend said she thought G.W. was an evil man. I didn't think so then; but rather just considered him a politician who would do whatever it took to win an election. But at some point, as a citizen who is subject to the affects and effects of our President on the world, it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is the direct affect the policies and orientation of the President have on society. Bush has shown himself to be: a Greek Chuckle-boy who hands out nicknames to acquaintences; an uncertain CEO who has essentially nothing positive to show for his stewardship of his former businesses; a well documented disdain for handling disparate information; a willingness to surround himself with highly conservative social, religious, legal, and entertainment people; a preference for assisting well-to-do people and organizations that reflect his views combined with a drive to use any means at his disposal to destroy anyone who disagrees with his views.

I still do not think he is evil...nasty: yes; brutish: yes; short: yes; a black-and-white man in a grey world: yes; a pretender: yes; someone who I would invite into my home: no; an honest man: no; a statesman: no.

In short, he reminds me of a fellow I knew as a kid: Roger Hartlein, a bully who stopped growing at about age 12, and discovered the only way he could continue was to befriend older, bigger bullies who he could hide behind when the need arose. Pres. Bush strikes me as that person, just older; not as a strong leader, more like a bratish, mini-bully who is adept at manipulation. I want more for my country, and for my children. I'm not convinced Kerry will do a better job; but I am absolutely convinced Pres. Bush has failed as the Chief Executive Officer of America Inc., and must be replaced.
- posted by Richard @ 10:38 PM

 

Officer From Another Swift Boat Breaks Silence and Defends Kerry
By JIM RUTENBERG

A Vietnam veteran who served with Senator John Kerry on a Swift boat mission broke a 35-year silence this weekend to support Mr. Kerry's version of events from one of their operations together and to chastise veterans critical of the senator as having "splashed doubt on all of us."

The veteran, William B. Rood, is now an editor at The Chicago Tribune, which ran on its Web site yesterday and in Sunday's paper a 1,750-word first-person article in which Mr. Rood recounted the mission. His account added to a growing debate over the most serious claims from the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And it ensured that questions swirling around the veracity of the group's claims, and the Kerry campaign's accusations that the group was connected to the Mr. Bush campaign, would dominate the contest for yet another day.

Mr. Rood stepped forward after Mr. Kerry called him and another veteran on Mr. Rood's boat as members of the Swift boat group blanketed cable television and radio talk shows to repeat their claim, also made in a book and a television advertisement, that Mr. Kerry had fabricated his military accomplishments to win medals.

Mr. Kerry's phone calls were part of his campaign's first concerted push to address the group's claims, which surfaced weeks ago. That push also included the release of a new Internet advertisement on Saturday highlighting accusations made about Senator John McCain by military supporters of Mr. Bush in 2000 and a public call by Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, for Mr. Bush to tell the group to cease running advertisements against Mr. Kerry.

The Swift boat group, which garnered much of its initial financing from men who have supported Mr. Bush and his father's political endeavors, has been ready to defend itself and quickly provided a statement Saturday saying Mr. Rood's article was politically motivated. The group continues to raise money and on Friday introduced an advertisement with former prisoners of war recounting the pain Mr. Kerry's 1971 antiwar comments caused them when they were being held by the Vietcong.

Mr. Bush's campaign confirmed on Saturday a Kerry campaign accusation that one of the veterans in the that advertisement was a member the campaign's veterans' advisory committee. The Bush campaign said in a statement that it did not know that the man, retired Col. Kenneth Cordier, was going to appear in the advertisement and because of that he was no longer a volunteer.

The Bush campaign denies involvement with the Swift boat group and on Saturday released a statement to the Federal Election Commission saying that the Kerry campaign's accusations of coordination were untrue. The Bush camp has declined to tell the group to stop running advertisements, but aides said Mr. Kerry should join Mr. Bush in calling for all outside groups to stop advertising.

In his article Mr. Rood disputed a claim the Swift boat group made in its book, "Unfit for Command," that Mr. Kerry had received his Silver Star for chasing down a lone Vietcong teenager "in a loincloth" who may or may not have been armed on Feb. 28, 1969.

Mr. Rood was the skipper of one of three boats involved in the mission with Mr. Kerry, conducting a sweep for the enemy through a tributary of the Bay Hap River. "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was," Mr. Rood wrote, but "he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore." He also wrote that Mr. Kerry had devised a plan to face into enemy fire, a breach of typical procedure.

He added, referring to John O'Neill, a co-author of "Unfit for Command" and a leader of the Swift boat group: "The man Kerry chased was not the 'lone' attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well."

Mr. Rood also noted that Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral who was the Swift boat group's commander, lauded the operation at the time in glowing terms. Mr. Hoffmann is, with Mr. O'Neill, one of the main engineers of the anti-Kerry group's effort.

The Swift boat group released a statement yesterday from Mr. O'Neill saying he stood by its account. He said the account was consistent with those of two biographies of Mr. Kerry, "Tour of Duty" and "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best," and that of Larry Lee, a crewman on Mr. Rood's boat. Mr. O'Neill said he had tried to contact Mr. Rood for his book and that Mr. Rood's decision to come forward now was "an obvious political move."

The biographies do say that Mr. Kerry was running after the man he shot, but the books do not describe him as a teenager and they say he was armed with a rocket launcher. The Globe account that the group cites says the man had begun to run away, but also quotes Mr. Kerry saying that he had not shot him in the back and that he believed the man would fire again.

Mr. Rood said he confirmed the details of his recollection with the leading petty officer on his boat, Jerry Leeds. Mr. Leeds, who lives in Kansas, said in a brief interview that he had not read The Tribune and could not comment on it. He said the boats were under significant enemy fire and at great risk.

Mr. Leeds said Mr. Kerry had phoned him, too, last week. He said Mr. Kerry did not ask for his support or for any statements on his behalf. "Mostly we just visited about that day," Mr. Leeds said.

Mr. Rood acknowledged in his article that Mr. Kerry's calls did affect his decision to write it but also wrote, "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did." He added, "My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

The idea to contact Mr. Rood came from Mr. Kerry himself, aides said.

The candidate called Thomas Vallely, a longtime Kerry supporter, a former Massachusetts state legislator and a marine who now runs the Vietnam program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "He said 'We've got to find Billy Rood,' " Mr. Vallely said in an interview on Saturday. "John said, 'He's a reporter in Chicago,' that's all he knew."

Mr. Rood had been watching the dispute unfold and considering what to do. He wrote in his article that he had long been reluctant to talk about his experience and had even refused to grant an interview to his own newspaper. But watching Mr. O'Neill on TV incensed Mr. Rood, Mr. Vallely said.

"He was very, very angry, he was on his feet," Mr. Vallely recalled. "I said, 'Would you talk to John?' " Mr. Rood agreed to a phone call.

Mr. Vallely also called Mr. Leeds, the leading petty officer on Mr. Rood's boat, and asked both men if they would speak with a reporter from The New York Times last week. The two men said they wanted to think about it for a few days, and the result was two stories in The Tribune, a news account and Mr. Rood's first-person article. "They wanted to do it their way," Mr. Vallely said.

Meanwhile on Saturday, Mr. Kerry's campaign continued on the offensive.

It sent out a new Internet advertisement to supporters highlighting an exchange between Mr. McCain, of Arizona, and Mr. Bush during a debate in 2000. In that debate Mr. McCain confronted Mr. Bush for playing host at an event where the leader of a veterans group that Mr. McCain characterized as "fringe" questioned Mr. McCain's commitment to veterans.

The spot includes an on-screen heading that says, "George Bush is up to his old tricks." Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said, "The president has made clear that he regards John Kerry's service as noble service." And he chastised Mr. Kerry for statements from campaign surrogates last week questioning Mr. Bush's National Guard service. He also criticized Mr. Kerry for failing to call on liberal groups who have run $63 million worth of advertisements against Mr. Bush to stop. Some of the liberal groups have connections to Mr. Kerry's campaign and political party.

On Saturday night, at a fund-raiser in East Hampton, N.Y., Mr. Kerry suggested that his political opponents were trying to undercut his military record because he had been persuading voters he would make an effective commander in chief. "In the past month, they've seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter, more effective war," Mr. Kerry said. "That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's why they're personally going after me."
- posted by Richard @ 9:26 PM

 

Word Play

Author Unknown
<------------------------------------->

The Energizer Bunny has been arrested and charged with battery.
A pessimist's blood type is always B negative.
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death
I used to work in a blanket factory, but it folded.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Corduroy pillows are making headlines.
Sea captains don't like crew cuts.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
When you dream in color, it's a pigment of your imagination.
Reading while sunbathing makes you well-red.
When two egotists meet, it's an I for an I.
Alarms: What an octopus is
Dockyard: A physician's garden
Khakis: What you need to start the car in Boston
Propaganda: A gentlemanly goose
Toboggan: Why we go to an auction

- posted by Richard @ 3:25 PM

 

Biblical Inerrancy: A Primer

BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND INFALLIBILITY:
Description, problems & implications

Description of biblical inerrancy?

Followers of many religions believe that their own sacred texts are inerrant. This is particularly true within the conservative wings of the world's major religions. For example:

Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians generally believe the entire Bible to be inerrant. Their belief in inerrancy is based, in part, on 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that the Scriptures are "God-breathed."

Muslims generally believe the Qur'an to be dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel, and is thus inerrant.

Members of the Baha'i world Faith believe that the writings of their founder, Baha'u'llah, are inerrant.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognize four canonized scriptures. Most Mormons consider three to be inerrant in their original form: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Since the religious texts of various religions and denominations differ greatly from one another, only one of them (at most) can be truly inerrant. The rest must be false - at least to some degree.

There are a number of additional Christian terms that are often used in connection with "Inerrancy:"

"Plenary" means that the Scriptures are sufficiently complete and adequate to communicate God's will to mankind.

"Infallible" means that the Bible passages "never deceive nor mislead."

"Authoritative" means that the Bible is "binding on all people" Everyone will eventually have to "give an account for how they lived in light of its teaching." 1 This concept has obvious difficulties when it is applied to persons who have never heard of the gospel or the Bible, or perhaps even Christianity itself.

"Autograph copies" refer to the original, hand-written copies of the books of the Bible. It is important to remember that none of the original copies exist. We only have access to copies of copies of copies of.....

"Inspiration" is the belief that God monitored the authors of the Bible and prevented them from making errors in their writings. More details

Problems with inerrancy:

A major concern occurs when the Bible is considered to be totally inerrant, in its teaching of theology, morals, beliefs, geology, geography, history, etc. If it is so considered, then it leaves the individual's faith vulnerable. Even one proven error can shatter the whole belief system and make the Bible seem useless to some believers: "If in actual fact Caesar Augustus did not really order a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria - if it turns out there really was only one Gadarene demonaic rather than two - then the entire Bible becomes worthless and every tenet of Christian faith falls flat. If one single discrepancy emerges, it's all over. This makes Christian faith an easy target for skeptics, and drives believers to unimaginable lengths to 'defend' the Bible." 2

There are other problems with inerrancy:

Interpretation Conflicts: This is perhaps the most serious problem associated with inerrancy. Some biblical passages can be interpreted in so many different ways, that there is no way to know which interpretation is the correct one.

People bring different foundational beliefs to the Bible. This causes them to reach very different conclusions about what it says. One example involves the roles of men and women:

The folks at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believe that men and women should be restricted to very different roles within the family, church organizations, and the rest of society. 12 Typically, they view positions of leadership and authority to be reserved for males only.

Christians for Biblical Equality teach that men and women were both created in the image of God, and that the Bible intends that they function in a full and equal partnership. Talents, including the ability to preach and to lead, exist throughout both genders. 3

Both groups are conservative Christian. Both believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. But both groups find many biblical passages which support their position and which negate the other group's beliefs.

A second, more widespread, example involves the Christian organizations in North America, which number in excess of 1,000. All or essentially all believe that their group's beliefs are based on the Bible. Many take the position that they are the "true" church. Yet their belief systems differ. There appears to be no way to resolve these different interpretations. Some have suggested that believers assess the will of God on theological matters. But this appears to be ineffective.

Translation errors due to source ambiguity: Inerrancy of the Bible refers only to the original, autograph copies of each book, as written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew is an extremely ambiguous language. Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) may be interpreted in many different ways. At most, only one of those translations would be correct, and thus be inerrant. But there is no way in which we can know for certain which translation is the correct one. Consider Leviticus 18:22. According to one source, a word-for-word translation is:

"And with a male thou shall not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

(The word "abomination" is a mistranslation, in terms of modern English. The Hebrew word means something like "ritually impure". Some other examples of "abominations" are: a person eating lobster, the offering of an animal which has a blemish for ritual sacrifice, a man getting a haircut or shaving his beard, or a woman wearing jeans or slacks, a person eating a cheeseburger.) This passage is normally interpreted in English as something similar to:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (RSV)

That rendering would condemn all male-male sexual activity. Or, if the translators really wanted to stretch the meaning of the passage well beyond what the original Hebrew states, they might want to write a condemnation of lesbianism into the translation, as in:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (NLT)

But it could be argued that an equally accurate rendering is:

"Men must not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"

That is, homosexual activity is only condemned if it is done in the wrong location: on a woman's bed. Bible translators, scholars and individual believers debate endlessly over the precise meaning of individual passages such as this one. If people attribute multiple meanings to various verses, then only one (perhaps none) could be inerrant. We can try to compare a passage with other similar verses in the Bible in order to determine which interpretation is most likely. But, we have no absolutely reliable method of determining which interpretation is true.

The inclusion/exclusion of the Apocraypha: The Bible used by Jesus, his disciples, and the early Christian movement was the Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX). This was a Greek translation from the original Hebrew. It included a number of books that are commonly called the Apocrypha. These books appear in the translations of the Bible used by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Anglican churches, but have been deleted in the translations used by Protestants and most Anglicans. One reason for this rejection was a passage which implies the existence of Purgatory. Thus, the range of books in the Bible which are to be considered inerrant is open to debate.

The selection of the Christian Scriptures: There were three main movements within early Christianity: the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostics. Among them, there were on the order of fifty gospels, probably hundreds of epistles (letters), and many examples of apocalyptic literature similar to Revelation. All were considered authorative by various early Christian groups. When the Bishops fixed the official canon, they selected the Hebrew Scriptures, and 27 books: four gospels, Acts, 21 epistles, and Revelation. The concept of inerrancy requires that they did not err in their selection: that the authors of precisely these 27 books were inspired by God and wrote without error. This would imply that their selection process must have been guided by God so that fraudulent books were not chosen. The Gospel of John was almost rejected by the early Church because of its Gnostic content. Revelation almost did not make it into the Bible either, because it described God in angry, hateful terms that seemed incompatible with the loving Abba (Dad) that Jesus prayed to. When Emperor Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible to be copied, they included The Letter of Barnabas and The Shepard of Hermes -- two books that do not appear in today's Bibles.

"The Canon evolved obscurely over many centuries. Books were accepted by some and banned by others. Books accepted for centuries were rejected later. Rival church factions excluded each other's scriptures. Personality clashes and rival ambitions were responsible for the disappearance of much that scholars would like to read today." 11

Grammatical errors: Biblical scholars have noted that almost every page of the Bible, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contains both spelling and grammatical errors. Although some spelling errors could be attributed to mistakes by later copyists, it appears reasonable to assume that some of the grammatical errors were in the original copy. If one assumes that the Bible is not inerrant, then one would expect errors of all types to creep into the Bible: errors in fact, errors in belief, errors in spelling and errors in grammar. But if the Bible is inerrant, one wonders why the original writings were not free of errors in grammar.

Intentional translation errors: No Bible translation is free of bias. Essentially all versions are the product of translators who come from a similar theological background. Being human, they sometimes produce versions of the Bible that tend to match their own belief systems. For example:

The original Hebrew and Greek texts contain a number of different concepts for the place where people will live after death: Sheol, Gehenna, Hades. Some translations transliterate these place names, and so they appear in the English text in their original forms as "Sheol," "Gehenna," and "Hades." The reader is thus aware that they refer to different beliefs about life after death. But other Bible versions are homogenized by rendering all three locations as "Hell." This makes the Bible appear more internally consistent than it really is, and clouds the meaning of the original text.

Many Bible translations contain what appear to be intentional errors in relation to some acts. Exodus 22:18, in the original Hebrew orders the death penalty for "m'khashepah" The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil Sorceress" or "woman who does evil, black magic" would be a clear translation. But many versions of the Bible render this word as "witch," thus inverting the meaning of the original text. (Witches and other Neopagans are prohibited by their Wiccan Rede from doing harm to others.) A similar intentional mistranslation in some versions of the Bible relates to the Greek word "pharmakia" from which the English word "pharmacy" is derived. It refers to the practice of preparing poisonous potions to harm or kill others. "Poisoner" or simply "murderer" would be an accurate translation here. But many versions of the Bible invert the meaning of the original text by render the word as "witch." These inverted translations have caused a few modern-day, devout Christians to persecute Neopagans, believing that they are following the will of God.

Copying Errors: A small number of conservative Christians believe that a particular English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Often this is the King James Version, prepared in 1611 CE. Most believe that it is only the original autograph copy as written by the author in Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek that is inerrant. This leaves open the possibility that subsequent manual copying introduced mistakes into the book. Thus, later copies may be errant. Often, we have no way of detecting where errors or later insertions have occurred.

Symbolic vs. Literal Interpretation: Not all passages in the Bible can be interpreted literally. For example: John 15:1 describes Jesus as saying:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman." (ASV)

In this case, Jesus is obviously not a vine. He is using symbolic language. Other passages in the Bible are more ambiguous; they might be translated literally or symbolically. For example, Genesis 3:15 describes Jehovah talking to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He says:

"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (ASV)

Some Bible scholars interpret the verse literally, that the men and women who are descendants of Eve (i.e. the entire human race) and the descendants of the serpent (i.e. all the snakes in the world) will hate and attack each other. The phrase "he shall" is interpreted in the collective sense to refer to all of humanity. Other Bible scholars interpret the verse symbolically. They believe that it is linked to Romans 16:20:

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

The "he shall bruise thy head" phrase in Genesis refers to Jesus triumphing over Satan. As a result of this interpretation, Genesis 3:15 is sometimes referred to as the "protoevangelium", the first gospel. 3

There are many Bible Passages that have been interpreted literally by some groups and symbolically by others. This generally leads to conflict, and has historically led to many church schisms.

Multiple Authorship: Some passages in the Bible appear at first glance to be completely written by a single author: e.g. the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) state that they were written down by Moses. The book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah; the Book of Daniel by Daniel; the Gospel of Mark by a single author. But analysis of content and style reveals that the Pentateuch was written by several authors from different traditions over many centuries. The books were probably edited later by still other unknown persons. Isaiah also appears to be written by multiple authors. The Book of Daniel appears to have been written over 4 centuries after Daniel's death by an unknown author. The Gospel of Mark originally ended abruptly at Mark 16:8. Some other writer subsequently added verses 9 to 20, to make a "longer ending" to Mark; it was apparently based on Luke, John and some other sources. 4 Another writer created a "shorter ending" consisting of two sentences after verse 8. It was a later addition, probably based on Matthew. Some translations include both endings. Still other Bible versions include additional material after verse 14. All of this multiple authorship raises the question whether the later additions by unknown authors are inerrant, or merely attempts by later believers to augment the text to better match some early Christian group's belief system.

Multiple Versions: There appears to have been two versions of Mark: "Secret Mark", "for those who had attained a higher degree of initiation in to the church than the common crowd." 5 and the shorter, edited version that has survived to the present time. The latter was the freely available, public version, and was probably a later, smaller version. This raises the question as to which version should be considered inerrant.
bullet More interpretation conflicts: Sometimes, the Bible will contain passages whose interpretation is unclear or ambiguous. For example, the Bible contains many references to parents using physical punishment in order to discipline their children. All but one of these passages come from the book of Proverbs. The book itself says that they were written by Solomon. The author appears to consider corporal punishment of children as the preferred method of discipline. One can assume that he followed his own advice in the raising of his son Rehoboam. The son became a widely hated ruler after his father's death. He had to make a hasty retreat to avoid being assassinated by his own people: 1 Kings 12:13-14 and 1 Kings 12:18 describe that he was so evil towards the people that they killed his representative. Ultimately, Rehoboam fled Jerusalem to avoid being assassinated by the subjects that he mistreated. The passages from Proverbs and 1 Kings can be interpreted in at least two ways:

Some conservative Christians accept the verses in Proverbs at their face value: Proverbs requires all believers to use corporal punishment on their children as the preferred method of discipline.

Liberal Christians might interpret Proverbs as accurately representing Solomon's parenting style, and interpret 1 Kings as indicating the horrible outcome of that form of discipline. Thus, 1 Kings is a warning to parents to not follow Solomon's advice, to avoid hitting their children, and to rely on other forms of discipline.

Since these two interpretations are mutually exclusive, at least one is probably false. But a consensus cannot be reached at this time as to which is in error. The secular belief that hitting children is counter-productive appears to be gaining ground at this time.

Internal Conflicts: Various passages in the Bible appear to be in conflict with each other. To liberal Christians, these disagreements are inevitable because they believe that the various books of the Bible were written over a period of about 1 millennium, by authors with very different religious views. But to conservative Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy, conflicts present a problem. If all passages of the Bible are inerrant, then no passage can truly contradict any other passage. Most conflicts can be handled by interpreting one passage in its literal sense, and other, apparently conflicting passages either in some narrow sense or symbolically. Some passages cannot be harmonized in this way. Conservatives usually believe that the latter passages can be resolved, but not with our present knowledge. Books harmonizing hundreds of apparent conflicts have been written. One attempts to solve over 500 such difficulties. 6

Nature of Truth - Absolute or Relative: It is sometimes not obvious whether a portion of the Bible refers only to a particular society and era, or whether its teaching is applicable for all locations and all time. For example:

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 and 14 advises the Christians at Corinth to restrict the roles of women to positions without power and under the domination of men. These passages are often quoted in debates over whether women can be ordained as clergy. Other passages, particularly from the Hebrew Scriptures, describe the position of women as greatly inferior to men, often as an item of property. Some liberal Christians believe that Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth was in response to a specific problem in that city in which women were disrupting services; they might interpret limits on the roles of women in the Hebrew Scriptures as being accurate representations of early Jewish society. But they might also believe that such passages are not applicable in today's society where limitations and restrictions on women have been largely removed after decades of effort by the feminist movement. Many conservative Christians regard St. Paul's instructions to the Corinthians as being equally valid today for all persons.

The Bible has many references to slavery. Much of the conflict that led to the American civil war was fueled by differences in interpretation of Biblical passages on this topic. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, said that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation." Various Christian leaders of the time made such statements as: "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." (Rev. Alexander Campbell), and "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." (Rev. R. Furman). Abolitionist forces argued that the teachings of Jesus made the ownership of human beings a sin. Many of the arguments over slavery revolved around whether the institution was an acceptable practice for all times and all societies, or whether it was no longer permissible in 19th century North America. Clearly, the matter could not be resolved theologically at the time. It was eventually settled by a political consensus in Canada and, much later, by a civil war in the US.

The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth, etc. make it quite impossible to be certain that a particular passage in an English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be interpreted.

One can hope to minimize the effect of intentional translational errors by accessing many versions of the Bible to compare the full range of translations. One can hope to understand passages better by comparing verses on the same topic in various parts of the Bible in order to get a consensus of what the Biblical authors wrote. But we are largely stuck with the remaining factors.

Problems with infallibility:

As noted above, the term infallible refers to the fully trustworthy nature of the Bible, i.e. its text does not deceive the reader into falsehood.

As Wayne Jackson wrote in Evidence for Bible Inspiration: "Traditionally, Protestants have reserved the term [infallible]...to refer to the Bible as the only true source of faith and doctrine." 7 But this concept assumes that accurate beliefs and doctrine can be extracted from biblical passages.

The concept of infallibility implies that when a thoughtful, devout, studious, intelligent and prayerful Christian examines the Bible, she/he will not be led to believe an untruth. But different Christians are, in practice, led to believe in untruths.

Liberal and conservative Christians have different sets of fundamental theological beliefs and thus develop different sets of moral truths regarding such topics as abortion, homosexuality, physican assisted suicide, etc. Each group bases their conclusions on the Bible. Since these positions are diametrically opposed, the Bible must have led at least one group to hold false beliefs.

Even within the conservative wing of Christianity teachings differ greatly on topics such as divorce, hell, the millennium, rapture, salvation, the Book of Revelation, and creation/evolution, etc.. At least two Evangelical Christian companies, InterVarsity Press and Zondervan, have published books by leading conservative Christian theologians on these topics. The books take the form of debates between three, four or five experts. Each writer presents a different, mutually exclusive, point of view. Each argues that his own belief is derived from biblical passages, and thus is the only true viewpoint. Again, only one of the writers can hold correct views; the others must have been led by the Bible to hold false beliefs.

References:

1. Dave Miller, "Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures" http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/4/
2. Mark Mattison, "Is the Bible inerrant?," at: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/
3. Christians for Biblical Equality has a home page promoting non-discrimination on the basis of gender . See: http://www.cbeinternational.org
4. S.H.T. Page, "Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons," Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich, (1995),Page 20 to 23.
5. C.M. Laymon, "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press, Nashville TN, (1991) Pages 670 - 671.
6. Robert J. Miller, Ed., "The Complete Gospels", Polebridge Press, Sonoma CA, (1992), Pages 402-405
7. Wayne Jackson, "Evidence for Bible Inspiration," Reason and Revelation 3, (1983-FEB), Pages 7-10.
8. B.M. Metzger & M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, New York, NY, (1993), Pages 302 to 304
9. M. J. Sawyer, "Theories of Inspiration" at: http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/theorins.htm
10. Christians for Biblical Equality has a home page promoting non-discrimination on the basis of gender . See: http://www.cbeinternational.org
11. Richard Nicholson, "Constantine, Eusebius and Jerome," at: http://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/book_excerpt
12. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has a home page at: http://www.cbmw.org/index.html

Note: And if there is any doubt about how conservative Christian denominations view inerrancy, go here for an alternate view to the above discussion. .
- posted by Richard @ 9:05 PM

 

Remember the "Mid-Terms" Episode of West Wing?

West Wing Skewers Laura Schlessinger
On October 18, 2000, NBC aired an episode of the Emmy winning television show The West Wing in which the character President Josiah Bartlet, played beyond description by Martin Sheen, absolutely skewers a character, named "Dr. Jenna Jacobs," who bears striking similarities to our very own, dear, Laura Schlessinger, in a dialogue very similar in theme to the "Dear Dr. Laura" letter which was wending its way about the net not that many months ago.

President Josiah Bartlet: You're Dr. Jenna Jacobs, right?

Jenna Jacobs: Yes, sir.

Bartlet: ...Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you an M.D.?

Jacobs: A Ph.D.

Bartlet: A Ph.D.

Jacobs: Yes, sir.

Bartlet: Psychology?

Jacobs: No, sir.

Bartlet: Theology?

Jacobs: No.

Bartlet: Social work?

Jacobs: I have a Ph.D. in English literature.

Bartlet: I'm asking because on your show, people call in for advice and you go by the name Dr. Jacobs on your show, and I didn't know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology or health care.

Jacobs: I don't believe they are confused, no, sir.

Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[originally transcribed by Rex Wockner. (Very few) Edits by Deborah Levinson]
- posted by Richard @ 8:30 PM

 
August 20, 2004
The Chávez Victory
NY Times
By JUAN FORERO

CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug. 19 - When President Hugo Chávez was ousted in a coup two years ago, the Bush administration celebrated, calling the ouster his own doing. The rest of Latin America was left fuming by the overthrow and expressed strong support for Mr. Chávez as he was almost immediately swept back into power in a popular uprising.

On Sunday, when Mr. Chávez triumphed over his adversaries in a referendum on whether he should be recalled from office, countries from Brazil to Argentina, Colombia to Spain heartily congratulated him. The United States remained silent for more than a day, until a State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, offered tepid backing for the "preliminary results."

The resounding victory was a blow to the Bush administration, which has struggled with how to deal with Mr. Chávez, a leftist firebrand who presides over the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and has opposed Washington on every major initiative in Latin America. "There's no doubt in my mind that at least in the White House - I don't know about the State Department - there was a deep desire to see Chávez lose," said former President Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Center monitored the election and who has briefed American officials on his efforts to broker a peace between the government and its opponents.

Now, the United States has the challenge of constructing, from the ground up, a new relationship with Mr. Chávez, who has done everything imaginable to antagonize what he calls "the colossus to the north."

He has used an expletive to describe President Bush, threatened to hold back oil sales if the United States invaded, and expanded Venezuela's ties with Cuba. His campaign to win in the vote was built largely on demonizing the United States.

"The Bush government will be defeated on Sunday," Mr. Chávez told reporters three days before the recall vote. "The confrontation in Venezuela is not really with this opposition. The opposition has a master, whose name is George W. Bush."

American diplomats privately say they do not think that Mr. Chávez believes his public statements, and that he manipulates latent anti-Americanism for political gain. But American policy has been largely counterproductive, only contributing to Mr. Chávez's increasingly hostile barbs.

The United States long ago threw its lot in with an opposition movement that is being discredited by foreign diplomats and many Venezuelans for insisting that fraud took place when the preponderance of evidence indicates it did not.

The United States has also provided money to groups like Súmate, which violated elections norms early on Monday by distributing results of a survey of voters leaving the polls that showed Mr. Chávez losing by a wide margin. Mr. Chávez seized on this financing of anti-government groups, channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy, to whip his supporters into an anti-American frenzy.

"The United States is stuck in a time warp," said Riordan Roett, director of Latin American studies at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It is using tools from the cold war, when money from the National Endowment for Democracy was useful in funding anti-Communist movements."

The United States policy has largely been out of step with the rest of the region. Washington has been unable to grasp the widespread reaction against free market changes across Latin America, changes now being rolled back by left-leaning leaders. In Venezuela, the United States has operated on the presumption that Mr. Chávez's opponents had more support, clearly underestimating that most Venezuelans would vote to keep him in office.

"It's not that the U.S. is not paying attention, it's that their calculation and strategy was wrong," said Eduardo Gamarra, a Bolivian who is director of the Latin America and Caribbean Center at Florida International University in Miami. "And it's been wrong because it's been based on the false assumption that Chávez is not popular, on the false assumption that he's a dictator."

After Mr. Chávez's resounding win, the Bush administration set itself apart from the rest of the region, calling on the Venezuelan government's electoral board to "allow a transparent audit," though international monitors pronounced the election free and fair. On Tuesday, Mr. Ereli, the State Department spokesman, dodged questions from reporters about why the United States was not congratulating Mr. Chávez.

A senior State Department official later said the United States' reticence was intended to defuse tensions in Venezuela, not to dismiss the results. He said Washington would issue a broader statement backing the results after a final audit.

Not all of Washington's diplomatic moves here have failed. Ambassador Charles Shapiro, newly arrived in Venezuela when Mr. Chavez was briefly ousted in 2002, met frequently with him, patching up a relationship that was battered after the White House expressed support for the interim government that replaced him. The United States has also remained a loyal buyer of Venezuelan crude oil. American giants like Exxon Mobil and ChevronTexaco are producing oil and eyeing an expansion into largely undeveloped natural gas fields that are open to foreign investment. Those companies, and other major multinational businesses, provided Venezuela with much-needed foreign earnings when the opposition called nationwide strikes that battered the economy.

Those commercial links can strengthen the bond between Venezuela and the United States, which is dependent on Venezuelan crude.

"The business sector, the large business sector, has understood better the making of foreign policy than our government," Mr. Gamarra said. "They looked at it from the perspective of what business opportunities ought to be.'' Better relations with Mr. Chávez are possible. With his presidency more secure since the vote, he has appeared open to reconciliation. He has invited opposition leaders to lunch and has expressed the wish for a new beginning with the United States.

"I would hope that President Chávez would now cool that anti-U.S. rhetoric," Mr. Carter said. "There's no doubt that Chávez is a charismatic figure, very fiery in his rhetoric, which I deplore. But that's his personal characteristic, one of the avenues of his popularity among Venezuelans. I think now, though, that he is not campaigning for anything."


- posted by Richard @ 5:43 AM

 

Kerry's Vietnam Service: A Review

Veterans Battle Over the Truth
* An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict.
By Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, Times Staff Writers

A television ad that has aired in three key battleground states and a new book have created a political furor over John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record, calling into question his character, credibility and a central tenet of his campaign — that his combat experience helps qualify him to be president.

The ad, the book and the people behind them have become staples of conservative talk shows and Internet sites. The claims — that Kerry lied about his war experiences, didn't deserve his medals and betrayed soldiers everywhere by protesting the war after serving in it — also have been recited in the mainstream media, along with denials of the allegations.

What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded.

None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.

But what actually happened about 35 years ago along the remote southern coast of Vietnam remains murky. Some of Kerry's own recollections over the years, as presented in two biographies and many interviews, also have been inconsistent.

Most of the documents offered by critics of the Democratic candidate are signed affidavits by 13 Swift boat veterans — notarized memories of events that they say they witnessed from a boat or two away.

The Kerry campaign has launched a vociferous defense, denying the charges raised in the ad. It also denounced the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as a Republican-backed effort. His staff has directed critics to the Massachusetts senator's military records, which have been posted on his website.

"The Swift boat ad is full of lies. Thirteen men who never served with John Kerry lie about knowing him and viciously attack his record," said Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill in an e-mail to supporters last week. "It is a new low for the Republicans."

A liberal independent organization is weighing in on the controversy with a new ad today, demanding that President Bush urge that the ad be taken off the air.

The Bush campaign, for its part, says it has nothing to do with the Swift boat group attacking Kerry and has kept a distance — neither endorsing nor denouncing the ad, which is airing in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia. When asked about it Thursday on "Larry King Live," Bush said he had not seen it.

Kerry, long accused of hair-splitting and nuance in his political positions, has left himself open to criticism by giving subtly varying accounts over the years of his Vietnam service and postwar activism. But his critics also have provided conflicting recollections.

"War is by definition chaotic, and people are not taking notes in battle," said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "In terms of the type of evidence that might be ideal for making a convincing case, there probably are some holes. They give an opening for people who want to say Kerry was embellishing."

Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say they have received $300,000 in new donations since the ad began airing Aug. 5. The group's initial ad buy was $500,000.

The group's leaders confirmed that Robert J. Perry, a Texas homebuilder, was their biggest original financier. Perry has given money to Bush's last four campaigns and is a major GOP donor in Texas.

John O'Neill, a former Swift boat commander who served in Vietnam and a longtime Kerry foe, has been promoting his book — "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" — on cable-TV talk shows such as "Crossfire" and "Hardball." The book, which amplifies the charges in the ad, began trickling into stores last week. It already tops the Amazon.com bestseller list, and a chapter has been posted on a conservative website.

It is too soon to tell whether the claims are resonating with voters, but political observers say they could pose a serious risk for the Democratic candidate, particularly in such a close race.

"If the attacks on [Kerry's] character continue and they start to take hold with swing voters and casual voters, it would be a big problem," said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of a nonpartisan political newsletter. "The Kerry folks can't concede this…. A charge like this that's ignored is a charge that's believed."

The anti-Kerry ad begins with footage of Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, saying, "If you have any question about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago."

Then eight words appear on the screen — "Here's what those men think about John Kerry" — and the allegations begin. They include comments such as: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," and "He lacks the capacity to lead."

Many in the Swift boat group seem to be motivated as much by anger about Kerry's protest activities as they are about his actions in combat. In their affidavits, several write about Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In his April 1971 statement to the Senate panel, Kerry cited Vietnam atrocities that had been alleged by his group of antiwar veterans. And in blunt rhetoric, he questioned government policy that widened the toll among soldiers and civilians: "We learned the meaning of free-fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed cheapness on the lives of Orientals."

In the anti-Kerry ad, former Navy Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, one of Kerry's immediate commanders, says: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

In his affidavit, Elliott said that when Kerry returned from Vietnam, he was "comparing his other commanders and me to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Genghis Khan, and making similar misstatements."

Joe Ponder, a Swift boat crewman who did not serve on either of Kerry's two boats, says in the ad that Kerry "dishonored his country." In his affidavit, Ponder says he was badly wounded in an ambush in Vietnam. But "the greatest wounds I have ever suffered were from John F. Kerry, who dishonored my country, my honor and my friends by falsely charging the United States Army Forces with war crimes, claiming that all of us, living and dead, were war criminals."

Although these are powerful statements, they are not entirely accurate.

In his Senate testimony, Kerry did liken some American actions to Genghis Khan's. But he did not mention Elliott by name, nor did he mention his Navy superiors. And he did not claim that every soldier was a war criminal. Rather, he cited atrocities described by veterans who opposed the war. Kerry has acknowledged that, at times, he used a poor choice of words as a young man protesting the war, but he has continued to insist that atrocities were committed.

During the war, Elliott gave Kerry high marks in fitness reports and recommended Kerry for the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. "John was one of 50 young officers who performed extremely well," Elliott said in an interview in May. "I wrote his fitness report, and I stand by that."

But in his affidavit, Elliott backed away from the Silver Star nomination he wrote for Kerry in 1969. Kerry won the award for chasing down and killing a wounded Viet Cong guerrilla who had confronted his boat with a grenade launcher.

In his affidavit, Elliott questioned Kerry's actions, suggesting he might have shot the guerrilla in the back. Elliott was not present during the action, and there have been no credible eyewitness accounts affirming his version.

Kerry's Swift boat mates have long insisted that Kerry's action was appropriate and saved their lives.

A day after the ad appeared, Elliott said in an interview with the Boston Globe that he regretted signing the affidavit and that he believed Kerry still deserved the Silver Star. Then he issued a second affidavit standing by his first sworn statement, saying he had been misquoted by the Globe.

But in his second affidavit, Elliott also admitted, "I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."

There are three other allegations raised by the anti-Kerry group — questioning his first Purple Heart, his Bronze Star and a Christmas Eve mission to the Cambodian border.

The awarding of Kerry's first Purple Heart has been challenged by a former surgeon at the Navy base at Cam Ranh Bay. "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," Dr. Louis Letson said in the television ad.

In a Times interview in May, the retired Alabama doctor said he recalled administering treatment to Kerry for a flesh wound incurred on Dec. 2, 1968.

Kerry had been on a mission in a "skimmer" boat north of Cam Ranh Bay. Noticing Viet Cong on a beach, Kerry fired on the guerrillas. Two crewmates, Bill Zaladonis and Pat Runyon, have confirmed that they also fired on the fleeing guerrillas.

That same night, Jim Wasser, who was stationed on a boat near Kerry's and who would later serve on Kerry's Swift boat, heard a radio report from Kerry's boat that "someone had a slight wound."

The next morning, according to Letson, Kerry showed up at the Cam Ranh Bay medical unit asking for treatment. Letson said the wound was slight and that he removed a tiny shard of shrapnel with tweezers. He said Kerry reported being in a firefight with Viet Cong guerrillas.

But later, Letson said, he learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas.

Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats. The crewmen "were just talking to my guys," Letson said. "We weren't prying into it. There was not a firefight — that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore. It's Kerry who made the issue of him being a war hero. That opens it up for some question."

In a June interview, Kerry described taking fire from the guerrillas but was unsure whether he was wounded by others or by himself. "I didn't see where it came from," he said.

The Kerry campaign has questioned Letson's role, noting that a medical account detailing Kerry's treatment is signed by a "J. Carreon" — not Letson. But Letson insisted he was the one who treated Kerry. Carreon was a Filipino corpsman, a "hospitalman first class," not a doctor, Letson said, and routinely made entries on his behalf.

Kerry won the Purple Heart for the wound, but Letson said he did not deserve it because it was too slight and reportedly self-inflicted. Letson conceded in The Times interview that he made no effort then to officially question Kerry's account.

Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity — and specified only that injuries had to be suffered "in action against an enemy."

Self-inflicted wounds were awarded if incurred "in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence." Kerry's critics insist his wound would not have qualified, but former Navy officials who worked in the service's awards branch at the time said such awards were routine.

A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin.

When Kerry reported the injury to his commander, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, he only asked Hibbard to file an injury report, Kerry told The Times.

In a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth affidavit, Hibbard said Kerry came into his office "to apply for a Purple Heart," but that he turned down Kerry's "Purple Heart request." He said he was "shocked to later learn that [Kerry] subsequently received an undeserved Purple Heart for his wound."

But in a conflicting interview this summer, Hibbard said Kerry did not directly ask for the medal but a medical report. (The report would have been automatically forwarded to Navy administrators in Saigon who oversaw Purple Heart awards.) Hibbard said he believed the wound was too minor to warrant a report but that later he "took some heat" from military superiors for refusing to write it up.

Kerry acknowledged to The Times that he later asked about the Purple Heart. He said he "asked a guy where it was or something," but could not recall whom he pressed for the award.

The decoration was approved by Navy administrators in Saigon before he left Vietnam in March 1969.

The second specific allegation was made by Van Odell, who served as a gunner on PCF-23, one of the boats involved in the incident that earned Kerry the Bronze Star. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there," Odell says in the ad.

Kerry received the Bronze Star for rescuing Army Lt. Jim Rassmann, a Green Beret who had been knocked off Kerry's Swift boat on March 13, 1969, when a mine exploded nearby, disabling another craft. Kerry also received a Purple Heart for being injured in the process.

In one of the defining moments of the Democratic primary season, Rassmann, who is a Republican, reunited with the candidate in an emotional meeting. He talked about Kerry's bravery and his gratitude. Since then, he has campaigned for him regularly.

Kerry's website gives a brief account of the rescue and then quotes the Bronze Star citation signed by Vice Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., then the Navy's top commander in Vietnam:

"Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. naval service."

Rassmann, in a Times interview, said Kerry and several of his crew were on shore as Rassmann and his unit took small arms fire from Viet Cong guerrillas. The U.S. troops then moved to destroy a cache of contraband rice they suspected was being used to supply the enemy.

Kerry and Rassmann hurled grenades at the contraband, and from the resulting explosion they were hit with shrapnel, including some that lodged in Kerry's buttocks.

Later that day, Rassmann recalled, he was sitting on the side of Kerry's Swift boat eating a chocolate chip cookie just as PCF-94 was heading out of the Bay Hap River toward the Gulf of Siam. One mine went off underwater, and then a second.

Rassmann fell overboard, he recounted, "and John got thrown off the bulkhead. I went to the bottom, dumped my gear, and when I came up the boats were gone. The VC are shooting at me." Then, Rassmann said, he saw a boat coming to his rescue. From the edge of the Swift boat, the wounded Kerry "kneeled down and grabbed my arm and pulled me over. Neither of us said a word. I grabbed an M-16 and fired back. I burned the barrel out. We finally got out of this kill zone."

There are discrepancies in the official stories and documentation about the incident.

The Bronze Star citation describes Kerry's arm as bleeding, as do two biographies, "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" by Douglas Brinkley, and "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best."

But the official March 13 Navy report of Kerry's injuries said that "Lt. Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94."

His wounds also earned him his third Purple Heart and allowed him to leave Vietnam early — in late March 1969 — after four months of a yearlong tour.

Several others, who are now members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, were on nearby boats on the Bay Hap River during the incident. They say that there was no hostile gunfire when Kerry pulled Rassmann out of the water and that one of their own, Jack Chenoweth, was already speeding to Rassmann's aid.

"I'm here to tell you there was no fire from either bank. The only incident was the mine, detonated under the … boat," Chenoweth said in an interview.

The Swift boat group members critical of Kerry said that he wrote the after-action reports that led to his getting the Bronze Star. They said they saw no blood on his arm as described in the citation for the Bronze Star. And they argue that the buttock wound that that led to the Purple Heart was caused by his own grenade.

They also say they did not complain 35 years ago because they did not see the reports until Kerry posted them online.

But the anti-Kerry faction has not definitively proved that Kerry was the sole source of the Bronze Star battle account. And according to Elliott, Kerry's immediate commander, Swift boat officers involved in battles normally were involved in drafting the after-action report, which in this case described repeated fire from small arms and automatic weapons.

Rassmann, whose life was saved, stands by Kerry.

"Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam," he wrote in a commentary last Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal. "They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam."

A third and new allegation surfaced last week as part of the publicity campaign for O'Neill's new book.

O'Neill and several members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth allege that in statements to Congress and in news accounts, Kerry lied in claiming that on Christmas Eve 1968, his Swift boat — PCF-44 — sailed into a Cambodian river.

Cambodia was supposed to be off-limits to the U.S. military because it was not an official combatant. However, U.S. troops made secret incursions into the country to stem Viet Cong operations and supply lines.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia," Kerry said in a March 1986 Senate speech. "I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians."

At other times, Kerry has said he was near — but not in — Cambodia.

In a Times interview last June, Kerry said: "I celebrated Christmas Eve on the border of Cambodia." And he added that on a later mission, "I went into Cambodia with the CIA."

Kerry's critics have seized on his varying recollections to impugn his credibility and suggest he has embellished his war record.

Steven Gardner, the only member of Kerry's former crews to join Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and actively campaign against Kerry, has told some reporters that PCF-44 was 50 miles away from Cambodia that Christmas Eve.

But two of Kerry's crewmates — Wasser and Zaladonis — both told The Times the boat was in the vicinity of the Cambodian border and even fought an engagement with a Viet Cong sampan on Christmas Eve day.

"We patrolled a river on the border," Zaladonis said last week. "Unless I'm out of my mind or mistaken, that river was part of the border."

There are no after-action reports that pinpoint where Kerry's boat was in late December 1968. But a file from Navy archives in Washington obtained by The Times provides support for both sides.

An entry in a monthly summary of engagements for December 1968 reports that on Christmas Eve, "PCF-44 fired on junk on beach. Results: 1 sampan destroyed."

The entry was made by then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, the overall commander of Swift boats and now one of Kerry's most vocal critics. There is no written location for the engagement, but it contains a coordinate used by the military to plot locations. The coordinate points to an area about 40 to 50 miles south of the Cambodian border, near an island called Sa Dec.

The entry also notes that the incident took place about 7 a.m., which would have given Kerry's boat another 12 hours to make it to the Cambodian border by nightfall. At a cruising speed of 23 knots, the boat could have covered the distance in about two hours.

This would be consistent with the contention of Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan that Kerry was in Sa Dec but reached the Cambodian border later the same day.

Since the anti-Kerry ad first surfaced, Kerry's crewmates have fanned out in his defense. Along with Rassmann, crewmates Del Sandusky, leading petty officer with Kerry on PCF-94, and Gene Thorson decried the allegations as politically inspired "garbage."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam veteran who has endorsed Bush, called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable." He said that "none of these individuals served on the boat [Kerry] commanded," adding that he believed "John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."

In a lengthy interview between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's first news conference in May and the controversy last week, Kerry called the group's allegations pure "politics."

"Some of them don't like the fact that I opposed the war, and 35 years later some people still want to argue about that," Kerry said in the June interview. "It's way beyond me, can I tell you? It's so far beyond and past now. I feel sad about it."

He said he respected the service all Swift boat crews gave to their country and lauded their courage.

"So I'm at peace with myself, and I'm sorry they feel the way they do," Kerry said, "because I respect them. I really do."
- posted by Richard @ 10:30 PM

 

Political Humor Site

Need to know what's happening with the latest political satire? Check out the Specious Report here.
- posted by Richard @ 10:11 PM

 

File-Sharing Sites Found Not Liable for Infringement
By MATT RICHTEL
NY Times
Published: August 20, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 19 - Affirming a lower court decision, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday that the distributors of software used by millions of people to exchange music files over the Internet cannot be held liable for aiding copyright infringement.

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, upholds a ruling issued in April 2003 by a federal judge in Los Angeles. The decision gives distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software a significant victory in their long battle with the record and movie industries, legal experts said.

Judge Sidney R. Thomas, writing for the panel, found that the two distributors, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, which offers the Morpheus file-sharing service, are not liable for aiding copyright infringement because they do not have the ability to monitor or control how users of their software exchange files.

"David's won another round," said Wayne Rosso, former president of Grokster, comparing the record industry to Goliath.

The plaintiffs in the case, the music and movie industries, have argued that file-sharing networks are forums for mass copyright piracy. The software of both companies, which can be downloaded over the Internet, allows users to share music, video and other digital files that they store on their computers. Ninety percent of the files shared, according to music and movie industry executives, include copyrighted material.

Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, issued a statement saying the appellate court ruling, "does not absolve these businesses from their responsibility as corporate citizens to address the rampant illegal use of their networks."

Mr. Bainwol said the record industry would continue to seek legal and legislative remedies to address the "ongoing illegal activity." He did not say whether the industry would pursue an appeal.

Critics say the software distributors make money by selling advertisements that appear on computer screens when users exchange files. Thus, they benefit financially when more people exchange files, including those that contain copyrighted material.

The appellate court, however, said it is not up to the courts to adapt copyright law to the effects created by new technologies.

"We live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of Internet innovation," Judge Thomas wrote. "The introduction of new technology is always disruptive of old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine or an MP3 player."

He added that "it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude. Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress."

Jonathan Zittrain, an expert in Internet law at Harvard Law School, said the court's ruling might compel copyright holders to focus more energy on lobbying legislators to change the law. The copyright holders, Mr. Zittrain said, "may be reaching the limit of what the federal judiciary is prepared to do to help them in their cause."

The lawsuits against the file-sharing networks are only part of a multipronged attack by the record and movie industries to prevent copyright infringement.

The record industry has also filed lawsuits against some 3,900 individuals, accused by the industry of illegally downloading copyrighted files. In addition, the record and movie industries have pushed hard for legislation to combat file-swapping networks. In June, legislation supported by the industries was introduced in the Senate that would explicitly extend copyright liability to distributors of file-sharing software.

Copyright owners have had success in the courts, dating back to their victory in February 2001 against Napster, the pioneering file-sharing network. The Napster case, which was also decided by the appellate court for the Ninth Circuit, found that network aided copyright violations because it maintained and controlled servers that searched out the location of available files for its users.

By contrast, the court found that Grokster and StreamCast are decentralized and do not have that level of control. Rather, individual users of the software exchange files directly, using the network to find each other over the Internet.

Art Brodsky, the communications director of Public Knowledge, a public interest advocacy group focusing on intellectual property and copyright policy, said Thursday's ruling did not absolve individual users of potential liability for sharing copyrighted files. "It says the makers of the software can't be liable," Mr. Brodsky said. "It doesn't say anything about the individual users."

Mark F. Radcliffe, an expert in intellectual property law at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, a Palo Alto law firm, said the appellate court decision was also significant in that it pointed out that file-sharing services, like Grokster, could be used for legitimate purposes.

In a footnote in its ruling, the appellate court said that even if only 10 percent of the files exchanged were done so with permission of copyright holders, it would mean that there were "hundreds of thousands of legitimate file exchanges."

Mr. Radcliffe said the decision might cause the record industry to intensify its antipiracy efforts against individual file sharers. "They can still sue individual people for copyright infringement," Mr. Radcliffe said. "But that's a long chase for the music industry."
- posted by Richard @ 9:58 PM

 

The West Wing Episodes & Aaron Sorkin

Season One Episode Guide:
Season Two Episode Guide:
Season Three Episode Guide:
Season Four Episode Guide:
Season Five Episode Guide::
Season Six Episode Guide:

Remember the Viewer's Choice 2004 Show on Bravo?
Here are the top ten.

Gee...do you wonder about Aaron Sorkin's Politics? See the Federal Elections DB for his financial contributions.

And what is Mr. Sorkin doing lately? Info is here circa Summer 2004.
- posted by Richard @ 9:54 PM

 

Annoying Ads: Ditech.com

Company Profile:

The information superhighway can make for a rough ride. Just ask those at ditech.com, one of the biggest online mortgage lenders in the US. In its short history, it's fired executives indicted for extortion, and seen founder Paul Reddam resign and sue parent General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC). The online lender offers first mortgage loans, high-loan-to-value (HLTV) first and second mortgage loans, and home equity lines of credit.

Known for its aggressive (read: annoying) marketing campaigns, ditech.com advertises through cable television, freeway billboards, and on the radio. The majority of the company's business is conducted from its main office in Costa Mesa, California.

Note: There are a few sites devoted specifically to customers experienced problems with this company. Here, and here.
- posted by Richard @ 9:31 PM

 

Doc Holiday vs Johnny Ringo

I'm Your Huckleberry!
by Lawson Stone

On and off I hear discussions in which people speculate on the exact origin and meaning is of the quaint idiom used by Doc Holliday in the movie "Tombstone." I've heard some wild suggestions, including "huckleberry" meaning "pall-bearer" suggesting "I'll bury you."

Still others think it has something to do with Mark Twain's character, Huckleberry Finn, and means "steadfast friend, pard." This is unlikely, since the book of that title was not written until 1883. Tom Sawyer was written in 1876, but nowhere there is the term "huckleberry" used to mean "steadfast friend" or the like.

Still others claim that a victor's crown or wreath of huckleberry is involved, making the statement "I'm your huckleberry" something like "I'll beat you!" But no such reference can be found in the historical materials supporting the use of this term in 19th century America. Additionally, "huckleberry" was native to North America so it's unlikely it was used in ancient Britain as a prize!

"Huckleberry" was commonly used in the 1800's in conjunction with "persimmon" as a small unit of measure. "I'm a huckleberry over your persimmon" meant "I'm just a bit better than you." As a result, "huckleberry" came to denote idiomatically two things. First, it denoted a small unit of measure, a "tad," as it were, and a person who was a huckleberry could be a small, unimportant person--usually expressed ironically in mock self-depreciation. The second and more common usage came to mean, in the words of the "Dictionary of American Slang: Second Supplemented Edition" (Crowell, 1975):

"A man; specif., the exact kind of man needed for a particular purpose. 1936: "Well, I'm your huckleberry, Mr. Haney." Tully, "Bruiser," 37. Since 1880, archaic.

The "Historical Dictionary of American Slang" which is a multivolume work, has about a third of a column of citations documenting this meaning all through the latter 19th century.

So "I'm your huckleberry" means "I'm just the man you're looking for!"
- posted by Richard @ 9:13 PM

 

Nation's Charter Schools Lagging Behind, U.S. Test Scores Reveal
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Published: August 17, 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - The first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools shows charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools.

The findings, buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement, dealt a blow to supporters of the charter school movement, including the Bush administration.

The data shows fourth graders attending charter schools performing about half a year behind students in other public schools in both reading and math. Put another way, only 25 percent of the fourth graders attending charters were proficient in reading and math, against 30 percent who were proficient in reading, and 32 percent in math, at traditional public schools.

Because charter schools are concentrated in cities, often in poor neighborhoods, the researchers also compared urban charters to traditional schools in cities. They looked at low-income children in both settings, and broke down the results by race and ethnicity as well. In virtually all instances, the charter students did worse than their counterparts in regular public schools.

Charters are expected to grow exponentially under the new federal education law, No Child Left Behind, which holds out conversion to charter schools as one solution for chronically failing traditional schools.

"The scores are low, dismayingly low," said Chester E. Finn Jr., a supporter of charters and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, who was among those who asked the administration to do the comparison.

Mr. Finn, an assistant secretary of education in the Reagan administration, said the quality of charter schools across the country varied widely, and he predicted that the results would make those overseeing charters demand more in the way of performance.

"A little more tough love is needed for these schools," Mr. Finn said. "Somebody needs to be watching over their shoulders."

Mr. Finn and other backers of charter schools contended, however, that the findings should be considered as "baseline data," and could reflect the predominance of children in these schools who turned to charters after having had severe problems at their neighborhood schools.

The results, based on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the nation's report card, were unearthed from online data by researchers at the American Federation of Teachers, which provided them to The New York Times. The organization has historically supported charter schools but has produced research in recent years raising doubts about the expansion of charter schools.

Charters are self-governing public schools, often run by private companies, which operate outside the authority of local school boards, and have greater flexibility than traditional public schools in areas of policy, hiring and teaching techniques.

Federal officials said they did not intend to hide the performance of charter schools, and denied any political motivation for failing to publicly disclose that the data were available. "I guess that was poor publicity on our part," said Robert Lerner, the federal commissioner for education statistics. Mr. Lerner said further analysis was needed to put the data in its proper context.

But others were skeptical, saying the results proved that such schools were not a cure-all. "There's just a huge distance between the sunny claims of the charter school advocates and the reality," said Bella Rosenberg, an special assistant to the president of the American Federation of Teachers. "There's a very strong accountability issue here."

Of the nation's 88,000 public schools, 3,000 are charters, educating more than 600,000 students. But their ranks are expected to grow as No Child Left Behind identifies thousands of schools for possible closing because of poor test scores.

Once hailed as a kind of free-market solution offering parents an escape from moribund public schools, elements of the charter school movement have prompted growing concern in recent years. Around the country, more than 80 charter schools were forced to close, largely because of questionable financial dealings and poor performance, said Luis Huerta, a professor at Columbia University Teachers College. In California, the state's largest charter school operator has just announced the closing of at least 60 campuses, The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, stranding 10,000 children just weeks before the start of the school year.

The math and reading tests were given to a nationally representative sample of about 6,000 fourth graders at 167 charter schools in February 2003. Some 3,200 eighth graders at charter schools also took the exams, an insufficient number to make national comparisons.

The results are not out of line with earlier local and state studies of charter school performance, which generally have shown charters doing no better than traditional public schools. But they offered the first nationally representative comparison of children attending both types of schools, and are expected influence public debate.

Amy Stuart Wells, a sociology professor at Columbia University Teachers College, called the new data "really, really important."

"It confirms what a lot of people who study charter schools have been worried about," she said. "There is a lack of accountability. They're really uneven in terms of quality."

Detractors have historically accused charters of skimming the best students, those whose parents are most committed, from the poorest schools. But supporters of charter schools said the data confirmed earlier research suggesting that charters take on children who were already performing below average. "We're doing so much to help kids that are so much farther behind, and who typically weren't even continuing in school," said Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, in Washington, which represents charter schools. She said the results reflect only "a point in time," and said nothing about the progress of students in charter schools.

That, she said, could be measured only by tracking the performance of charters in future tests. For the moment, however, the National Assessment Governing Board has no plans to survey charters again.

One previous study, however, suggests that tracking students over time might present findings more favorable to the charter movement. Tom Loveless, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, who conducted a two-year study of 569 charter schools in 10 states found that while charter school students typically score lower on state tests, over time they progress at faster rates than students in traditional public schools.

The new test scores on charter schools went online last November, along with state-by-state results from the national assessment. Though other results were announced at a news conference, with a report highlighting the findings, federal officials never mentioned that the charter school data were publicly available.

Researchers at the American Federation of Teachers were able to gain access to the scores from the national assessment's Web site only indirectly: by gathering results based on how schools identified themselves in response to a question.

In a significant departure from earlier releases of test scores, Mr. Lerner said the charter school findings would be formally shown only as part of a larger analysis that would adjust results for the characteristics of charter schools and their students.

In the 1990's, the National Assessment Governing Board had rejected requests from states for such analyses, with Mr. Finn, then a member of the board, contending that explanatory reports would compromise the credibility of the assessment results by trying to blame demographic and other outside factors for poor performance.

But Mr. Lerner said he thought such an analysis was necessary to put the charter school test scores in context. He called the raw comparison of test scores "the beginning of something important," and said, "What one has to do is adjust for many different variables to get a sense of what the effects of charter schools are."
- posted by Richard @ 8:55 PM

 

Bereuter: War in Iraq not justified
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star
In a dramatic departure from the Bush administration, Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter says he now believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified.

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Bereuter wrote in a letter to constituents in the final days of his congressional career.

That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated "without a broad and engaged international coalition," the 1st District congressman said.

"Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified."

As a result of the war, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

His four-page letter represented a departure from his support for a 2002 House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.

His vote to authorize the use of military force - even pre-emptive force - was based on faulty, or misrepresented, intelligence that led to the fear Saddam Hussein would share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists, Bereuter said.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.

In a floor statement accompanying his 2002 vote, Bereuter urged that the international coalition be broadened and the administration adequately plan for the consequences of war and not divert resources from the battle against al-Qaida and the stabilization of Afghanistan.

Despite acknowledged intelligence failures and failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, President Bush continues to forcefully argue the war was justified because Saddam represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.

While criticizing the manner in which the administration went to war, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has said he still would have voted for the authorizing resolution knowing what he knows today.

Bereuter pointed to a list of negative consequences arising from the war.

"The cost in casualties is already large and growing," he said, "and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible.

"From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force.

"Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

Bereuter sent the letter to constituents who have contacted him about the war.

"I felt I should send you a forthright update of my views and conclusions on that subject before I leave office," he said.

Bereuter will depart the House after 26 years to become president of the Asia Foundation on Sept. 1.

Congress and the administration "must learn from the errors and failures" related to the attack and its aftermath, he said.

"The toll in American military casualties and those of civilians, physical damages caused, financial resources spent, and the damage to the support and image of America abroad all demand such an assessment and accounting."

In addition to "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence" concerning weapons of mass destruction, Bereuter said, the Bush administration made a number of errors in prosecuting the war despite warnings about the consequences.

"American and coalition forces were inadequate in number to take effective control of Iraq when the initial military action was completed," he said.

Other mistakes included disbanding the Iraqi army and placing responsibility for reconstruction with the Department of Defense instead of the Department of State, he said
- posted by Richard @ 8:47 PM

 
Population Boom Predicted In Poor Nations

The starkly uneven pace of population growth between most developing and industrialized nations represents the world%92s major demographic fault line. The Population Reference Bureau%27s 2004 World Population Data Sheet demonstrates that nearly 99 percent of all population increase takes place in poor countries%2C while population size is static or declining in the rich nations. Among the major industrialized nations%2C only the United States now has significant population growth.%0D%0AAs a consequence%2C by 2050 industrialized countries are projected to increase their population by merely 4 percent. In contrast%2C the population of developing countries is expected to expand by 55 percent. For example%2C Western European populations will shrink%2C while Western Asian nations are expected to gain about 186 million people by 2050. Overall%2C world population will likely reach 9.3 billion by mid-century."
- posted by Richard @ 8:36 PM

 

The Carter Center Vote Certification Team Needs to Be in Florida in November !!!

Saving the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: August 17, 2004

Everyone knows it, but not many politicians or mainstream journalists are willing to talk about it, for fear of sounding conspiracy-minded: there is a substantial chance that the result of the 2004 presidential election will be suspect.

When I say that the result will be suspect, I don't mean that the election will, in fact, have been stolen. (We may never know.) I mean that there will be sufficient uncertainty about the honesty of the vote count that much of the world and many Americans will have serious doubts.

How might the election result be suspect? Well, to take only one of several possibilities, suppose that Florida - where recent polls give John Kerry the lead - once again swings the election to George Bush.

Much of Florida's vote will be counted by electronic voting machines with no paper trails. Independent computer scientists who have examined some of these machines' programming code are appalled at the security flaws. So there will be reasonable doubts about whether Florida's votes were properly counted, and no paper ballots to recount. The public will have to take the result on faith.

Yet the behavior of Gov. Jeb Bush's officials with regard to other election-related matters offers no justification for such faith. First there was the affair of the felon list. Florida law denies the vote to convicted felons. But in 2000 many innocent people, a great number of them black, couldn't vote because they were erroneously put on a list of felons; these wrongful exclusions may have put Governor Bush's brother in the White House.

This year, Florida again drew up a felon list, and tried to keep it secret. When a judge forced the list's release, it turned out that it once again wrongly disenfranchised many people - again, largely African-American - while including almost no Hispanics.

Yesterday, my colleague Bob Herbert reported on another highly suspicious Florida initiative: state police officers have gone into the homes of elderly African-American voters - including participants in get-out-the-vote operations - and interrogated them as part of what the state says is a fraud investigation. But the state has provided little information about the investigation, and, as Mr. Herbert says, this looks remarkably like an attempt to intimidate voters.

Given this pattern, there will be skepticism if Florida's paperless voting machines give President Bush an upset, uncheckable victory.

Congress should have acted long ago to place the coming election above suspicion by requiring a paper trail for votes. But legislation was bottled up in committee, and it may be too late to change the hardware. Yet it is crucial that this election be credible. What can be done?

There is still time for officials to provide enhanced security, assuring the public that nobody can tamper with voting machines before or during the election; to hire independent security consultants to perform random tests before and during Election Day; and to provide paper ballots to every voter who requests one.

Voters, too, can do their bit. Recently the Florida Republican Party sent out a brochure urging supporters to use absentee ballots to make sure their votes are counted. The party claims that was a mistake - but it was, in fact, good advice. Voters should use paper ballots where they are available, and if this means voting absentee, so be it. (Election officials will be furious about the increased workload, but they have brought this on themselves.)

Finally, some voting activists have urged a last-minute push for independent exit polling, parallel to but independent of polling by media groups (whose combined operation suffered a meltdown during the upset Republican electoral triumph in 2002). This sounds like a very good idea.

Intensive exit polling would do triple duty. It would serve as a deterrent to anyone contemplating election fraud. If all went well, it would help validate the results and silence skeptics. And it would give an early warning if there was election tampering - perhaps early enough to seek redress.

It's horrifying to think that the credibility of our democracy - a democracy bought through the courage and sacrifice of many brave men and women - is now in danger. It's so horrifying that many prefer not to think about it. But closing our eyes won't make the threat go away. On the contrary, denial will only increase the chances of a disastrously suspect election
- posted by Richard @ 9:46 PM

 

Colonoscopies Overdone, U.S. Study Suggests
Mon Aug 16, 2004 06:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Doctors may be overdoing it a bit on colonoscopies, a procedure to screen for colon cancer using a tiny camera, even though they can save lives, researchers reported on Monday

Patients who had a low-risk polyp removed in a first colonoscopy do not need to have repeat colonoscopies as often as many doctors are prescribing them, the researchers report in this week's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"We believe colonoscopy can be a life-saving procedure, but it shouldn't be done more often than necessary," said Dr. Pauline Mysliwiec, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of California Davis.

"When it's used inappropriately, it strains health care resources and puts patients at unnecessary risk."

Colonoscopies involve threading a tiny camera through the rectum into the colon and are the most accurate way to screen for colon cancer. People over 50 are advised to undergo the procedure every 10 years.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 147,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer this year and 57,000 will die from the disease.

Mysliwiec and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute surveyed gastroenterologists and general surgeons about their colonoscopy recommendations in 1999 and 2000.

Medical guidelines on how often patients should have a followup colonoscopy do not call for surveillance after removal of a hyperplastic polyp, a benign growth not believed to become cancerous.

People with such growths should only have the recommended colonoscopy every 10 years after age 50.

Yet they found that 24 percent of the gastroenterologists and 54 percent of the general surgeons surveyed recommended surveillance colonoscopy every three to five years for a small, hyperplastic polyp.

"Overuse of colonoscopy taxes the health care system and may compromise the quality of care," the researchers wrote.

"Long waiting times of several months are already occurring in some parts of the country and could mean reduced access for symptomatic patients and those with limited means."

A colonoscopy costs between $1,500 to $1,700 in the United States.

In a second report, the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued new recommendations saying patients who have been successfully operated on for stage II colon cancer do not need any chemotherapy.

Writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, they said patients who get chemotherapy after surgery have only about a 4 percent to 5 percent greater chance of survival five years after surgery, compared with patients who had surgery alone.

"It is critical for each patient to weigh the risk of therapy and any potential benefit," said Dr. Al Benson, director of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center's Clinical Investigations Program at Northwestern University.
- posted by Richard @ 9:40 PM

 

Not Quite Ready for Prime-Time?

Microsoft Pushes Back Automatic Delivery of SP2
By Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft Watch
August 16, 2004

Monday, August 16, was set to be D-day for the automatic delivery of Microsoft's Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2).

But at the last minute, the Redmond software vendor decided to push back by at least nine days the Windows Update/Automatic Update launch date for its collection of security fixes and features. Microsoft cited customer demand as the reason for the delay. A number of corporate customers are not ready to deploy SP2 and need to use Microsoft's recently introduced toolkit for temporarily blocking SP2 delivery until they can adequately test the release with their custom and third-party software.
- posted by Richard @ 9:37 PM