Give me soft news or give me... well, just soft news.

Had enough of all the bad news going on in the world? Tired of thinking about that nasty war so far away and all the people dying?

Apparently the editors at Newsweek think you are. For the October 2nd edition of Newsweek this is the cover you'll see if you buy the magazine in the US.

The tag line for the article "In her new book, Annie Leibovitz, our most famous photographer, places celebs side by side with surprisingly personal images of love and loss. An exclusive."

With all that's going in in the world and across the US, Newsweek runs a cover of someone famous for photographing celebrities. Don't get me wrong, I think Annie Leibovitz is brilliant. She's an amazing photographer and has had an amazing career. But is this really the most important "news" of the week?

Turns out, only if you're in the US. On the other hand, if you are outside the US, Newsweek apparently knows that "real" news is what you are reading NEWSweek for. The Newsweek cover of October 2nd for magazines sold outside the US has this extremely disturbing photo of an Afghan fighter ready to launch a rocket that highlights a story about the real danger of losing the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan.

Michelle Pilecki on Eat The Press explains that "Celebrity covers nearly always sell far more than mere news... the actual differences in sales can be huge. And a foreign news story, in particular, is the kiss of death for newsstand sales, regardless of how important the story is."

It's appalling to think that not only has Bush's war left the vast majority of Americans untouched (only a tiny percentage of the population actually serve in the armed forces, and my lifestyle certainly hasn't change, has yours?), but magazine editors have realized we won't even buy their magazines to read about the cost and dangers of this war.

Liver and Onions

Well, in this case, it's just the liver. My liver function has been elevated for some time now. A couple weeks ago I had an ultrasound of my liver which showed "fatty liver" condition. So, my doctor has referred me to a Gastrointerologist for follow-up to see if a biopsy or other tests are indicated.

Interesting that this is a fairly common side effect for people who have had gastric bypass surgery. Since I've had it twice, I guess I was a shoe-in for the condition.

WebMd says this about what the condition "can", not necessarily "will", lead to:

Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH)

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a part of a group of liver diseases known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The buildup of fat in the cells of the liver is called fatty liver, or steatosis, and in itself is not harmful. Many people have fatty liver. In NASH, the fat buildup causes inflammation of the liver, which can lead to symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and weakness.

NASH typically appears in people during middle-age, in their 40s and 50s, but it can happen earlier or later in life. It occurs equally in men and women.

Early on, the buildup of fat does not affect the function of the liver, and you will have no symptoms. As fat continues to build up and inflammation occurs, liver function begins to decline and symptoms develop. This inflammation leads to scarring and severe damage of the liver.

There is no clear reason why some people with fatty liver develop NASH and others do not.
Once the liver has been damaged, there is a much greater chance that the damage will continue and get worse. In some cases, the disease progression can stop and even reverse on its own without treatment. In other cases, however, NASH can slowly get worse and cause scarring (fibrosis) of the liver, which leads to cirrhosis. Cirrhosis means that the liver has become scarred and hardened and is not able to function normally.

NASH progresses to advanced liver disease in about 15% to 20% of cases.

Bush's own agencies say Iraq war has generated more terrorists and made us less safe...

A story in Sunday's New York Times--"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat"--details a National Intelligence report that describes how the invasion and occupation of Iraq has fueled radical Islamic violence around the world.

Unless you've been viewing the world strictly through the rose-colored neo-conservative glasses apparently issued to every member of the Bush administration and its shrinking fan base, then you know that the world isn't a better place now than it was three years ago when the Bushies took their eye off the ball and invaded Iraq.

We can all agree that Saddam Husein isn't a nice guy. As dictator of Iraq he was responsible for any number of inhumane acts of unspeakable violence against the people in his own country. However, the same thing can be said about any number of despotic leaders across the world. Why don't we care enough about the people of those countries to invade and force a regime change? Simple. They don't have oil so they don't count. Oh, and there's that little matter of those other leaders never having threatened to kill the elder Bush, so baby Bush doesn't have the same perverse obsession with them as he has with Husein.

Now, here we are, five years after 9/11 and three years after the invasion of Iraq where American forces have been doing their damnedest to stay a step ahead of the growing violence brought on by an ever-strengthening insurgence made up of some mix of sectarian violence (religious infighting between the various sects in Iraq) and Islamic fundamentalists who now have an unstable country to launch endless attacks from now that Saddam is gone.

Yup, come to find out (wouldn't you have thought this would have been part of the "intelligence" that was considered when we got into this war?) Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalists, had nothing to do with AL Qaeda and, in fact, worked aggressively to keep them and their influence out of Iraq. Was he a nice man or a just leader, no. Was he an important check on Islamic fundamentalism that is spawning unspeakable violence across the globe, absolutely.

Not only is Iraq suffering the impacts of a civil war, as order has been lost in the country it's opened it up as a launching pad for Islamic violence. In case you're buying the Bush administration's line that Iraq isn't in the midst of a civil war, consider this from a New York Times article last week.

"The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high number that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the United Nations said Wednesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office highlighted the sectarian crisis gripping the country, offering a grim assessment across a range of indicators - worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women."

What would you call it if thousands of Americans were being killed and tortured every month at the hands of other Americans with differing ideologies? I'd call it civil war.

Ugh... not the best day I've had.

Just got back from an impromptu all-employee meeting. The news is not good. Cingular is not going to renew a contract with Infospace that provides us with a lot of revenue. There will be significant layoffs. Don't know for sure yet what it means for me, but I'll be surprised if I'm not impacted. Should know in a week or so... Drat.


InfoSpace says revenue will be hurt by loss of customer
By Tricia Duryee
Seattle Times Eastside business reporter

InfoSpace said today that one of its wireless customers no longer needs its services.

Not having that relationship will negatively affect the company's mobile revenues, which totaled almost $90 million in the first six months of this year, the company said in a release.

InfoSpace helps carriers sell ringtones and other content to wireless customers by developing relationships with record labels and other companies.

In the release, issued after the market closed as employees were called to Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue for a companywide meeting, InfoSpace said one of its customers plans to develop direct licensing relationships with the major record labels starting in early 2007.

Because of this, the company said it plans to rationalize its costs to align them with future revenues. Specific plans will be announced within 30 days.

"While we are disappointed in this decision and we will realign costs to reflect the revenue reduction, we maintain a strong presence in mobile infrastructure and search services," said CEO Jim Voelker.

For the past couple of months, Wall Street analysts criticized InfoSpace's business model because they said carriers could work directly with music labels and studios to cut out InfoSpace, which acts like a middleman.

Besides InfoSpace's mobile division, it also generates revenues from its online properties, such as DogPile and Switchboard.

Today's annoying news...

Study reports 1 in 10 'straight' men have gay sex
BY JORDAN LITE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Nearly 10 percent of New York men who say they're straight are having sex with other men, city health officials found in a first-ever study of the "down-low" phenomenon here.

And a "surprising" 70% of that group are married - and less likely to use condoms or to have been tested for HIV than those who identify themselves as gay, said Dr. Susan Blank, assistant commissioner at the city Health Department.

Most live outside Manhattan, and many are minorities, foreign-born or of low economic and educational status, according to the survey, conducted in 2003 and published in today's Annals of Internal Medicine.

"We expected a substantive percentage [to be married], but we hadn't estimated 70%. No one should be making assumptions. Marital status isn't necessarily an indicator of sexual behavior," Blank said.

The down-low phenomenon, in which supposedly straight men sleep with other men on the sly, has been the subject of anecdotal reports in recent years. However, this is the first time health experts have scientific evidence of it, Blank said.

---

The annoying part here is that apparently even straight men are having more gay sex than I am! That's just wrong.

__

I admit it, I'm an addict.

Yeah, like it's news that I have an addiction, huh? Well, this particular addiction isn't food related so shut up. I must admit when I saw the unbelievably brainy guy (Wayne, who sat across the cube wall from me at my last job) doing some number puzzle every morning, I immediately assumed it was math and that I would hate it. Just looking at him zipping through the puzzle made me feel dumb.

Given my history with numbers, that reaction isn't something you would need a psychic to predict. In 1980 I moved away from home to Provo, Utah to give it the ol' college try at BYU. I would never have imagined that 6 months later I would be the not-so-proud owner of a big fat "F" in beginning math. Oh no, this wasn't beginning COLLEGE math, this was the math they put you in if you're too stupid for college math. In my defense, two things sabotaged my success in the class. First, it was self-paced. Come on. Just out of high-school. Living away from home in a new city adjusting to a whole new life. What made them think I could do a self-paced math class that didn't actually have any, uh, CLASSES? It was up to you to go to the "math lab" and get help when you needed/wanted it and then take the tests on a regular basis to not fall behind. I didn't do either.

If the self-paced nature of the class weren't enough to seal my fate (which it probably was), about 2 weeks into the semester I went roller skating for the first time in my life with an old high school friend who was also going to BYU. Within 5 minutes I'd fallen down and broken my right arm. This put a serious crimp in my activities, starting with the Bowling physical ed class I'd signed up for and including driving the green Forest Service surplus truck my folks had bought and send me off to college with... yes, it had a manual shift transmission. Not so easy to do with your right arm in a cast up to your arm pit. Frankly, getting to the math lab was the last thing on my mind.

Even my eventual success (10 years later when I returned to college) at math hasn't dislodged the lip-curling aversion I have to anything math-like. Numbers just don't make sense to me in that way. Perhaps if they didn't mix the alphabet in with the numbers that would help. But it's too late now, my life as a mathematician just wasn't to be.

So, back to Wayne and his show-off math puzzle. Suddenly, I seemed to be surrounded by a world full of people who were apparent math experts. In every airport I was in, mall food court I ate at, or coffee shop I wandered into, there were brainiacs everywhere hunched over their "Sudoku" puzzle books completely oblivious to how they were making the rest of us non-math people feel.

And then it happened. I tried one. Just to prove to myself that they weren't any fun really. Immediately I realized the folly of my assumptions. There was no math required here! Could you count to nine? Then, hell, you too could be hunkered over your own totally addicting, time-wasting, eye-straining, brain boosting Sudoku puzzles! And now it's even MORE everywhere. Online, of course. The best site I've found is Count To Nine where you can select from 5 different levels of difficulty. But there's also sudoku for your mobile phone, a hand-held game kind of like those goofy poker things that make all the noise and flash a lot, and, of course, every bookstore has scads of the books filled with the brain-straining little grids.

The appeal is its simplicity. While harder puzzles require tremendous concentration and a fair bit of strategy, the basic "rules" of the game are stunningly simple. There are 9 squares ( 3 x 3) each accommodating 9 numbers. Each number ( 1 through 9) can be used only one time in each square and only 1 time in each 3-square puzzle-spanning row or column. That's it.

The difficulty of a puzzle is based on the relevance and the positioning of the "given" numbers (the numbers that are filled in when you start) rather than their quantity. Surprisingly, the number of givens does not always reflect a puzzle's difficulty. The complexity is often based on the number the solving techniques required.

By eliminating which number cannot go into a square, you eventually hit upon the number that can go into a square. Guessing is not part of this game. Logic and strategy (many different strategies are described in the Wikipedia description of Sudoku).

I guess there are worse things to be addicted to, right?

She changed Texas politics. Ann Richards was one of a kind.

"Welcome to the first day of the new Texas!" Ann Richards growled into a microphone as she began her 1991 inaugural address. Ann Richards ushered tremendous change into Texas government. For the first time in the state's history, blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians found themselves included and part of state government. Sadly, the early politics of hate and division perfected by George Bush and Carl Rove limited this Grand Lady to one term in office. Her ability to leave an indelible impression on Texas government in just one term as Governor speaks to her level of influence.

It was Rove who brought defeat to Richards in the 1994 gubernatorial election. Though she outspent Bush and started the campaign far ahead of him, Rove turned her new Texas against her, using a standard "God, guns and gays" campaign to bring her down. Richards had vetoed a statute in support of concealed handguns, aware that it would be used against her in the next race, precisely as Rove and Bush did use it.

The politics of division and hate are not new. Perhaps 2006 and 2008 will see an electorate that has had enough. Enough of Republicans using wedge issues (gays and abortion) to coax voters into marking their ballots based on fear or worse, based on hate. We have so many things to unite us, so many issues that deserve our undivided attention. It in unconscionable that politicians would use the smokescreen of wedge issues simply to keep power.

American democracy is relatively young in comparison to the rest of the world's governments. Are we seeing the start of political power plays that will continue to divide Americans to the point of civil war? Sounds crazy, I know. But when you harness the power of hate to motivate an electorate, sometimes the fire gets out of control. You don't have to look very far these days to see "mainstream" right wing constituents and candidates openly saying that if you aren't with us -- meaning the Bush/right-wing agenda for the world -- then you are against us and you should find another country to call your home. Is that really what America stands for? What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of belief?

We need more leaders like Ann Richards. Inclusive, open-minded, smart and funny. More leaders who can inspire the very best in Americans rather than leverage the very worst for their own gain.

In her keynote address at the 1988 Democratic Convention her now legendary speech included such brilliant one-liners as "Poor George, he can't help it,” speaking about the current president's father, former President George Bush. “He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

The speech transformed her, then the Texas treasurer, into a national figure. And it made her, a mother of four, an admired champion of feminism. “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did,” she told the national audience. “She just did it backwards and in high heels.”

Ann Richards died Wednesday at her home in Austin. She was 73. The cause was complications of esophageal cancer. She will be missed.

"Mr. President, You Would Understand If You Had Fought"

As Bush continues to make his case for torture, many who have actually served in combat continue to plead with him to, for a minute, consider that he may not have the only point of view that deserves attention. Of course, he has repeatedly established that he gives no thought or credence to any opposing views, so there won't be reasoned, rational discussion on the issue. Paul Riechoff blogged on The Huffington Post today the following:

---

Paul Riechoff writes:

I want to commend Senators McCain, Graham and Warner, and also General Colin Powell, for their unequivocal stand against the use of torture on enemy detainees. They are right on this issue. And the President is wrong.

As veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, IAVA's members are standing with these fellow combat veterans in opposing the President's plan for military tribunals involving terror suspects.

For the safety of our own troops, it is absolutely imperative that we take an unequivocal stand against the use of torture on all enemy detainees. Not only is it the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do.

It is insulting that the President, who has never served in combat, would dismiss the credible and reasoned advice of men like Senator McCain, a brave combat veteran who endured years of torture as a prisoner of war.

This issue is an example of the President's questionable commitment to our troops, and further demonstrates his failure to grasp the true dynamics of the modern battlefield. How can the President say to our men and women in uniform that he is willing to risk their safety over this? His new rules would put the lives of our fighting men and women serving overseas in jeopardy. The move would also further undermine America's struggle to win hearts and minds worldwide. Maybe the President would understand the righteousness of our stance more clearly if he had personally served in combat.

The President repeatedly tells us that this fight is tough, but those of us who have been there know that already. And the President's stand on this issue will only make it tougher.

America the Entitled

Again today Bush exhibits his utter lack of tolerance and understanding for any point of view other than the one he's been programmed with by the likes of Rove, Cheney and Wolfowitz. The only way they could possibly hold the unwavering conviction that the Bush camp has on the Iraq war and the separate "war on terror" is to have the firm belief that America and the American people are unequivocally superior.

Bushies are incapable of viewing the world through the eyes of anyone but their own. In fact, even suggesting that there may possible be more than one world point of view, or that others across the globe may not see our war efforts as being quite as "pure" as the Bushies do, brings a swarming attack from the right of being unpatriotic and sympathizing with the terrorists.

NO! It's called diplomacy. It's called respecting ALL human life, not just the lives of those lucky few of us who live inside these 50 states. It's called not having the idea that this country has the "God-given" right to whatever the hell we want (oil) or the belief that we can impose our will on other countries down to the form of government that we find acceptable for them to practice? How long will the rest of the world tolerate the unfathomable depths of our national leader's hubris?

In a news conference today a reporter asks Bush to comment on Colin Powell's concern that the world will not look kindly on America abandoning its morals and things like, oh say the Geneva Convention articles which prohibit torture. Of course, he completely evades the point and basically paints his fellow-Republican (Colin Powell no less!) as a terrorist sympathizer. Could he possibly be this stupid? Or, has Rove just taught him so well how to reframe an argument with vitriolic language away from a valid point that he can't resist even using it against one of his own? Here's the exchange with the reporter today:

QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

Bush's Response:
_______________________________________________________________________

BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.

It's just -- I simply can't accept that.

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

My job and the job of people here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country. We didn't ask for this war.
You might remember the 2000 campaign. I don't remember spending much time talking about what it might be like to be a commander in chief in a different kind of war.

But this enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again. And we'll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country. That's our job.

It's a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish I could tell the American people, "Don't worry about it. They're not coming again." But they are coming again.

And that's why I've sent this legislation up to Congress. And that's why we'll continue to work with allies in building a vast coalition, to protect not only ourselves but them.

The facts are -- is that after 9/11, this enemy continued to attack and kill innocent people.

I happen to believe that they're bound by a common ideology. Matter of fact, I don't believe it, I know they are. And they want to impose that ideology throughout the broader Middle East. That's what they have said.

Makes sense for the commander in chief and all of us involved in protecting this country to listen to the words of the enemy. And I take their words seriously. And that's what's going to be necessary to protect this country, is to listen carefully to what they say and stay ahead of them as they try to attack us.

Steve?

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

BUSH: No, you can't.

Steve?
_______________________________________________________________

OK, here's the Cliff Notes:

Question: Mr. President, are you concerned about how the world may view America if we abandon our morals in the name of a war on terror?

Bush: How can you possibly say that Americans are anything like the baby-killing terrorists? They want to kill you and I'm not going to let them kill you. Are you scared? You should be scared. They want to kill you. Vote Republican.

That's about the extent of his argument.

And the truth will set us free...

Below is an address given by Senator Robert Byrd on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. THIS is what Democrats need to be screaming from every rooftop. Stop letting Republicans get away with their terrorizing Americans into voting for them. Speak the truth over and over and sooner or later, people will listen and learn.


Thursday, September 14th, 2006
I Hope That We May Find the Courage...

By Senator Robert C. Byrd

US Senate Floor Remarks
September 13, 2006

Mr. President,

September 11 has come and gone, and as we remember those lost on that fateful day, and contemplate events since the horrific attack, one truth stands out.

The war in Iraq has backfired, producing more recruits for terrorism, and deep divisions within our own country. It is a war we should never have begun. The detour from our attack on Bin Laden and his minions, hiding in the cracks and crevices of the rough terrain of Afghanistan, to the unwise and unprovoked attack on Iraq has been a disastrous one. Mr. Bush’s war has damaged the country because he drove our blessed land into an unnecessary conflict, utterly misreading the consequences, with the result now being a daily display of America’s vulnerabilities to those who wish us ill. The United States is a weaker power now, especially in the Middle East, but also in the court of world opinion. Where is the America of restraint, of peace and of inspiration to millions? Where is the America respected not only for her military might, but also for her powerful ideas and her reasonable diplomacy?

Our country may have deviated occasionally from its positive global image in the past, but Abu Ghraib, the body snatching for torture, euphemistically called rendition, Presidential directives which unilaterally alter conditions of the Geneva Convention -- these are not the stuff of mere slight deviations from the America of peacefulness, fairness, and goodwill. These are major policy and attitudinal changes of Tsunami-sized proportions. Our friends shake their heads in disbelief. Our enemies nod wisely and claim they knew all the while. I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held accountable for costly misjudgments and outright deceptions.

Take our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for example. He misread the Iraqi situation entirely. He adamantly dismisses suggestions for a larger force in Iraq. He failed to object when the White House’s Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi army, only to have them go underground and provide fodder for the insurgency. He insisted that the Iraqi people would view our soldiers as liberators not occupiers, and even failed to properly anticipate the equipment needs of our men and women in harm’s way.

Secretary Rumsfeld continues to insist that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq despite convincing evidence to the contrary, and yet he sits comfortably in his office as the echo of his errors in judgment and strategy continues to cost thousands of lives.

Then there is President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. These men continue to try to make the American public swallow whole the line that the war in Iraq is the front line of a global war on terror, which must be continued at all costs. Stay the course, they say, despite three years of discouragingly little progress in Iraq. The body count is approaching 2,700 for our side, tens of thousands for the beleaguered Iraqi people, and billions of American tax dollars, of which an embarrassingly large chunk has been wasted by irresponsible contractors, and government officials who lack the proper respect for the public purse. Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth that the Administration fails to see: namely, we had the weapons to win the war, but not the wisdom to secure the peace.

Yet, too many in the public are complacent about the numerous violations of their trust and the continuing loss of life in Iraq. Some of our citizens have apparently been convinced that it is unpatriotic to criticize one’s country when that country is engaged in an armed conflict. In fact, in our land today, there is a troubling tolerance for government overreaching on fronts at home as well as abroad. This Administration has repeatedly used fear and flag-waving to blunt the traditional American insistence on the Bill of Rights, personal freedom of thought and action, privacy, and one’s right to speak and write as one pleases. Such a cynical exercise on the part of high officials of our government is unconscionable. It is shameful behavior for which there is no excuse.

The Congress, under the control of the President’s party has been submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of White House secrecy and deception. Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for too long -- unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to “support the troops.” We forget, too often, that there is a very real difference between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The men and women of our military did not ask to go to those faraway places, but they were willing. They answered their country’s call. We have an obligation to support them, but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep them mired in the middle of a civil war.

The American public is our last best hope now. Our people must demand more from their representatives in the Congress and from their leaders in the White House. Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced by the President because he has made so many grievous errors in judgement on Iraq and because a new voice at the helm of the Department of Defense could be a breath of fresh air for our policies in Iraq. His replacement would be good for our country. Yet even a sense of the Senate vote of “no confidence” in Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership has been blocked by the President’s party in the Senate. Personal accountability has been long absent from this Administration, and this Senator would like to see it return.

One would hope that men and women who rise to positions of awesome responsibility would have the grace, dignity, and honor to know in their own hearts when a well-timed resignation would advance patriotic goals. But, too often, the selfish love of power or some misguided show of toughness wins the days to the detriment of our country’s fortunes. Donald Rumsfeld ought to step down or his President ought to ask him to. There is too much at stake for any other course. Personally, I believe the President is derelict in his duties when he does not ask for Mr. Rumsfeld’s latchkey. The bungling and loss of life attendant to this tragic three-year long debacle in Iraq have hurt this country, its public image, and its ability to achieve numerous other national and international goals. That kind of dangerous ineptitude cannot be excused.

But like so many things when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East in general, the United States of America is stuck in neutral, with the only thing showing vigorous movement the ever spiraling price of gasoline. We have destabilized the Middle East, and handed the mullahs a way to affect the daily lives and livelihood of every American, and the efficacy of our military might -- the oil supply lines upon which our economy and our military depend.

Now that oil supply is a favorite target for terrorists who have learned the joys of bombing pipelines, and listening to America bite its nails about the high cost of gasoline, while it laments its lack of foresight in developing alternative fuels.

Now, we have passed yet another anniversary of the bloody attacks which precipitated the disastrous situation in which our country finds itself today. Yet, while we mourn, there are hard truths to confront.

Our attention has been shifted, by design and deception, too quickly from the war in Afghanistan -- a war that we needed to fight and win. Now the Taliban is on the rise in that country. Al Qaeda continues to find sanctuary in the mountains. Violence is on the rise, and peace and stability are in jeopardy.

North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption and our newfound bellicosity, has increased its nuclear capability. Iran has been emboldened by our inability to stop the violence in Iraq, and by the lukewarm support we have garnered from traditional allies. Even the people of Turkey, one of the United States’ staunchest allies with Turkey a member of NATO, and a model of secular Muslim democracy, have turned against us. A survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States indicates that Iran has become one of the most popular countries in Turkey, and that there is a growing willingness to identify with radical Islam. A display of ineptitude and spectacular miscalculation in Iraq has cost us dearly. Disenchantment at home with the dismal results in Iraq will have reverberations for years, much like the failure in Vietnam did in the 1960's.

President Bush insists that his war must go on. He defends warrantless wiretapping of our own citizens as essential to his cause, despite a court decision that the President has no such authority under our Constitution. He defends torture and rendition, and says that they have produced valuable evidence which has subverted several terror attacks on our country. But, his credibility is so damaged that it is difficult to believe him. He demands the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and then to try them using military tribunals which deny basic rights, also in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. He seems convinced that he can “win” a global war on terror despite the demonstrated failure of his policies of unilateralism, militarism, overheated rhetoric, and a pathological dislike of diplomacy. It is up to the Congress to change course and to stop the heinous raiding of constitutionally protected liberties by a White House which does not fully appreciate the true meaning of the word freedom. I hope that we may find the courage.

Rosie's View

Until last week, I'd never made it through an entire episode of The View. The cross-talk chaos of loud-mouth women talking over one another, the inane guests, and Star Jones made the show unwatchable. But being an avowed fan of The Rosie Show and having seen her recent HBO special I just had to see what Rosie would bring to The View.

I dutifully set my ReplayTV up to capture the show daily and I must say, I like it. Rosie is real. She's not polished. She says things most TV people wouldn't. And dang-it, she's just damn funny. OK, so I still fast-forward through many of the guest segments preferring the chit-chat sessions.

I'm glad Rosie is back and it is truly a testament to her strength that she hasn't strangled Elizabeth yet. I noticed yesterday they moved Elizabeth closer to Rosie... putting her dangerously within arm's reach. Stay strong Rosie. Elizabeth just mimics the Republican party line but you can tell there isn't an ounce of understanding to what she says.

Like yesterday when the crew were discussing Brad Pitt's recent statement that he and Angelina won't get married until everyone in the US who wants to get married can get married. Elizabeth's puzzled retort that "Everyone who wants to CAN get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex." If that isn't truly one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time then I don't know what is. How could you so proudly invalidate the loving relationships of millions of gay people and miss the entire point of one of the greatest moral questions of our time?

A "religious moment" on the bus

This is week 3 of riding the bus to work and I must say, getting time to read in the mornings has turned out to be about the best part of my new job. Yes, it's a bit of a hassle to get to the Park and Ride before 7:00 to make sure there is still parking. Yes, some of the people on the bus are rude or may not smell the freshest. But, for that 25 minutes it takes to get to work in the morning I'm able to dive into Newsweek, The Week, Money, or one of the other magazines that used to go unread month after month at home and end up in the recycle bin because there's nothing interesting about old news.

I've been riding home with Wayson so that he can use the HOV lane, so I usually don't get to read in the afternoon commute.

Today I read a fascinating article in the September 11, 2006 issue of Newsweek. It's titled The New Naysayers and it is a fascinating discussion of religion throughout the ages and contrasts faith with other "belief systems" such as Darwinism or Humanisim.

One particularly interesting quote "They [the authors of the books discussed in the article] ask: where do people get their idea of God? From the Bible or the Qur'an. "Tell a devout Christian ... that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible," Harris writes, "and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."

Whatever your beliefs happen to be, this is a very interesting article.

Cheney: “If We Had It To Do Over Again, We'd Do Exactly The Same Thing”...

A cool Sunday morning with that little nip of fall in the air. Glad the hot days are over but not ready for the 15 hours a day of darkness. I'm going to get some uplighting for the living room to try and ward off the winter blues this year.

Darth Vader (Cheney) was on Meet The Press this morning with Tim Russert. Dick is just too good a liar. Tim is doing his best but there's just no getting the truth out of evil incarnate. I keep wondering if the neo-cons actually believe the twisted logic of fearmongering that they are so steadfastly espousing or if it is truly as cynical as it seems... all just to keep their base frightened enough to keep voting for them.



There's a terrific post by Brent Budowsky that talks about how history will judge the Bush presidency. Worth a read.

Went to the doctor yesterday and the pain in my chest is Costochondritis. Not sure what caused it, but severe and sudden pain in the chest that can be caused by an injury, a virus, all kinds of things. Mine was probably fooling around on the roof last weekend. The doctor gave me an anti-inflammatory which has already helped a lot.