www.slublog.com

His final step was to "acknowledge the volatility of long-standing tensions that give rise to proliferation, in regions such as the Middle East and the Korean peninsula, and take action to resolve existing security problems and, where needed, provide security assurances."

That such restrictions are even being contemplated by our government is outrageous. We will fight any attempt to impose them. And we believe we may have a unique role to play in the battle ahead. LoneStarTimes.com is affiliated with KSEV 700 AM, an independently owned talk-radio station in Houston, TX. As such, we believe that we enjoy the "broadcast exemption" that prohibits the federal government from regulating our speech in the manner they are proposing for "mere" citizen bloggers. While we still need to talk to some sharp lawyers and nail down the details, if these restrictions come to pass, KSEV and LST are committed to working out a legally sound way in which individual bloggers - of every ideological persuasion and partisan affiliation - can somehow register with us and be credentialed as a press representative of KSEV and LST.

Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they won.

Wes Boyd - the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn - blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins "in the classical sense." But he sees the rise of MoveOn's progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself.

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition - but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide - but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states - but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down.

BERNSTEIN, JARED ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE/ECONOMIST $250 Kerry, John

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

As it ran in the Portland Press Herald on Thursday, February 17, 2005 Some Maine columnists are disparaging me personally and belittling my Christian beliefs. They wrongly assume that this is the way to undermine the Christian Civic League's work against the homosexual rights movement in Maine. That is why bitter personal attacks and ridicule have finally come to the forefront. Over the past decade, the League has more than once successfully opposed the agenda of the homosexual rights movement, even though every last bastion of elitism in Maine was against us. I don't think this success is attributable to my charming personality or my quick wit. It is attributable to the force of the ideas we have offered.

Now, the left has finally exhausted its supply of arguments and deceptions. The only course of action left open to liberal columnists is to attack me personally. I lead an organization which is concerned with matters of right and wrong, so words like "evil" and "wrong" do have a place in my arguments. I do feel outraged at times and angry at other times. This is a natural reaction for anyone who sees something he loves being harmed. And I do feel "buoyant and youthful" on occasion, when I see the truth winning out.

I don't hate anyone; nor do I ridicule or revile my opponents. My heart aches when I think of the brokenness I see in homosexual relationships.

Someone very close to me recently told me about riding in a car with his young niece, a little girl without a father - not through an accident or a broken marriage, but through design. Her mother is a lesbian. The little girl asked my friend, "Is it OK if I call you Daddy?" If your heart isn't broken by this, you had better see a minister, and fast - or better yet, check your pulse. It is fascinating to me that this entire issue can be reduced so easily to an argument over one person - me - by so many otherwise thoughtful writers in Maine. They seem indifferent about the future of families in Maine, preferring instead to make the absurd charge that I "hate gays."

To those on the left, this isn't about hating the sin and loving the sinner. It's substituting personal attacks for real ideas. It isn't about important theological and philosophical issues. It's about the need to turn a blind eye towards matters of right and wrong, truth and falsehood. And this debate is deeply personal for all of us. The left is hitting closer and closer to more and more homes.

We have some very serious work to do on the issue of human sexuality. If we do not, we are going to lose this civilization. Part of being human is to make a distinction between right and wrong. Philosophers call this "the ethical fact." All cultures have done this up to now, except our own, a culture in which liberals have gained the upper hand. They have decided to place sex in a special category where nothing is right or wrong.

But allow me to ask a simple question: Wouldn't it be better for all involved if we maintained our traditional understanding of marriage and the family? Every lesbian or "gay" man longs for a loving mother and father. Every mother and father wants to build a family that gives them grandchildren. Why aren't we creating a society with policies, laws, and beliefs that support this obvious truth? Instead, we want to violate common sense, ignore the lessons of history and toss out customs and laws that stretch back thousands of years, all in an effort to place sodomy on a par with holy matrimony.

Where is the logic in this? Perhaps Bill Nemitz can explain it to you. I can't. It is a form of social insanity with roots that are deep and wide. There is only one solution, and that is for Christians to speak and act like Christians.

That means no pornography. It is wrong. It means no sex outside of marriage. That is wrong, too. That means divorce only in the case of adultery, and even then it must be discouraged.

Christians need to be Christian. What else will they be? From what historic and durable set of ideas will we derive our values? The "Religion and Values" pages of the Portland Press Herald?

Do we even care? I hope so. Indeed, I pray so. The little girls and boys of the future are all going to want mommies and daddies. They are already calling for them, you know.

And look at us, and we're torturing people and we're outsourcing torture. The administration is trying to throw journalists in jail and basically trying to replace the whole press crew with ringers, including male escorts. I mean, even Nixon hated the press, but he never tried to actually do an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" thing with them. So as Tom has pointed out, it's a Pandora's box. There are good spirits and evil spirits that we've unleashed.

A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web.

(Though it sounds like something you would find stuck in a drain, the ugly neologism blog is a contraction of "web log.") Until recently, I had not spent much time thinking about blogs or Blog People.

I had heard of the activities of the latter and of the absurd idea of giving them press credentials (though, since the credentials were issued for political conventions, they were just absurd icing on absurd cakes). I was not truly aware of them until shortly after I published an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times ("Google and God's Mind," December 17, 2004). Then, thanks to kind friends with nothing but my welfare in mind, I rapidly learned more about the blog subcultures.

My piece had the temerity to question the usefulness of Google digitizing millions of books and making bits of them available via its notoriously inefficient search engine. The Google phenomenon is a wonderfully modern manifestation of the triumph of hope and boosterism over reality. Hailed as the ultimate example of information retrieval, Google is, in fact, the device that gives you thousands of "hits" (which may or may not be relevant) in no very useful order.

Those characteristics are ignored and excused by those who think that Google is the creation of "God's mind," because it gives the searcher its heaps of irrelevance in nanoseconds. Speed is of the essence to the Google boosters, just as it is to consumers of fast "food," but, as with fast food, rubbish is rubbish, no matter how speedily it is delivered.

In the eyes of bloggers, my sin lay in suggesting that Google is OK at giving access to random bits of information but would be terrible at giving access to the recorded knowledge that is the substance of scholarly books. I went further and came up with the unoriginal idea that the thing to do with a scholarly book is to read it, preferably not on a screen. It turns out that the Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief.

How could I possibly be against access to the world's knowledge? Of course, like most sane people, I am not against it and, after more than 40 years of working in libraries, am rather for it. I have spent a lot of my long professional life working on aspects of the noble aim of Universal Bibliographic Control - a mechanism by which all the world's recorded knowledge would be known, and available, to the people of the world. My sin against bloggery is that I do not believe this particular project will give us anything that comes anywhere near access to the world's knowledge.

It is obvious that the Blog People read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them and judge me to be wrong on the basis of what they think rather than what I actually wrote. Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs. In that case, their rejection of my view is quite understandable.

At least two of the blog excerpts sent to me (each written under pseudonyms) come from self-proclaimed "conservatives," which I find odd because many of the others come from people who call me a Luddite and are, presumably, technology-obsessed progressives. The Luddite label is because my mild remarks have been portrayed as those of someone worried about the job security of librarians (I am not) rather than one who has a different point of view on the usefulness of this latest expression of Google hubris and vast expenditure of money involved.

If a fraction of the latter were devoted to buying books and providing librarians for the library-starved children of California, the effort would be of far more use to humanity and society. Perhaps that latter thought will reinforce the opinion of the Blog Person who included "Michael Gorman is an idiot" in his reasoned critique, because no opinion that comes from someone who is "antidigital" (in the words of another Blog Person) could possibly be correct. For the record, though I may have associated with Antidigitalists, I am not and have never been a member of the Antidigitalist party and would be willing to testify to that under oath. I doubt even that would save me from being burned at the virtual stake, or, at best, being placed in a virtual pillory to be pelted with blogs. Ugh!

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. They don't have to be evangelical, but they're religious. They believe in religion, which as - I think it was Jesse Ventura who had that quote about religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.

Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say.

They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work.

They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie.

Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guys.

Some fair points could have been made here about the excesses of some, but making them would have required intellectual and moral engagement. For Whitman and the cliche-smith who assisted her, it's enough to strike the appropriate attitudes and supply the appropriate code words.

Even the scars left by past differences can be turned into today's opportunities. Precisely because the United Nations did not agree on some earlier actions in Iraq, today it has much needed credibility with, and access to, Iraqi groups who must agree to join in the new political process if peace is to prevail. The U.N. can be useful because it is seen as independent and impartial. If it ever came to be seen as a mere instrument or prolongation of U.S. foreign policy, it would be worthless to everyone.

In my eight years as secretary-general, I had already done a lot - with the support of member states, often led by the U.S. - to make the U.N. more coherent and efficient. Now we need to make it more transparent and accountable - not only to diplomats representing member governments, but also directly to the public.

"The best political journalist ever is dead.It scares me. Speculation isn't appropriate, but what did he know that we don't? I mean, this guy was one crazy [expletive]." "His blood is also on Bush's hands Probably just couldn't accept life with four more years of Bush. Guess he chose to take the easy way out. May he rest in peace."

Most Popular Items The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality Child Custody Protection Act Aberrant Judge Rules NY Constitution Allows Same-sex 'Marriage' Senate Joint Resolution #1 Staying Faithful To Marriage

Clinton and other lawmakers pointed to Al Gore's narrow loss in Florida and John Kerry's defeat by 118,000 votes in Ohio - both states where Republicans control the top state office. "That's not the way a great country runs its elections," Clinton told reporters.

"We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs," one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view." Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."

"This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98) "So that all of these achievements - the economic achievements - our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children - all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."(President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

With the lights out it's less dangerous Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious Here we are now Entertain us A mulatto An albino A mosquito My Libido Yeah

Should CNN's Eason Jordan have resigned over his reported remarks accusing the US of targeting journalists in Iraq? Yes : 26% No : 68% Unsure : 6% Number of pollers : 19116

Speaking to Aljazeera from New York, Dr Fawaaz Jajis, a professor of political science at University of Lawrence, said there is little room for voices of dissent in America. "The United States is in a state of war, militarily and ideologically," Jajis said. "Unfortunately, it seems that the truth is one of war's victims, as is freedom of the media, journalism and opinion in the United States," he added.

But should Eason Jordan lose his job for this? Or, to mine the deeper shaft here, was it wise for CNN to provide the enemies of free expression, critical thinking and The First Amendment with a victory on this count? Are they so lost as a network that they abandon basic principles? Is the main stream really now just a trickling tributary that can be diverted with just a few well thrown stones?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's ironic that he was brought down partly by talk-show and blogging folks who represent the opposite approach and have seldom...ventured out to do...frontline reporting."

Gannon always has the last laugh.

Even brave Officer Gannon couldn't prevent Oswald's shooting.

Gannon and Richard Nixon.

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.

"This great party of ours doesn't need a makeover...This party is poised to win in the future."

Ann Coulter says that soldiers should shoot journalists. And we've actually got the video of her saying it, unlike some other folks.

"We are fighting an illegal and immoral war," Suzanne Hedrick, 73, of Nobleboro told Fay. "Without another viewpoint, without the faces of the victims and the ruining of the country, I'm deeply concerned."

While critical of his subject matter, the protesters also were upset that Fay came to the show in full-dress uniform. They said it indicated that he was on official business and promoting war. "The fact that he would come not dressed as an artist, but as a Marine is an affront," said Natasha Mayers of Whitefield. "I'm for real expression that's not paid for. This guy is paid for, he's been a Marine all his life, and this is a military point of view. The day-to-day part of war, which we can't imagine, is what we need to see. We need to see images that tell us the truth."

A nerve in our business may just have snapped. Two days earlier in Southern Lebanon, Abed Takoush, another name known only in the news business was killed. Takoush was driving BBC correspondent Jeremy Bowen and his cameraman Malek Kenaan, a Lebanese freelance working for Reuters. Takoush was still inside his car when it was hit by an Israeli artillery shell. Or was he targeted and murdered in a final act of Israeli military spite?

Brigadier General Vince Brooks, deputy director of operations, has told us the Americans do not target journalists. But some war correspondents do not believe him, and Spanish journalists have demonstrated outside the US embassy in Madrid shouting 'murderers'. I believe that the traditional relationship between the military and the media - one of restrained hostility - has broken down, and the US administration has decided its attitude to war correspondents is the same as that set out by President Bush when declaring war on terrorists: 'You're either with us or against us.'

Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come. One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle. I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

What happened was this: Mr. Jordan observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his American captors. Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this, specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, "the [American] generals and colonels have their heart in the right place." By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that "there are people who believe there are people in the military" who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's dispatches.

I do think if the Bush administration had picked up the hand of cards on the table that we had left them, we might be in better shape now

Brian and I have had some good discussions and I believe that there are people at the Pentagon trying to do the right thing but candidly and we hear this all the time from officials in Washington, actions speak louder than words. And you talk about dignity and respect for un-embedded journalists and journalists in general but the reality is that at least 8, maybe 10, maybe more journalists in Iraq have been killed by the US military. There are reports that I believe to be true that journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces. One case that was not talked about here: an Al-Jazeera journalist put in Abu Ghraib and physically and emotionally abused, called a Jazeera boy and forced to eat his shoe and other things. Even now there's an Al-Arabiya journalist in Fallujah who's been in captivity now for a week. The US military has said that he is not guilty of anything and he'll be freed, but we're now 6 or 7 days into his captivity. It's just these actions and the fact that no-one in the US military has been punished or reprimanded for any of these things would indicate that the US military really does not have respect for the journalistic corps in Iraq.

One question about the political imperative of the Defence Secretary and those serving him both in the civilian field and also in uniform. You're upfront speaking to us today but there is a very strong impression that has been confirmed by other coalition militaries, that the media are a damn nuisance, ignore them, ignore the laws of armed conflict, ignore the Geneva Convention, ignore the International Criminal Court and any fear of war crimes.

Suggestions that part of US war policy was to deliberately target news organisations drew attention from the Newsworld conference of media executives, meeting recently in Barcelona. Reflecting the broad concerns amongst journalists, BBC World correspondent Nik Gowing told the conference, "It seems to me there is some evidence to be put to the Pentagon about the targeting of news organisations... It seems people uplinking journalistic material [by satellite] can be targeted legitimately." Gowing noted, "al-Jazeera has been providing some material that has been very uncomfortable." Gowing also compared the attack on al-Jazeera to the US bombing of Serbian TV in Belgrade in 1999.

The new Pentagon warnings following the al-Jazeera bombing now appear to make such deployments even riskier. The Pentagon is warning news organisations: stay out or assume your technology will make you one of our targets.

Nik Gowing is a member of the Chatham House Council and main presenter for BBC World.

A contribution from our chairman Nik Gowing about our colleagues caught in the crossfire in the wrong place at the wrong time as a result of screw ups or whatever you choose to ascribe to those particular activities.

I want to commend to you the very sad, very traumatic and very important book which INSI has backed from the start. It's a first of its kind. A detailed tribute to each and every one of our colleagues who died or went missing. Important contributions from the freelance community From the security industry From Nik Gowing on the worrying trend of journalists who died at the hands of the coalition - in the crossfire - through screw ups - however you want to portray it.

There is a growing fear that some governments - especially the most militarily sophisticated like the United States and Israel - are sanctioning the active targeting of journalists in war zones. The evidence is that they want to shut down what we are there to do - to bear witness and report. The concern is that there is an apparent culture of impunity. This is already encouraging others to believe they can get away with targeting and eliminating journalists, or at least ignoring the issue. More than ever, we are inconvenient eyes and ears who monitor and report what some in power would much prefer we did not. Media activity in the midst of real-time fighting is now regarded by commanders as having "military significance". If worst case fears are shown to be justified, then on the political and military side some senior officials seem to view our 24-hour/7 days-a-week presence as a real-time military threat that on some occasions justifies our removal by the application of deadly force. Despite expressions of sympathy, the killing or injury of journalists and technicians appears to be of barely marginal concern.

"I continue to vehemently oppose any cuts in the Navy's shipbuilding budget, especially during a time of increased demands on our armed forces as they prosecute the global war on terror," Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said in a written statement. "We simply must find the resources to bring DD(X) production up to acceptable levels and to ensure a steady workload at Bath Iron Works." Republican Sen. Susan Collins said in a written statement that the effectiveness of the Navy relies on the continued enhancement of the fleet. "We must not jeopardize our country's ability to counter current and future threats to our national security, particularly at a time when we face critical defense and humanitarian challenges around the world," Collins said.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Budget Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., had postured for days to force a vote on a $2.4 trillion spending blueprint for the next year. President Bush made a rare visit to the Capitol on Thursday, where he lobbied hundreds of Republican lawmakers in a basement meeting room for his agenda. But four Republican senators, including Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, remained steadfast with Democrats in opposition to the budget. Snowe and Collins, along with GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, argue that tax cuts or new spending should be offset with spending cuts elsewhere. The proposal is called "pay/go" in Washington shorthand, for "pay as you go."

Give me a word Give me a sign Show me where to look Tell what will I find ( will I find ) Lay me on the ground Fly me in the sky Show me where to look Tell me what will I find ( will I find ) Oh, heaven let your light shine down

I waited patiently for the Lord He inclined and heard my cry He brought me up out of the pit Out of the miry clay I will sing, sing a new song I will sing, sing a new song

Find out how painful the president's proposed budget cuts could be for you. Which programs will be slashed?

America could go to sleep safely last night knowing there had been no eye-popping "wardrobe malfunctions" during this year's Super Bowl halftime show, and that the game itself hadn't been the inflated bust, if you'll pardon the expression, that it sometimes was in years past. Perhaps still smarting from last year's absurd hysteria over the inappropriate appearance of Janet Jackson's nipple, the NFL and the Fox network played it super-safe at Super Bowl XXXIX, with a Don Mischer-produced halftime show that tastefully starred Paul McCartney tastefully singing tasteful songs that the whole world loves.

I absolutely would not say that this war in Iraq is a just war. The Anglo-American war in Iraq has been going on for many years.

TONY SNOW: The Bush administration has been engaged in, I think you would concede, a pretty furious round of diplomatic negotiations. GAROFALO: I absolutely would not concede that at all. I would not concede that at all. SNOW: Well, how do you get 18 European nations on your side without picking up the phone and making some calls? GAROFALO: Well, yes, I guess it's a lot of coercion and arm-twisting. I would say...I would say that it has been the idea since 1990, '91 to go into Iraq and to have hegemony over the region, redraw the map. Oil is a part of it, not all of it. But 9/11 has been a way to reinvigorate the plan that the right-wingers and the ideologues and people like the people at the American Enterprise Institute and...

More than two-thirds of Mainers believed it was most important the program yield "guaranteed monthly benefits," according to the poll, released the day after Bush's State of the Union address, during which he outlined his plan to revamp the system. Twenty-five percent thought it was more important to allow private investments.

I don't care, and CNN doesn't care, and Ted Turner doesn't care what the U.S. government thinks. We're going to do what we think is right for us, while still doing everything we can to observe the laws and regulations of this nation and other nations, but being creative in circumventing them in the process if we need to do that to report accurately and fairly and impartially and independently to our viewers around the world. We are a U.S. news organization, and we make no apologies for that. We're grateful for all of the freedoms that come along with being a U.S. news organization. Unfortunately, those freedoms do not extend beyond U.S. borders at times, and that's where we run into big problems at times with the U.S. government. We are a global network, and we take global interest first, not U.S. interests first.

Jordan and CNN have now provided at least four statements - the most recent of which is at Carol Platt Liebau's site - on what he said at Davos, and they don't hang together at all. There is also the nugget uncovered by Peter Cook and publicized broadly by Ed Morrissey, that in late 2004, Jordan accused American troops of torturing journalists...

CNN has had tremendous difficulties with the Iraqi government, a government that's accused me during my own trips to Baghdad of being a CIA station chief for Iraq. I feel lucky to have emerged alive from that. But it's very difficult working from Baghdad. It was during the war, and it continues to be today. Our view is, first of all, we will not consciously pull punches. If I ever find anybody doing it, then those people will be history at this network, as well as with our Iraq coverage.

We are a global network, and we take global interest first, not U.S. interests first.

CNN's biggest mistake came just a year ago with a story about a clandestine U.S. military effort called Operation Tailwind...CNN's Operation Tailwind reporting fell short, way short. It most certainly failed the fairness test.

NG: Eason, why do you think you've been targeted specifically, I mean there are Israeli bumper stickers that say 'CNN lies,' the Israeli communications minister talked about CNN as being 'evil, biased and unbalanced' you'll be familiar with all these quotes? EJ: Absolutely, well the Israeli government is making a mistake if it considers CNN the enemy, CNN is just trying to tell the story of Israel, the story of Palestinian areas in a straightforward way. We're not trying to favour one side over the other we're not going to pull any punches in our reporting but the truth hurts sometimes and it hurts both sides but it's a mistake to target the news media. We've had enormous frustrations in having access to occupied areas of the West Bank and Israeli forces on a number of occasions have shot at CNN personnel and in fact did shoot one CNN correspondent, he was badly wounded. The Israelis say they're actually trying to restrict our access to these areas and they say it's too dangerous for you to be there and my response to that is that it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous if you didn't shoot at us when we're clearly labelled as CNN crews and journalists. And so this must stop, this targeting of the news media both literally and figuratively must come to an end immediately.

We're working two very, very big stories right now that have a couple of things in common. One is they're enormously costly, but more importantly or more worrying is that they're both exceptionally dangerous, because we've seen something in both places that I thank God happens very rarely, and that is that in both places journalists are not only being killed but they're being targeted. There are combatants in both of these conflicts who are trying to kill journalists, and that is unusual and a very nightmarish situation.

Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, said there had been only a "limited amount of progress", despite repeated meetings between news organisations and the US authorities. "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.

This issue came to a head in the 1990s when concerns were raised that too much water was being taken out of some streams by farmers in Aroostook County. One stream was left so shallow that many fish died. To remedy the situation both the Department of Agriculture and the state's natural resource agencies came up with water withdrawal standards.

Mr. Sharansky has been a hero to neoconservatives ever since President Reagan obtained his release from a Soviet prison camp. As a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, he opposes any concessions to the Palestinians until they accept democracy. Thus he opposed the Oslo accord, broke with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 over Mr. Barak's plan to attend a peace conference in Washington, and has opposed Mr. Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza.

In the book, Mr. Sharansky foresees peace in the Middle East through the democratization of Palestine and Iraq, even though he admits this process may take many years or even decades. Like Mr. Bush, he calls for "moral clarity" in fighting evil and says the world is "divided between those who are prepared to confront evil and those who are willing to appease it." He goes on: "I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free. I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere, and I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe."

A review of the book in The Washington Post points to two basic flaws in Mr. Sharansky's reasoning. The first is his belief that free societies are always peaceful. As he puts it, "Since all democratic societies strive for peace, there is no such thing as a belligerent democracy." But what about Iraq, at least partly democratic in 1948, joining with other Arab states in a military effort to overthrow the new state of Israel? What about the preventive wars fought by Israel since then? In fact, what about the U.S. pre-emptive war against Iraq?

The second flaw is Mr. Sharansky's failure to see that military occupation breeds resentment and insurgency. Both he and President Bush stumble against that obstacle as they present visions of democracy and peace between Israel and the Palestinians and in Iraq. In both cases, peace is a long way off, if it can be achieved at all.

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology...anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it..."

Which brings me to an important detour: Is there a more execrable, horrid parody of an American statesman alive today than Ted Kennedy? Yes, yes, of course he's a joke; a family name wrapped around a bundle of appetite, cynicism, and asininity. But he matters precisely because his party and the media imbue him with a moral stature now wholly severed from the admirable traditions and ideas we associate with the president who swore we would pay any price and bear any burden to defend the survival of liberty.

"No one in the United States should try to overhype this election."

I never made any prediction about voter turnout. What I do remember is the talk about how capturing the Hussein bros. would stop the insurgency, then the capture of Hussein would do it, then the handover would... and oh yeah, Bin Laden is still on the loose. Remember him?

The controversial $69.95 teddy bear is dressed in a straitjacket and comes with commitment papers. It's part of Vermont Teddy Bear's line of Valentine's Day products. Company officials say the bear is a light-hearted attempt to help men who are crazy in love with their partners to express their feelings. Advocates, lawmakers and others say the bear is insensitive toward people struggling with mental illness and have demanded the company remove the bear from the market. Vermont Teddy Bear has vowed to keep selling the bear through Valentine's Day. Robert Appel, Vermont Human Rights Commission executive director, sent a letter Thursday to Vermont Teddy Bear President Elisabeth Robert criticizing the bear. "Perhaps most disturbing to me is the apparent lack of understanding by your company of the real hurt and emotional turmoil your continued marketing of this stereotypical and stigmatizing product causes for those who have suffered from psychiatric conditions, along with their loved ones," Appel wrote.

"The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution...We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."

OSCAR SANITY: Kudos to the academy for ignoring the execrable "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the pornographic "Passion." Right-wing and left-wing ideologues will be disappointed. But what do they know about art?

In the first half of the week, Senate Dems badgered the incoming secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice -- culminating in the decision of West Virginia porkmeister Robert C. Byrd to delay the incoming thereof. Don't ask me why. Byrd, the former Klu Klux Klan Kleagle, is taking a stand over states' rights, or his rights over State, or some such. Whatever the reason, the sight of an old Klansman blocking a little colored girl from Birmingham from getting into her office contributed to the general retro vibe that hangs around the Democratic Party these days.

IN ADDITION, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS IN THE PROCESS OF REDESIGNING ITS CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT COME INTO STATE CUSTODY AND TO LESSEN THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO PLACE CHILDREN IN PERMANENT ADOPTIVE FAMILIES OR TO RETURN THEM TO THEIR BIRTH PARENTS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 13% FEWER CHILDREN IN OUR FOSTER CARE SYSTEM THAN WE DID A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OVER THE NEXT BIENNIUM, WHILE FULFILLING OUR COMMON OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN. THERE IS NO SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY BETTER THAN A HEALTHY FAMILY. WITHOUT SACRIFICING OUR ABILITY TO INTERVENE WHEN IT IS REALLY NECESSARY, WE WILL SUPPORT MORE CHILDREN IN THEIR FAMILY AND COMMUNITY. MAINERS KNOW THE VALUE OF A SAFE FAMILY, AND OUR CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM MUST SUPPORT, NOT FRUSTRATE, SAFE FAMILIES.

"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero's welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."

I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman's right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant. Reproductive health care and family planning service is a basic right.

In a broadcast shortly after the November election, Dobson expressed how grateful he was that Mr. Bush was re-elected and he criticized Democrats and the media. But Dobson also issued a pointed warning to the Republican Party. "If they get disinterested in the values of the people who put them in office as they have done in the past, if that happens again, I believe the Republican Party will pay an enormous price in four years and maybe two," Dobson said.

"I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

A few months ago, pop star Britney Spears was married for just over 50 hours. When asked to explain her quick marriage and annullment, she explained the whole thing as being a joke between two friends. Conservatives said little about her pseudo-marriage, and lost an opportunity to bolster their credibility on the issue of protecting marriage. If marriage is sacred, then conservatives should treat it as such, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. The silence of conservatives and the church on the increasingly light treatment of marriage by society makes the entire idea of the FMA look more anti-gay than pro-marriage. The church's behavior in the areas of cohabitation and divorce further erode its credibility on the issue of preserving marriage. George Barna has made a career out of surveying the Christian community and the general population about religious topics. His findings on how Christians treat divorce and cohabitation are disappointing:

--25% of born again Christians had cohabitated --Born again Christians are just as likely to get divorced as are non-born again adults. Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults.

Barna found that over 90% of those who experienced divorce did so after making a committment to Christ, not before. These numbers show an appalling lack of respect for the institution of marriage among self-proclaimed followers of Christ, and is a huge weakness in the argument that an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman would protect the institution. The church's behavior undercuts its argument, and it's a shame...Instead of fighting the weakening of marriage at the beginning, the FMA seems both a belated and half-hearted attempt at protecting the social institution we've allowed to decline for so many years.

Wear black tomorrow! Just an idea, guys, some of you said it before. I think is the exact way to mark the opening of a very dark era in the USA. I hope NOBODY here is going to watch the circus on TV. Looking forward to live again, one day, in democracy... The deppression is setting in BIG time. I can't even imagine how it will be on Thursday when bush officially steals his second straight election. I know John K. won the election. I know it will take a long time to prove it (if it can be proven) Please DON'T refer to the POS as the "Pres"....it gives him a semblance of legitimacy that he does not deserve... KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! There is another matter, though, that really needs to be aired in Democratic circle - that the election system was a fraud GOING IN. I think we had a catastrophic failure of leadership on this matter-Kerry included-but he was not alone in failing to insure an honest election, or in failing to at least warn voters what we were up against. BushCon companies owning the SECRET source code that counts all our votes. No paper trail in a third of the country. Extremely insecure, unreliable, hackable computers. NOT watching tv! i am reading Les Miserables and that should keep me nicely occupied. Plus, I may go to a gathering at one of the MoveOn members houses.

...But the notion that our debates have to be about whose side are you on in terms of domestic politics strikes me as depressing. I understand that partisanship isn't always bad, and indeed inevitable. But the way in which the blogosphere has become more partisan over the last few years, rather than less, strikes me as a disappointment. WHAT BLOGS CAN DO: Why? Because part of the point of blogging as a medium is that it empowers the individual. In big media, the pressures of conformity can be as great as they are subtle. At the Boston Globe or the Washington Times, you know what you're getting. How many columnists in the mainstream media can be described as unpredictable in partisan terms? How many "liberal" columnists ever praise the president occasionally? How many conservative ones tear him a new one from time to time? (This is a moment to thank God for Tom Friedman, by the way.) The reason is subtle pressure from suits and colleagues and readers. But the point of blogging is that it can liberate you from such pressures. A political hybrid has a secure outlet at last - his or her own. So why, then, the preponderance of the partisans? I know that's what happens more generally in a polarized polity. But the blogosphere had the potential to be a solvent of this rigidity. Instead, it has become yet another reflection of it (with a few honorable exceptions). Or have I missed some blogs in this regard that deserve more exposure?

johnkerry.com is a community of online activists, first brought together in the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign. In 2005, we continue to work side-by-side to rewrite the book on grassroots politics.

Your involvement counts now more than ever. The Bush administration is advancing a right wing assault on the values and ideals we hold most deeply. Healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA, and the cabinet is being remade to rubber stamp policies that will undermine Social Security, balloon the deficit, avoid real reforms in health care and education, weaken homeland security, and walk away from critical allies around the world.

This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles - it is a time to stand firm.

With your support, johnkerry.com is fighting for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process. I ask you to join me in this cause - and in working to make our voices heard on the most critical issues of 2005.

I understand the strength, commitment, and passion that are at the core of what we built together - and I am determined to make our collective energy and organization a force to be reckoned with in the weeks and months ahead. Let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work for our country.

Carlos Valenzuela, the chief U.N. election adviser in Iraq, said the intimidation of electoral workers by guerrillas seeking to derail this month's balloting is "high and very serious." But Valenzuela told reporters Tuesday that only a sustained onslaught by insurgents or the mass resignation of electoral workers will prevent this month's national elections from going ahead.

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America...In a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy"

"That's what this is about: keeping Dr. King's dream alive," Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe said Monday. Rowe and other speakers, including UMaine acting President Robert Kennedy and 2nd District U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud, stressed that King's dream was more than just a quest for civil rights. King's goal was one of economic and human equality and fairness for all, they said. "Today, 37 years after Dr. King's death, the gap between the haves and the have-nots has never been wider," Rowe said. He noted that in addition to economic divides, more than 45 million Americans are without health insurance. "Because of that, Dr. King's dream is not fully realized," Rowe said.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. And this will be the day, this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!" And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

ARNOLD'S INNOVATION: Peter Beinart seconds Shwarzenegger's idea that redistricting should be taken out of the grimy hands of people like Tom DeLay. Amen.

"Somewhere Only We Know" by Keane - Okay, this song is older, but it's a great tune. Good to see people actually playing instruments and relying on musical talent instead of production values. "I Still Believe" by James Clay - This song has been covered by Russ Taff and some weird guy with a saxophone in "The Lost Boys." This version is straight up rock and roll by a guy with a gravelly voice. "Fell in Love With a Boy" by Joss Stone - A fun cover of the White Stripes song. I cannot believe this girl is only 18 - what a voice. "I Got a Feeling" by Third Day - The song they performed at the Republican National Convention. I've seen this group three times at music festivals - they put on an excellent live show. "Over and Over" by Nelly and Tim McGraw - Yup, still listening to this song. It's a weird combination, but compelling. "Gone" by TobyMac - The only song by TobyMac that I like. Nuff said.

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers. Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods... A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

BUSH AND THE LORD: Did I over-react? It's worth looking at the full quote as produced by the Washington Times: "I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit. That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord." (My italics) Now notice that Bush is explicitly qualifying his defense of religious freedom (or the freedom to have no religion at all) by saying that the presidency, in his view, should nevertheless be reserved for people with a relationship of a personal nature with "the Lord."

He isn't simply saying that he doesn't see how he could have endured the presidency without faith; he is asserting that he cannot see how anyone could be president without a "relationship with the Lord." Now I can see how this might be simply a slip of the tongue: just a projection of his own experience with nothing more to be inferred from it.

But given how this administration has consciously eroded the distinction between church and state - fusing the two with federal funds, using religious groups as its political base, incorporating religious leaders into policy-making, and defending public policy decisions on purely religious grounds (calling civil marriage licenses "sacred," for example) - this is worrying. To put it bluntly, on the separation of church and state, I don't trust these guys.

Uninsured Mainers who elect to drive without using their seat belts are racking up enormous hospital bills in the aftermath of automobile accidents and ratcheting up the cost of health care for everyone else in the state. To illustrate the point at a Wednesday morning news conference, Dr. Erik Steele, chief medical officer of Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems, walked to the end of the massive conference table in the governor's cabinet room and unfurled the hospital bill from a single patient. It was 12 feet long. "This is the hospital bill from a Maine Medicaid patient - it's $78,000 from an unbelted patient who was injured in a crash in Maine and taxpayers paid for this patient," Steele said. "I have several of these bills...These tremendous costs can be prevented and must be prevented, if we're really to get a handle on health care costs in this state."

ATHEISTS NEED NOT APPLY: What was Bush thinking with this statement: "President Bush said yesterday that he doesn't 'see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord,' but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship." So, out of his beneficence, he won't trample on others' religious freedom. But the White House? That's for Christians only. No Jews? Or atheists? Notice also the evangelical notion of a personal "relationship" with the Lord. That also indicates suspicion of those Christians with different approaches to the divine. I must say this is a new level of religio-political fusion in this administration. To restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith is anathema to this country's traditions and to the task of toleration. The president surely needs to retract the statement.

ATHEISTS NEED NOT APPLY: What was Bush thinking with this statement: "President Bush said yesterday that he doesn't 'see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord,' but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship."

So, out of his beneficence, he won't trample on others' religious freedom. But the White House? That's for Christians only. No Jews? Or atheists?

Notice also the evangelical notion of a personal "relationship" with the Lord. That also indicates suspicion of those Christians with different approaches to the divine.

I must say this is a new level of religio-political fusion in this administration. To restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith is anathema to this country's traditions and to the task of toleration.

The president surely needs to retract the statement.

Then there is Sinclair Broadcast Group. The 39-station conglomerate - still infamous over its transformation of some Swift Boat Veterans' malarkey into "news"...

But the Williams revelations do remind me that I've always wondered how some of the monolithic, elaborate websites, especially conservative ones with a million links, have managed to stay afloat financially, and if somebody in government wasn't supplying them with more than just hot news flashes.

The man who moved from falafels, loofahs, and $60,000,000 dollar lawsuits over sexual harassment charges, to becoming the self-appointed holy protector of Christmas, has now taken off on another flight of delusion of grandeur. He's attacked Saturday's tsunami relief telethon on NBC and its owned cable networks (like MSNBC). The other night, O'Reilly told his semi-comatose viewers: "A national TV telethon will raise millions and 'The Factor' will be watching to see if the money gets to the tsunami victims. If it does not, there will be trouble."

Three dozen voters challenging the presidential election results in the Ohio Supreme Court asked to drop their lawsuit Tuesday, saying it is moot with last week's certification of the electoral vote and the upcoming inauguration.

Without giving specifics, attorney Cliff Arnebeck said challenges of the results would continue in state or federal courts. But he conceded that there was nothing available now to try to prevent Bush's inauguration. "We are not quitting. We are going on to any other forum that's available and we intend to pursue those avenues aggressively," Arnebeck said.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson backed the lawsuit, alleging what he called "high-tech vote stealing" and holding rallies in Ohio and Washington in support of the effort.

The documents include multiple drafts of a review of the 2000 millennium threat said to conclude that only luck prevented a 2000 attack. That story conflicts with Berger's own testimony to the commission, in which he claimed that "we thwarted" millennium attacks by being vigilant - rather than by sheer luck, as the review reportedly suggests.

Paul Lukasiak, who operates a website on which he posts disparaging analyses of President Bush's TexANG service, told Mapes that another blogger, Linda Starr, had seen new TexANG documents regarding President Bush. Starr hosts a website that recently contained the slogan, "Bush lied, Americans died," and is the editor of Online Journal, an online newsletter often critical of President Bush. Mapes contacted Starr, who responded that she believed that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett had a two-page, classified document regarding President Bush's TexANG service, and Starr speculated that it might be a disciplinary report.

The Panel is aware that some have ascribed political motivations to 60 Minutes Wednesday's decision to air the September 8 Segment just two months before the presidential election, while others further found political bias in the program itself. The Panel reviewed this issue and found certain actions that could support such charges. However, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content.

The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents. However, Mapes made oral and written presentations to the Panel during its investigation in an effort to demonstrate that the content of the Killian documents was in fact authentic. These presentations were done primarily by comparing the Killian documents with official Bush records to show how well she believed that the Killian documents "meshed" with the official Bush records.

The Panel has several concerns about whether the airing of the Barnes interview excerpts constituted fair and accurate reporting by 60 Minutes Wednesday. For example, the excerpts pertaining to Barnes conveyed the unmistakable impression that President Bush gained entry into the TexANG through preferential treatment. Barnes stated, however, that he did not know if his call to a TexANG official back in 1968 made any difference with respect to President Bush. Further, Mapes had been told previously by several former TexANG officers that President Bush entered the TexANG without any preferential treatment. Finally, Mapes confirmed to the Panel that there was conflicting information about whether there even was a waiting list to get in the TexANG as of the spring of 1968. At a minimum, these issues should have been disclosed to the 60 Minutes Wednesday management, but they were not.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard's deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries. However, the Panel has identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content. With better reporting, these questions should have been raised before the September 8 Segment aired.

the investigation quickly identified considerable and fundamental deficiencies relating to the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment and the statements and news reports during the Aftermath. These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush's TexANG service, and the rigid and blind defense of the Segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings.

Welcome to the fever swamps, Senator. Enjoy your stay.

"Jesse Jackson can complain, grand stand, whine, stamp his feet all he wants," Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said. "It's not going to change the results of Ohio's election or how voters cast their ballots on Nov. 2."

Relentlessly pushing their ideological stances on abortion rights, race relations, the environment, tax policy, and go-it-alone foreign policy, (You know, all those hot-button issues that WON US THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION) the conservative extremists are not only violating traditional Republican principles, she argues, but are also holding the party back from achieving a true majority. (I guess 51 percent is a fake majority) By playing so slavishly to the far-right base, running negative campaigns and marginalizing women (Would those be the same women that Bush lost by only three percentage points? The gender gap disappeared this election, Ms. Whitman) , the party has forsaken the much broader base that propelled the "Reagan revolution" and has fueled the country's overheated polarization. (Um, no. The overheated polarization was fueled by irrational liberals who made anti-Bush movies, compared the president to Hitler and wrote anti-Bush books)

1 - In a desperate attempt to prop up his campaign, John Kerry offers to show off his war wounds during a Democrat debate, thus becoming the first candidate for president to drop his pants on national television. 2 - Pre-election polls will show President Bush with support at 60 percent. The New York Times calls the poll proof that the country is "evenly divided" 3 - "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" will not win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, prompting millions of film fans to ignore the Oscars yet another year. 4 - After losing the nomination, Dennis Kucinich returns to his home planet. 5 - Howard Dean attends a NASCAR race to connect with 'regular people.' He will leave in a huff upon realizing there is no bike path at the Daytona track. 6 - During the 'All-Star Survivors' program on CBS, one of the tribes kidnaps host Jeff Probst and threatens to use him for rations unless given immunity for the rest of the show. 7 - In an attempt to appeal to religious conservatives, Howard Dean changes his favorite song from "Jaspora" by Wyclef Jean to "I Can Only Imagine" by MercyMe. 8 - Someone hits Bill O'Reilly. 9 - Saddam Hussein cries while being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil is brought on the show to help the former dictator deal with his childhood abandonment issues.

--The U.S. will capture or kill Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. --Iraq will hold a successful election. John Kerry will cry (okay, maybe not completely serious predictions) --"Fahrenheit 9/11" will win Best Picture. Martin Scorcese will win Best Director. "The Passion of the Christ" will get some token art direction award. --Chief Justice Renquist will step down, and Clarence Thomas will be named as his successor. He will be easily appointed. --The Patriots will win the Super Bowl. The Red Sox will lose their first game. --Social Security reform will pass. A surprising number of Democrats will support it. --Tax reform will fail. --MoveOn takes a greater role in the Democrat party and helps choose the new chair. --Someone on DemocraticUnderground will compare Bush to Hitler.

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums - as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy - showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

"The Passion of the Christ" - This was a powerful and moving film. It won't be given any awards, but it will be watched long after people forget about whatever winds Best Picture this year. Gibson created a violent and disturbing film that somehow manages to be beautiful. "The Incredibles" - Fantastic movie. This movie, like "The Iron Giant" (also written by Brad Bird) proves that animation doesn't have to be just for kids. The movie has a great story, amazing animation and themes that deal with the importance of family. "Spider-Man 2" - Who would have thought one of the most emotionally compelling movies of 2004 would be about a guy who dresses in tights and swings from buildings? Everything about this movie clicked - the humor, the reveal at the end, the villian, the relationship between Peter and his aunt. It all worked and the special effects were better to boot. "Dawn of the Dead" - Okay, it wasn't a masterwork, but it was scary and fun. "Hellboy" - Another good comic book film. Ron Perelman was born to play the role of Hellboy.

"Van Helsing" - What a waste. Vampires, werewolves, frankenstein's monster - how could you go wrong? How about a wretched plot, stilted acting and an overabundance of special effects? "Starsky & Hutch" - Ben Stiller is funny. Owen Wilson? Funny. Both are terrible at picking scripts. The movie had its moments, but didn't work overall. "The Bourne Supremacy" - The constantly moving camera work made it hard to see just what the heck was going on. It was basically the same movie as "The Bourne Identity." Maybe my expectations were too high, but I wasn't as impressed as I thought. Karl Urban was good in it, and it was cool to see parts of Moscow I recognized, but it wasn't enough.

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Democrat Christine Gregoire's improbable rally in the marathon Washington governor's race picked up steam on two fronts: in a hand recount that nudged her 10 votes into the lead, and in a court ruling likely to land even more ballots in her column.

At an event at Harvard on Tuesday, when a student asked Al Gore whether global warming skeptics were liars or just science-hating ignoramuses, Mr. Gore answered that a better word was "Republicans."

A complex movement popularly known as Gnosticism (from the Greek "gnosis," meaning knowledge) offered an apparently compelling and appealing version of Christianity in which believers sought, in addition to received teaching, "inner knowledge" of God. "Insight, or gnosis, was the experience of searching for the divine, the source of our creation, within oneself," says Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton...

Objective truth-like flawless beauty-is an illusive goal. Nonetheless, just as human beings pursue many aims that can never be fully achieved, it remains a worthy endeavor for journalists to commit themselves to trying to tell the truth. - Postmodernism proclaims the truth that truth is an illusion...

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.

A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias. Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?

Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives. They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up.

Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)

Conservative pundit George Will recently tied the dearth of conservative professors to the quasi-Marxist outlook in African American studies, women's studies and cultural studies. And at many campuses, those departments certainly don't amount to much more than left-wing propaganda factories

It's also true that radical multiculturalist theory - which sees white male oppression as the key to everything - has taken root in plenty of more mainstream disciplines.

This no doubt makes things hard on prospective conservative academics, not to mention mainstream liberal ones. A historian I know (a liberal) used to complain that history departments showed little interest in the traditional research he did, only caring about subjects like 'buggery in the British navy.'

But the rise of fashionable left-wing scholarship can be blamed for only a tiny part of the GOP's problem. The studies showing that academics prefer Democrats to Republicans also show that this preference holds in hard sciences as well as social sciences. Are we to believe that higher education has fallen prey to trendy multiculturalist engineering, or that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?

The main causes of the partisan disparity on campus have little to do with anything so nefarious as discrimination. First, Republicans don't particularly want to be professors. To go into academia - a highly competitive field that does not offer great riches - you have to believe that living the life of the mind is more valuable than making a Wall Street salary. On most issues that offer a choice between having more money in your pocket and having something else - a cleaner environment, universal health insurance, etc. - conservatives tend to prefer the money and liberals tend to prefer the something else. It's not so surprising that the same thinking would extend to career choices.

Second, professors don't particularly want to be Republicans. In recent years, and especially under George W. Bush, Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism. Remember how Bush in 2000 ridiculed Al Gore for using all them big numbers?

That's not just a campaign ploy. It's how Republicans govern these days. Last summer, my colleague Frank Foer wrote a cover story in the New Republic detailing the way the Bush administration had disdained the advice of experts. And not liberal experts, either. These were Republican-appointed wonks whose know-how on topics such as global warming, the national debt and occupying Iraq were systematically ignored. Bush prefers to follow his gut.

In the world of academia, that's about the nastiest thing you can say about somebody. Bush's supporters consider it a compliment. "Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart," wrote conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks a week before the election. "Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize...being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated." It so happens that, in other columns, Brooks has blamed the dearth of conservative professors on ideological discrimination. In fact, the GOP is just being rejected by those who not only prefer their leaders to think complexly but are complex thinkers themselves. There's a problem with this picture, all right, but it doesn't lie with academia.