Marc Perkel Rantz

Vote on Monday if you can

The reason is because if you vote on Monday - you've voted. If you vote on Teusday then you might run into Republican dirty tricks that might prevent you from voting. You might only have an hour lunch break and the Republicans hold you up to long and you can't vote. Or - there's just long lines.

By voting early you not only get to vote - but you are not in line Teusday so someone else can vote too. As they say - vote early and often. Especially this year.

Truly Not Concerned

Letter to the Editor

What does Osama bin Laden and President Bush have in common? In 2002 Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Apparently Osama bin Laden, in his televised address, is telling the world that he is truly not that concerned about Bush either.

Osama's Hidden Message

Letter to the Editor

Many people are speculating about if the Osama bin Laden tape has a hidden message in it. What is bin Laden trying to do? Bin Laden is telling America that he won the battle against Bush. He is showing that he is alive, he is healthy, he is strong, that he is confident, that he is in control, that he is still a threat, and that he isn't afraid of George Bush. He mocks President Bush for reading "My Pet Goat" giving him more time to kill Americans. He is confirming Bush's statement that Bush is truly not that concerned about him.

Bin Laden is asserting that he is powerful and that Bush doesn't scare him. His message is - Bush has failed and that Bush is a weak leader. And the sad thing is - Osama is correct.

-----

Here's the simplified version of Osama's measage:

And - bin Laden is right! Bush really is a weak moron. In 4 more years bin Laden will still be free.

What does Osama Tape Mean?

Letter to the Editor

There is a lot of debate about what the Osama bin Laden tape means. But what do we know for sure from it? Some of the things I see is that OBL is clearly alive, he's free, he's looking very healthy and relaxed, and he's clearly not worried about President Bush. Is the reason that Osama is doing so well have to do with President Bush saying, "I truly am not that concerned about him"? Osama killed 3000 Americans and got away with it. If bin Laden feels save and America doesn't - it's it time to elect a different president that will make Americans feel safe and be concerned about bin Laden?

Election Superstitions

Letter to the Editor

There are a number of superstitions that people have about who will win the election. Some people believe that it depends on if the Redskins win their last home game. Others might believe that it depends on if the stock market is up or down - or if you fail to win in a state that has voted with the winner a number of times. But I have my own superstition about who will win the election - and its something that you can do something about. The person who will win the presidency is (usually) the person who will get the most votes on Tuesday. Your future is in your hands and how you vote or if you fail to vote will make a difference to your future. Please vote.

Steven Hawking to lead election protest

Stephen Hawking, Britain's most eminent scientist, has become the latest prominent opponent of the Iraq war by agreeing to take the lead role in a ceremonial protest to coincide with the United States presidential election.

Peace protesters will gather in Trafalgar Square at 5pm on Tuesday, where they will read out the names of 5,000 Iraqi men, women and children known to have died in the conflict.

The full death toll was put last week as high as 100,000.

Playwrights Harold Pinter and David Hare, actress Juliet Stevenson, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and relatives of British soldiers killed in action in Iraq have all agreed to take part.

Professor Hawking, the author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time, is wheelchair-bound as a sufferer from motor neurone disease. He recorded a message on Friday that will be broadcast at the start of the rally.

The oldest protester in Trafalgar Square is likely to be a fellow scientist, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Sir Joseph Rotblat. In the 1940s, he resigned from his job developing the world's first atomic bomb on moral grounds.

Sir Joseph, who will be 96 on Thursday, said: "In this nuclear age, we simply cannot allow others to start military action unless everything else has ... been tried and has failed."

The rally comes at a time when its organisers from the Stop the War Coalition have been embroiled in controversy with one of its biggest backers, the giant public sector union Unison, which has links with the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, (IFTU) whose general secretary, Subhi al-Mashadani, spent more than 10 years in prison under Saddam Hussein.

Unison leaders were appalled when Mr Mashadani was barracked and jostled at a London conference two weeks ago by left-wing delegates who accused him of being a stooge for the US and British governments. The row is threatening to become an issue inside Unison, where an election is taking place for the post of general secretary - the most powerful job in the trade union movement.

Left-wing activists in the union are trying to unseat the current general secretary, Dave Prentis, for being too close to Tony Blair.

Jon Rogers, the left-wing challenger, has accused two of Mr Prentis's senior advisers, Maggie Jones and Nick Sigler, of trying to split the union from the anti-war movement. Ms Jones, who is Unison's policy director, is a former Labour Party chairman and is expected to become Labour MP for Blaenau Gwent at the next election.

Mr Sigler, who heads the union's international department, worked for many years at Labour Party headquarters.

"It is not in the best interests of Unison for circumstances to arise in which it can appear that our union is being used as a vehicle by the Labour Party leader-ship to sow division in the anti-war movement," Mr Rogers claimed in a letter to Mr Prentis, leaked to The Independent on Sunday.

Walter Cronkite thinks Karl Rove put Osama up to it

Actual transcript from Larry King Live.

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?

CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...

KING: The warning.

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

KING: Are there enough undecideds to tilt this? Or what do you think of the whole election picture?

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's one of the biggest messes we've had in a long time. I believe that we're undoubtedly not going to know the results of this election. I don't want to knock you off the air on Monday night or anything, or Tuesday night. But I suspect that we're not going to know who the next president is, whether it is Bush or the new man, until very probably sometime in the early spring. There's so much controversy that they're planting, deliberately planting at the polls, that there's almost certainly to be a suit going back to the Supreme Court eventually, going through the other courts slowly first.

Does Osama help Bush or Kerry?

Letter to the Editor

It's hard to tell how Osama bin Laden will affect the election since his October surprise appearance just 4 days before the polls open. Osama apparently wants to affect the election - but in what way? The conventional wisdom is that Osama helps Bush because in the past whenever there have been terror alerts Bush's numbers have gone up, and Osama is the ultimate boogie man. On the other hand - the very fact that Osama has surfaced and is looking fit and healthy is a stark reminder that Bush failed to capture and kill him like he promised to. And - I hate to agree with Osama on this - but if Bush had ordered fighter jets into the air instead of doing the photo op reading "My Pet Goat" to kids - then those planes might have been intercepted before the could hit us. So Osama hurts Bush because he exists and speaks and reminds us that Bush has failed to get him.

Perhaps we can guess who Osama wants to win by figuring out who will benefit him the most? Does Osama want Bush or Kerry to win? It's been 3 years since 9/11 and Osama is not only free - but he's well dressed and looking fit and trim. Looks like he's doing very well under Bush. America is bogged down is an unrelated war and has become a symbol of fund raising for the terrorists. High oil prices are making the bin Laden family very rich. From that it would seem that he would want to keep Bush.

Furthermore - Osama says that neither Bush or Kerry can keep America safe and that if we don't attack him - he won't attack us. Its like he's trying to make a deal. Bush has been playing down Osama in the last two years saying, "“I truly am not that concerned about him." Perhaps the reason America hasn't been attacked is because Bush made a deal? I would think Osama would want a president who was not concerned about him. So - what is Osama's hidden message? Perhaps he wants you to vote for Nader? Who can tell?

What does bin Laden statement mean?

Letter to the Editor

With just 4 days till the election bin Laden is addressing American. What does this mean? What it means that no one can argue with is that bin Laden is alive - he's free - and he got away with 9-11. When bin Laden attacked America Bush said he was going to get him. Bush said we are going to "smoke him out". Obviously Bush has failed. Bush has tried to downplay the importance of bin Laden saying, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.” He described bin as “marginalized” and said, “I just don’t spend that much time on him.”

Clearly Bush is a failure and he just doesn't get it. Bush doesn't get it that bin Laden has not been "marginalized" and the fact that bin Laden is making statements reflects Bush's failure to protect America. We need a president who will actually get bin Laden. John Kerry is reporting for duty and I think he'll get the job done where Bush has failed.

Bush makes deal to let bin Laden go free

This is a repost of a story I ran a year ago that was in the Times of India. The link to the original story is dead but I saved it just in case it vanished.

What relevant is that bin Laden just said that if we don't attack him - he won't attack us. And we know that Bush let bin Laden go to go after Iraq - and America hasn't been attacked. And - Bush has made several statements playing down the importance of going after bin Laden. And - as we know from Fahremheit 9-11 - Bush's family is in business with bin laden's family. So - it looks to me like Bush has given into bin Laden and perhaps is in partnership with him.

So - for those who were looking for the October surprize - here it is.

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

Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf

IANS[ SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2003 06:49:05 PM ]

LONDON: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.

The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan.

The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies.

Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.

The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.

"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.

The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.

So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.

It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his name.

In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.

"Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests do not square with reality," the report stated.

"Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden... With so much of the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told the paper.

According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas", part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's winding border with Afghanistan.

The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen, whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special Forces.

Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.

At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or two of his closest relatives and advisers.

Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.

Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have been getting reports of his presence across the border inside Afghanistan and along the border area also.

"Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible, we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that has not been the position so far."

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."

Why Young People should Vote

Letter to the Editor

It is well known that young people 18-24 don't vote and old people do. Many young people think there's no reason for them to vote. After all - if the election isn't tied - what's the chances that someone is going to win by one vote? But there are other reasons to vote than breaking a tied election and I hope that people of all groups who don't usually vote will think about these reasons.

Because older people show up at the polls politicians know they better take care of old people. That's why social security is something politicians protect. But young people don't vote - so if they cut college funds and raise tuition - so what? Why cater to a group of people who don't vote? So as you can see - it's not even as much of an issue who you vote for as it is to show up and vote so that your group's numbers are higher. When you vote you are really voting twice. You are voting for your candidate and your issues - but you are also voting for your age group - your race - and your gender. If young people show up in strong numbers then politicians will take young people's issues into consideration. As you know - the issue of the military draft is on the table. Either candidate might institute the draft. So it's important for young people to vote sending whoever wins a message - we're young and we vote. Show them you have a voice because you show up to vote.

IRS goes after NAACP to suppress Black Vote

Letter to the Editor

The IRS is being used by the Bush administration to intimidate the NAACP and to suppress the black vote. The NAACP is accused of using their tax exempt status to oppose the Bush administration. The NAACP is barred from political endorsement but are permitted to make statements about policy. I find it interesting that the IRS chooses to go after the NAACP for legal policy comments while ignoring the fact the the Bush campaign has asking churches to turn over their membership lists to his campaign which is totally illegal.

It's not the NAACP who is breaking the law here - its the IRS who is breaking the law. They are allowing themselves to be used to affect the outcome of the election by going after Democrats only and ignoring Republican abuses. We can not allow Bush to keep people of color from voting. In this nation every person has a right to vote, but in order to preserve that right people have to stand up and take that right and vote out the oppressor. Its time to fold or fight and I say show up at the polls and fight.

Republican Tactics to suppress vote might Backfire

Letter to the Editor

The Republican tactic to suppress the vote of Democrats in swing states might backfire on them and cost them more votes than they gain. The Republicans are making an all out effort in key states to keep Democrats from voting. In Ohio for example, Republicans are sending "election challengers" to polling places to slow down the voting process and intimidate voters in Democratic areas only. They are challenging the thickness of paper required for voter registration. The have used Republican owned companies to sign up Democrats and then destroy the registrations. Republican impersonating election officials have called Democratic voters to give them wrong information about where their polling place is.

Although these tactics will succeed in reducing the Democratic vote it might offend Republicans and Independents who feel that it is wrong to cheat to win. Some people have a basic sense of fairness and honesty believing that everyone who is eledgable to vote should be allowed to exercize their constitutional rights to vote in free and fair elections. These people might be turn off by cheating and vote against the Republican party.

So the question is - will the Republicans gain or lose from this. Clearly they think cheating works. But I wonder, now that they are being watched closely, if the same tactics that got Bush elected in 2000 will work again in 2004.

Bush wore Device During Debate

Bush wore a device during the debate and he still lost to Kerry showing that those who cheat don't always win.

NASA Photo Analyst says Bush wearing device

"George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."

Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.

For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."

Explosives looted AFTER US Invasion

EXCLUSIVE:
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive."

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

"At one point there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pick up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us."

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed pictures of the material we found to experts in Washington Wednesday to see if it is the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. They could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question.

The Chilling Effects of the MPAA

One thing that the Motion Picture Association of America has accomplished is that they have created so much fear of being sued that even when Michael Moore has given permission to post Fahrenheit 9/11 on the internet - people are still afraid to do so. We live in a world of cowards. What a shame.

Why I'm posting Fahrenheit 9-11 for downloading

I'm posting Fahrenheit 9/11 for downloading. You can get it at This Link.

I want to say something else about the legal issues of putting this on the web. Here are the facts:

1. Michael Moore made public statements giving me and people like me permission to post it.
   
2. I am relying on his permission.
   
3. Michael Moore is someone who either has the authority or is in a position to speak for those who have the authority to give permission.
   
4. All interested parties - copyright holders, distributors - are aware of Michael Moore's public statements.
   
5. No other interested party has make any statement refuting Michael Moore's statement. The distributor hasn't stated Michael Moore is wrong.
   

I'm saying this because I'm stating publicly that this is legal and I'm advocating that other's follow my example. I want to explain my legal theory behind why I believe it is within my rights to post this work for free.

Bush flipping the bird - One Finger Salute - Movie

Here's a Movie of Bush flipping the bird! Now tell me - is this guy really a Christian Conservative or is he just taking advantage of Christian's ability to be easilly fooled? I mean really - between this and Cheney's Fuck You - you would think Christians would figure it out that they had been had.

But - cult thinking conquers all. I'm sure Christians will find a way to explain this to themselves.

Is it the Jesus Loves You secret sign?

So - here's the big questions ...

1. Do you think that the Republican owned new media will cover this?
   
2. If this were Kerry - or Gore - or Clinton - would they cover it?
   

Lets get this out there and talk about it. If you want the real news - you have to go to the internet blogs. I report the stories that the media won't touch. Why watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or CNN when I'm the one who has the story?

But seriously people - look at the movie and ask yourself - "Is this the kind of guy that you want to order your son to die in a war for? Is this the guy you want to be the most powerful man in the world? Is this the guy that you want to trust America's future to?

We have to get rid of this moron!

So - here's my story. I was thinking about Bush and just about to find Jesus and become a Christian like Bush is and then I saw this as I was getting down on my knees to pray - and - I saw this and decided - if this is what people are like who have Jesus in their heart then I don't see the difference between him and some ignorant redneck cowboy.

Yes - ok - I made up the story - but come on Republicans - look at this and tell me - this is your leader? This represents your religion? Isn't this at least a little about the truth and reality? Yes - Reality - reality is important. Bring a little reality into your life. Let reality fill your soul and ask yourself the sacred question - what is real here?

Kerry will win the election - but ...

Bush is going to cheat every way he can. Clearly in spite of the Republican owned media support, its pretty clear that Kerry is actually way ahead. So far that they can barely contain it. But now we are facing a fake election with rigged voting machines and the question is - what are we going to do if they steal the election again? Are we going to just roll over and take it - or are we going to stand up and stop it?

Republicans then and now

Letter to the Editor

Republicans sure have changed in the last few years. Issues that were important then are no longer important anymore. I remember when the Republicans were trying to pass a balanced budget amendment - but you don't hear about that anymore. I remember what they talked about putting Social Security in a "lock box" - but you don't hear about that anymore. Who would have thought that it would be the Republicans who would ask churches to turn over their membership lists? Who would have thought it would be Republicans proposing a 23 percent national sales tax? Who would have thought it would be Republicans who turned the largest surplus in the history of the world into the largest deficit in the history of the world?

It used to be that Republicans wanted to keep the government out of people's private business. But now they tout the Patriot Act with the government spying on you wherever you go - whatever you buy - and what books you read at the library. Who would have thought that the Republicans would short fund the military during the war so that the rich could get a tax break? Who would have thought that Republicans would be in favor of torture?. And who would have thought that under a Republican president that if a soldier died for his country, that they would doc his final paycheck for the time he missed. The Republicans have changed and the party that calls themselves Republicans today are not the same as they used to be.

350 Tons of Explosives Stolen - Bush is incompetent!

Letter to the Editor

So now we discover that 350 tons of explosives in Iraq - strong enough to detonate a nuclear weapon - have vanished. These explosives were in our control before the war - but now because of the war the terrorist have it. The big question here is - which is worse? Is it worse that Bush allowed terrorists to steal 350 tons of high explosives? Or - is it worse that the Bush administration didn't even know these explosives were missing? It makes you wonder what other weapons and explosives are missing that Bush doesn't even know about. Bush is incompetent - clueless. I'm voting for Kerry because he's at least smart enough to keep track of what's missing.

Bush wants to privatize social security

Letter to the Editor

Bush want to partially privatize social security by allowing people to invest part of their social security in the stock market. This is a really bad idea for several reasons. First - Bush and many Americans have the illusion that this money is sitting there waiting for you to retire. In reality - the money is being spend faster that you are paying it in. Your social security is being spent on Iraq. For Bush to invest the mythical social security money in the stock market - he'd kave to borrow it from the communist chineese.

Second - if Bush had invested social security in the market doring his presidency he would have lost a big chunk of your money. The market is severely down since Bush took office. So - if you think that it makes good economic sense to borrow money to gamble in the stock market then vote for Bush. If you think we should be fiscally responsible and get away from borrow and spen - then vote for Kerry.

Send Election Observers and Reporters to America

Letter to the Editor

Dear news organizations of the world,

Please send reporters and observers to America to monitor our elections. The election is NOT CLOSE as our news media is reporting. The Republican party and the Bush administration control our press. As you know - Bush stole the election last time getting the party controlled Supreme Court to appoint him president. Since then he has launched an unprovoked war against Iraq and has become a rallying point for terrorists to raise money.

If Bush holds on to power America will become a menace to the world. We will be like Germany in World War II but with nuclear weapons. This will affect the entire world. America can not be allowed to continue down the road to fascism. I therefore call on all good people of the world to watch this election and make sure that a nation as powerful as the United States doesn't become an international menace.

Bush Talks Tough

Letter to the Editor

Bush is gambling that his tough talk on terror and war will win the election. But what does he have to back that up with? Are we safer with Bush? I think not. It takes more than just force to win a war - it takes direction. In football for example, its more than just making a touchdown. If you run in the wrong direction - the other team scores the points. In Iraq, we managed to defeat one of the few nations who were not controlled by Islamic Fundamentalists. Now that we captured Saddam, the people we "liberated" are rising up against us to try to get liberated again. Bush has made the enemy stronger and America weaker because he is running in the wrong direction.

The bottom line is - Bush is incompetent. He attacked the wrong enemy. Bin Laden is still free and Bush isn't pursuing him. Bush is just not smart enough to be president. Its time to get rid of the draft dodger and get a real military man in their to pick up the pieces and try to fix all of Bush's mistakes. We need to get back to reality based thinking and put America back on the right track.

Arnold - Stay Home

Letter to the Editor

Look for this one in tomorrow's San Francisco Cronicle

Arnold - where are your loyalties? There are a lot of issues here in Kalifornia that needs your attention. You ran for Governor and you have a duty to stay in this state and deal with our issues. Going to Ohio to support Bush is putting party politics ahead of your duties as Governor.

Quite frankly - the best thing that can happen for us is if Bush loses and our economy gets back on track. Arnold - please stay home and let Bush hang. If you go help Bush then I will vote against everything you want here in this state. You have to decide where your loyalties are and if you are going to focus on your job.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Sound Track - Download it now!

Is the video too big for you? Well now you can hear Fahrenheit 9-11. I have separated the audio track and you can Download it Here. It's only 14 megs - far smaller than the 650 meg video. Download it and pass it around.

Download Fahrenheit 9/11 Here

Note - these files will be taken down on Nov 2. The only reason I have them here is for the election. Once that is over then you should go to the theathers and video stores and see the movie there. I want to thank Michael Moore and the distributors for allowing me and others like me to make the available to you to be downloaded. I've heard that this will be shown election night on pay-per-view. I encourage everyone to return Moore's generocity, and that of Lion's Gate, and pay to see it.

Want to see just a few clips of F 9/11? You can download it in pieces here.

If you can help host these files on your server it will get to more people.

Mirror site with additional videos at: http://www.falaphilia.com/mirrors.php

OK - I've taken the link down in order to get the server ready for the election results. I want to thank Michael Moore for generously granting permission to pass these files around. Over 50,000 of you downloaded it from my site - and there were a number of other sites who posted this because I did it first.

For those who are wondering - at no time has anyone contacted me to take the files offline. This confirms my position against the critics that Michael Moore not only gave permission - but had the authority to do so.

Here's a Movie of Bush flipping the bird! I'd like to see christian conservatives explain this!

Michael Moore has made several Public Statements that web sites should pirate his movie. He cares more about getting rid of Bush than making money. He says he has already made plenty of money on it and he wants people like me to spread it around. So I'm relying on his statements as a grant to spread it around.

Copyright information can be found Here.

Which Path for America?

Letter to the Editor

America has a choice the election to decided it's future. Four years ago America had a surplus. Now we have deficits. When Clinton was president he created 23 million new jobs. Now we are losing millions of jobs. When Clinton was president America stood talk in the world. Now America stand small. We used to be a nation of peace and prosperity. Now we are a nation of war and poverty.

The way I see it - we have a choice. Do we stay the course to failure? Or - do we go back to success? I'm voting to bring back success. I'm voting for the Democrats.

Terror vs. Hope

In the 1990s the world was facing a crisis - the Y2K issue where it was predicted that computer networks were going to crash so bad that it would be the end of civilization. There was two modes of behavior in response to this threat. One was to buy food and generators and prepare for the end of the world. The other was to start a massive effort to reviewing the computer code and fixing the problems before the year 2000 hit. As a result - the Y2K apocalypse never occurred. The survivalists crawled out of their caves and rejoined society.

We are now facing a similar issue about where society will go. We have a choice between terror an hope. To choose a path of war or peace. o we engage in an unending war against enemies both real and imagined? Or - do we do the hard work and fix the problem? Do we proceed on a war footing or a footing of peace. Do we face the problems and fix them - or do we crawl into our caves and await the end of the world? In this election we have a message of terror and a message of hope. Hope is the hard path because it requires more work up front. But war doesn't solve the problem. Eventually - you have to do the hard work - you have to win the peace.

That is the choice we have today between Kerry and Bush. It's the choice between hope and terror. We need to fix the problem. So I'm voting for Kerry.

Finally - someone in the millitary gets it!

Letter to the Editor

Last week a platoon in Iraq refused to obey order from thier superiors after they refused to deliver tainted helicopter fuel in poorly maintained vehicles by traveling a dangerous supply route without an armed escort. Had they taken the mission and delivered the fuel - the helicopters would likely have crashed according to one of the soldiers refusing the mission.

This is an example of the kind of insanity that is going on in the US military in Iraq. There's a saying that a fish rots from the head down and it starts with a clueless president who got us stuck in an unprovoked war and has no idea what to do next. Finally the troops on the ground are finally waking up and deciding that they are not going to fight and die to deliver contaminated fuel.

A Little Tongue

Will Bush bring back the Draft?

People are asking the question - will Bush bring back the draft? Well - you can take Bush's word for it that he won''t - and if you just believe everything Bush tells you - then you can stop reading now.

But - for those of you who are still wondering - let's reason this out.

1. The problem is bad and it's getting worse. There isn't enough people and they are going to need to get more people in there - somehow.

2. Most of the people in there now signed up for the National Guard - never thinking that they were part of the real military and would be sent to war unless it was an extreme emergency.

3. The people serving now want out. When they try to get out they can't because Bush is using a back door draft to keep them from quitting. But Bush can't do that forever. Eventually those who want out will get out.

4. People who would have joined the guard are less likely to do so. First - they know they are going to Iraq and it's not just an every other weekend thing. And - they know the war is a fraud - the president is a moron - Iraq is a mistake - and who wants to fight and die for no reason at all?

5. Bush's honesty is questionable. He lied to start the war. He stole the election. Bush will tell you anything. So a statement that there will be no draft means absolutely nothing at all.

6. So - taking all the above into consideration - a war that sucks - needing more troops - less interest - people there wanting to get out - Bush is a lying moron - do you think there's going to be a draft?
   

Vote for Kerry - or die for oil!

Republicans Cheat

Letter to the Editor

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has hired firms to register voters who are destroying the applications of Democrats registering to vote. Because of Republican cheating, Democrats will need to win elections by a large margin to actually take office. Sol even if some polls are showing that people are tired of failure and excuses and are ready to change the direction of America from failure to success - we still need to redouble our efforts to compensate for Republican voter fraud. They already stole one election. Let's make sure they don't steal this one.

How Secure is Electronic Voting?

Not very. Here's a movie about it. Created by technical experts who really understand the problem in detail. The files are very big so if you don't have a high speed connection - it will probably take too long to download.

RNC Trashes Democratic Voter Registrations

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has hired firms in serveral states including Oregon and Nevada to pretend to register democrats and then throw the registrations in the trash. Sometimes using the names of Democratic groups to fool Democrats into thinking they are registering when they aren't.

The Republican owned news media is trying to avoid this story and is not giving it the attention it deserves. I think that this is at least as big as dan Rather's mistake - and you can bet that if the DNC were tearing up Republican voter registrations it would be a national scandal.

In order for Democrats to win - they have to get 60% of the vote to offset Republican cheating. It looks like everything is being set up for yet another stolen election.

In Memory of Christopher Reeve

Kerry 4 - Bush 0 - Kerry wins again

Having said that - I was bored. I think both of them played it safe. Both of them tried hard not to make a mistake. I thought it would be more agressive. I wanted a fight. I wanted some action.

We'll see how the polling goes. I give it to Kerry because his facts were far better than Bush. Kerry had the easier argument because reality is on Kerry's side. When it come to style however - no winner there.

For what it's worth - I think both of them did worse than they did last time. The result - Kerry will gain a little. Bush has failed to turn it around. So - it's up to the October surprise and cheating for Bush to win now.

Pre debate spin - Bush's last chance?

With Kerry clearly winning the first two debates the pressure is on Bush big time to have a decisive victory. If Bush merely ties that probably isn't good enough. But it would be better than losing and if you use Bush math - Bush and the Republican controlled media will score a tie as a win. And as usual - the slant will be in favor of Bush.

They say that no one who has lost all the debates has won the presidency. This is a statement that I think has a basis in reality.

So - look for Bush to take more chances looking for a knockout or a sucker punch. But - if Bush take chances - it could backfire on him.

I'm looking for a hump on Bush's back - but I doubt you'll see it this time because everyone is looking for it. If I were the electronics guy builting the secret receiver - I'd put it in Bush's crotch - making him look like he has a bigger dick that Kerry - two birds - one stone.

But I do think that they should pat down the candidates to see if they are cheating. Can you imagine if Bush were caught cheating? Or if Kerry says, "Hey Bush - What's that hump on your back? Take off your jacket! " Then Kerry chases Bush around the stage trying to pull Bush's jacket off.

Kerry has the expectation problem. He is favored to win and can't shake that expectation. So if Kerry wins - he sort of stays even. Kerry could take Bush out with a good zinger tonight. But - Kerry can still fuck up. It is unlikely that Bush can win - but Kerry can lose. Will Kerry play it safe and conservative and just beat Bush by a little - or will he stomp Bush into the dust - or will he fuck up and lose?

In the Bush vs. Gore debate - Bush didn't beat Gore - Gore lost to Bush. It was Gore's screwups that cost him the election - not Bush's prowess. So - Bush's big chance will only come if Kerry makes a serious mistake.

Stolen Honor vs. F-9/11

Letter to the Editor

It's interesting that conservatives support the decision of the Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision to require it's 60 some member TV stations to air and Anti-Kerry movie "Stolen Honor" two days before the election. It makes me wonder how these conservatives would feel if a group of stations decided to run the political documentary "Fahrenheit 9-11" two days before the election. Would they support that? I doubt it.

Bush loses it - the video

Click on this. Debate 2 - Bush goes wild.

Please send in the foreign press!

Letter to the Editor

As you all know, we in America are holding elections on November 2. I would ask all the world to send reporters to cover it. We used to be a free nation with a free press and fair and honest elections. We are not that country anymore. Our press is controlled by President Bush's party. The electronic voting machines are supplied by another Bush supporter and it is widely known that these machines are easily altered.

Our president stole the election in 2000 and then lied to the world and initiated an unprovoked war in Iraq in defiance of international law and putting all the people of the world in a more dangerous place. The stakes in this election are high for every person on the planet. This is the point where people of good conscience must speak out and tell it like it is. We have a duty to prevent a madman from starting more wars. I therefore ask the world news media to come to America and pay close attention to an event that will shape our future for generations to come.

Republican owned television network to air Anti-Kerry special before election

This is why central ownership of thye media is a bad idea.

THE NATION
Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
Sinclair, with reach into many of the nation's homes, will preempt prime-time shows. Experts call the move highly unusual.

By Elizabeth Jensen, Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK -- The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations -- many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida -- to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process.

Kerry 3 - Bush 0

Kerry won it again. It was as I predicted not a slaughter. He was still as wrong as ever on the facts. But his style wasn't terrible as he was the last time. Still - when it comes to how the viewing audience will see this - it depends on if they check out the facts or not. If you check the facts - Kerry wins. If you don't know the facts then it depends on who's style you like better.

So - I'm going to watch Star Trek Enterprize. First show of the year in the new season. So - I'll be bask after I get my Trek fix.

Read my lips?

Bush say - no new draft. But - will he say "Read my lips - no new draft?"

Bush Logic

I told Kerry a lie - and Kerry believed my lie - therefore Kerry and I agreed. And now just because he discovered he was suckered - he wants to flip flop and change his mind.

Most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis

It is true that most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis. But it's not what it sounds like. You see - most of Iraq is controlled by the insurgents which are Iraqi's. The rest of the country live under the tyranny of a foreign oppressor.

Neither one of these two situation is freedom or democracy. Both are worse than they were under Saddam.

And that is the reality of what is happening today in Iraq.

How bad is the economy?

How bad is the economy? The economy is so bad that Herbert Hoover is flip flopping in his grave!

I sure do feel safe now!

Now that criminals like Martha Stewart are safely in jail and terrorist like Cat Stevens can no longer enter America - I sure feel safe now! Maybe it's time for me to take the bars off the windows!

Five Bucks worth of Gas

I remember when you could drive into a gas station and put 5 bucks in and it was significant. But now 5 bucks of gas is less that 2 gallons and it keeps going up. If we have 4 more years of Bush it's going to cost $100 every time you want to fill up the tank.

Watch the Debates

Letter to the Editor

It's interesting to see the difference between what the media says about the debates and what the online polls say. Some people thing the press is liberal - while others thing that the press is Republican owned and controlled. So I say - get rid of the media filter and watch the debates yourself. That way what you see is what they said and the news media can't interfere with reality.

Don't let "them" tell you what to think. If you are a patriot and you care about the future of America - then invest the time to watch the debates yourself - compare what the candidates say to reality - and go out and vote for who you think will be best for America's future.

Pre Debate Spin

Coming up on the second debate between Bush and Kerry. What are the stakes this time?

First - at this point all honest people know that Kerry beat Bush to a pulp last time. Could Bush do even worse this time? I have to say I doubt it. I'm predicting Bush will do better.

So - how will the media spin that? They will use "Bush Math" to describe it. Bush will have made "great progress" since the first debate, where Kerry made "no progress". Thus they will conclude that Bush has momentum and Kerry doesn't. That Bush's gains since last time was far greater than Kerry's gains. Bush is moving forward while Kerry is standing still.

It's the same math as they use on the economy. When the deficit doesn't increase as fast as some predicted it would - then Bush calls that "progress" and a "recovery".

I have no doubt that Kerry will wind the second debate. The only variables are by how much and how the media will lie about who won. In the VP debate Edwards clearly won - but the media disagrees with reality and after being pressured by Bush - they are now saying the Bush admin line.

Microsoft NBC was the biggest whore. No matter what happens in Friday's debate - MsNBC will say that Bush won it. They are totally sold out.

But - there will be viewers and people will get to see it for themselves. My hope is that there will be a big audience to watch so that it doesn't get filtered by the Republican controlled news media.

Edwards on Tort Reform

Letter to the Editor

John Edwards make a very interesting suggestion during the VP debate about legal reform that I had never heard before. Edwards said: "We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases."

As someone who has been abused by crooked lawyers personally and have seen how much lawyers get away with - I was very impressed with this suggestion. This is the most aggressive proposal against lawyer abuse I have ever heard come from a politician. I think this is a good idea and that it's something that should be pursued.

--------

As you can see - we Kerry supporters want people to watch the debates. I doubt Bush supporters want the same thing.

Cheney says - check the web for facts

During the debate - Cheney siad to go to FactCheck.com and check out the facts. I agree - go there and find out for yourself.

News Coverage of the Debates

It's interesting to see that Fox News has it more accurate than Microsoft NBC. Fox seems to know that Cheney got his ass kicked and trying to explain that. Microsoft NBC thinks Cheney won it in spite of the reality that Republicans are very unhappy tonight about the job Cheney did.

The numbers I'm looking for is the audience size. How many people actually watched it because if the audience was high - then that's good for Kerry. That means that people were interested and that they got to see it first hand for themselves.

What's interesting is that Microsoft NBC seems to disagree with its viewers. 70% give it to Edwards and 30% for Cheney. So I would say that Microsoft NBC is losing the debate with it's viewers.

So - are all these online polls wrong? Do Democrats have more computers than Republicans? I agree that online polls are less scientific that GOP manipulated polls - but when it's so slanted in favor of Edwards - there has to be some reality there.

CNN changed the question on their web site. Instead of asking who won - now they are asking if the debate will help you decide. CNN doesn't want to call it for Edwards who was winning 85 to 15 percent when CNM pulled the poll.

I'm seeing far less polls tonoght than I did last thursday. I see less that 1/3 of the polls last week. Seems to me that the news media doesn't want us to vote online any more because the voice of the people must be suppressed.

CBS News running 87 Edwards - 20% Cheney.

Fox News - with 184,000 votes Edwards winning 53% to 46%. And Fox is heavily biased towards Republicans. What this says is that Republicans know Edwards won it. Thanks to Fox for being a little more honest than NBC.

Admit it! If Edwards wins a poll on FOX - Edwards won it! And he won it BIG!!!

Kerry 2 - Bush 0

Another happy night for me. Edwards kicked butt! I didn't think he was going to do much more than tie Cheney and I thought Cheney was going to do a lot better than he did. Cheney did come across as Darth Vader and he also came across as not very smart.

I suppose that that might be good because he didn't come across as being way smarter than Bush - but it is also ad that he didn't come across as being smarter than Bush.

The body language said it all. Edwards was cool and composed and his answers ware simple and straigt forward. Cheney was tight and nervous. His sholders were shrugged and hands clasped in tension. It was about the 3rd question that you could see Cheney starting to lose it.

Cheney did what people were worried that Kerry was going to do. He got involved in complicated answers that left the viewers behind and confused. Edwards answers were simple and clear - and were far more accurate.

So - all Edwards had to do was tie it and he came across as far stronger that Cheney. I think the viewers would think that Edwards was more prepared to be president than Cheney.

Pre Debate Spin - VP

This is going to be an interesting debate. Cheney has the experience advantage - but also the experience disadvantage in that there's the Cheney Bush record of failure he has to try to pass off as some sort of success. I expect the VP debate to be smarter than the last presidential debate.

Unlike his performance in the real world - Cheney will come across as a nice guy. He will not be Darth Vader and anyone who underestimates him will be making a mistake.

I'm sure Halliberton will be mentioned - but not sure how it will play out. The real targets are at the top of the ticket and both of them know it.

Edwards is a legendary trial lawyer and he got that way because he can not only think on his feel - but can convince a jury to vote his way. Edwards is definitely the most likable person in the race and his personality will draw people to the ticket who are uncomfortable with Kerry's personality.

Cheney will create confidence in the ticket where people are worried that Bush is to stupid to be president. I think it would help Cheney to just admit he's the puppeteer and Bush is the puppet.

Momentum is with Kerry so Cheney has to do better than just beat Edwards or hold his own. Cheney needs a decisive win just to stop the bleeding. Edwards needs to handle the issue that he isn't experienced enough to become president in case some right wing idiot kills the president. If the debate is a tie - that's not good enough for the Bush team because for Edwards to tie Cheney makes him as big as Cheney.

As to Edwards being a lawyer - that's not going to count against him. As to Cheney being a business CEO - that's not going to count against him either. If this debate is about hating lawyers vs. hating corporate execs - no one wins.

If I were Edwards - I would talk about the future of America. Where were we four years ago - where are we now - which was are we heading - and do we want to stay the course to failure - or do we want to go back to success?

That's my take on the pre debate spin. Let's see what happens.

The GOP Message in just a few words

Here's a Quick Time Movie that gets the GOP message down to a few words and phrases.

Using Bush Math in Relationships

I've been admiring Bush's ability to take failure and try to describe it as a success. Bush will say that because the economy isn't failing as fast as predicted as a recovery. That somehow going from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world is a strong economy.

So I got inspired by this and pointed out to my girlfriend that the number of women in the world that I didn't sleep with is greater than the number of men in the world that she didn't sleep with.

Looking Forward to VP Debate

Letter to the Editor

I think the Vice Presidential debate Tuesday evening will be even more of an interesting contest than the Bush - Kerry debate. The incumbent, Vice President Cheney, is a seasoned politician who has had a lifelong career in government and as CEO of Haliburton. In the 2000 VP debate Cheney stomped Senator Joe Lieberman into the ground.

His opponent, John Edwards, has less political experience. But he has come from nowhere to national contender in record time. Edwards is considered a legendary trial lawyer. He has won cases for victims where no lawyer has won before. To be a lawyer of that caliber, you have to be very sharp - think fast - and be able to get the jury to vote your way.

This is a match up of a reigning champion against a highly talented hotshot newcomer and I think it will be a much more exciting event to watch than the presidential debate was where one party was clearly smarter than the other. The presidential debate might be more important - but I think the VP debate will be more interesting. I'm looking forward to watching it.

New York Times Guide to writing Letters to the Editor

For those of you who are thinking about writing letters to the editor - this is a good guide as to how to do it. The New York Times send this to me.

But first - Marc Perkel's simple guide:
Keep it short.
Write about what's in the headlines that day.
Be interesting

September 14, 2003

To the Reader:
By THOMAS FEYER

Readers of this page know that all letters to the editor, by convention, begin with the same salutation, "To the Editor," as if addressed to some faceless higher authority at The Times. In fact, the mountains of mail that we receive every day pile up on a very real editor's desk.

Mine.

For readers who wonder how the process unfolds, this is an attempt to demystify things a bit. Every day at least 1,000 submissions, and often far more, pour in to the letters office by e-mail, fax or postal mail. We print an average of 15 letters a day. That means the competition is intense, to say the least. Many, many worthy letters never see print, and those that do cannot reflect all the topics of interest to readers.

What qualifies as a publishable letter to the editor? The answer is necessarily highly subjective. We are looking for a national (and often international) conversation about the issues of the day ­ big and not so big ­ as well as fresh, bright writing that stands out through its own charm. Timeliness is a must; brevity will improve your chances; stylishness and wit will win my heart.

In times of great stress, the letters page has become a national town hall meeting of sorts. For months after Sept. 11, 2001, readers gave voice to their shock, horror, sadness and rage. They grieved for the dead, and then asked pointed questions about how the terrorist attacks could have happened. The page was a forum for dissecting the drawn-out presidential election of 2000, and for debating whether we should go to war in Iraq.

Contrary to the impression of some readers, the letters page, unlike the editorials with which we share a home, does not have a political coloration of its own. We are eager to print all points of view ­ liberal, conservative and anything in between ­ expressed according to the rules of civil discourse. You are free to agree or disagree with the opinions expressed in the editorials, columns and Op-Ed articles, or with the articles in the news columns. We seek robust debate and strive for balance.

The page is not a scientific survey of public opinion. So the variety of opinions expressed in a package of letters about one topic should not be read as poll results, but rather as a sampling of reader responses.

We welcome letters from all quarters, but especially from ordinary readers who have no titles after their names. Of course, we publish many writers speaking with authority in their areas of expertise, and letters from officeholders responding to criticism in these pages. We enjoy hearing from literary lights about what interests them ­ Norman Mailer on Kosovo, Jane Smiley on the Bush administration, Roger Kahn on crying in baseball.

But concerned, informed readers have the pride of place here ­ the thousands who write about what gets them worked up, or what moves them. And no subject is off-limits, within the bounds of good taste.

Many writers offer their insights into how we live our lives ­ how we drive our S.U.V.'s, gab on our cellphones on our commuter trains, deal with e-mail spam and telemarketers calling during dinner. One couple, responding to a front-page article about Internet dating, took the time to write in from their honeymoon cruise to recount how they met through an online dating service. Many writers, including a 12-year-old whose letter we published, were exercised about an Op-Ed article that took jabs at the adults who read the Harry Potter books.

A few important ground rules: Letters should be kept to about 150 words. (Not enough space? Well, the Gettysburg Address was only about 250 words.) They should be exclusive to The Times and respond to an article that appeared in the newspaper in the last week. In fact, writing by the next day is a good idea. Like other sections of the newspaper, the letters page seeks to be timely, so even a very good letter that arrives three days later may get passed over.

We will try to reach you if your letter is selected, so we need your daytime and evening telephone numbers, as well as your address (we'll protect your privacy). Letters are subject to editing, as is anything that appears in a newspaper, but we send you the edited letters for your approval.

Our door is always open, so keep the cards and letters coming. But, please, hold off on the spam.

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

May 23, 2004
FROM THE LETTERS EDITOR

The Letters Editor and the Reader: Our Compact, Updated
By THOMAS FEYER

Last September, as letters editor of The Times, I used some of this space for an essay called "To the Reader," introducing myself and outlining the mission and the mechanics of the letters page.

It seemed to strike a chord, and scores of readers wrote back. Many were pleased to learn that the anonymous editor had a name. Some were grateful for the advice; others were amused, acerbic, occasionally even dyspeptic. I had my 15 minutes of fame: a flurry of dissection on the Internet; an interview on TV that lasted, well, about 15 minutes. We printed two letters in response ­ pro and con, naturally.

But readers, new and old, send in questions (and even complaints!) about the letters page almost every day, and so a refresher course may help. This is an attempt to answer some frequently asked questions.

I've submitted many letters, but none have been published. How can I improve my chances?

Thanks largely to the ease and ubiquity of e-mail, letters submissions (and a lot besides) come in relentlessly, round the clock, from around the country and around the world, at a rate of roughly a thousand a day. My small staff and I try to read them all, but we can publish only about 15 letters a day.

While the odds are long, some letter writers seem to know how to shorten them. Here are some tips: Write quickly, concisely and engagingly. We're in an age of fast-moving news and virtually instant reaction; letters about an especially timely topic often appear within a day or two (and almost always within a week).

At times, some big stories generate hundreds of letters a day ­ Sept. 11 (at one point we were getting hundreds an hour), the war in Iraq, politics, to name a few. When you write about a particularly contentious issue, bear in mind that many others do so as well. We can try to capture a sense of what's on readers' minds, but we can't be comprehensive.

Your suggested length for letters is about 150 words. Why so short? (Or, as one writer put it after I cited the brevity of the Gettysburg Address, "Why does Lincoln get 250 and the rest of us a measly 150?")

Ideally, the letters page should be a forum for a variety of voices, and that means letting a lot of readers have a turn. With our limited space, we have room for letters that make their case with a point or two, but not for full-length articles. (For those, try our neighbors at the Op-Ed page.)

Once in a while, a particularly eloquent, newsworthy or pointed letter is allotted Lincolnesque space in print, but that is the exception.

You've said that the letters page "does not have a political coloration of its own." Yet liberal opinion seems to dominate, and conservatives seem to have a lesser voice. Why?

In selecting letters, I try to present a fair sampling of reader opinion, as well as a balance of views, pro and con. Writers to The Times ­ by no means all, certainly, but a clear majority ­ tend to be liberal, often vociferously so. Among our letter writers, critics of the Bush administration, especially over the war in Iraq, outnumber its defenders by a substantial margin.

On same-sex marriage, to cite another example, proponents far outnumber opponents among our letter writers. But there is more of a divide on other national issues, like abortion, affirmative action and immigration.

We welcome opinions from all sides: the majority, the dissenters, the contrarians. While I naturally have to use my judgment, it's not my opinion that determines the complexion of the page, it's yours.

Do you edit letters?

We reserve the right to edit for space, clarity, civility and accuracy, and we send you the edited version before publication. If your letter is selected, we will try to reach you and ask a few questions: Did you write the letter? (We're not amused by impostors.) Is it exclusive to The Times? (It should be.) Do you have a connection to the subject you're writing about? (Readers should be able to judge your credibility and motivation.)

What is your responsibility for ensuring that facts cited in letters are accurate?

Letter writers, to use a well-worn phrase, are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. There is, of course, a broad gray area in which hard fact and heartfelt opinion commingle. But we do try to verify the facts, either checking them ourselves or asking writers for sources of information. Sometimes we goof, and then we publish corrections.

Why are there so many letters from people with credentials or titles after their names?

These come in many flavors: an official's response to criticism; a statement of policy, printed for the record or for its news value; a view that we feel adds an interesting perspective or expertise to the debate.

As with any letter, writers speak only for themselves or their organizations; publication should not be taken as an endorsement of that view by The Times. The aim is to stimulate discussion, not end it.

A personal note, for those who've asked: I've been an editor at The Times for 23 years and counting, nearly 5 as letters editor, and a New Yorker since early childhood. I was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1953 and came to America with my parents ­ survivors of Nazism and refugees from Communism ­ in 1957. Five years later, we swore an oath as naturalized American citizens.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, my core belief as letters editor is that healthy, informed debate is the lifeblood of a strong democracy. Other than that, I'm an avid Times reader, just like you. If what's in this newspaper interests you, it interests me.

Nader targets swing states to throw the election to Bush

Nader to Hit Swing States; Kerry Improves

By THEO EMERY, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - With polls showing a narrowing gap between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, independent candidate Ralph Nader said Sunday that he planned to continue campaigning in key battleground states in the final month of the presidential election.

In a Newsweek poll, the first taken since the debate Thursday night, Kerry was running even with Bush after having trailed him in the same survey last month. A Los Angeles Times poll of debate viewers showed favorable perceptions of Kerry rose 5 percent, but the survey of 725 registered voters indicated little change in overall backing for the two candidates.

The Times poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, was released for Sunday's editions.

The Newsweek poll showed Kerry had the support of 47 percent and Bush 45 percent, with Nader at 2 percent.

Bush led 49-43 in the poll in early September and was up by 11 points in the poll following the GOP convention. The Newsweek poll of 1,013 registered voters was taken from late Thursday to early Saturday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Nader has long disputed the charge that he will be a "spoiler" for the Democrats in November. Critics have said his candidacy cost Democrat Al Gore the presidential election in 2000 when he lost by just a few hundred votes in Florida, where the liberal Nader got 97,000 votes for his Green Party candidacy.

While preparing for a campaign trip that begins at Harvard on Monday and continues to the swing states of Maine and New Hampshire on Tuesday, Nader said defeating Bush is a priority, but he's still trying to capture as many votes as possible in November.

"The assumption of all these questions is that I take more votes away from Kerry than Bush. Part of that is in Kerry's hands. He once said he wants to take away my votes by taking away my issues: I'm delivering it to him on a silver platter. He's responsible for that problem," Nader said.

Tobe Berkovitz, a political analyst and professor of communication at Boston University, said Nader's role could prove pivotal once again in the election.

"Nader is a factor because, in a race that seems to be this close, a point here, two points there in a battleground state can make a real difference in the Electoral College," he said.

Nader said that his supporters don't pull votes from one party or the other. Rather, half of his supporters would not otherwise vote at all, and the other half are split equally between Kerry and Bush.

"You never know. Our problem is how to break up the two-party system, not how to concede to one or the other," he said.

Nader's potential swing role for the election spurred a California peace activist to pledge last week not to eat until Nov. 2 in an effort to persuade Nader to drop out of the race.

"We're sending him some carrot juice," Nader said Sunday.

Republicans Fail to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

Letter to the Editor

Some things change and some things stay the same. What's the same are Republicans trying to amend the Constitution on an election year. But what's different is that in the good old days - instead of an amendment barring gay marriage - they used to try to pass a balanced budget amendment. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and with a Republican president and the biggest deficit in the history of the world - you won't see a balanced budget amendment any time soon.

Upgrading the Blog

I'm in the process of upgrading the blog - at least I hope it's an upgrade - to Movable Type 3.11. It at the moment the comments aren't wotking. I'm going to registered commenters. Less comment - better comments - and no comment spam.

Right now it's moderated for everyone but once I get the user account thing figured out I will allow some people to post without moderation. The upgrade process hasn't been pretty so be patient.

Why Kerry won the Debate

Letter to the Editor

There's a lot of discussion about why Kerry beat Bush in the debates last night. Bush supporters are claiming that Jim Lehrer was biased and gave Bush harder questions than he gave Kerry. Some say it was because of camera angles and that Kerry was taller. Although the problem with Kerry being taller was made worse because Bush slumped at the podium, making him shorter. Some people think that Kerry to unfair advantage of Bush because Kerry is smarter. But I have a different opinion.

I think Kerry had the advantage in the debate because reality was on his side. Iraq has become a quagmire and it's now obvious that invading Iraq was a bad decision. The economy is in shambles and so is foreign policy. Bush has used poor judgment for the last 4 years and because of that - it made it easier for Kerry to argue his position. Bush would have had the advantage if he had a record of success to run on rather than a record of failure. It seem that if a sitting president wants to have an advantage in a presidential debate - that doing a good job would be a good debate strategy.

Add this blog to my Yahoo

If you notice there's a new button at the top of this blog. It lets you add this blog to your My Yahoo page just like any other news feeds. I'm just testing it out and it looks pretty kool so far.

MoveOn running a Killer Ad - Love it!

Check out this KILLER AD that MoveOn is running!

Scoring the Media on who won the debate

First of all - Kerry won the debate big time. What do I say that and how do I objectively know that? Because Kerry's team is doing hand flips and Bush's team is crying and making excuses.

So - how is the media spinning the debate?

CNN - Reading this you'd think Bush won:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.main/index.html

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 615 registered voters who watched the debate, most said Kerry did the better job and almost half said the debate made them think more favorably of Kerry. (Special Report: America Votes, 2004, the debates)

By narrow margins, Bush came out better on believability, likeability and toughness. But there was virtually no change among those polled on which candidate would handle Iraq better or make a better commander-in-chief.

Microsoft NBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725/

No polling information.

CBS - Experts rate the debate a draw

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/politics/main646711.shtml

ABC - Kerry wins but no change

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041001_648.html

USA Today - Kerry Wins - they get it right!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-01-battleground-debate_x.htm

Another Marajuana Related Death

D.C. Jail Stay Ends in Death For Quadriplegic Md. Man Care Provided by Hospital, Corrections Dept. in Question

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page B01

Jonathan Magbie, a 27-year-old Mitchellville man, was sent to jail in the District last week for 10 days for marijuana possession.

He never made it home.

Paralyzed as a child and unable to even breathe on his own, Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital.

At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.

An investigation is underway, but that is little solace to his family, which marched on the courthouse this week with signs accusing the judge of killing Magbie.

"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."

By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.

But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.

Police, she pointed out, found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle in which Magbie was stopped in April 2003. And, despite pleading guilty to the marijuana charge, Magbie told pre-sentence investigators that he would continue using the drug, which he said made him feel better.

"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."

Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV (Channel 7). Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.

For most everything else, from scratching an itch on his head to flushing his lungs of accumulated fluid, he had to rely on others. Along with his family, he had nursing care 20 hours a day.

"Jonathan was totally dependent," his mother said. "He couldn't do anything for himself."

Asked how her son was able to inhale marijuana, Scott said only that "he learned to do a lot of things."

Ahead of Magbie's sentencing, a staff member in Retchin's chambers contacted the office of Chief Judge Rufus G. King III to find out whether the D.C. Corrections Department would be able to house a paralyzed person in a wheelchair. The answer from the chief judge's office, which is the liaison with Corrections, was yes.

Leah Gurowitz, a court spokeswoman, said yesterday that the full extent of Magbie's paralysis was inadvertently not relayed to the chief judge's office.

Sandy Thomas and her great-nephew Anthony Smith are among several relatives and friends of Jonathan Magbie at a candlelight vigil outside the D.C. jail. (Photos Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post) In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."

Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.

"I certainly would not say they killed him or any conclusion like that," Fornaci said. "But it certainly seems likely that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone to jail."

The initial medical evaluation of Magbie after his arrival at the D.C. jail on Sept. 20 found him in need of "acute medical attention," according to the Corrections Department. Within hours, Magbie was moved to Greater Southeast Community Hospital.

The nature of the medical problem was not specified in a chronology issued by the Corrections Department, which declined to make officials available to comment on the specifics of the case. The timeline shows that Magbie arrived at the jail at 2 p.m. and that he was taken to the hospital at 9:40 p.m. What happened in between is not explained.

The next day, Magbie was discharged and placed in the Correctional Treatment Facility, the jail annex that is operated by Corrections Corporation of America under a contract with the city. But almost from the moment Magbie arrived there, a senior doctor was concerned that Magbie might not receive the care he needed, according to his mother and a court official.

The court official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the doctor believed that Magbie belonged at the hospital and pressed Greater Southeast, which handles inmate hospitalizations, to take him back. But the hospital rebuffed the request, the official said.

Hoping to change the hospital's mind, the physician asked Retchin to issue a court order, the official said. But the judge declined, saying she lacked the authority to issue any such order.

The hospital said in a statement that it could not comment because of federal privacy regulations. It said that it provides "top-quality" care.

Apparently resigned to having him stay on at the jail annex, the medical staff decided after a couple of days of back-and-forth with Magbie's mother and attorney to allow Magbie's mother to bring his ventilator.

Told to bring the device down Friday morning, she did, showing up about 10 a.m. A half-hour earlier, she would later learn, her son had been taken by ambulance back to Greater Southeast.

That night, she received a call from a warden telling her that her son was dead.