Vote faith's virtues, not for division
eople of religious faith would do well to bring with them to the polls on Tuesday the traits of character, integrity, humility, charity and humanity their beliefs instill. At the same time, they would do best for themselves and the nation to leave their religion per se at home.
   The reasons are clear and compelling, documented through millennia of hatred, bloodshed and pain: religion and government intertwined bring out the worst in both, perverting both, and inevitably, the people suffer.
   Faith can focus the mind, strengthen the spirit and nurture the soul. Where religion enlightens and inculcates faith in that way, it serves God's will and mankind's needs well. But too often religion has been co-opted to further less noble ends, ones having to do with the unholy commodities of wealth and power. A sure sign of that mischief being afoot can be found in "it's-us against-them" rhetoric, setting friend against friend, family member against family member, neighbor against neighbor, citizen against fellow citizen.
   David D. Kirkpatrick's article in today's New York Times, "Battle Cry of Faithful Pits Believers Against the Rest," which is very good, includes this:
   Kirkpatrick's story goes on to tell how the Christian Broadcasting Network notes "those who pray a lot" tend to vote Republican," and so conservative pastors are as busy as they can be flogging their flocks to support President George W. Bush and other Republicans, from the pulpit, in voter guides and in get-out-the-vote drives.

   Stepping back from this heated pre-election moment, thinking, looking toward the long-term good of our country, we ask you to consider carefully whether that's a good thing. For faithful and secular alike, we are strongest and best when we are one American people, all of us equally confident that nearly all our fellow citizens love this country and want what's best for it as much as we do — maintaining that confidence, even when we disagree about policy and approach. That's not a Christian motive, a Jewish sentiment, a Baptist ideal or a Catholic tenet. It's Americanism at Americanism's best.
   We particularly like this thought, expressed by Reubin Askew:
   What aligns Askew's point with the best of Americanism and reflects the best of internalized faith is that he makes "neighbors," people of whatever philosophy or kind, the object for pursuing "just social policies." They don't have to belong to the same church, profess the same faith or any faith at all, or identify with a particular political party, just be fellow Americans, our neighbors.

   (Askew, a lifelong Democrat, was governor of Florida from 1971-1979, served as U.S. Trade Representative under President Jimmy Carter and ran for president in 1984. He currently teaches government at several Florida universities.)

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:59 PM

 
Shinseki was right; More troops needed
   "President Bush has repeatedly said his generals have not told him they need more than the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. But it's now clear that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon colleagues should have listened to Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, when he warned that 'several hundred thousand' troops would be required to win the peace as well as the war. Instead, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, disparaged Shinseki and shoved him aside."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:35 PM

 
On terror war, Iraq, Kerry's the best
   "On the signal issues of this campaign — the Iraq war and terrorism — Kerry is up to the challenge. Persuading our allies to share more of the military and economic burden in Iraq is a daunting task, but only Kerry has the credibility to bring them to the table. Iraq, simply put, is out of control. Kerry is best qualified bring it under control, not least by reassuring the Iraqis themselves that the United States does not have permanent designs on their strategic bases or oil. On terrorism, Kerry understands that intelligence, police work, diplomacy, and economic development are the the principal weapons against a diffuse but knowable enemy."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:41 PM

 
Report: Bush has kept America vulnerable
s CNN's Wolf Blitzer points out at every opportunity (he did this again not a half hour ago), polls indicate most likely voters see President Bush as a better bet than Sen. John Kerry to keep them safe from terrorists.
   However, a substantial and growing body of evidence demonstrates Bush has done a shockingly slipshod and dangerously deficient job of making the U.S. more secure. Here's one eye-opening element of that evidence, from the nonpartisan consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen.
   Here, from the report, are a couple examples of what Public Citizen is talking about.
   Why would Bush, Cheney and Republicans in Congress allow these gross and obvious vulnerabilities to continue? Public Citizen says it's all about the money.
   Clearly, a majority of likely voters would be wise to reassess their misplaced confidence in Bush, Cheney and corporate America's Republican errand boys and girls in Congress.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:51 PM

 
TV station has video of explosives cache
   We came across what could be the definitive link in a chain of evidence proving Bush administration incompetence allowed tons of high explosives from al Qa Qaa to go missing, undoubtedly winding up in the hands of our enemies in Iraq.
   Credit Tristero, "Missing Explosives: Case Closed," with pointing the way.
   There's also a link to the station's original news video.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:16 AM

 
Gen. Clark debunks GOP demagoguery
   “For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.
   “The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.
   “President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.”

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:47 PM

 
Hersh book a shock-and-awe exposé
   From The Economist, an interesting and highly informative review of New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's book, "Chain of Command."
   Herein, a timely excerpt:
   This reminds us of an old joke's punchline: "You have to marvel at the completeness of it." But then, thinking of lives lost and money squandered, comic relief has no place in this.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:01 PM

 
Late response won't defuse this bombshell
   Finally responding to Sen. John Kerry's damning questions and embarrassing charges about the 380 tons of high explosives the Bush administration high command let slip away, President George W. Bush hit a new low today.
   The official Bush-Cheney, Republican/right-wing noise machine response is: 1, We don't know all the facts, so Kerry is questioning Bush's divine guidance, making "wild charges"; and 2, Kerry is denigrating our valiant troops.
   Concerning the first point, add the Iraq explosives debacle to the lengthy list of Bush administration screwups, bad practices and lowdown, dirty deeds about which all the facts aren't known and most likely won't be known for a very long time, if ever. The reason these facts won't be known, of course, is because Bush and his people have no intention of telling the whole truth about them.
   Bush wants the cheering sock puppets at his campaign events, and anyone else who is gullible enough, to believe that Kerry's raising questions about the missing explosives is clear evidence the senator isn't fit to be president.
   There's something in this tack that brings to mind Leslie Neilsen's "Naked Gun" detective character blandly saying something utterly stupid and off point, naively certain others will just accept it. In those comedies, others often do just accept the stupid statement. Real life doesn't work that way, although Bush has had a remarkable run of mostly getting away with the schtick. But now, just before an election, his string may be running out.
   Bush's second point surpasses the usual and expected Bush-Cheney distortion. It's a baldfaced lie. Kerry has been scrupulous in making clear his beef is with our troops' bosses, not the troops themselves. They've done what they were directed to do, overall performing extremely well. The fault lies with Bush and his Gang That Couldn't Think Straight at the Pentagon.

   Postscript: This evening on Larry King's show, columnist and right-wing stalwart William Safire made an obvious attempt to divert attention from Bush's monumental screwup. Safire charged right-wing media villain du jour, CBS News, had plotted to spring this story on the public 36 hours before the election, perpetrating an unanswerable smear. However, the New York Times, with which CBS had collaborated, insisted on breaking the story right away.
   To which Sen. Joe Biden rightly responded that what Safire was talking about was irrelevant. Biden then forcefully snapped attention back to the matter that is in all likelihood adding to our troop fatalities, now about 1,112, because of Bush's mess-making extravaganza in Iraq.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:11 PM

 
Most major Florida papers endorse Kerry
n critical Florida, a major central-state newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, is endorsing Sen. John Kerry for president. It's part of an impressive string of endorsements Kerry has picked up in Florida.
   The Orlando newspaper's backing is particularly notable because it hasn't endorsed a Democrat since 1964 (story).
   The Sentinel had backed George W. Bush in 2000, but said of him in its Oct. 24, 2004, announcement:
   The Sentinel was not just motivated by its dissatisfaction with Bush's performance over the last four years. It also expressed support for what Sen. John Kerry wants to do as president.
   The Sentinel joined a weekend parade of Florida newspapers endorsing Kerry. Among them were the Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Florida Today and the Bradenton Herald, which had endorsed Bush in 2000.
   Meanwhile, no major Florida newspaper has endorsed Bush for re-election. The Tampa Tribune, which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1952, last week declined to endorse Bush.
   Republicans will no doubt dismiss the endorsements as just more evidence the liberal media favor Democrats. That argument rings hollow in light of, for example, the Sentinel's four decades of not endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate.
   Others who simply disdain the media may discount the Kerry endorsements as meaningless. That would also be a mistake. Like them or not, news professionals are typically much better informed about candidates and issues than most Americans. What's more, most news professionals realize that in some sense their reputation can gain luster or tarnish, depending on how someone they've endorsed behaves. Thus mindful, they tend to take care with their selections.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:53 PM

 
Bush kinfolks' Web site backs Kerry
   Seven relatives of President Bush have created a Web site where they urge support for Sen. John Kerry, "Because blood is thinner than oil!"
   The idea of a site developed after Kerry saw one of the Bushes at a rally waving a sign that said, "Bush Relative for Kerry." A news story says they shook hands and joked about it. Kerry said it would make for a good Web site.
   Indeed, it does. The site includes several commentaries like that of Bush second cousin Sheila House of Harwich, Mass.:
   How gratifying, to see so many Bushes have their heads screwed on right, as opposed to having a screwy, right-wing head. Drop by and sample the viewpoints — highly recommended.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:46 PM

 
Bush credibility buried under 380 tons
deadly, costly war undertaken for bogus reasons, too few troops to do the job right, no coherent plan for what to do with Iraq post invasion, borders never secured so the insurgency has grown and intensified — and now we learn that through sheer incompetence, 380 tons of high explosives are gone from a complex 30 miles from Baghdad (story).
   Just imagine how many suicide-bomber cars, how many roadside bombs and booby traps can be made with 380 tons of explosives. Just imagine how many buildings, bridges, humvees, trucks and tanks can be destroyed out of that 380 tons.
   And what does President George W. Bush, who is responsible for the horrendous mess in Iraq to begin with, have to say? Not a thing — not even whoops, not even "Sorry, my bad," nothing.
   Oh, but Bush is going around the country scolding like a magpie, uttering more inane drivel about how Sen. John Kerry is ill-suited to be commander in chief and unwilling to win the wars against terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq. All this with a straight face. Incredible!
   This sets a new benchmark for unbridled hypocrisy, one to match Bush's world-beater "achievements" in the realm of getting things wrong and then, having screwed things up royally, sticking stubbornly to his erroneous course.

   Here's what Kerry campaign aide Joe Lockhart had to say about this latest debacle, as quoted in the news story:
   Despite all the damning evidence to the contrary, polls continue to show a majority of likely voters believe Bush would do a better job as commander in chief. This is more an indicator of what $200 million will buy than reflective of facts and sound thinking. But after this latest revelation, even many of the deceived, deluded and those with fingers in their ears may have to come to grips with the reality.
   Questions for these voters: How many of the nearly 10,000 U.S. casualties suffered in Iraq, nearly 1,100 of them fatalities, were caused by explosives from the 380-ton cache? How many more of our people and innocent Iraqis will be maimed and killed because these explosives wound up in the wrong hands?
   The reality, likely voters, is that Bush is the sorriest excuse for a national leader this country has had, period, ever, bar none. As commander in chief, Bush is a danger, first and foremost, to our country and our troops.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:30 PM

 
CNN, there you go again
   CNN continued its policy of playing up President George W. Bush and giving Sen. John Kerry short shrift today. It's earning its stripes as a valued member of the Bush-Cheney campaign team, one day at a time.
   At midmorning we switched on the tube and there, as usual, was Bush. He was, as usual, delivering his take on how completely unsuitable Sen. John Kerry is to lead the country in a time of war. The best we could tell, CNN carried most, maybe all, of Bush's talk, patiently holding on through the applause lines, of course. We didn't time it, but the network kept Bush on for quite some time.
   When they finally cut away, the CNN anchor mentioned Kerry and President Bill Clinton would be at a major campaign speaking event in downtown Philadelphia later, and that this would be covered also.
   We waited and watched. Sure enough, we got to see the cheering crowd of thousands, the introduction of Clinton and the former president's spirited but brief talk. Then, Kerry was introduced. He thanked Clinton, made some small talk and then began his speech.
   And then CNN cut away. For a couple of minutes we got mindless chatter from the anchor and a reporter while Kerry was shown, but not heard. We also got panning shots of the crowd. Then, CNN moved on to other matters and the inevitable commercials.
   Obviously, CNN wants as many viewers as possible to see and hear Bush slamming Kerry. Just as obviously, CNN wants viewers to see and hear as little from Kerry as it can possibly get by with showing.
   This isn't the first time we've seen this done by CNN. We also switched over, in disgust, to MSNBC, which did the same thing. Some genius at that network thought we'd rather hear Andrea Mitchell and another reporter yakking than hear what the man who — we hope and pray — will be the next president and leader of the free world had to say.
   More than serious news organizations, CNN and MSNBC are earning a reputation for being B-team infotainment operations, ones trying to outdo Fox News when it comes to being faithful servants of the Republican National Committee and shameless pimps for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:45 PM

 
Lack of signing ceremony says something
nteresting, how President Bush signed that $136-billion corporate-tax giveaway bill (story). This is a classic Bush/Republican piece of work that will shift even more of the tax burden off of America's cash-laden corporations — many of them enjoying record-breaking profits — and onto the backs of middle class and other taxpayers, now and for the next generation or two.
   Bush signed the bill Friday aboard Air Force One. There was no signing ceremony with smiling corporate kingpins and members of Congress gathered around. There was a White House statement saying the measure will help create jobs.
   How many times have we heard that before, when Bush was seeking or signing yet another of his dimbulb-economics tax cuts? But gone now are the expansive predictions of 6 millions jobs by such-and-such a date.
   Maybe it has penetrated this densest of administrations that a big to-do about another Bush tax cut, another Republican multi-billion-dollar gift basket for the wealthy and powerful few, might not be well received by a public largely already dissatisfied with the economy and the way the country is headed.
   For the truth about what Bushwhacking has done for America's working people and out-of-work people — the worst record of any president since Herbert Hoover 74 years ago — check out this graph.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:09 PM

 
Early voter's experience troubling
   Suppose you were to go to your polling place Nov. 2, there to confront a leading-edge e-voting machine. You touch the screen to cast your vote for candidate X and the machine credits your vote to candidate Y? So, you cancel your vote and start all over, only to have the same thing happen. And then, it happens again.
   Visit Lean Left to read about how this very thing reportedly happened to a woman named Kim Griffith. The post is titled "Machines Voting for Bush."
   What makes this scenario especially troubling is the fact that Diebold Inc., a leading maker of e-voting machines, is headed by an avowed supporter of, and substantial campaign contributor to, President George W. Bush.
   Oh!pinion is seriously concerned, realizing how easy it would be to snap into these machines a programmed module set up to favor, say, Bush, just long enough to give Bush a clear advantage. Late in the day, or the next day, the modules could be swapped for unbiased ones. Or, a programmer could easily set up a programmed module to behave in a desired way based within a specified time period on Nov. 2, then revert to the way it was supposed to be programmed, eliminating any trace of the previous irregularity.
   At crowded, busy polling places with people in a hurry, many voters could be expected to tap their way through the choices, not noticing when a selection or two did not register as they intended.
   The possibilities for election day fraud are especially ripe in states such as Florida, which has a decidedly proactive Republican administration headed by no less a Bush partisan than the president's brother, Jeb.
   We're extremely skeptical of conspiracy scares and theories. Mostly, we ignore them. But in this matter, with the presidential race so close, with the stakes so high and with so many added causes for suspicion such as the clearly stated intentions at Diebold, it's different.
   Anything-to-win types had better think carefully. One more instance of George W. Bush being hustled past the finish line by gangs of paid, flown-in "activists," a platoon of high-powered lawyers and a handful of oh-so-accommodating Supreme Court justices, and American democracy is likely to start coming apart.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:37 PM

 
Kerry: We will win terror war
   "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror. It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:06 PM

 
Thousands of Iraq's bad cops fired
he headline, "Iraqis purge thousands of police," is followed by this subhead, "Security forces full of illiterates, convicts, insurgents' supporters."
   The Knight Ridder story goes on to tell about how the Coalition Provisional Authority, after hastily dismantling Iraq's existing military and law enforcement setup in the early post-invasion weeks, realized that was a mistake, then went about signing on anyone who was willing. Not surprisingly, some pretty incompetent and bad people were willing.
   To make this tale of mindless incompetence more complete, the story tells how thousands of no-show, Iraqi cops-on-paper-only, went for months and months collecting pay and doing no duty, no work, nothing. From the story:
   Let's be clear that all that money being doled out for many months to all those thousands of Iraqi deadbeat cops came out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets. It's one of many things to keep in mind when our Mideast nation builder-in-chief tells you how he believes you should get to keep more of your money.
   Question: Between the tens of thousands of no-good and no-show Iraqi cops being dumped at last, and the many being killed by insurgents each week (16 were killed and 40 wounded in just one of many Saturday attacks), how is Iraq ever going to establish order and defend borders that our 140,000 troops haven't been able to secure?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:31 PM

 
CNN poll reporting Bush-friendly
   It's become more and more noticeable as the presidential campaign has progressed that CNN is kindly disposed toward President George W. Bush, and we're not just talking about its pundit segments. Supposedly straight-news reports also exhibit the network's pro-administration tilt.
   A Media Matters for America item details CNN's slanted presentation of political polling, noting a pattern of making big of results that show Bush ahead while downplaying or excluding altogether results showing Kerry ahead or gaining.
   Worse, as MMFA's David Brock charges, CNN repeatedly has reported poll result roundups that failed to include more-recent tallies that showed a Kerry advantage. This item is actually a letter from Brock to CNN's executive director of political coverage, Tom Hannon.
   CNN's bias isn't always and every time; we've seen exceptions. But we think Brock has nailed down enough instances to substantiate his charge that the network clearly exhibits a pattern of biased reporting.
   CNN's slant has shown through in other ways, as we've noted in previous posts. Things like its coverage of the major parties' national conventions. At the Democratic convention, CNN's coverage included a steady stream of heavy-hitting Republican spinmeisters and Bush surrogates, especially in its group discussions.
   But at the GOP convention, Democratic spokespersons were comparatively few and decidedly less strident. This disparity was especially noticeable in group discussions, where the supposedly pro-Democratic spokesperson was a very soft-spoken, thoughtful and polite young woman from the Black Entertainment Network. Although intelligent, articulate and pleasant, let's just say she was no balance for the likes of a Mary Matalin or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
   If you venture a click to the Media Matters item, please note that at the bottom of the page there's a handy link you can use to express yourself about CNN's lack of balance. Don't be bashful.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:30 PM

 
Former governors endorse Kerry
en. John Kerry is picking up some interesting endorsements from former governors — including independents and a highly respected Republican.
   A New York Times campaign note tells about today's announcement by former Maine Gov. Angus King, an independent, that he's backing Kerry. This happened in St. Paul, Minn. King was accompanied by Minnesota's usually outspoken Jesse Ventura, who said not a word but did gesture that he's endorsing Kerry also.
   Ventura silent, the whole time? Laryngitis, maybe? Go figure.
   A week ago, a moderate Republican — yes, Virginia, there once were such beings on the planet — former governor of Michigan, William Milliken, came out for Kerry. The 82-year-old was moved to back a Democrat for president for the first time by his complete dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush and what Bush has done. Milliken's three-page statement was filled with blistering scorn for Bush's conduct of the presidency, of foreign policy and of the economy.
   A news story on Milliken's announcement includes this:
   Republicans, especially Bush loyalists, describe those who favor Kerry as hard core liberals, usually referring to them disdainfully as "Bush haters." The endorsement of Kerry by King, Milliken and Ventura blows an irreparable hole through that argument.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:00 PM

 
Can this pro-Bush site be for real?
   We spent a few moments today at a site called W4Prez. It's a flag-studded extravaganza dedicated entirely to — we finally decided — the notion that President George W. Bush is the greatest thing since the invention of the honeymoon.
   Our uncertainty, which you may experience if you click and go, was caused by — well, we couldn't decide if the site was what it was presented to be or some kind of sarcastic satire of what it was presented to be.
   For example, consider this from a page titled, "Good things about George W. Bush":
   W4Prez's creator describes himself this way:
   Thus, we end our brief, bemused look into a red-state bastion in the American heartland, having perhaps gained some additional insight about Bush's "base." That is, if it isn't an incredible (literally) put on.
   Credit the very nice blog, Lollipops and Roses, with pointing the way to W4Prez — with suitable warnings, of course.
   Whew!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:36 PM

 
Republicans' 11th-hour conversion figures
   If Granny Cratchit fills a few expensive-for-her prescriptions through a Canadian source, she's in violation of federal law. And if a U.S. state government goes to bat for its cash-strapped citizens, seniors especially, watch out.
   Just a year ago, Democrats in Congress were waging a futile battle with the Republican powers that be to add language to the Republican Medicare "reform" bill to allow reimportation of medicines from Canada, to give U.S. consumers a break. Republicans in Congress would have none of that and President Bush made clear he would veto any such measure. Ditto for allowing the federal government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies to get better prices for U.S. consumers.
   The basis for all this Republican persnickitiness about medications has nothing to do with safety — they know Canadian pharmacists are as ethical and competent as their U.S. counterparts. The sticking point has to do with money and influence: big drug companies and their executives and board members are major contributors to Republican politicians.
   One hand washes the other, the old saying goes.
   But here's the kicker that makes an already ludicrous situation maddeningly perverse: Now, in the final weeks before election day, President Bush and his Republican foot soldiers in Congress are only too happy to import millions of doses of flu vaccine from Canada.
   Suddenly, with a whole lot of people — seniors who tend to be avid about voting especially — up in arms about the flu vaccine shortage, Republicans are A-OK with forgoing lengthy testing, a snail's-pace approval process and international negotiations. Canadian vaccine? No problem; bring it on!
   These people are so transparently self-serving, so unabashedly unfair, that it sometimes just takes our breath away.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:20 AM

 
Bungling does not a safer country make
   "Mr. President, you can chose to ignore the facts, but in the end you can't hide the truth from the American people.
   "The bottom line, Mr. President: your mismanagement of the war has made Iraq and America less safe and secure than they could have been and should have been today."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:41 PM

 
Bush talks good economy as jobs go away
resident George W. Bush campaigned in the Midwest today. According to a news story, he said:
   That didn't sound like the economy we've been seeing, hearing and reading about. So for a reality check we took a quick look around at the layoffs situation during just the first 20 days of this month. Below, a small sampling of what we found.

   General Motors will eliminate about 900 jobs at its Pontiac, Mich., pickup truck plant in early 2005. The corporation cites sagging demand and increased competition from foreign makes.
   AT&T told unions Tuesday it’s doing away with more than 1,600 rank-and-file jobs, 120 of them in New Jersey, as part of the mass layoffs the company disclosed earlier this month. From the news story:
   Sprint Corp. the cutting of 700 jobs from its business solutions division and said it will record an impairment charge in its third quarter to reflect a decline in value of its long-distance assets. A spokesman said most of the jobs will be cut from sales and support. The business solutions division shed 1,100 jobs during the summer. The company has cut 22,000 jobs since 2002.
   Johnson Controls, after recent layoffs of 80 jobs in Battle Creek, Mich., and almost 900 in Holland, Mich., will continue
its downsizing but cutting another 350 jobs in Holland, Plymouth and Warren, all in Michigan. A story about job losses at the auto industry supplier's plants included the following:
   Freescale Semiconductor of Ohio on Tuesday announced cuts of 1,000 jobs, even though the company had a profitable third quarter that saw revenue increase sequentially. And from the same news item: “Cymer Inc., a maker of light sources for litho tools, said it was laying off 14 percent of its employees, or about 100, even as its quarterly revenues hit record highs.”
   Convergys, a Cincinnati company, today announced a restructuring that will include elimination of 250 management positions, most of them in its information management group. The company said its profits had dropped 34 percent in the third quarter.
   Vignette Corp., a software company, reported a $10 million or 3-cents-per-share loss for its third quarter despite increased revenues. Without giving specific numbers, the company said it will have "headcount reductions, consolidation of offices, and a realignment of the sales structure."
   Among other firms announcing or planning layoffs this month: Maytag, in Iowa; and Goodyear Tire And Rubber, 250 jobs at its Union City, Tenn., plant., where 1,000 jobs have been eliminated since 2002.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:52 PM

 
Heinz Kerry apologizes; Hughes gets ugly
   Uh-oh, the fat's in the fire now. Teresa Heinz Kerry put her foot in her mouth in USA Today, saying she wasn't sure first lady Laura Bush had ever held a "real job."
   That was wrong, of course. Laura Bush was in fact a teacher, a librarian and is a parent. What's more, being first lady involves certain responsibilities that qualify as work.
   So, fair enough, Sen. John Kerry's wife quickly acknowledged her mistake and issued an apology (below). But that didn't keep CNN from flogging this minor gaffe all day long as though it was somehow important news.
   There's another aspect of this minor mishap that ought to qualify as all-day buzz on CNN, but won't.
   Contrast the graciousness of Heinz Kerry's apology . . .
   . . . With this response to the apology from former aide to President George W. Bush and current Bush-Cheney campaign operative Karen Hughes:
   What a catty, low-class attack. It was so obviously a case of jumping at the chance to attack — attack Kerry's wife, yet. And mindless; did Hughes even read or listen to Heinz Kerry's apology? No wonder Bush considered Hughes indispensable before she opted out a couple of years ago.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:50 PM

 
Gore charts whole sordid Bush mess
"The essential cruelty of Bush's game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals, and then cloaks them with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world. And in the process he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities.
   "Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people, and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged. And these wealthy and privileged look at his agenda and they say, as Dick Cheney said to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, 'this is our due.'"

   This speech just may be the most comprehensive and well-stated indictment of President Bush's leadership and administration to date. It was carried Monday on C-SPAN and might be repeated on that network this weekend. Let's hope so. In a better America, everyone who plans to vote would hear or read this blockbuster, then sleep on it before going to the polls.
   Factual, straightforward throughout, Gore's speech is well worth its extensive length. If you have a few minutes, click the link above to the transcript.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:49 PM

 
Bush 41 adviser disparages Bush 43 policy
dmiral Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser and a mentor of the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, had some damning things to say about President George W. Bush's conduct of foreign policy.
   A news story says Scowcroft, Speaking in London recently, characterized the current President Bush as "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Scowcroft also called Iraq a "failing venture" and said the administration's unilateralist approach has hurt U.S.-European relations.
   Also from the story:
   The story quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell, who basically denies all of Scowcroft's assertions. And remarkably, it notes Scowcroft supports Bush's re-election.

   Scowcroft is a seasoned, extremely knowledgeable diplomatic and foreign policy veteran. With his comments essentially deploring and denouncing Bush administration foreign policy, he joins most of the brightest, most experienced Americans in that field.
   While Bush's mistaken, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the unmitigated disaster that has followed that blunder are the linchpins of a new era of ill will toward the U.S. government around the world, many more problems exist. Most of them are being addressed lamely if at all. This isn't just campaign bashing. The problems are real and they're going to cost Americans in many ways, obvious and subtle, for years to come.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:27 PM

 
Debate lie no help to uninsured millions
   "Bush showed that he cared far more about caricaturing Kerry's plan than solving the problems of the uninsured. Inventing out of whole cloth a scheme that has nothing to do with what Kerry is proposing, Bush noted that the federal employee plan 'costs the government $7,700 per family.' Then he took a leap into the mathematics of political distortion. 'If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested," Bush said, "it would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.'"
   "Pardon the word, but that's a lie, because Kerry has 'suggested' no such thing. As Kerry quickly noted, families that could afford to buy into the federal plan under his proposal would have to pay for it. 'We're not giving this away for nothing,' Kerry said in one of his most effective counterpunches."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:26 PM

 
Union disputes Bush debate statements
   The Bush administration has come under fire for its handling of border security and veterans' needs from the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees.
   Citing results from an August survey of Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection inspectors, John Gage, AFGE president said almost two-thirds indicated they lack the tools, training and support necessary to fulfill their mission, which includes keeping terrorists from entering the country. Nearly half those surveyed said the nation is no safer today than it was on Sept. 11th, 2001.
   Gage noted Anthony J. Principi, head of the Department of Veterans Affairs, has admitted that President Bush shortchanged the VA system by $1.2 billion in 2004. Gage added that the administration plans to increase out-of-pocket fees and co-pays next year — a move it admits will deter 200,000 veterans from utilizing the VA care system.
   Gage said that despite his rhetoric about supporting our troops, Bush proposed cutting VA staff that enrolls veterans and processes health care claims. So far, about 20,000 soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan have requested VA services or benefits. "America made a promise to our soldiers, to care for them when they returned home as veterans. Under President Bush, America is breaking that promise to our veterans."
   AFGE made its charges in response to statements made by Bush during the second presidential debate.
   Texans have an expression for someone who operates the way Bush does: "Big hat, no cattle."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:25 PM

 
Nov. 2 had better be a time to face facts
e're witnessing a perverse competition in Washington, with the executive and legislative branches vying for top "honors" where exceptional feats of incompetence are concerned.
   It's hard to beat the invasion-by-mistake of a sovereign country on bogus grounds, resulting in the deaths of 1,060-plus U.S. soldiers, the serious wounding of roughly 8,000 more, leaving 140,000 in a deadly quagmire with no end in sight, and causing the alienation of most other countries, all at a cost that will ultimately exceed $200 billion. That kind of thing really captures the world's attention, albeit negatively.
   But Congress is in there pitching: helping turn a $5.6 trillion budget surplus into a $3 trillion deficit, the biggest in history; rubber stamping six huge, obscenely regressive, fiscally ruinous tax cuts; rewarding corporations that export jobs and import goods; otherwise standing by idly while the trade deficit escalates out of control toward three quarters of a trillion dollars; and blithely ignoring the 45 million Americans who lack health care coverage and the eroding size and situation of the middle class.
   For added punch, the honorables of House and Senate frittered away their abbreviated fall term on such vitally important matters as squabbling over a "protection of marriage" amendment they knew was going nowhere, allowing a ban on the sale of assault-type military weapons to lapse and seeing to it that District of Columbia residents will be free to arm themselves with guns.
   But the real genius in Congress' recent gambit lies in what it did not do about critical, immediate responsibilities: come up with a budget for 2005, rectify the coming alternative minimum tax debacle and raise the debt ceiling, so the government can sell bonds to finance our fast-growing mountain range of debt.
   Adding to the "Twilight Zone" quality of all this is the fact that we're witnessing something very close to pure, supposedly conservative, Republican governance — the GOP holds the White House and controls both houses of Congress. All over this country, millions will soon go to the polls to vote for members of the party that presents itself as the sole source of fiscal responsibility and of strength against international threats. Yet, against all the evidence, millions continue to believe this nonsense.

We interrupt this bad dream for a few choice words from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Democratic leader:
   Early in our history, Americans kidded themselves into believing the country could continue a course of being half slave and half free, half modern industrial and half neo-feudal. It didn't work and a horrendous Civil War ensued. Later on, millions who wanted to believe Wall Street was like a giant casino where nearly everyone who played would win built a speculative bubble that burst into the Great Depression.
   Question: What and whom do you want to believe now? Please, think very carefully, before answering and especially before voting.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:03 PM

 
'Civil liberties' T-shirts won't be tolerated
   The Bush-Cheney campaign has become legendary for excluding and expelling from its speaking events anyone not strongly devoted to re-electing President Bush.
   But what about a middle-aged woman, Janet Voorhies, who showed up in a T-shirt simply urging protection of civil liberties? Well, the story is that she was escorted out by state troopers and told that if she tried to get back in, she'd be arrested.
   This story made Ann F.M. so mad that she created the logo you see above. You can read more what she has to say at her blog, Ann F.M.'s Journal, but here's an excerpt:
   Ann, Oh!pinion salutes you. We're glad to display your art work.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:56 PM

 
Inflexibility unacceptable in a president
   "The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:09 AM

 
In the fullness of time, Rove testifies
   President George W. Bush's political adviser in chief, Karl Rove, spent more than two hours Friday with a federal grand jury that's looking into the outing last year of CIA operative Valerie Plame. (Story)
   Specifically, the investigation is seeking the identity of the person who leaked Plame's status to syndicated columnist and Republican PR man Bob Novak. Novak disclosed that Plame was with the CIA in his July 14, 2003, column.
   President George W. Bush reportedly pledged full cooperation with the investigation around the time it began — in September, 2003.
   We take as a gauge of how Bush and his people have delivered on his promise the fact that it's taken a year and then some to land Rove in the same room with a grand jury. Not that we seriously expect Rove to divulge anything helpful in solving the case.

   And now for a bit of idle speculation.
   Gee, I don't know. No. Can't say. I know nothing about that. Uh, no. I have no idea. Beats me. No. That's a good question. Dunno. Say what? No way. Never heard that before. Do tell? No. How should I know? Dunno. There's no telling. It's a mystery to me. No. You don't say? I just don't know. Wow, that's news to me. No. Dunno . . .

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:21 AM

 
Barr knows his overblown brouhahas
   "I think this whole episode is bizarre. Here we are in the middle of an election, close to election day. And you have an incumbent president and a Democrat challenger, and we're fighting a war. We're talking about the economy. We're talking about all sorts of important issues, or would like to be, and they're arguing over what it means to be a homosexual.
   "This is really bizarre and I think that the sooner and the quicker we can get this whole episode behind us, and get these two men, and apparently their wives also, talking about the real issues, the better.
   "I think that people are getting indignant about the indignation about the indignation. And it all is getting kind of silly, to be honest with you."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:01 AM

 
Here's fresh evidence airheads rule at TSA
   We don't begrudge government agencies spending a few bucks to reward and heap praise on their outstanding employees. Doing so can help build morale and provide incentives for the rest of the crew.
   However, the two-year-old Transportation Security Administration can add employee recognition to its record of bungling. Exhibit A: the half million it spent on a blowout gathering at a luxury hotel, including $81,000 for plaques and $500 for cheese displays. The news story on this says TSA spent nearly $200,000 on travel and lodging for the event.
   A review of 88 recognized employees' records reportedly showed many had not been singled out for having done anything especially notable. To make matters even worse, there are allegations that while upper-level employees were being regaled lavishly, lower-level TSA people were mostly overlooked.
   TSA's recognition bash was an exercise in wasteful excess. It was especially out of line for an agency whose brief record is riddled with poor planning, mismanagement and, to be charitable, very uneven performance.
   Bottom line: serious housecleaning is called for at TSA, starting at the top. But then, that's true of the whole federal executive branch.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:04 PM

 
Hundreds of millions disappear into Iraq
   Lives being far more precious than money, we've commented many times on what President Bush's war in Iraq is costing in terms of fatalities. However, it's fair to ask where the billions appropriated for running the war and restoring the country are going.
   It's fair to ask; just don't expect a straight, complete answer. Bush administration incompetence knows no bounds, geographic or financial. An AP story on the money-trail component of the Iraq debacle begins:
   The story goes on to cite cases such as the $2.6 million given by the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraq oil ministry. There was no contract for any services and no evidence any services were provided in return for this money, it's just gone.
   KPMG, which is trying to account for where money has gone, reported 37 contracts with costs totaling $185 million that can't be located. For another 52 contracts worth $87.9 million, there's no record of having received any goods.
   Then there's the $1.4 billion deposited in a Kurdish bank. The bank won't let the auditors see its accounting records, so there's no telling when, where or even if the money has been spent.
   Meanwhile, Iraq's finance ministry has been keeping two sets of books — a notoriously bad practice on its face — on paper and in computers. From the story: "'A reconciliation between these two sets of accounting records was not prepared and the difference was significant,' the report said."
   Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee is demanding an investigation. He's right; taxpayers deserve a clear accounting and some of the accountability and consequences that Bush & Co. talk about when it suits their purpose. But unless Republicans lose control of Congress, no one had better hold their breath waiting.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:59 PM

 
Mad mama really just a p.o.'d pol
   Lynn Cheney, the vice president's wife, has her knickers in a highly publicized knot over a thoughtful, in no way disparaging or disrespectful, reference to her lesbian daughter in the last presidential debate.
   Sen. John Kerry made the point that people of Mary Cheney's sexual orientation are born that way; it's not a choice. What's more, Kerry said, they're part of the human family, the American family, and like everyone else deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.
   To hear Lynn Cheney expressing her disgust today, repeating for the slow learners that Kerry "is not a good man" and calling his remarks a “cheap and tawdry political trick,” you'd think he had said something terrible. Let's get a few things straight.
   First, Mary Cheney is not an innocent child. She's a grown woman and hardly a shy, retiring one wrested from the comfort of a private life far from the madding political crowd. She was active in her father's 2000 campaign and is active in the current one. Indeed, she's an active member of one of the most politically activist families in the country. Her father has been a Washington insider since God was a kid and her mother has been a rabidly partisan Republican/conservative speaker, writer and fund raiser for decades.
   Secondly, Vice President Dick Cheney has spoken very publicly of his daughter's sexual orientation and their relationship.
   Thus, it's fair to say that Mary Cheney is a person in the public eye and an active political operative. There was nothing underhanded, no exploitation and certainly nothing negative in Kerry's mentioning her and her relationship with her family during the debate.

   What's really going on here is that Lynn Cheney saw a chance to get out in front of the cameras and bash the opposition under cover of "speaking as a mom."
   What's also really going on here is that CNN, ever happy to accommodate the Bush-Cheney campaign, happily spent the day replaying an eight-second sound bite of Lynn Cheney's made-for-TV umbrage routine and discussing it, mindlessly, with various guests.
   Thanks in no small part to such exercises in stupidity do we repeatedly get people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for national leaders.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:35 PM

 
Saudis hold terror ills against U.S.
   Most Americans are well aware 15 of the 19 highjackers carrying out the Sept. 11, 2001, attack were Saudis. But most Americans are dimly aware, if aware at all, that there is a terrorist campaign under way in Saudi Arabia itself.
   Saudi Arabia's internal terror campaign began in May 2003, when suicide attackers went on a killing spree in three residential compounds, leaving 25 dead. There has been a steady string of terrorist incidents going on ever since.
   You might think this would encourage the Saudis to join more wholeheartedly with the U.S. in the war against terrorism. You might, but you'd be wrong.
   A revealing New York Times story delves Saudis' attitudes about the terror campaign and finds that most blame the U.S., specifically seeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and U.S. intentions of injecting democracy into the Middle East, as root causes.
   The story also quotes Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Gen. Mansour al-Turki:
   We recall that at tremendous expense some years back, the U.S. built one of the biggest and most elaborate air bases in the world, Prince Sultan Air Base, in the middle of the Saudi desert. It was created in part to help train Saudi pilots and other air force personnel, and to extend U.S. air power into the heart of the Middle East.
   The base was sited in the middle of nowhere to avoid friction between Saudi citizens and U.S. military people. Unlike all other countries hosting U.S. air bases throughout the world, only the Saudis made our people unwelcome in their neighboring communities. U.S. military personnel who did venture outside the base were under strict orders to abide by a long list of do's and don'ts, including no alcoholic beverages, women covering themselves in the Muslim way, and no fraternizing with Saudi females by male personnel.
   We saw a newsmagazine segment on Prince Sultan Air Base a few years ago. One of the the few base personnel interviewed, a young enlisted man not identified by name or shown clearly on camera, said that despite many recreational opportunities like movies and videogame parlors on the base, it was like being stationed on the far side of the moon.
   After investing billions in this prison-like facility, the U.S. got its reward during the invasion of Iraq. The Saudis forbade using the base for air operations in Iraq. A few months later, the Bush administration quietly announced the U.S. was pulling out of the base, presumably donating U.S. taxpayers' massive infrastructure investment to one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.
   And so it goes.
   
Oh!pinion's view: The more we get to know and interact with the Saudis, the less advisable knowing and interacting with them seems to be. It strikes us the best U.S.-Saudi relationship is the least U.S.-Saudi relationship possible.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:10 PM

 
Kerry makes it three for three
resident George W. Bush's groomers and handlers worked wonders with Bush's form for the third presidential debate. Unfortunately for his re-election prospects, the substance of Bush's policies, attitude and abysmal record are what they are.
   Sen. John Kerry clearly outshined Bush on matters of substance and in presidential presence. So far this evening, post-debate snap polls show Kerry as having won handily. Gallup's showed 56 to 38 percent and Time-CNN's was similar.
   We were spared Bush's almost whiny declarations of "it's hard work . . ." and "I'm working hard," as in the first debate, and his strident, almost combative, excesses of the second debate.
   What Bush did bring to the third debate was a combination of his campaign's latest Kerry-bashing master stroke — he's a tax-and-spend liberal (neener, neener, neener) — and regurgitations from his stump speech. The problem with too many of those is that they're distortions that reflect what Bush needs Kerry to be about, if Bush is to have a hope in hell of winning.
   Nowhere was Bush's avoid-my-record, demagogue-his-plans strategy more apparent than when Bush tried again to depict as classic socialized medicine Kerry's plan to make health care coverage available to most of the 45 million Americans who now can't afford it. The specter is one of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in distant offices making life-and-death decisions about who gets what care, of long waiting lines to see too few doctors in dilapidated hospitals and clinics, and so on.
   The reality is nothing like that. Kerry's plan calls for extending the same health insurance mechanism U.S. senators and representatives have to everyone else who wants to sign up. No patients, doctors or states are forced into it. If any bureaucrats make decisions about treatment or coverage, they'll be corporate bureaucrats.

   When Bush wasn't distorting Kerry's plans, he was being disingenuous about his own. When judicial appointments came up, Bush had a chance to state his intentions clearly: he will appoint only those known to be "pro life" and "strict constructionists." Instead, he couched his intentions in talk of not applying a litmus test. That's just not credible.
   Bush was just as disingenuous about renewing the ban on so-called assault weapons, saying he had made his feelings known but was told the votes weren't going to be forthcoming in Congress. In fact, his party controls both houses of Congress. A phone call to Sen. Bill Frist and Rep. Dennis Hastert would've ensured the necessary votes. Bush simply didn't make the call. (Not purely coincidentally, the National Rifle Association just this week, ahem, endorsed Bush, pledging to spend millions to help him win re-election.)
    Then there was Bush's hailing of "No child left behind," even mentioning Sen. Ted Kennedy, with whom he'd struck a deal on that legislation at the beginning of his administration. The only problem is that Bush stiffed Kennedy at budget-writing time, shorting the program of tens of millions of dollars. Kennedy was and remains furious at Bush for having conned him into supporting what turned out to be a flawed, hollowed-out program.

   We saw in this debate what we've seen since Kerry became the Democratic nominee. Bush created a fictional Kerry caricature to fit the mold of the neoconservatives' liberal bogeyman. In the same way, Bush created fictional Kerry plans and a fictional Kerry agenda.
   The reason Bush conducts his campaign this way is simple: he can't run very well against the real Kerry or the senator's well-laid-out plans and proposals. And heaven knows, Bush can't very well run on his own record of ballooning deficits, a deadly war-making blunder, disaffected leaders and populations in most of the world's other countries and massive job losses.
   Out on the campaign trail, Bush has been free to bash Kerry, shade the truth, distort Kerry's words and plans. His crowds of loyalists always cheer wildly and chant four more years. Come the first debate, suddenly, there were no cheering loyalists, just a well-prepared, articulate and determined opponent to counter the spin, point out the distortions, set the record straight and make telling points about Bush's record. No wonder Bush was flummoxed. It probably felt like being dumped from a warm bed into a tub of cold water.

   It will be interesting to see if the on-air pundits go after Bush for his "altered personas" from debate to debate, as they went after Al Gore in 2000. We're betting they won't.
   We'll also be watching for Bush's people to try to spin him to a win. They tried but stopped short after the second debate. They no doubt realized it wouldn't work well because they'd have to convince most of 60 million viewers they hadn't seen what they had seen.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:58 PM

 
Grin-and-bare-it generosity turned away
n Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., several concerned citizens heard the local fire department was deep in debt and decided to help bail it out. Their fund-raising method of choice: create a calendar featuring pictures of group members — some less than fully clad.
   The all-female group got permission from authorities to use the firehouse as a backdrop and firefighting equipment for props. Photos were taken and $30,000 was raised.
   You might think Carmel's powers-that-be would consider this manna from heaven. After all, $30,000 here and $30,000 there, pretty soon you're talking serious money.
   To the contrary, city officials decided this scheme holds too much potential for public outrage, even lawsuits, so they said nothing doing to the civic-minded matrons. That's right, matrons. According to a news story on this, the women whose images grace the calendar are 51 to 84 years old.

   Oh!pinion thinks the spurned Carmel Fire Belles are to be admired for their spunk and congratulated for going out of their way to do a good deed.
   As for Carmel's city officials, large daily doses of prune juice could fix one thing that ails them. For what to do about their utter fecklessness, we're at a loss.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:18 PM

 
Crawford publisher gets red-state reaction
   W. Leon Smith, editor and publisher of the Crawford, Texas, Lone Star Iconoclast and another newspaper in nearby Clifton, is taking heat for a recent editorial in which he endorsed Sen. John Kerry.
   President Bush's ranch, lately known as the Western White House, is located just outside Crawford.
   Many of the community's 705 dear hearts and gentle people are letting Smith know they don't appreciate his show of journalistic independence, and local businesses are pulling their ads. In a micro marketplace, that hurts.
   A good story on the editorial's fallout notes the Iconoclast backed Bush during the post-balloting debacle in 2000 but has since undergone a change in outlook.
   Smith has received more than 2,000 "mostly supportive" e-mails from across the country and around the world. He says some Crawford residents tell him they agree with his criticisms of Bush, but realize doing so publicly would invite repercussions. The story quotes Smith:
   The Crawford locals' negative reaction to a dissenting opinion from their small-town newspaper comes as no surprise, but that makes it no less deplorable. It's not as though Smith had written in support of someone who espouses radical political beliefs or an un-American agenda.
   No less than people in Worcester, Barnstable and Boston, Crawford residents have a stake in a free and independent press that transcends this presidential election. And they will have a need for that long after Bush leaves the White House, whether that happens this year or in 2008.
   "Red state" ought not to signify mean-spiritedness. "Small town" needn't be synonymous with a narrow mind. And spite comes across as ugly wherever it's practiced.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:05 PM

 
Reeve was a super man in word and deed
hristopher Reeve's nine-year fight to regain every bit of function he could muster from his terribly crippled body ended Sunday. Reeve, 52, succumbed to complications of a skin infection, according to news reports.
   A popular and successful actor, star of the "Superman" film series, Reeve took a spill while horseback riding in 1995, severely injuring his spinal cord. Where others might've sunk into despair or sought escape in drugs or drink, Reeve drew strength from his loved ones and exhibited courage befitting a real-life man of steel. He never regained the ability to walk, but through a long, arduous struggle he made considerable strides to regain some feeling and movement in his paralyzed limbs.
   Not merely concerned with his own recovery, Reeve counseled and consoled other spinal cord injury victims one on one. But he was best known as an outspoken advocate for intensive research, application of new therapies and technology, and increased funding to benefit all who shared his predicament. He was especially forceful and poignant speaking up for embryonic stem cell research, as he once did before the U.S. Senate.
   CNN on Monday rebroadcast a portion of a 2003 interview Reeve had done with Larry King. It rings with the indomitable spirit of this excellent man: