Five Cheers for the Rule of Law

Stevens. Breyer. Ginsburg. Souter. Kennedy.

Big thanks to these five Supreme Court justices. For the first time in years, people in positions of authority spoke up for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the basic ideals of this country as they appear in the Constitution.

Sorry, Mr. President, but you're not above the law.

Sorry, Mr. President, but Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies--just because these "terrorists" don't wear the uniforms of countries we recognize, they are entitled to trials with all appropriate protections.

Sorry, Mr. President, but if you don't like it that the Supreme Court wonders what the hell you're up to in Cuba, you'll have to go back to Congress and have your lackeys gut treaties and write fresh bully-boy laws.

Ooops. Am I giving Bush the idea to lean on Congress? Not at all. Getting laws changed so he can legally lynch detainees at the Easter Egg Roll is exactly what he's going to do.

Oh well.

And before we start sipping champagne and proclaming the Republic saved, consider what Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer and blogger, points out:

This decision illustrates just how critical is the current composition of the Supreme Court. The decision was really 5-4 (because Roberts already ruled in favor of the administration in the lower court). The Justice who wrote the majority opinion, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old, and as Justice Blackmun once famously warned, he "cannot remain on this Court forever." If the Bush administration is permitted to replace Stevens with yet another worshipper of executive power, the next challenge to the Bush administration's theories of unchecked power could very easily result, by a 5-4 vote, in the opposite outcome.

In short, this time next year, we could very easily get Supreme Court rulings that tip--semi-permanently--power to the branch that craves it the most. In that case, a lot of rulings that might have undermined the criminal enterprise currently masquerading as a government will go in Bush's favor. And then it will be 2009--at least--before we begin to find out how badly we've been fleeced.

All of which makes the fall congressional elections even more crucial. Like the idea of the Geneva Convention? Like three equal branches of government? Like whatever rights you have left?

Then you'd better think twice about voting Republican.

Think I'm just a Dem shill? Then read Jane Mayer's article in this issue of The New Yorker. These guys are deadly serious. If they have their way, George Bush will wear a crown.

Better Thought for the Week

I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds.

--Warren Buffett, explaining why he will bequeath $37 billion of his $40-42 billion to charity

Thought for the Week

See, if I'm president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That's me... President O'Reilly... Curfew in Ramadi, seven o'clock at night. You're on the street? You're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That's how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions, he didn't have bombers. Did he?
--Bill O'Reilly, on Fox, where ratings are off some 20%.

Charity Doesn't Begin at Home

What's going on? Bill Gates, America's richest man, glides out of Microsoft to devote more time for his foundation. Warren Buffett, who's #2 richie, leaves his kids and friends just $5 billion out of his $42 billion legacy. And Sandy Weill, hard-nosed former CEO of Citibank, is going $1.4 to charity as part of his "deal with God."

Is it possible that some guys know when enough is enough?

I traveled with Bono a few years ago, and, at a late night dinner, was seated with one of Buffett's kids. She was not spewing investive against the old man. She was listening attentively to Bono, who is a pal to both Gates and her father. (Weill is a Jew, and, perhaps, not so susceptible to Bono's wonderful blarney.)

Everyone is so agog with the magnitude of this giving that poor Bono has been left out of the conversation, but I give a lot of credit to the self-appointed rock messiah. Sure, Buffett always said he wasn't leaving "much" to his kids and that inherited money is a bad thing (see above), but he also said he wasn't going to talk about this. Now everybody knows how much he's giving--and that the Gates Foundation will get the lion's share.

The Gates Foundation, you will recall, does God's work in Africa, where centuries of exploitation have had a predictable and debilitating effect. So fat, that foundation has spent $6 billion on healthcare projects, mostly in Africa. With the Buffett money, it can do much more.

It may be worth noting that George Bush's generous pledge to Bono's Africa initiative--about $15 billion--has, so far, been just that: a pledge. Now, in one swoop, a couple of private citizens have probably given much more than Bush will ever be good for.

It's too much to hope that others will follow this example. But after you've got the Bombadier jet and the 200-foot boat, maybe your views change. Ken Lay's didn't--he and the missus had 10 houses in Aspen alone. But he's going to jail. Now that's a deal with God!

Progressive Democrats and Soccer Mobs

You know how I'm always shilling for progressive politicians and sites like DailyKos.com? Well, I'm rethinking some of that after last weekend's dustup.

It's a complicated story, so I'll simplify it. On Saturday night, Mrs. Uptown and I read a David Brooks column about Kos. It was stupid—a Brooks specialty—but there was one disturbing paragraph in it. So my wife (who once blogged in my stead here) posted a diary on Kos to ask: What's this about?

She was vilified, flamed, left to die in a ditch. I thought this was pretty amazing: all this vitriol just for asking a question. So I wrote the incident up on Huffington Post. And guess what? I got blasted too.

Now my wife is a troll and a liar. I'm a secret Republican and a domineering husband. (But you knew that all along, didn't you?)

My point: "We" have to be better than "they" are. Not so "they" will respect us—Karl Rove and that ilk respect only their own power and bulging portfolios—because "they" never will. But because "we" need to show the confused people in the middle that there is a better way. That someone isn't just BSing about health care and a clean environment and all that.

So it saddens me to see one of "our" guys screw up, even on a tiny thing. It saddens me even more to see his devotees turn into foot soldiers who will turn on anyone who dares to speak up. But then, not all Nazis wear brown leather boots. We must be ever vigilant, it seems—even of our friends.

Need a Laugh?

Well, you have to like Ali G. Or just have a bent sense of humor. Try it and see: Borat.

Are You Lonely Tonight?

According to a study featured in USA TODAY, we used to have several confidants. Now we have one. Yes, America, you're lonely.

This is not exactly a surprise. The great Philip Slater, way back in 1970, showed us all the ways this culture had it backward. Add 35 years, several idiots in the White House, the ever-present TV set, time-wasting blogs like this (just kidding), and it's worse.

Americans are lonely for any number of reasons. See if you recognize any of these...

WE WORK TOO MUCH: I read somewhere that we don't take our full vacation time. And, if we do, there's a Blackberry in our pocket. [In Europe, August is a non-month. On the other hand, most Europeans don't work two or even three jobs. But they're Socialists, right? I mean, they have guaranteed health care and stuff.] What, exactly, is it that's so glorious about work? And why aren't the people we meet there our friends?

WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY: In the great play, Stuff Happens, someone says, "America changed after 9/11." And someone shoots back, "Yes, you got stupider." And it's true. Everything's at a 4th-grade level now. You have your choice between two equally dumb black-and-white political parties. You watch TV far too much. And then you want someone to talk to? Really? What, exactly, do you want to talk about?

MOBILITY IS NOT A GOOD THING: The people you want to talk to are elsewhere.

THE INTERNET: Yeah, we have friends. We have no idea what they look like, but.... Query: If you have cybersex with someone you have never seen, is he/she a confidant?

LONELINESS IS THE TRUTH: The existential position. We're all alone. Now more of us grasp that.

I find myself strangely unsympathetic to the so-called lonely. I want to shake them: "Hey, fools, turn off the TV and power yourself out of that chair! Join a book club! Feed the poor! Take up a team sport! Go to a museum!" And so on.

A big ship can't dock in your port if you don't send out any little tugboats. Tired of being lonely? Send out some little boats...

Don't See Al Gore's Movie! It Can't Be True! (Or Is It Too True for Senators?)

It seemed like a good idea for the senators to get informed on global warming. Or not. Good reporting from Taylor Marsh:

"Gore really wanted to reach across to Republicans so they would come to see the film. Gore said Senator Harry Reid offered to shut down Senate business so everyone could see it. None of the Republicans showed up. I was thinking that maybe we could put pressure on the wingnuts, if Gore had another screening on the Hill. Maybe progressive constituents of Republicans could flood their offices demanding their Congressperson see the film. That's when Gore told his tale.
A couple of years ago Gore had a slide show presentation revolving around climate crisis for the Science Committee and the Committee on Energy & Commerce. The Democrats showed up. But something amazing happened, because not only did the Republicans not show up, but one of the Republican House members was threatened for helping Gore out. It wasn't just any House member either.

"Republican Representative Sherry Boehlert, as Gore called him, is Chairman of the Science Committee and he is retiring from Congress. He is a strong believer in global warming. It's real, he knows and said so again today on CNN. Well, back when Gore put together his briefing for Congress, Boehlert let Gore use the Science Committee room for his presentation. For his efforts Boehlert was threatened with losing his chairmanship. The Hammer came down."

Ignorance--ain’t it bliss?

Thought for the Week

Addicted to oil as if it were crack, we are chopping down the world's tropical forests at an astounding rate--as much as 1 or 2 percent a year. When modern civilization finishes draining the world's resources, when this house of cards collapses, we will see ourselves stripped down to our essence and whimper for forgiveness like third-grade bullies caught by our teachers, unable to comprehend what went wrong. Against the floods, genetic pollution, bacterial onslaughts, radioactive infernos unleashed by human stupidity or aggrieved nature, our technologies will pop like toy guns. Watch the fun as the stock markets continue to seek profit, down to the last seconds of recorded history, betting on the margin calls of disaster relief and reinsurance agencies.

What is 'profit' anyway? What is the greed that is motivating the frenzied humanity to destroy the planet and degrade itself? If a media mogul pockets so many hundreds of millions a year while leaving his children and grandchildren a world without clean air, Amazonian jungles, the purple splendor of coral reefs, or animals, where is his profit? If a chemical corporation profits by spreading toxins across the globe that will rematerialize as cancer in the flesh of their own anxious stockholders, where is the profit? To what Martian retreat or Lunar Club Med do these madmen--ourselves!--see themselves retreating when they have finished f--king this planet like an old whore?
--Daniel Pinchbeck, Breaking Open the Head

Iraq: The Final Days

The President made a cameo appearance in the Green Zone. No one outside the inner circle could know because nothing is secure in Iraq--not even the Green Zone.

Our military, “energized” by the President’s visit, promptly embarked on a fresh campaign to stamp out the insurgency. No need to tour the neighborhoods of the Iraqi upper class--they’ve mostly cleared out. And the middle class is leaving Iraq in ever-growing numbers. Soon it will be only the religious militias and the poor. A recipe for ethnic cleansing, if ever there were one.

Some of our Iraqi allies get the picture. They’ve been asking: If you Americans leave, will you take us with you? And, once again, I conjure the image of Vietnam, 1975, with the fools who supported us frantically trying to hold on to the skids of our helicopters…

At the morgue in Baghdad, they stack the coffins up vertically--there are too many for the bodies to rest the old-fashioned way. As in Nazi Germany, the dead are dumped from trucks like firewood. As in Nazi Germany, the victims were science experiments: eyes drilled out, torsos burned. And they do this to kids too.

I loathe these practices. And I curse the people who commit these crimes against humanity. But I don’t think they’re different or worse than our Marines allegedly taping the hands of children before executing them. And maybe the coldest crimes of all are the bureaucratic “investigations” of our atrocities, investigations that reveal no signs of wrongdoing despite clear photographic evidence to the contrary.

I look at our child, happily splashing in a pool under the same sky that looks down on Iraqi children being tortured and killed, and I wonder, on an hourly basis some days, how this can be. But I have come to understand that there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop this killing. We started it, we encouraged it, and now it’s out of control. We have a perfect batting record: .000. In such a moment, it is not wise to believe that we will get anything right here in the future.

Karl Rove, the male Ann Coulter, says that Democrats who want to “cut and run” are cowards and, in essence, traitors. Well, as a wiser man said, if this be treason, make the most of it.

So, to this week’s question: If there were a button that said: “I’M A PATRIOT. I’D CUT & RUN,” would you wear it? If not, what sentiment would you broadcast from your lapel?

Pope to Hawking: The Earth Is Flat

Methinks Pope John Paul II had a clue that science might find something far more dangerous to the Church than anything Dan Brown might write. From The Seattle Times:

Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.

The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.

"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.

For the record, William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, says Hawking got it wrong. But then, Donahue is the guy who once described Hollywood as a den of sin eager to promote anal sex.

And I’s Not Just Popes Who Don’t Like Science

Did you know that George Bush and Michael Crichton are getting financing to open a real-life Jurassic Park? No.Just kidding. But Bush--who surely was a C student by balancing a gift B in History with a D in Science--does have some dumb priorities when it comes to research. I guess he’ll do anything not to be Al Gore. From The Boston Globe:

NASA is canceling or delaying a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth's changing climate and environment.

The space agency has shelved a $200 million satellite mission headed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor that was designed to measure soil moisture--a key factor in helping scientists understand the impact of global warming and predict droughts and floods.

The changes come as NASA prioritizes its budget to pay for completion of the International Space Station and the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020--a goal set by President Bush that promises a more distant and arguably less practical scientific payoff. Ultimately, scientists say, the delays and cancellations could make hurricane predictions less accurate, create gaps in long-term monitoring of weather, and result in less clarity about the earth's hydrological systems, which play an integral part in climate change

Now, we all grasp that once Bush leaves office, the next president--assuming it’s not Jeb--will surely have a better grasp of priorities. Global warming vs. a TV spectacular in space? No contest. But first we have to get to 2008 alive.

The place to buy medicine: Costco

My 89-year-old mother knew that Costco is the bargain basement for prescriptions. So she took $800 in cash--yes, you read that right--to get three prescriptions refilled. The Costco people went out of their way to find generic solutions or off-the-shelf products that work as well.

My mother’s experience was followed by an e-mail about medicines that revealed the difference between manufacturer cost and consumer price. Yes, it’s a slanted way of looking at the great disparity. The drug companies must pay for research, etc. But you have to wonder: Maybe if they advertised less on TV, they could afford to lower their prices. (Just like the oil industry will do once these shortages have stopped driving the price of gas up.)

Here are the dramatic figures:

Celebrex: 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%

Keflex: 250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%

Lipitor: 20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%

Norvasc: 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%

Paxil: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%

Prevacid: 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%

Prilosec : 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%

Prozac: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%

Tenormin: 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%

Vasotec: 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%

Xanax: 1 mg

Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%

Zestril: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809

Zithromax: 600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%

Zocor: 40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
50 mg Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%

The source of the e-mail: a Budget Analyst at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Thought for the Week

Every time you see something that reminds you of war and hurts you, that you're involved in it, that you're responsible for a country that's killing a lot of people, just try to remember peace.
--- Neil Young

More About Sex (Because you like it so much)

A firestorm on the message board last week--gay marriage struck a nerve.

Me, I had a good yuk. First, over all the historical and biblical arguments. Excuse me, but if we are prisoners of history and myth, how we do ever advance? Doesn't the earth stay...flat? And then there was the 'marriage is for straights only' argument. Don't you love it when your neighbor purports to know Eternal Truth? (Nobody took me up on my request for stock tips.) And then there was the 'gay marriage diminishes straight marriage' argument. Like the sight of two gay guys in hot embrace with rings on their left hands is going to inflame my Johnson and make me abandon my wife. Like giving the most modest legitimacy to gays is going to be the tipping point that sends borderline straights rushing to join a minority that's widely despised in America.

What I got out of last week: I really need to focus more on sex here.

One, for the simple reason that we're all very interested in it. Two, because that interest seems to cause a problem for some of us, and it would be profitable to drill down and try to figure out why. Three, because some of us--well, me, anyway--believe that loving sex is a sacrament and greatly pleases God. And, finally, because how we --well, we straights, who are all that matter in this country--think about sex seems to be connected to our feelings about women and women's rights.


From an interview with writer Elizabeth Gilbert:
"Joseph Campbell spent a lifetime studying myths from around the world, ultimately sketching the archetype of the hero as a protagonist who sets out on a journey that ends in personal—and spiritual—transformation. Do you see echoes of the hero’s tale (well, heroine’s) in your own story?

"Back when Campbell (whom I love, by the way) was teaching at Sarah Lawrence College, his female students would sometimes ask, 'But what about the heroine’s journey? Don’t women get to participate in this universal questing epic?' Traditional world mythology, however, frankly replies: 'Nope.' Women (as life bearers) have always been seen by mythmakers (men) as being automatically perfect for their task; they don’t need to transform."

Which leads me to this week's question. John Lennon wrote that "woman is the nigger of the world." True? If so, what is it about men that wants women subjugated? Why do religions and cultures give women fewer rights? Which cultures and religions are enlightened on women's rights--and why?

And--you knew it would come down to this--why do women take their clothes off for men who disrespect them?

The Guantanamo Suicides: A cool PR stunt

From Yahoo News:
Colleen Graffy, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC World Service the suicides were a "good PR move to draw attention."

"It does sound that this is part of a strategy in that they don't value their own life and they certainly don't value ours and they use suicide bombings as a tactic to further their Jihadi cause," she said.

Very smart, Colleen! Now suicides are just like suicide bombers: Kill yourself and get 15 minutes of fame--even though you're not around to enjoy it.

In fact, this is such a good idea that we could learn from it. Things going badly for Bush this week? No need to bomb Iran or find a new reason to condemn gay marriage. Just have a few people, acting together, kill themselves. Maybe they could leave a note saying why--they couldn't get a Prius, or their iPod battery died, or whatever.

Suicide as PR! An idea as American as ....well, not apple pie...maybe...mass murder in Iraq...or no "morning after" pills in Idaho.

Ann Coulter: Get thee behind me

I was once at a party with Ann Coulter. It was summer. Connecticut. A very tony group of literary people. And yet all I remember about Coulter was that she was wearing thin white pants and a navy thong that a blind man couldn't miss--a classy combination, doncha think? My wife didn't spot her until we were leaving. Just as well. Mrs. Uptown is a spiritual person, but she was once a pretty fair boxer. And she loathes Ann Coulter. She could have--and would have--punched her into a hospital bed without thinking twice.

If Ann Coulter inspires extreme reactions, that's her intention. On the right, they love her because she is blond and tall and shows lots of leg and says any damn thing that pops into her head--the women want to be her, the men want to do her. On the left, they're driven mad by her disrespect for facts and her intemperate language. In the middle (in TIME Magazine, for example), they're afraid to miss out on any pop phenomenon, so they write about her, thus legitimizing her.

Last week, Coulter used her visit to the "Today" Show to repeat a slander that appears in her new book--the widows who forced the government to launch the 9/11 commission were bitches who were probably going to be dumped by their husbands. There was more, but I don't get paid enough to type such drivel.

Suddenly, America woke up--for a second, anyway--and began to consider that Coulter really is a world-class skank, a latter-day Joe McCarthy (whom, as it happens, she loves).

There was not much depth in the commentary from the mainstream media. Just hurt feelings that Coulter had gone beyond some invisible border of propriety. (Today, The Rude Pundit offers fairly convincing evidence of two passages of plagiarism in her new book, but as yet only a few bloggers are riled up about this revelation.)

What are we to do with Ann Coulter? She knows no shame; it's not like she'd read a piece of criticism and take it to heart. If anything, as Lance Mannion's brilliant analysis suggests, criticism only convinces her she's on the right path. That is, the path of keeping her name in neon. That is, the path that leads to money.

If you buy Mannion's argument--that Coulter is all about creating an effect, any effect--it follows that there is only one way to deal with her: Make her a non-person. Never mention her again. Declare her, in the words of Stephen Colbert, "dead to me."

This I now do. Barring the truly incredible, I won't be typing her name ever again. I suggest you follow my example. And send your decision--or this blog--on to friends and family. It's a slow process, a kind of moral chain letter. But it has a better chance to working than any other idea I've heard.

Thought for the Week

God wrote the Bible in English for a reason: So it could be taught in our public schools.

--Stephen Colbert

And Jesus said unto Bush, "Stop gay marriage"

All you really need to know about gay marriage is that our country lets freaks like Michael Jackson and Brittany Spears and Scott Peterson tie the knot --- and has no tolerance for solid, loving established gay couples like [fill in the blank with two gay men or women you know and like].

But if you want to know more, try this poll, just out today:

Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”

Right. Sane people don't care about gay people--that is, as objects and targets. Sane people don't care if gay people want to get married; it's none of their business. But sane people do think that, insofar that marriage is a contract, gay people ought to have the same rights that the rest of us do--getting on the spouse's health plan, most notably.

But as we know, sane people do not run our government. Which is why, every few years, the maniacs on the extreme Christian Right force Republicans to bring gay marriage to a vote. In part, that's a way to show that the Dems who vote against anti-gay legislation are godless Commies. But it's also to prove to the Faithful that Dobson and his pals can bring the bitches in the White House to heel.

The problem with this charade is that there are people on the receiving end who have done absolutely nothing to deserve anyone's scorn. They work hard. They live clean. Hell, they're a damn sight better than fire-breathing Christians who, after church, head off to the no-tell-motel with the hot chick in the choir. [Note to the lip readers and slow thinkers: If you think that's a condemnation of ALL Christians, go back and read the last sentence aloud four or five times.]

It's the correct thing here to say: Hey, pal, have you noticed that the schools suck? That we don't have a friend in the world outside of Tony Blair? That we're going to washing dishes in Chinese and Indian restaurants if they call in our debt? [I'll skip global warming, because it's just a "theory."] That our troops need to be instructed to give Iraqis a running start before they cap them?

But you know all that. You grasp that Bush’s speech is a farce, destined to be equalied by the idiocy to come in the house and on Fox. Let's use the occasion to talk about...sex.

On AMERICAblog--a site run by a gay guy--they're cutting through the sanctimonious talk about "values" to ask, very simply, what members of the House and Senate are doing to protect the sacred institution of marriage. That is, they're calling the offices of members of Congress who support the "Marriage Protection Amendment" to ask them...

....to vow that in the past, now, and in the future they will abstain from sodomy (including same-sex and/or male-female analingus, cunnilingus, and fellatio), masturbation, adultery, prostitution, out-of-wedlock sex, and marriages that cannot procreate. We will also ask them about divorce, as there is no greater threat to marriage today than divorce (in addition, the Bible makes clear that divorce is a no-no).

Personally, I think this is a grand idea. Face it, nobody gives a damn what you think about sex. All we want to know is what you do. And if it's fun. And if we can get into the action.

In the interest of inspiring great confessions on the message board, I'll go first. I'm not gay (though some of you surely have your doubts), but I've found that, over the years, a lot of what we straights do isn't so different from what gays do. I mean, I have, on occasion, had someone ....... And once or twice, I put it .....And isn't that what gay people do? Or do they just...kiss?

On the other hand, on this historic day, I notice that I'm thinking more about sex than usual. And you know, the dog is looking kind of good to me. I guess Rick Santorum was right. You get beyond the missionary position with a good woman, it's a slippery slope.

Pray for me?

Changing the rules once again

From The Baltimore Sun:

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Conventions that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

One very good guy: Martin Sheen

I hate being so negative week after week. (If only the world wouldn't serve up so many fools for my consideration!) So I looked around and found someone to admire--Martin Sheen, last seen as your president on "The West Wing." Read this and cheer:

AMY ELDON: When you visited the Payatas garbage dump in the Philippines, why did it affect you so much that you felt compelled to do something to help?

MARTIN SHEEN: Well, you know, it doesn't take long in that environment to realize that there's a very great need right in front of you. I remember the closer we got to the dump the smell was so overwhelming that I began to retch, and I had to stifle and try and get beyond that. And I remember I was walking along the entrance with Father Shay and I said to him, "We're going to have to pay for this." And what I meant was that the first world is going to have to account for this sort of horrible poverty in our midst. We have to, first of all, become aware of it. We have to take responsibility for it. And then we have to do something about it for our own freedom, for our own salvation, for our own humanity. I just think that the only way we come to ourselves is through each other. And there are so many people in the third world suffering so horribly right now, and we are so focused on ourselves and our culture that a lot of things are showing up in our culture that are making it impossible for us to focus on others. We're so self-focused.

AE: Right. I think if we showed them these people at the garbage dump that people in America would care.

MS: Yes, they would. Absolutely, they would. I don't think that people in America are really given enough information about the Third World. I remember Gandhi said something so profound about violence and non-violence. He said, "The greatest form of violence is poverty." And that's something we don't often think about. We think of violence as being conflict and fighting and wars and so forth, but the most ongoing horrific measure of violence is in the horrible poverty of the Third World… and the poverty in the United States as well. We have our own Third World here. And we have to first become aware of that and how to help and solve that.

You know, the Western culture projects the good life--security and comfort--as if that were a reality, you know. But I think that you also have to gauge how much happiness or joy, or how many contented people there are in the West. I mean we have the highest drug addiction. We have the highest divorce rate, the highest child abuse. We have the highest child pornography business going on in this country. We have so much juvenile delinquency, so much gun violence, so much family violence that these are all a projection of how confused and how self-involved we are. And it's hard for us to realize someone else's pain when we're so involved in our self-inflicted pain.

But once you experience Third World poverty, you're really changed forever, if you're at all open to it, because we're all united in our common humanity. And we are so made as to feel something for people who are in pain. It's not possible to be human and to be unaffected by what you see in the third world.

AE: And how did it change you personally seeing that poverty, that violence of poverty?

MS: The moment that I saw Payatas, I was overwhelmed emotionally, spiritually, and physically. As I mentioned, it was so hard to get beyond the stench of the place. And this particular garbage dump is much different than other garbage dumps in the third word because this one accepts everything.

And the scavengers, and that's what they're called, are like the untouchables of India in the Philippines. They're not considered on any social level whatsoever. They're just scavengers. Little children from barely toddler ages are in this horrible place, and when the garbage trucks come in, they go along a particular path, and they're followed by these children--these scavengers--who climb up on the trucks and throw garbage off that they think might be useful: plastics, any kinds of trinkets or anything to eat, anything useful.

And as you follow these children along, you realize they are walking in sludge, this horrific contaminated sludge that sometimes measures a foot deep and sometimes a few inches. And I began to realize the difference between this dump and other dumps that I had visited in third world. The difference is over the years, they had begun to introduce disposable diapers into the Third World, which is something entirely new. And this is in the last 15-20 years. And so those diapers are included in the trash, and they have contaminated this entire plot of land. All these acres of land are contaminated with human feces. And the smell is horrific.

And I thought to myself after the tour, I thought: My God, if I lived here, if I was confined to this hell what is the one thing that I might look forward to at the end of a day of scavenging through this mountain of hell? And I thought: Well, it might just be simply to take a bath. And so that's when I contacted Bill Keyes, and I asked him if we could build a bathhouse there.

AE: Initially it started with just some showers, and now it's really the heart of the center of the community. There are children playing there. And you got the pool and kids dancing and mothers congregating.

MS: Yeah. So it's become a community center, which is what we had hoped it would be. And it's very interesting because the people in the community came up with their own idea of how they wanted to run this place once it was built. And that was to make it a private club. It wasn't just open and free to the public. You had to buy a membership.

Now, mind you, a membership was like one peso a year, which is less than eight cents American. And the reason they did that was so that they would have a sense of ownership, hence, responsibility for the place and all the activity that went on there. And they were very wise in doing that because that way they maintained their dignity. The point is that they own it. They run it. It belongs to them. It is not a charitable thing

The Beauty Part

The novel starts inside the plane. Eighty minutes into the flight, just as the jet curves over the Gulf of Maine toward Nova Scotia and the moonlit Atlantic, a few passengers sense that something's wrong. The lights flicker. There's "a curious chemical smell, not exactly burning, more like a dashboard left to bake in the sun." The narrator, an ornithologist, babbles on about birds until his seatmate, a cellist, tells him to shut up. She knows what's coming; she writes her name--in lipstick--on her arm. The plane shudders, shakes, tumbles, explodes. And disappears into the sea.

A plane crash. No survivors. And the main character of the novel with the metaphor-drenched title is the ornithologist's wife, another ornithologist. Who then travels to an inn on Trachis Island, off Nova Scotia, to identify his remains, if any. Man-made birds. Birds in nature. Birds as mythic figures. So many birds you brace yourself for a novel so sensitive you're really not deep enough to read it.

But it's better than that, much better. It traces grief minute by minute, making sad stories into a page-turner. The writer is Brad Kessler. The book is Birds in Fall.