Horoscope Front Page: "Today's Date: Dec. 27
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
This is a terrific day for you, dear Aquarius, and you will find that your emotional state of mind is wonderfully upbeat. Things should be naturally flowing your way, and there is an instinctual knowing that you have about things that will help you navigate through whatever rough waters may come your way - if any. Take this opportunity to secure commitments from others and nail down plans that you intend to complete."
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Gay News From 365Gay.com
Was Jesus Gay?
by Matt Johns 365Gay.com Los Angeles Bureau
Posted: December 25, 2004 12:01 am ET
Was Jesus Gay?
(Los Angeles, California) As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus few of them will be told in their churches and Cathedrals anything about the sexuality of Jesus, yet a growing group of Biblical scholars believe that Christ may have had at least one sexual relationship with another male.
Noted Methodist theologian Rev. Theodore Jennings Jr. and Dr Morton Smith, a world renowned Bible scholar, say there is irrefutable evidence that Jesus was at least bisexual. Dr Rollan McCleary of the University of Queensland, in Australia, says he has discovered through his research that three of the disciples were gay.
Prof. Smith points to a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 which he says alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
Rev. Jennings, a professor at the United Church of Christ's Chicago Theological Seminary, points to the Gospel of St. John. In his book "The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament," Jennings writes that the reference in St John about "the disciple Jesus loved" was actually a reference to Jesus' gay boyfriend.
Jennings also claims the centurion's servant who was healed by Jesus actually was the centurion's gay boyfriend and that Jesus did not denounce their relationship.
Dr McCleary spent three years researching “gay spirituality”. His book, "Signs for a Messiah" says that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay, and Christianity in general is built on “gay principles”.
McCleary says that Christianity needs to recognize its homosexual roots and abandon the practice of alienating gays and spreading homophobia.
British gay rights advocate Peter Tatchell says even though the information about Jesus' sexuality remains scant, "there is certainly no evidence for the Church's presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out."
"Since there is no proof of the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible," Tatchell said.
"Large chunks of Jesus' life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitized the gospels, removing references to Christ's sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote", said Tatchell.
The Vatican has denounced the research by Jennings, Smith and McCleary as "heretical". It has also been denounced by Southern Baptists and evangelical Anglicans.
When recently asked if his research might be tainted because he is gay, McCleary said: "You could see that either way. You could also say that heterosexual people have their eyes wide shut on the matter, that they don't want to see that Jesus would have been of gay disposition.
"You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn't," he added.
©365Gay.com 2004
Was Jesus Gay?
by Matt Johns 365Gay.com Los Angeles Bureau
Posted: December 25, 2004 12:01 am ET
Was Jesus Gay?
(Los Angeles, California) As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus few of them will be told in their churches and Cathedrals anything about the sexuality of Jesus, yet a growing group of Biblical scholars believe that Christ may have had at least one sexual relationship with another male.
Noted Methodist theologian Rev. Theodore Jennings Jr. and Dr Morton Smith, a world renowned Bible scholar, say there is irrefutable evidence that Jesus was at least bisexual. Dr Rollan McCleary of the University of Queensland, in Australia, says he has discovered through his research that three of the disciples were gay.
Prof. Smith points to a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 which he says alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
Rev. Jennings, a professor at the United Church of Christ's Chicago Theological Seminary, points to the Gospel of St. John. In his book "The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament," Jennings writes that the reference in St John about "the disciple Jesus loved" was actually a reference to Jesus' gay boyfriend.
Jennings also claims the centurion's servant who was healed by Jesus actually was the centurion's gay boyfriend and that Jesus did not denounce their relationship.
Dr McCleary spent three years researching “gay spirituality”. His book, "Signs for a Messiah" says that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay, and Christianity in general is built on “gay principles”.
McCleary says that Christianity needs to recognize its homosexual roots and abandon the practice of alienating gays and spreading homophobia.
British gay rights advocate Peter Tatchell says even though the information about Jesus' sexuality remains scant, "there is certainly no evidence for the Church's presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out."
"Since there is no proof of the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible," Tatchell said.
"Large chunks of Jesus' life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitized the gospels, removing references to Christ's sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote", said Tatchell.
The Vatican has denounced the research by Jennings, Smith and McCleary as "heretical". It has also been denounced by Southern Baptists and evangelical Anglicans.
When recently asked if his research might be tainted because he is gay, McCleary said: "You could see that either way. You could also say that heterosexual people have their eyes wide shut on the matter, that they don't want to see that Jesus would have been of gay disposition.
"You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn't," he added.
©365Gay.com 2004
Friday, December 24, 2004
Today's Date: Dec. 24
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
Old demons and dreams are on the agenda today, dear Aquarius. Would you have liked to be an artist? Are you sure about that? If you are an artist already, would you like to be more prominent, or richer? Be wary of such daydreaming because it takes you away from enjoying your real life. To live in the "here and now," to embrace what you already have will ultimately give you the same satisfaction as those who are richer, or more famous.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Norman Solomon | Media in the Winter of Our "Disremorse": " Media in the Winter of Our 'Disremorse'
By Norman Solomon
YubaNet.com"
Go to Original
Media in the Winter of Our "Disremorse"
By Norman Solomon
YubaNet.com
Friday 03 December 2004
Early in the coldest season, optimists think of the day after solstice. It's predictable: the hemisphere will start tilting toward more light and warmth. But in the politics of human societies, there's no reliable way to tell how long a bone-rattling chill will last - or how far it might go. A government's harsher policies could provoke kinetic revulsion and progressive resurgence. Or the dominant political atmosphere might have an overall effect of strengthening and perpetuating itself.
By now, the 2004 electorate has been spliced and diced to the culinary standard of American punditry. Countless journalists have joined with other analysts to explain what it all really means. But the news media still don't tell us much about underlying aspects of mood that can't be broken out with poll numbers. Wooden questions yield data about stiff answers. Fact-based reporters may not offer much more human truth than a fact-based phone book.
Today, in the real world of the United States - in this closely and fiercely divided country - large numbers of people see President George W. Bush as despicable. But the tenor of daily reporting does little to incorporate such assessments into the mix of media coverage. And the conciliatory noises coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill are misleading; they don't reflect the hostility that persists at the grassroots.
Potentially volatile, the rage toward Washington's current rulers is percolating underneath the recent often-cutesy news items about upticks of interest in emigrating to Canada and fantasies of blue-state secession. The extensive foreboding in the present-day United States is often of a character and vehemence that mainstream U.S. media reporting is either unwilling or unable to evoke.
Many millions of Americans would tell a suitably inquiring journalist that they don't really regret John Kerry's loss - that what they find horrific is the new four-year lease on the White House for an administration with an unrepentant track record of mendacity and extreme ideological zeal.
With two federal branches under the control of those zealots, the final arbiter of the third branch - the Supreme Court - is now under severe threat of wink-and-nod judicial fundamentalism. More than ever, in this context, journalism is a thin yet vital reed. Protection of civil liberties and abortion rights is at imminent risk. Yet the news media keep giving enormous deference to the USA's bastions of consolidated economic and electoral power.
Absent from daily news coverage is remorse.
So, the major media outlets of the United States are entering this winter in a resolute state of "disremorse" - about 180 degrees from any sense of national apology or expressed regret. In the aftermath of a 51 percent victory for the Rove-Cheney-Bush regime on Election Day, the breast-beating and halo-preening exercises have intensified. And while a cast of characters - Ashcroft, Powell, Ridge, etc. - heads toward the exits, virtually interchangeable players step into their roles.
With all the comings and goings, remorse is still light-years away as top officials speak and news media report. No need to mention people who don't have a home; no need to focus on the children and adults with paltry health care, or on the overall human impacts of so much scarcity in the midst of great wealth. These profound concerns really matter in people's lives. Yet it's as though the reigning politicians and media have found ways to take our minds off our minds.
The nerve-blocking anesthetics of mass media impede the flow of feeling in unauthorized directions. Cause and effect are disconnected, so that it seems unavoidable and natural for children to live in poverty across town or for U.S. troops to be killing and dying in Iraq. Right now, it's a struggle to disrupt the numbing media chatter about miscalculations and mistakes - to insist on acknowledgment of moral culpability. America's winter of disremorse is not about nature, it's about a lack of nurture for what remains frozen: our capacity to innovate and cooperate sufficiently to stop the "leaders" who destroy life in our names.
Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You." His columns and other writings can be found at normansolomon.com.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Saturday December 4, 2004
© Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org
By Norman Solomon
YubaNet.com"
Go to Original
Media in the Winter of Our "Disremorse"
By Norman Solomon
YubaNet.com
Friday 03 December 2004
Early in the coldest season, optimists think of the day after solstice. It's predictable: the hemisphere will start tilting toward more light and warmth. But in the politics of human societies, there's no reliable way to tell how long a bone-rattling chill will last - or how far it might go. A government's harsher policies could provoke kinetic revulsion and progressive resurgence. Or the dominant political atmosphere might have an overall effect of strengthening and perpetuating itself.
By now, the 2004 electorate has been spliced and diced to the culinary standard of American punditry. Countless journalists have joined with other analysts to explain what it all really means. But the news media still don't tell us much about underlying aspects of mood that can't be broken out with poll numbers. Wooden questions yield data about stiff answers. Fact-based reporters may not offer much more human truth than a fact-based phone book.
Today, in the real world of the United States - in this closely and fiercely divided country - large numbers of people see President George W. Bush as despicable. But the tenor of daily reporting does little to incorporate such assessments into the mix of media coverage. And the conciliatory noises coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill are misleading; they don't reflect the hostility that persists at the grassroots.
Potentially volatile, the rage toward Washington's current rulers is percolating underneath the recent often-cutesy news items about upticks of interest in emigrating to Canada and fantasies of blue-state secession. The extensive foreboding in the present-day United States is often of a character and vehemence that mainstream U.S. media reporting is either unwilling or unable to evoke.
Many millions of Americans would tell a suitably inquiring journalist that they don't really regret John Kerry's loss - that what they find horrific is the new four-year lease on the White House for an administration with an unrepentant track record of mendacity and extreme ideological zeal.
With two federal branches under the control of those zealots, the final arbiter of the third branch - the Supreme Court - is now under severe threat of wink-and-nod judicial fundamentalism. More than ever, in this context, journalism is a thin yet vital reed. Protection of civil liberties and abortion rights is at imminent risk. Yet the news media keep giving enormous deference to the USA's bastions of consolidated economic and electoral power.
Absent from daily news coverage is remorse.
So, the major media outlets of the United States are entering this winter in a resolute state of "disremorse" - about 180 degrees from any sense of national apology or expressed regret. In the aftermath of a 51 percent victory for the Rove-Cheney-Bush regime on Election Day, the breast-beating and halo-preening exercises have intensified. And while a cast of characters - Ashcroft, Powell, Ridge, etc. - heads toward the exits, virtually interchangeable players step into their roles.
With all the comings and goings, remorse is still light-years away as top officials speak and news media report. No need to mention people who don't have a home; no need to focus on the children and adults with paltry health care, or on the overall human impacts of so much scarcity in the midst of great wealth. These profound concerns really matter in people's lives. Yet it's as though the reigning politicians and media have found ways to take our minds off our minds.
The nerve-blocking anesthetics of mass media impede the flow of feeling in unauthorized directions. Cause and effect are disconnected, so that it seems unavoidable and natural for children to live in poverty across town or for U.S. troops to be killing and dying in Iraq. Right now, it's a struggle to disrupt the numbing media chatter about miscalculations and mistakes - to insist on acknowledgment of moral culpability. America's winter of disremorse is not about nature, it's about a lack of nurture for what remains frozen: our capacity to innovate and cooperate sufficiently to stop the "leaders" who destroy life in our names.
Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You." His columns and other writings can be found at normansolomon.com.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Saturday December 4, 2004
© Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org
Christian Killers? by Laurence M. Vance: "There is no doubt that many of the soldiers responsible for the recent death and destruction in Fallujah are Christians. And there is no doubt that many Americans who call for more death and destruction in Iraq and elsewhere are Christians as well."
Friday, December 03, 2004
Horoscope Front Page: "Today's Date: Dec. 3
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
The last several days have been a bit of an ordeal, so you may be surprised by the brightness of the day ahead. Although you may not necessarily be trying to assert yourself more than usual, you will receive compliments and congratulations from many sources. Baffling, isn't it? Let yourself take advantage of the joys ahead without subjecting them to too much scrutiny, dear Aquarius."
note, went to the hospital twice this past weekend, god, blog it all
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
The last several days have been a bit of an ordeal, so you may be surprised by the brightness of the day ahead. Although you may not necessarily be trying to assert yourself more than usual, you will receive compliments and congratulations from many sources. Baffling, isn't it? Let yourself take advantage of the joys ahead without subjecting them to too much scrutiny, dear Aquarius."
note, went to the hospital twice this past weekend, god, blog it all
Gay News From 365Gay.com: "Gay Teens Barred From School Dance
by The Associated Press
Posted: December 3, 2004 11:02 am ET
Gay Teens Barred From School Dance
(West Jordan, Utah) A school principal refused to let two gay 17-year-old boys attend a high-school dance as a couple without permission from their parents.
Tom Worlton, the principal at Copper Hills High School, said he was concerned for the safety of the boys who might be taunted by others.
'There's a danger, and I believe the parents ought to be aware of that,' Worlton said Wednesday. 'If parents were OK with it, I'd make no judgment.'
Jason Atwood, a 17-year-old senior, said Worlton's condition smacked of discrimination and kept him and his boyfriend from attending the dance.
Atwood's father wouldn't sign a permission slip for fear that it would absolve the school of responsibility if anything were to happen to his son.
Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, said state law requires schools to promote tolerance and protect students from harassment. 'Would you require a note for a disabled student to go to a dance?' she asked.
Worlton said he rejected the allegation of discrimination, adding, 'Unless someone can convince me that it's an unfair policy, we'll live with it.'
Supporters and members of the school's Gay-Straight Alliance, led by Atwood, held all-day protests this week just off school property.
Reactions from passers-by ran from support to obscenities, snowballs and glares.
Atwood sported a bump on his head from a soda can he said was thrown from a car Wednesday, a reminder of what he's up against.
'It's something no student should experience, especially in a place where they're supposed to be learning,' he said. 'But it's something I've been dealing with since I was 13, and I've been raised to stand up for what I believe in.'
�Associated Press 2004"
by The Associated Press
Posted: December 3, 2004 11:02 am ET
Gay Teens Barred From School Dance
(West Jordan, Utah) A school principal refused to let two gay 17-year-old boys attend a high-school dance as a couple without permission from their parents.
Tom Worlton, the principal at Copper Hills High School, said he was concerned for the safety of the boys who might be taunted by others.
'There's a danger, and I believe the parents ought to be aware of that,' Worlton said Wednesday. 'If parents were OK with it, I'd make no judgment.'
Jason Atwood, a 17-year-old senior, said Worlton's condition smacked of discrimination and kept him and his boyfriend from attending the dance.
Atwood's father wouldn't sign a permission slip for fear that it would absolve the school of responsibility if anything were to happen to his son.
Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, said state law requires schools to promote tolerance and protect students from harassment. 'Would you require a note for a disabled student to go to a dance?' she asked.
Worlton said he rejected the allegation of discrimination, adding, 'Unless someone can convince me that it's an unfair policy, we'll live with it.'
Supporters and members of the school's Gay-Straight Alliance, led by Atwood, held all-day protests this week just off school property.
Reactions from passers-by ran from support to obscenities, snowballs and glares.
Atwood sported a bump on his head from a soda can he said was thrown from a car Wednesday, a reminder of what he's up against.
'It's something no student should experience, especially in a place where they're supposed to be learning,' he said. 'But it's something I've been dealing with since I was 13, and I've been raised to stand up for what I believe in.'
�Associated Press 2004"
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
I'm not expecting to get any tips. I'm glad that you have a good doctor. Did you try to get in touch with him before going to the hospital? He might have called in a script for you? I'm going on with this thing called life. It seems rather bleak right now, but it always has been that way, so it doesn't really bother me much. I do tend to act out, I'm sure that you can identify with that. I hope that we can come out of all of this to a better place. I refuse to give up. I think good things are still going to happen. If everything material is manna, then why should we focus on it?
PS I painted some tonight it seems to help.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Sunday, November 14, 2004
washingtonpost.com: Coming Out for One of Their Own
washingtonpost.com
Coming Out for One of Their Own
An Oklahoma Teen Finds Love Where He Least Expected It
By Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page D01
SAND SPRINGS, Okla. -- The fliers arrived three weeks ago. Some came over the fax machines of local churches, and others appeared mysteriously around town. Printed in bold was the heading "Westboro Baptist Church." No seeming cause for alarm. Sand Springs, population 18,500, is a Christian stronghold in the gently rolling hills of eastern Oklahoma.
But the message that followed was a rant against a 17-year-old Sand Springs resident named Michael Shackelford and his mother, Janice, the subjects of a recent Washington Post series examining Michael's struggles as a young gay man in the Bible Belt. The fliers posted a photo of Michael, called him a "doomed teenage fag" and announced that followers of Westboro Baptist in Topeka were on their way from Kansas to stage antigay protests in Sand Springs.
Public theater is the specialty of Westboro Baptist and its minister, Fred Phelps, whose place on the extreme fringe of the antigay movement is symbolized by his Web site, www.godhatesfags.com. But this time, Phelps picked a formidable target.
Oklahoma could never be mistaken for a liberal blue state. President Bush grabbed the seven electoral votes here like a sack of candy, winning 60 percent of the popular vote. A state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by a 3-to-1 margin.
Sand Springs is the essence of pious Oklahoma. Downtown, a veterinary clinic with loudspeakers on its roof plays a taped carillon of hymns and patriotic songs. Michael and Janice Shackelford attend a large evangelical church where lots of worshipers bring their own Bibles.
In the eyes of Phelps, any church that allows an openly gay person to attend Sunday worship is weak. "Was there no Gospel preacher in Sand Springs or Broken Arrow to tell Michael . . . that sodomy is a monstrous sin against God that will destroy the life and damn the soul?" the fliers asked.
When Phelps announced that his group was coming to picket at several churches and the high school, fresh battle lines were drawn. To many here, homosexuality was a sin, but Michael Shackelford was their sinner. Just as the November election was reducing moral issues to red or blue, Sand Springs confronted subtler shades of truth. Janice Shackelford was terrified by the persecution of her son, then surprised by what happened next.
"This Westboro outfit thought they could come to this town and break it apart," Janice said. "But it has brought the town together. It has opened some doors to talk."
An Invitation
After Michael's story was published, competing forces wrestled for his soul. The Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, invited Michael to attend its national dinner in Washington last month.
"Oh, great," Janice remembers thinking. A year and a half after discovering her son was gay, Janice still held hope that he would renounce his homosexuality. She worried for his safety, especially after renting a video at Blockbuster about Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who died after being beaten and lashed to a fence in Wyoming. Mostly Janice worried about Michael's salvation. Attending the dinner in Washington might reinforce his belief that he is gay. "I felt like allowing him to go was condoning the lifestyle," she said, "and it would propel him to that even more."
Yet something inside told her to let him go. One factor tipped it: Michael would get to meet Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew, who would be attending the event. Part of Janice wished that she could go, too, to see what her son wanted so desperately to see. But she worked two jobs and could find no one to take her shift at the barbecue restaurant where she is a waitress. It was decided that Michael would be accompanied by his 23-year-old sister, Shelly.
In Washington, a tux was waiting for Michael in his hotel room.
He brought his disposable camera to the dinner and asked a male model if it was okay to take his picture.
The next day there was a luncheon and sightseeing of the monuments. A lesbian couple with a 3-year-old daughter took Michael and Shelly to dinner in Dupont Circle. Walking around the gay neighborhood, Michael was in awe. "It was like being around family," he said. "Seeing all those successful people, that could be me."
Shelly, who shared Janice's views against homosexuality, was also in shock. "Men were holding hands with men, women were holding hands with women, and no one was yelling at them," Shelly said.
What Michael wanted most was to buy his mother a book on being a Christian parent of a gay child. He found them at Lambda Rising, a gay and lesbian bookstore.
When they got back home, Janice listened to their stories. "There's a life out there," Michael said, before racing off to the drugstore to have his film developed. Janice wept when Shelly relayed a story that Judy Shepard told about going to identify her son's body. He was covered in blood except for the clean streaks on his face where tears had washed down.
Janice took the books Michael brought home -- "Always My Child" and "The Gay Face of God," among others -- but was not ready to read them. She piled them on a table in the living room, which is where they were still sitting when she received a call from her pastor.
"Janice," he said, "We got a fax."
Janice tried remembering where she had heard of Westboro Baptist -- and then it clicked. While visiting her oldest daughter in Las Vegas, she remembered seeing the group picketing a high school that was staging "The Laramie Project," a play about Matthew Shepard's murder in the town of Laramie.
Janice listened with growing anxiety as her pastor, Bill Eubanks of Cornerstone Church, explained that Westboro Baptist was coming to protest Cornerstone for allowing Michael to worship there. When Eubanks called Westboro, a woman who identified herself as Fred Phelps's daughter told him that he had not been strong enough in "prescribing the truth about homosexuals."
Eubanks, 53, has a deep-well Oklahoma accent and a 6-foot-2 frame that makes him a commanding preacher. He pastors a flock of 500, where bluejeans are welcome and men are not embarrassed to brush away tears when praying. The church held a voter registration drive in the run-up to the presidential election. A huge banner, hung from the rafters, said, "Family Under Construction." There was no doubt that "family" referred to a man and woman. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin.
Eubanks had known Michael was struggling with his sexuality. But to the pastor, seeing Michael in church meant there was still a chance that he would turn away from homosexuality.
Eubanks was disturbed by the fliers' hateful message, but he saw an opportunity.
"I get to speak about the grace of God," he said. "No matter what the sin, God loves you. He is saying, 'Come on, come back to the family.' I was an alcoholic and a drug addict. I can see the possibility of change."
A transformation, from gay to straight.
"These are the hopes, that Michael will change," Eubanks said.
The week before the protest, the pastor announced from the pulpit that they were in the midst of a spiritual battle. He read parts of the flier aloud. "We are family," Eubanks said. "We are going to stand united as a family."
The response surprised Michael, who thought he would be cast out. People were being nice to him. Only a few weeks earlier he'd been called a "queer" at Arby's. Now there was a new menace in Sand Springs, and it was Fred Phelps.
As more fliers circulated around Sand Springs, Janice knew it was time to talk to her 88-year-old mother, a fervent Baptist with a weak heart. All this time Janice had never told her mother that Michael was gay. "This would put her in the grave," she had warned Michael.
After Wednesday night church, Janice drove to her mother's house. The words simply would not come out. Finally, Janice got up and turned the volume down on the TV and sat beside her mother. "I've been keeping a secret from you," Janice said. She stopped again.
Just tell me, her mother said.
"Michael seems to think he's gay."
"Janice," she recalls her mother saying, "I'm a tough old lady. You should have told me sooner."
And that was that.
Us and Them
The Sunday of the protest arrived. Birds hung in the brittle branches of blackjack oaks lining the driveway of Cornerstone Church. The Phelps entourage had left Topeka at 3 that morning and unloaded in front of Cornerstone in time for the 9 o'clock service. There were nine in all. Fred Phelps had sent his 51-year-old son, Fred Phelps Jr., and his daughter, Shirley Phelps Roper, 47. Under the watchful eye of several Sand Springs police officers, they spread out along the public patch of grass in front of the church.
They raised their signs. Fags Are Worthy of Death. Fags Doom Nation. Fag Church. Your Pastor Is Lying. Others involved obscene drawings and references to excrement. One of the protesters dragged an American flag on the ground.
A truck roared by from the main road and the driver shouted, LET HE WHO CAST THE FIRST STONE!
Phelps gestured toward the church marquee that scrolled the message I hate the sin but love the sinner -- God! "It's a play on words, the sin and the sinner," he said. "You can't separate the two. There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed."
Shirley Phelps Roper chimed in. "With the right hand they are saying that homosexuality is a sin and they will fix you," she said. "And with the left hand they say that God loves you. They don't own salvation. They don't have the prerogative to fix the heart of man."
Worshipers drove through the bottleneck, refusing to engage. Michael Shackelford rumbled past in his truck without notice. Janice arrived minutes later in her Oldsmobile, nervously gripping the steering wheel, eyes straight ahead.
Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking.
The Lord reigns
Great is the Almighty
The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage. "Welcome to the reign of life," he said. "Amen?"
"Amen!" the crowd shouted, whistling and clapping.
"There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light," Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. "Say it: God loves us all. All of us!"
After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time.
A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. "Man, you be who you are," Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. "We got your back."
Watie later said that he respected Michael for having the courage to come out. "I have the sin of pride, the sin of lying sometimes," said the 37-year-old father of two. "The reason why Jesus was on the cross was because we all do."
Watie voted for Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage. Civil unions? He might have considered those. Homosexuality? "That's between the person and God," Watie said.
Out in the foyer, Eubanks saw Michael and seized the chance. He invited Michael to lunch. There was work to do.
'A Gathering of the Saints'
After church, Michael drove the interstate with the windows of his truck rolled down and the stereo blasting Merle Haggard's "Kentucky Gambler," Michael singing every word.
I wanted more from life, than four kids and a wife
And a job in a dark Kentucky mine.
In nearby Tulsa that Sunday night, a vigil was held in response to the Phelps demonstrations. It was organized by Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights and held at a gay and lesbian community center. Organizers set out 24 chairs. More than 220 people showed up; the overflow strained to hear from the sidewalk.
Janice had been nervous to attend the vigil with Michael but there she was, standing in back. Several Tulsa ministers spoke out against Phelps. Most were from churches that Janice was unfamiliar with; Unitarian, Congregational and Diversity Christian.
The Rev. Russell L. Bennett, president of the Tulsa Interfaith Alliance, took the podium. "You are a gathering of the saints," he said, smiling at the crowd. "Now, in some parts of town, that might be disputed."
Bennett recited a Bible verse in which Jesus scolds the leaders of his time for worrying more about narrow morality than the bigger picture. "Woe to you, hypocrites," the reverend said. "For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy."
Janice was quiet, listening to phrases such as "radical inclusivity" and quotes by Robert F. Kennedy about the long arm that bends toward justice. Only once did she feel at home, when a man came up afterward and reached for her hand. "You know, we have been praying for you all week," he said.
His name was Toby Jenkins and he was a Free Will Baptist pastor for 17 years before accepting that he was gay. Now he preaches at a gay evangelical church in Tulsa. He told Janice that the Bible is not the black-and-white doctrine that many say it is. He asked Janice if they could pray together, and he took her face in his hands and they stood motionless in the crowd, forehead to forehead, eyes closed.
"I am going to have to think about all this," she said later.
The next morning, the Phelps protesters were back in Sand Springs, this time picketing in front of Charles Page High, the school that grudgingly started a Gay Straight Alliance last year after an openly gay senior forced the issue.
Shirley Phelps Roper stood on the sidewalk, holding her God Hates Fags sign and singing "America the Beautiful." Police were standing by, but all was peaceful. Several cars drove by with their own messages painted on the windows: Go Back to Kansas and God Loves Everybody.
As school let out that afternoon, dozens of people from Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights arrived with brooms. In silence, they swept the sidewalk where the Phelps protesters had been. Michael was there, sweeping.
A group of students walked by. One of them, a girl with long, silky hair and a backpack, was obviously fed up with all the protests and counter-protests. "Leave our homos alone," she said, to no one in particular.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com
Coming Out for One of Their Own
An Oklahoma Teen Finds Love Where He Least Expected It
By Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page D01
SAND SPRINGS, Okla. -- The fliers arrived three weeks ago. Some came over the fax machines of local churches, and others appeared mysteriously around town. Printed in bold was the heading "Westboro Baptist Church." No seeming cause for alarm. Sand Springs, population 18,500, is a Christian stronghold in the gently rolling hills of eastern Oklahoma.
But the message that followed was a rant against a 17-year-old Sand Springs resident named Michael Shackelford and his mother, Janice, the subjects of a recent Washington Post series examining Michael's struggles as a young gay man in the Bible Belt. The fliers posted a photo of Michael, called him a "doomed teenage fag" and announced that followers of Westboro Baptist in Topeka were on their way from Kansas to stage antigay protests in Sand Springs.
Public theater is the specialty of Westboro Baptist and its minister, Fred Phelps, whose place on the extreme fringe of the antigay movement is symbolized by his Web site, www.godhatesfags.com. But this time, Phelps picked a formidable target.
Oklahoma could never be mistaken for a liberal blue state. President Bush grabbed the seven electoral votes here like a sack of candy, winning 60 percent of the popular vote. A state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by a 3-to-1 margin.
Sand Springs is the essence of pious Oklahoma. Downtown, a veterinary clinic with loudspeakers on its roof plays a taped carillon of hymns and patriotic songs. Michael and Janice Shackelford attend a large evangelical church where lots of worshipers bring their own Bibles.
In the eyes of Phelps, any church that allows an openly gay person to attend Sunday worship is weak. "Was there no Gospel preacher in Sand Springs or Broken Arrow to tell Michael . . . that sodomy is a monstrous sin against God that will destroy the life and damn the soul?" the fliers asked.
When Phelps announced that his group was coming to picket at several churches and the high school, fresh battle lines were drawn. To many here, homosexuality was a sin, but Michael Shackelford was their sinner. Just as the November election was reducing moral issues to red or blue, Sand Springs confronted subtler shades of truth. Janice Shackelford was terrified by the persecution of her son, then surprised by what happened next.
"This Westboro outfit thought they could come to this town and break it apart," Janice said. "But it has brought the town together. It has opened some doors to talk."
An Invitation
After Michael's story was published, competing forces wrestled for his soul. The Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, invited Michael to attend its national dinner in Washington last month.
"Oh, great," Janice remembers thinking. A year and a half after discovering her son was gay, Janice still held hope that he would renounce his homosexuality. She worried for his safety, especially after renting a video at Blockbuster about Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who died after being beaten and lashed to a fence in Wyoming. Mostly Janice worried about Michael's salvation. Attending the dinner in Washington might reinforce his belief that he is gay. "I felt like allowing him to go was condoning the lifestyle," she said, "and it would propel him to that even more."
Yet something inside told her to let him go. One factor tipped it: Michael would get to meet Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew, who would be attending the event. Part of Janice wished that she could go, too, to see what her son wanted so desperately to see. But she worked two jobs and could find no one to take her shift at the barbecue restaurant where she is a waitress. It was decided that Michael would be accompanied by his 23-year-old sister, Shelly.
In Washington, a tux was waiting for Michael in his hotel room.
He brought his disposable camera to the dinner and asked a male model if it was okay to take his picture.
The next day there was a luncheon and sightseeing of the monuments. A lesbian couple with a 3-year-old daughter took Michael and Shelly to dinner in Dupont Circle. Walking around the gay neighborhood, Michael was in awe. "It was like being around family," he said. "Seeing all those successful people, that could be me."
Shelly, who shared Janice's views against homosexuality, was also in shock. "Men were holding hands with men, women were holding hands with women, and no one was yelling at them," Shelly said.
What Michael wanted most was to buy his mother a book on being a Christian parent of a gay child. He found them at Lambda Rising, a gay and lesbian bookstore.
When they got back home, Janice listened to their stories. "There's a life out there," Michael said, before racing off to the drugstore to have his film developed. Janice wept when Shelly relayed a story that Judy Shepard told about going to identify her son's body. He was covered in blood except for the clean streaks on his face where tears had washed down.
Janice took the books Michael brought home -- "Always My Child" and "The Gay Face of God," among others -- but was not ready to read them. She piled them on a table in the living room, which is where they were still sitting when she received a call from her pastor.
"Janice," he said, "We got a fax."
Janice tried remembering where she had heard of Westboro Baptist -- and then it clicked. While visiting her oldest daughter in Las Vegas, she remembered seeing the group picketing a high school that was staging "The Laramie Project," a play about Matthew Shepard's murder in the town of Laramie.
Janice listened with growing anxiety as her pastor, Bill Eubanks of Cornerstone Church, explained that Westboro Baptist was coming to protest Cornerstone for allowing Michael to worship there. When Eubanks called Westboro, a woman who identified herself as Fred Phelps's daughter told him that he had not been strong enough in "prescribing the truth about homosexuals."
Eubanks, 53, has a deep-well Oklahoma accent and a 6-foot-2 frame that makes him a commanding preacher. He pastors a flock of 500, where bluejeans are welcome and men are not embarrassed to brush away tears when praying. The church held a voter registration drive in the run-up to the presidential election. A huge banner, hung from the rafters, said, "Family Under Construction." There was no doubt that "family" referred to a man and woman. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin.
Eubanks had known Michael was struggling with his sexuality. But to the pastor, seeing Michael in church meant there was still a chance that he would turn away from homosexuality.
Eubanks was disturbed by the fliers' hateful message, but he saw an opportunity.
"I get to speak about the grace of God," he said. "No matter what the sin, God loves you. He is saying, 'Come on, come back to the family.' I was an alcoholic and a drug addict. I can see the possibility of change."
A transformation, from gay to straight.
"These are the hopes, that Michael will change," Eubanks said.
The week before the protest, the pastor announced from the pulpit that they were in the midst of a spiritual battle. He read parts of the flier aloud. "We are family," Eubanks said. "We are going to stand united as a family."
The response surprised Michael, who thought he would be cast out. People were being nice to him. Only a few weeks earlier he'd been called a "queer" at Arby's. Now there was a new menace in Sand Springs, and it was Fred Phelps.
As more fliers circulated around Sand Springs, Janice knew it was time to talk to her 88-year-old mother, a fervent Baptist with a weak heart. All this time Janice had never told her mother that Michael was gay. "This would put her in the grave," she had warned Michael.
After Wednesday night church, Janice drove to her mother's house. The words simply would not come out. Finally, Janice got up and turned the volume down on the TV and sat beside her mother. "I've been keeping a secret from you," Janice said. She stopped again.
Just tell me, her mother said.
"Michael seems to think he's gay."
"Janice," she recalls her mother saying, "I'm a tough old lady. You should have told me sooner."
And that was that.
Us and Them
The Sunday of the protest arrived. Birds hung in the brittle branches of blackjack oaks lining the driveway of Cornerstone Church. The Phelps entourage had left Topeka at 3 that morning and unloaded in front of Cornerstone in time for the 9 o'clock service. There were nine in all. Fred Phelps had sent his 51-year-old son, Fred Phelps Jr., and his daughter, Shirley Phelps Roper, 47. Under the watchful eye of several Sand Springs police officers, they spread out along the public patch of grass in front of the church.
They raised their signs. Fags Are Worthy of Death. Fags Doom Nation. Fag Church. Your Pastor Is Lying. Others involved obscene drawings and references to excrement. One of the protesters dragged an American flag on the ground.
A truck roared by from the main road and the driver shouted, LET HE WHO CAST THE FIRST STONE!
Phelps gestured toward the church marquee that scrolled the message I hate the sin but love the sinner -- God! "It's a play on words, the sin and the sinner," he said. "You can't separate the two. There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed."
Shirley Phelps Roper chimed in. "With the right hand they are saying that homosexuality is a sin and they will fix you," she said. "And with the left hand they say that God loves you. They don't own salvation. They don't have the prerogative to fix the heart of man."
Worshipers drove through the bottleneck, refusing to engage. Michael Shackelford rumbled past in his truck without notice. Janice arrived minutes later in her Oldsmobile, nervously gripping the steering wheel, eyes straight ahead.
Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking.
The Lord reigns
Great is the Almighty
The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage. "Welcome to the reign of life," he said. "Amen?"
"Amen!" the crowd shouted, whistling and clapping.
"There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light," Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. "Say it: God loves us all. All of us!"
After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time.
A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. "Man, you be who you are," Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. "We got your back."
Watie later said that he respected Michael for having the courage to come out. "I have the sin of pride, the sin of lying sometimes," said the 37-year-old father of two. "The reason why Jesus was on the cross was because we all do."
Watie voted for Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage. Civil unions? He might have considered those. Homosexuality? "That's between the person and God," Watie said.
Out in the foyer, Eubanks saw Michael and seized the chance. He invited Michael to lunch. There was work to do.
'A Gathering of the Saints'
After church, Michael drove the interstate with the windows of his truck rolled down and the stereo blasting Merle Haggard's "Kentucky Gambler," Michael singing every word.
I wanted more from life, than four kids and a wife
And a job in a dark Kentucky mine.
In nearby Tulsa that Sunday night, a vigil was held in response to the Phelps demonstrations. It was organized by Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights and held at a gay and lesbian community center. Organizers set out 24 chairs. More than 220 people showed up; the overflow strained to hear from the sidewalk.
Janice had been nervous to attend the vigil with Michael but there she was, standing in back. Several Tulsa ministers spoke out against Phelps. Most were from churches that Janice was unfamiliar with; Unitarian, Congregational and Diversity Christian.
The Rev. Russell L. Bennett, president of the Tulsa Interfaith Alliance, took the podium. "You are a gathering of the saints," he said, smiling at the crowd. "Now, in some parts of town, that might be disputed."
Bennett recited a Bible verse in which Jesus scolds the leaders of his time for worrying more about narrow morality than the bigger picture. "Woe to you, hypocrites," the reverend said. "For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy."
Janice was quiet, listening to phrases such as "radical inclusivity" and quotes by Robert F. Kennedy about the long arm that bends toward justice. Only once did she feel at home, when a man came up afterward and reached for her hand. "You know, we have been praying for you all week," he said.
His name was Toby Jenkins and he was a Free Will Baptist pastor for 17 years before accepting that he was gay. Now he preaches at a gay evangelical church in Tulsa. He told Janice that the Bible is not the black-and-white doctrine that many say it is. He asked Janice if they could pray together, and he took her face in his hands and they stood motionless in the crowd, forehead to forehead, eyes closed.
"I am going to have to think about all this," she said later.
The next morning, the Phelps protesters were back in Sand Springs, this time picketing in front of Charles Page High, the school that grudgingly started a Gay Straight Alliance last year after an openly gay senior forced the issue.
Shirley Phelps Roper stood on the sidewalk, holding her God Hates Fags sign and singing "America the Beautiful." Police were standing by, but all was peaceful. Several cars drove by with their own messages painted on the windows: Go Back to Kansas and God Loves Everybody.
As school let out that afternoon, dozens of people from Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights arrived with brooms. In silence, they swept the sidewalk where the Phelps protesters had been. Michael was there, sweeping.
A group of students walked by. One of them, a girl with long, silky hair and a backpack, was obviously fed up with all the protests and counter-protests. "Leave our homos alone," she said, to no one in particular.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Howard Dean Disputes Media View that 'Values' Swung Election
By Charles Geraci
Editor & Publisher
Friday 12 November 2004
Evanston, Ill. - Former presidential candidate Howard Dean wants the media to stuff its new conventional wisdom that "values" or "morals" drove the result of this month's election.
Speaking Thursday night to 500 Northwestern University students, many of them journalism majors, Dean noted there was little "statistical difference" between the percentage of voters who deemed moral values the top issue (22 %) and those who ranked as their top concern Iraq or the economy/jobs, according to exit poll data.
"How can you get to the conclusion morality was the most important issue in this campaign?" Dean asked. "It's beyond me, but that was what the media was riding. They're entitled to their opinion. It doesn't happen to be the opinion of thoughtful people who are looking."
Though Dean, a Democrat, complimented President Bush, saying he "ran a great campaign" and was "very disciplined," he compared the president to former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, at least in one regard.
"The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country," Dean charged. "I know George Bush. I served with him for six years [as a fellow governor]. He's not a homophobe. He's not a racist. He's not a sexist. In some ways, what he did was worse ... because he knew better."
Dean also criticized Bush for the ballot initiatives in 11 states calling for gay marriage to be outlawed, saying this "had only one effect, which is to appeal to homophobia and fear and gay-baiting in order to win a presidential election."
And he took a shot at Rev. Jerry Falwell.: "Most Americans are decent people - not all. I mean, there are those hate-mongers. I wouldn't call Jerry Falwell a decent person."
Scolding Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for, in Dean's opinion, humiliating people from the bench, he said, "Justice Scalia ought not to be on the bench. Never pick anyone who's sarcastic and mean-spirited."
But Dean's lighter side also was apparent throughout the evening. When a student asked what, if anything, Democrats could do regarding Bush's Supreme Court nominations, Dean joked: "We can do a lot. But senators have to have some chutzpah, as they say in Yiddish, or cajones, as they say in Spanish."
The former Vermont governor also responded to an ad by the conservative Club for Growth in which two ordinary Americans said Dean should take his "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs."
He explained, "I don't drink coffee. I have three cars - all of which are American. No part of me is pierced that I'm willing to discuss publicly. And if you want to see a freak show, go look at the people who wrote that ad - you won't believe it."
Dean talked about his vision for the Democratic Party, saying, "We need to stand up for what we believe in ... so that the people who vote against their economic interests will now consider voting for Democrats."
Complimenting students for "voting in significantly higher numbers," Dean appealed for them to "run for office" quite a few times. Echoing the now infamous "Dean scream," he shouted, "You need to run for office - not just in Illinois and Ohio and South Carolina! ... You need to run for office in Mississippi, and Alabama, and Idaho, and Texas, and...."
When i was a southern baptist christian, the worse sin i could do was to "be" a homosexual, and i was outed at my church the summer of 1976 by my best friend, john w.
today the united states of america has taken homophobia to the extreme by out lawing gay marriage
the president of the united states successfully used this issue to get re elected
for i am , dave hell
today the united states of america has taken homophobia to the extreme by out lawing gay marriage
the president of the united states successfully used this issue to get re elected
for i am , dave hell
why are we hated so much, as homosexuals, by the christians, they tell me they hate the sin but love the sinner, but i see no evidence of that what so ever in the current situation here in the united states, where in eleven states to get married as a gay man to a gay man is now illegal, where a christian president wants to actuallly change the united states of america consititution to ban gay marriage, they are so full of hatred, so much hatred, and i ask why, where does this hatred come from.
they are supposed to be christ like, but george bush, cheney, ms rice, rumsfield, are some of the most hateful people in power i have ever seen
bobby welch, the minister at my church in daytona beach, is so full of hate, i just want to understand what is wrong with their christianity, what is wrong with their self images, their fear of homosexuals, for the current form of all forms of christianity is disgusting to me, its not a religion of love, but its a religion of hatefullness and division.
for i am dave hell
they are supposed to be christ like, but george bush, cheney, ms rice, rumsfield, are some of the most hateful people in power i have ever seen
bobby welch, the minister at my church in daytona beach, is so full of hate, i just want to understand what is wrong with their christianity, what is wrong with their self images, their fear of homosexuals, for the current form of all forms of christianity is disgusting to me, its not a religion of love, but its a religion of hatefullness and division.
for i am dave hell
yo
I’m revolting, and I’m sorry
Apparently, I love America more than America loves me. Last week millions of my fellow citizens, motivated by their revulsion at my sexuality, voted to reelect their antigay cheerleader, George Bush. It seems John Kerry lost because of me.
By Spencer Windes
An Advocate.com exclusive, posted November 8, 2004
I cost John Kerry the election.
It’s all right there in the numbers. John Kerry lost the election in Ohio. Ohio, where 25% of the electorate was white evangelicals. The most important issue to Ohio voters in the exit polls was “moral values.” It was the motivation cited by 23% of the electorate.
More important than Ohio’s terrible job prospects.
More than the violent threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
No, those voters turned out on “moral values” above all. And we all know that “moral values” in this election was just code for what to do about those uppity faggots. I mean, with their gay marriage and civil rights and whatnot, they needed to be put in their place. So they were.
Karl Rove was right.
In narrowly fought state after narrowly fought state, heterosexuals walked into the voting booth with me in mind. They carried in the pit of their stomachs the disgust they feel at the thought of two men in intimate embrace; this deep, reptilian aversion drove them off of their couches and into their polling stations. They carried with them the knowledge that no matter how desperate their lives got, no matter the lost jobs or declining wages or lack of health care, no matter the open-ended wars and rigged intelligence and corporate scandal, no matter how bad things got at home, at least they weren’t queer.
At least they had that to hang on to.
I feel like I’m back in high school, when I’d fall for the straight guy, the jock with the good looks, fast car, and cheerleader girlfriend. In other words, a nonreciprocal relationship
Apparently, I love America more than America loves me. Hell, America just seems to want to kick my ass.
Oh, I’m not saying it was every voter who felt this way; maybe it wasn’t even a great number. But it was enough. They thought of me, they felt the vomit in their gorge, and they voted for George W. Bush.
And not just Bush. In South Carolina they elected a man who said that people openly like me shouldn’t be allowed to teach in public schools. They elected him to our most deliberative and thoughtful legislative body, the United States Senate. In my grandmother’s home state of Oklahoma they listened to a man who believes that lesbians are running rampant in the school systems of not only Atoka but the state’s entire southeast, lurking in bathrooms to molest children. Then they put him into the U.S. Senate as well.
But worst of all, in 11 states, they actually were able to put their revulsion into the starkest, most straightforward of electoral terms. Referendums across America were held against faggots like me; inevitably, they all won big, and you better bet they had coattails. The idea of two men or two women committing themselves to each other was so horrific, so stomach-churning, so motivating, that they passed antigay marriage amendments on votes whose lopsided tallies recalled nothing so much as the preinvasion “elections” of Saddam Hussein.
Yes, the people have spoken in one voice. In one voice they have raised the mob cry against me, and against every person in this country like me.
Because I supported John Kerry, and because John Kerry never shared their revulsion, the taint was passed. The stink of queerness lingered too strong about him. John Kerry would not wash his hands of me; it never occurred to him to be embarrassed of my support. Because he was a man of character, he would not, like Peter, thrice deny me. I was the millstone around his neck.
I cost John Kerry the election.
Sorry.
I’m revolting, and I’m sorry
Apparently, I love America more than America loves me. Last week millions of my fellow citizens, motivated by their revulsion at my sexuality, voted to reelect their antigay cheerleader, George Bush. It seems John Kerry lost because of me.
By Spencer Windes
An Advocate.com exclusive, posted November 8, 2004
I cost John Kerry the election.
It’s all right there in the numbers. John Kerry lost the election in Ohio. Ohio, where 25% of the electorate was white evangelicals. The most important issue to Ohio voters in the exit polls was “moral values.” It was the motivation cited by 23% of the electorate.
More important than Ohio’s terrible job prospects.
More than the violent threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
No, those voters turned out on “moral values” above all. And we all know that “moral values” in this election was just code for what to do about those uppity faggots. I mean, with their gay marriage and civil rights and whatnot, they needed to be put in their place. So they were.
Karl Rove was right.
In narrowly fought state after narrowly fought state, heterosexuals walked into the voting booth with me in mind. They carried in the pit of their stomachs the disgust they feel at the thought of two men in intimate embrace; this deep, reptilian aversion drove them off of their couches and into their polling stations. They carried with them the knowledge that no matter how desperate their lives got, no matter the lost jobs or declining wages or lack of health care, no matter the open-ended wars and rigged intelligence and corporate scandal, no matter how bad things got at home, at least they weren’t queer.
At least they had that to hang on to.
I feel like I’m back in high school, when I’d fall for the straight guy, the jock with the good looks, fast car, and cheerleader girlfriend. In other words, a nonreciprocal relationship
Apparently, I love America more than America loves me. Hell, America just seems to want to kick my ass.
Oh, I’m not saying it was every voter who felt this way; maybe it wasn’t even a great number. But it was enough. They thought of me, they felt the vomit in their gorge, and they voted for George W. Bush.
And not just Bush. In South Carolina they elected a man who said that people openly like me shouldn’t be allowed to teach in public schools. They elected him to our most deliberative and thoughtful legislative body, the United States Senate. In my grandmother’s home state of Oklahoma they listened to a man who believes that lesbians are running rampant in the school systems of not only Atoka but the state’s entire southeast, lurking in bathrooms to molest children. Then they put him into the U.S. Senate as well.
But worst of all, in 11 states, they actually were able to put their revulsion into the starkest, most straightforward of electoral terms. Referendums across America were held against faggots like me; inevitably, they all won big, and you better bet they had coattails. The idea of two men or two women committing themselves to each other was so horrific, so stomach-churning, so motivating, that they passed antigay marriage amendments on votes whose lopsided tallies recalled nothing so much as the preinvasion “elections” of Saddam Hussein.
Yes, the people have spoken in one voice. In one voice they have raised the mob cry against me, and against every person in this country like me.
Because I supported John Kerry, and because John Kerry never shared their revulsion, the taint was passed. The stink of queerness lingered too strong about him. John Kerry would not wash his hands of me; it never occurred to him to be embarrassed of my support. Because he was a man of character, he would not, like Peter, thrice deny me. I was the millstone around his neck.
I cost John Kerry the election.
Sorry.
Premature emancipation ... an Advocate.com exclusive
Premature emancipation
Giddy with successes like Lawrence v. Texas, advocates for gay equality overreached by demanding marriage before making the case with the average American. The result was seen in full on Election Night 2004.
By Gary R. Cohan, MD
An Advocate.com exclusive posted on November 12, 2004
Babies cry, toddlers whine, adolescents sulk and withdraw; human development goes through predictable stages. This is true for individuals and, to some extent, for societies. For individuals, emotional development leads to progressively more complex behaviors. Underdeveloped humans express themselves on impulse and call attention to their needs without being in control. Mature adults generally strike a balance between acting out and adapting to the observable constraints of their environment.
That is, evidently, unless the adult is a gay American and the environment is the social climate of the United States during the election campaign of 2004, when the gay rights movement forced Red and Blue America to hold a referendum on the meaning of “marriage.”
I’m not typically one of those people who second-guess other people’s decisions when things aren’t going well. If one of my patients fails to take his medicine and predictably falls ill from an avoidable malady, I offer gentle understanding, not a counterproductive scolding. But after a week spent digesting the enormity of what just happened to us as gay Americans at the polls, I am temporarily suspending my usual policy. We in the gay rights movement just shot ourselves in both feet with an overreaching and self-defeating politically correct agenda---a misstep that was both avoidable and hurtful.
Indulge my medical background for a moment for a clinical analogy. Premature ejaculation is defined as a condition in which the male is overly sensitive, overstimulated, and comes to climax too soon, leaving his partner without a satisfactory experience. If this happens often enough, the person with this condition is often rejected in the relationship. A therapist might advise him to slow down, to expend more effort connecting emotionally with the partner, and to physically squeeze the base of the penis to delay the orgasm. These efforts often lead to a more mutually acceptable relationship.
In Election 2004, we shot our political wad too soon, and nobody’s satisfied.
Face it, my brothers and sisters, we screwed up. At the very gay rights organizations that so many of us entrusted with our earnest volunteerism and hard-earned money, heads must roll. These ambitious, well-intentioned, but dangerously naive baby boomer leaders grew up in a fast-food culture of instant gratification. They acted on impulse---“Let’s go for the gold!”---and in the process have torpedoed 20 years of forward movement in a single election. We need to express our disappointment with some serious introspection, more judicious philanthropy, and a major reorganization of our civil rights strategy.
Let’s be clear about what happened. Civil rights are an American tradition, and most Americans support fairness in principle, but “marriage,” however, is a term so suffused with religious and cultural overtones that it crosses the line between church and state, between the parochial and the secular---a boundary that we accuse evangelical Republicans of repeatedly violating in their efforts to inject their values into public policy. We rushed across that boundary ourselves this time, without heeding just how much we were challenging deeply held traditional beliefs. And we got pushed back.
Civil rights are not won in the war zone of a national election but, rather, in a series of small but important evolutionary steps. Fresh off the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court victory that decriminalized our long-outlawed private behavior, gay community advocates got cocky and reckless, to put it bluntly. With dopamine awash in their brains, our appointed spokespeople decided that we’d go for it, immediately demanding our piece of the marriage pie.
Dumb move. The rest of the country wasn’t ready yet, and we knew it. Countless polls---including those in my own liberal bellwether, California---showed that most Americans favored gay civil rights, but the honorific of “marriage” made them quiver.
Failing to heed these polls and the timetables of the civil rights history they were quoting to us, our leaders skated over the fact that major advances took decades to materialize. African-Americans finally got the right to vote without restriction 100 years after being freed from slavery. It took 72 years, from the first Women’s Suffrage Convention in 1848 to the 19th Amendment ratification in the Constitution in 1920, before women won the right to vote. From the earliest days of 1950s secret gay Mattachine Society to our post-ACT UP world of openly gay everything, we have followed a similar path to equal rights that other oppressed minorities have taken---small steps, taken over many years, to incrementally acclimate our neighbors to peaceful coexistence with us. Until this election cycle.
Why did our fearless leaders goad us into thinking that we’d be better served by pursuing an aggressively different strategy? Because we were, morally, right? Being right doesn’t mean you win. Because we were tired of waiting in line outside the members-only club of American minorities with full civil rights? Other minorities have struggled longer. Because we’d won a few basic skirmishes and now were ready to conquer America? Only in Spielberg movies.
We did it because we were pissed off and we got impatient. We did it because the tabloids put it in our faces that Britney Spears was bestowed with more rights in her 48 hours of an impulse Vegas marriage than committed gay couples are granted in 30 years of committed cohabitation. We did it because we wanted it now, regardless of strategy.
We were mad. We were energized by Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts supreme court and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s civil disobedience. We even heard what was once unthinkable: right-wing politicians and radio pundits pondering marriagelike civil rights for us---of course, without the word “marriage” attached. My first thought was Grab it while they’re offering; I felt we could establish a stronger beachhead from which to advance our cause. But we balked and claimed that anything less than “marriage” would be demeaning and socially irresponsible. Did anyone take a deep breath and really think this one through?
In March 2004, Human Rights Campaign executive director Cheryl Jacques, a captivatingly articulate woman, upstaged Barbra Streisand and mesmerized the celebrity-laden crowd at HRC’s annual Los Angeles dinner gala. Jacques exhorted the “power gays” to “give till it hurts” so that we could strategize and defeat the well-organized forces of hate and intolerance.
Marriage was supposed to be the next stop on our freedom march to full equality. After all, we’re special. Because of our brains, our wealth, our good looks, and our petulance, we presumed we could skip the usual prerequisites of winning the “hearts and minds” of the American public.
So swept-up in the moment were we that we ignored an important fact: Even decent-minded straight people were having difficulty grasping the concept of “gay marriage.” An unscientific poll of my incredibly supportive heterosexual parents and siblings, as well as my straight physician coworkers, was enlightening. These straight folk were asking legitimate questions:
“Well, I’m all for fairness and civil rights, but what does ‘marriage’ mean if it’s not between a man and a woman?”
“If gay people can marry, does this redefine the nature of the commitment between my spouse and me?”
“Doesn’t changing the definition of marriage threaten me in some way?”
Those are concerns that needed to be addressed before we asked for a societywide referendum. There was more campaigning to be done. But we acted on impulse.
We owe it to our community to spend our political capital wisely, to set a better example as responsible adults and to secure for our youth a brighter future. Campaigning for gay civil rights is a marathon to the finish line, not a sprint. We should work to secure our civil and legal rights well before we choose the ultimate battle of naming our unions “marriage.” Unpopular as this all may sound, look where we are now, with several states not only banning same-sex unions but domestic-partnership benefits as well. We have taken a big step backward for all of gay-kind.
Yet there is hope on the horizon. From the ashes of this defeat will emerge a wiser approach that will first get us what we need before we pick out the caterer for the wedding.
One last observation from channel-surfing last Wednesday night in order to avoid the pain of postelection political analyses and settling on a nature program: Ostriches are interesting creatures, best known for their curious habit of sticking their heads in the sand to avoid detection by predators, despite that their heads are tiny and their bodies huge (200 to 300 pounds). Ostriches are powerful animals, they travel in flocks, they can run very fast, they love to bathe---and they have been hunted nearly to extinction in the past century.
With the exception of their pretty feathers and the laying of large eggs, the gay community shares many of the same characteristics. We do, however, have bigger brains. I sincerely hope that after Election 2004 we pull our heads out of the sand so that our dreams don’t meet the same fate.
Readers can reach Dr. Cohan through his Web site, http://www.DoctorCohan.com
Premature emancipation
Giddy with successes like Lawrence v. Texas, advocates for gay equality overreached by demanding marriage before making the case with the average American. The result was seen in full on Election Night 2004.
By Gary R. Cohan, MD
An Advocate.com exclusive posted on November 12, 2004
Babies cry, toddlers whine, adolescents sulk and withdraw; human development goes through predictable stages. This is true for individuals and, to some extent, for societies. For individuals, emotional development leads to progressively more complex behaviors. Underdeveloped humans express themselves on impulse and call attention to their needs without being in control. Mature adults generally strike a balance between acting out and adapting to the observable constraints of their environment.
That is, evidently, unless the adult is a gay American and the environment is the social climate of the United States during the election campaign of 2004, when the gay rights movement forced Red and Blue America to hold a referendum on the meaning of “marriage.”
I’m not typically one of those people who second-guess other people’s decisions when things aren’t going well. If one of my patients fails to take his medicine and predictably falls ill from an avoidable malady, I offer gentle understanding, not a counterproductive scolding. But after a week spent digesting the enormity of what just happened to us as gay Americans at the polls, I am temporarily suspending my usual policy. We in the gay rights movement just shot ourselves in both feet with an overreaching and self-defeating politically correct agenda---a misstep that was both avoidable and hurtful.
Indulge my medical background for a moment for a clinical analogy. Premature ejaculation is defined as a condition in which the male is overly sensitive, overstimulated, and comes to climax too soon, leaving his partner without a satisfactory experience. If this happens often enough, the person with this condition is often rejected in the relationship. A therapist might advise him to slow down, to expend more effort connecting emotionally with the partner, and to physically squeeze the base of the penis to delay the orgasm. These efforts often lead to a more mutually acceptable relationship.
In Election 2004, we shot our political wad too soon, and nobody’s satisfied.
Face it, my brothers and sisters, we screwed up. At the very gay rights organizations that so many of us entrusted with our earnest volunteerism and hard-earned money, heads must roll. These ambitious, well-intentioned, but dangerously naive baby boomer leaders grew up in a fast-food culture of instant gratification. They acted on impulse---“Let’s go for the gold!”---and in the process have torpedoed 20 years of forward movement in a single election. We need to express our disappointment with some serious introspection, more judicious philanthropy, and a major reorganization of our civil rights strategy.
Let’s be clear about what happened. Civil rights are an American tradition, and most Americans support fairness in principle, but “marriage,” however, is a term so suffused with religious and cultural overtones that it crosses the line between church and state, between the parochial and the secular---a boundary that we accuse evangelical Republicans of repeatedly violating in their efforts to inject their values into public policy. We rushed across that boundary ourselves this time, without heeding just how much we were challenging deeply held traditional beliefs. And we got pushed back.
Civil rights are not won in the war zone of a national election but, rather, in a series of small but important evolutionary steps. Fresh off the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court victory that decriminalized our long-outlawed private behavior, gay community advocates got cocky and reckless, to put it bluntly. With dopamine awash in their brains, our appointed spokespeople decided that we’d go for it, immediately demanding our piece of the marriage pie.
Dumb move. The rest of the country wasn’t ready yet, and we knew it. Countless polls---including those in my own liberal bellwether, California---showed that most Americans favored gay civil rights, but the honorific of “marriage” made them quiver.
Failing to heed these polls and the timetables of the civil rights history they were quoting to us, our leaders skated over the fact that major advances took decades to materialize. African-Americans finally got the right to vote without restriction 100 years after being freed from slavery. It took 72 years, from the first Women’s Suffrage Convention in 1848 to the 19th Amendment ratification in the Constitution in 1920, before women won the right to vote. From the earliest days of 1950s secret gay Mattachine Society to our post-ACT UP world of openly gay everything, we have followed a similar path to equal rights that other oppressed minorities have taken---small steps, taken over many years, to incrementally acclimate our neighbors to peaceful coexistence with us. Until this election cycle.
Why did our fearless leaders goad us into thinking that we’d be better served by pursuing an aggressively different strategy? Because we were, morally, right? Being right doesn’t mean you win. Because we were tired of waiting in line outside the members-only club of American minorities with full civil rights? Other minorities have struggled longer. Because we’d won a few basic skirmishes and now were ready to conquer America? Only in Spielberg movies.
We did it because we were pissed off and we got impatient. We did it because the tabloids put it in our faces that Britney Spears was bestowed with more rights in her 48 hours of an impulse Vegas marriage than committed gay couples are granted in 30 years of committed cohabitation. We did it because we wanted it now, regardless of strategy.
We were mad. We were energized by Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts supreme court and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s civil disobedience. We even heard what was once unthinkable: right-wing politicians and radio pundits pondering marriagelike civil rights for us---of course, without the word “marriage” attached. My first thought was Grab it while they’re offering; I felt we could establish a stronger beachhead from which to advance our cause. But we balked and claimed that anything less than “marriage” would be demeaning and socially irresponsible. Did anyone take a deep breath and really think this one through?
In March 2004, Human Rights Campaign executive director Cheryl Jacques, a captivatingly articulate woman, upstaged Barbra Streisand and mesmerized the celebrity-laden crowd at HRC’s annual Los Angeles dinner gala. Jacques exhorted the “power gays” to “give till it hurts” so that we could strategize and defeat the well-organized forces of hate and intolerance.
Marriage was supposed to be the next stop on our freedom march to full equality. After all, we’re special. Because of our brains, our wealth, our good looks, and our petulance, we presumed we could skip the usual prerequisites of winning the “hearts and minds” of the American public.
So swept-up in the moment were we that we ignored an important fact: Even decent-minded straight people were having difficulty grasping the concept of “gay marriage.” An unscientific poll of my incredibly supportive heterosexual parents and siblings, as well as my straight physician coworkers, was enlightening. These straight folk were asking legitimate questions:
“Well, I’m all for fairness and civil rights, but what does ‘marriage’ mean if it’s not between a man and a woman?”
“If gay people can marry, does this redefine the nature of the commitment between my spouse and me?”
“Doesn’t changing the definition of marriage threaten me in some way?”
Those are concerns that needed to be addressed before we asked for a societywide referendum. There was more campaigning to be done. But we acted on impulse.
We owe it to our community to spend our political capital wisely, to set a better example as responsible adults and to secure for our youth a brighter future. Campaigning for gay civil rights is a marathon to the finish line, not a sprint. We should work to secure our civil and legal rights well before we choose the ultimate battle of naming our unions “marriage.” Unpopular as this all may sound, look where we are now, with several states not only banning same-sex unions but domestic-partnership benefits as well. We have taken a big step backward for all of gay-kind.
Yet there is hope on the horizon. From the ashes of this defeat will emerge a wiser approach that will first get us what we need before we pick out the caterer for the wedding.
One last observation from channel-surfing last Wednesday night in order to avoid the pain of postelection political analyses and settling on a nature program: Ostriches are interesting creatures, best known for their curious habit of sticking their heads in the sand to avoid detection by predators, despite that their heads are tiny and their bodies huge (200 to 300 pounds). Ostriches are powerful animals, they travel in flocks, they can run very fast, they love to bathe---and they have been hunted nearly to extinction in the past century.
With the exception of their pretty feathers and the laying of large eggs, the gay community shares many of the same characteristics. We do, however, have bigger brains. I sincerely hope that after Election 2004 we pull our heads out of the sand so that our dreams don’t meet the same fate.
Readers can reach Dr. Cohan through his Web site, http://www.DoctorCohan.com
We are the counterbalance ... an Advocate.com exclusive
We are the counterbalance
The reelection of George W. Bush is no historical anomaly—the Republicans win more often than not. But this was no Reagan-like landslide: Almost half the country rejected his right-wing agenda. The country is changing
By Michael Nava
An Advocate.com exclusive, posted November 12, 2004
In the 144 years since Lincoln was elected as the first Republican to the White House, Democrats have only held the office 60 years, while Republicans have held it 84 years. Even this is deceptive, because there have been long periods when Democrats have been virtually shut out. From 1860 to 1932, a period of 72 years, only two Democrats were elected (Cleveland and Wilson) for a total of 16 years. The anomaly is the period between 1932 and 1968, when Democrats actually were in the White House for 28 years. Since 1968 we have reverted to our earlier pattern: Between 1968 and 2004, Democrats have only been in the White House for 12 years (Carter’s one term, Clinton’s two.)
The message from this pattern is, this was not the “Armageddon” election; it was business as usual. While the Democratic Party is strong in many states at the state and local level, it’s always been a hard road to elect a Democrat president.
What this reminds me of is that this country is, and has been for a long time, culturally conservative. Nor is the Christian right a new phenomenon. Christian fundamentalism—reading the Bible literally—is an American invention, and right-wing Christians have always attempted to impose their views politically. The high point of that activism was actually in the 1920s when they managed to get a constitutional amendment passed banning alcohol and when states passed laws outlawing the teaching of evolution (remember the Scopes trial?).
So, again, I think it’s a mistake to view the election as some kind of turning point.
What is different is not the strength of cultural conservatives and Christians, but that there is now a cultural counterweight to those groups. That counterweight, if we just go by the popular vote for president, includes almost half the country. We are the counterweight—not just some embattled minority.
Depending on the issue (abortion, for example) we are in the majority. The pace of change in the consciousness of the culture has been breathtaking; when I was in college in the early ’70s, gays and lesbians couldn’t get a license to practice law in California because homosexuality made them morally unfit per se. Until 1974, California had a sodomy law.
Now we’re talking about gay marriage.
The right is not made up of superhumans. It’s made up of a lot of frightened people who want to turn back the clock. But history is inexorable, and the real history of the past few decades, on a social and cultural level, at least, is not the history of right-wing primacy, but of the increase in diversity and sensitivity to and tolerance for difference. That is reflected in, among other things, the incredible gains made by the lesbian and gay rights movement.
Progressive people need to own their power. The more vicious and vocal people on the right may claim that we are not Americans, but that’s only true if we agree with them. Let’s not.
Langston Hughes wrote in a race context something that’s relevant beyond race:
You are white—yet a part of me, as I am a part of you. That’s American.
Sometimes perhaps you don’t want to be a part of me.
Nor do I often want to be a part of you.
But we are, that’s true!
The election was not the end of anything and not the beginning of anything. It’s another day in the struggle to create a different consciousness in a very hidebound culture. What I plan to do is sit down and write a list of 10 things I can personally do to keep the struggle going.
Nava is an attorney and a novelist.
We are the counterbalance
The reelection of George W. Bush is no historical anomaly—the Republicans win more often than not. But this was no Reagan-like landslide: Almost half the country rejected his right-wing agenda. The country is changing
By Michael Nava
An Advocate.com exclusive, posted November 12, 2004
In the 144 years since Lincoln was elected as the first Republican to the White House, Democrats have only held the office 60 years, while Republicans have held it 84 years. Even this is deceptive, because there have been long periods when Democrats have been virtually shut out. From 1860 to 1932, a period of 72 years, only two Democrats were elected (Cleveland and Wilson) for a total of 16 years. The anomaly is the period between 1932 and 1968, when Democrats actually were in the White House for 28 years. Since 1968 we have reverted to our earlier pattern: Between 1968 and 2004, Democrats have only been in the White House for 12 years (Carter’s one term, Clinton’s two.)
The message from this pattern is, this was not the “Armageddon” election; it was business as usual. While the Democratic Party is strong in many states at the state and local level, it’s always been a hard road to elect a Democrat president.
What this reminds me of is that this country is, and has been for a long time, culturally conservative. Nor is the Christian right a new phenomenon. Christian fundamentalism—reading the Bible literally—is an American invention, and right-wing Christians have always attempted to impose their views politically. The high point of that activism was actually in the 1920s when they managed to get a constitutional amendment passed banning alcohol and when states passed laws outlawing the teaching of evolution (remember the Scopes trial?).
So, again, I think it’s a mistake to view the election as some kind of turning point.
What is different is not the strength of cultural conservatives and Christians, but that there is now a cultural counterweight to those groups. That counterweight, if we just go by the popular vote for president, includes almost half the country. We are the counterweight—not just some embattled minority.
Depending on the issue (abortion, for example) we are in the majority. The pace of change in the consciousness of the culture has been breathtaking; when I was in college in the early ’70s, gays and lesbians couldn’t get a license to practice law in California because homosexuality made them morally unfit per se. Until 1974, California had a sodomy law.
Now we’re talking about gay marriage.
The right is not made up of superhumans. It’s made up of a lot of frightened people who want to turn back the clock. But history is inexorable, and the real history of the past few decades, on a social and cultural level, at least, is not the history of right-wing primacy, but of the increase in diversity and sensitivity to and tolerance for difference. That is reflected in, among other things, the incredible gains made by the lesbian and gay rights movement.
Progressive people need to own their power. The more vicious and vocal people on the right may claim that we are not Americans, but that’s only true if we agree with them. Let’s not.
Langston Hughes wrote in a race context something that’s relevant beyond race:
You are white—yet a part of me, as I am a part of you. That’s American.
Sometimes perhaps you don’t want to be a part of me.
Nor do I often want to be a part of you.
But we are, that’s true!
The election was not the end of anything and not the beginning of anything. It’s another day in the struggle to create a different consciousness in a very hidebound culture. What I plan to do is sit down and write a list of 10 things I can personally do to keep the struggle going.
Nava is an attorney and a novelist.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
me: age 1 to 20, a southern baptist christian living in daytona beach, florida
me: age 1 to now, a homosexual, first experience was in boy scouts, i loved love
now: the southern baptist have elected their own christian president, mr bush
now: society is in pain again, as christians push their views and values onto the rest of us
for i am, dave hell
me: age 1 to now, a homosexual, first experience was in boy scouts, i loved love
now: the southern baptist have elected their own christian president, mr bush
now: society is in pain again, as christians push their views and values onto the rest of us
for i am, dave hell
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
they were all here this weekend, staying at danas, i e mailed dana saying i would love to see everyone, she e mailed me back, saying: "Don't know how freaked we're all gonna be and how long they'll be here."
james asked me tonight what kind of mother i have, who would come all this way and not even call, not even visit me, they were all here for hurrincane francis, i thought i would at least be able to see them for lunch, like last march, but no one reached out, no one gave a damn
for the past two months i have sent them all free e cards from hallmark, i thought it would be a nice thing to do, james says that the way they would see it is they think i am softing them up to ask them for money
i have never asked carol, rod, or even my mom for money in many many years, i have been on my own, disabled and unable to work, since march 2002, and on one cares, except for james g, james j, and teri b.
so i called my sister today, as she has not responded to any of my e mails in a few days, i figured i could go over there and see them, but no one answers her phone, maybe she is without electricity
everyone in my family is a christian, dana even got mad at me a few months ago saying to stop e mailing them quotes from the buddist web site i like, she said they were not buddist.....
they call themselves christians, im not going to "judge" them, but i never killed anyone, i never really hurt anyone, they all had expectations of me, like 30 years ago, and i didnt become the person they wanted me to be
and i have tried and tried, to make amends, to get them to "like me again", carol and rod emailed me when i was counseling kids, that the best thing i could do in my life was help kids, but now that i am disabled, im in the shit house, i am lower then dirt, i dont even get one visit, they came hundreds of miles to stay with my sister, and im maybe like ten miles away, and no one even called, no one even mailed, am i whining too much?
seems like i can do nothing right, im in the same boat as my father...
i quess im gonna just get on with my life, pick up the peices, figure out how i am doing to live with this arthritis thing and only getting social security for the rest of my life,
quess its time i stopped sending those nice e mail cards, no one cares, at least no one in my family
time to just stop
james asked me tonight what kind of mother i have, who would come all this way and not even call, not even visit me, they were all here for hurrincane francis, i thought i would at least be able to see them for lunch, like last march, but no one reached out, no one gave a damn
for the past two months i have sent them all free e cards from hallmark, i thought it would be a nice thing to do, james says that the way they would see it is they think i am softing them up to ask them for money
i have never asked carol, rod, or even my mom for money in many many years, i have been on my own, disabled and unable to work, since march 2002, and on one cares, except for james g, james j, and teri b.
so i called my sister today, as she has not responded to any of my e mails in a few days, i figured i could go over there and see them, but no one answers her phone, maybe she is without electricity
everyone in my family is a christian, dana even got mad at me a few months ago saying to stop e mailing them quotes from the buddist web site i like, she said they were not buddist.....
they call themselves christians, im not going to "judge" them, but i never killed anyone, i never really hurt anyone, they all had expectations of me, like 30 years ago, and i didnt become the person they wanted me to be
and i have tried and tried, to make amends, to get them to "like me again", carol and rod emailed me when i was counseling kids, that the best thing i could do in my life was help kids, but now that i am disabled, im in the shit house, i am lower then dirt, i dont even get one visit, they came hundreds of miles to stay with my sister, and im maybe like ten miles away, and no one even called, no one even mailed, am i whining too much?
seems like i can do nothing right, im in the same boat as my father...
i quess im gonna just get on with my life, pick up the peices, figure out how i am doing to live with this arthritis thing and only getting social security for the rest of my life,
quess its time i stopped sending those nice e mail cards, no one cares, at least no one in my family
time to just stop
Thursday, June 24, 2004
MSNBC - Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?: "Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?
Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?
NBC exclusive: 9/11 commission interviews FBI officials who contradict Ashcroft testimony
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET June 22, 2004WASHINGTON - The 9/11 commission is busy writing its final report, but is still investigating critical facts, including the conduct of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. NBC News has learned that the commission has interviewed two FBI officials who contradict sworn testimony by Ashcroft, about whether he brushed off terrorism warnings in the summer of 2001.
advertisement
In the critical months before Sept. 11, did Ashcroft dismiss threats of an al-Qaida attack in this country?
At issue is a July 5, 2001, meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. That month, the threat of an al-Qaida attack was so high, the White House summoned the FBI and domestic agencies, and warned them to be on alert.
Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off.
"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied.
Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism."
However, another senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. This official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11 commission.
Full coverage
9/11 commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States wrapped up its public hearings with a two-day session on June 16 and 17.
• No Iraq-al-Qaida link: Story | Statement
• Al-Qaida's plan: Story | Statement
• Day of attack: Story | Statement
• Commission Web site
NBC News has learned that commission investigators also tracked down another FBI witness at the meeting that day, Ruben Garcia, head of the Criminal Division at that time. Several sources familiar with the investigation say Garcia confirmed to the commission that Ashcroft did indeed dismiss Pickard's warnings about al-Qaida.
"When you get two people coming forth and basically challenging a sworn statement by the attorney general regarding a critical meeting in the history of the 9/11 event, you raise serious questions about the Attorney General's truthfulness," says Paul Light, a government reform expert and New York University professor.
Ashcroft's version of events is supported by his top aide, who attended the meeting. But another Justice official also there — who Ashcroft's office claimed would dispute Pickard's account — says he doesn't remember.
"I do not recall the conversation that interim director Pickard referred to," says former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.
Experts say that in the context of Sept. 11, the issue is not trivial.
"Was there a communications breakdown between the FBI and the Department of Justice, at the highest levels of each agency?" asks former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.
Ashcroft's spokesman dismissed the allegations Tuesday, saying, "The suggestion that the attorney general wasn't concerned about terrorism is absurd."
He says if Ashcroft was ever short with FBI officials, it was because "he was unhappy with the quality of information he was getting."
Pickard did brief Ashcroft on terrorism four more times that summer, but sources say the acting FBI director never mentioned the word al-Qaida again in Ashcroft's presence — until after Sept. 11.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
MORE FROM NIGHTLY NEWS WITH TOM BROKAW
Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?
NBC exclusive: 9/11 commission interviews FBI officials who contradict Ashcroft testimony
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET June 22, 2004WASHINGTON - The 9/11 commission is busy writing its final report, but is still investigating critical facts, including the conduct of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. NBC News has learned that the commission has interviewed two FBI officials who contradict sworn testimony by Ashcroft, about whether he brushed off terrorism warnings in the summer of 2001.
advertisement
In the critical months before Sept. 11, did Ashcroft dismiss threats of an al-Qaida attack in this country?
At issue is a July 5, 2001, meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. That month, the threat of an al-Qaida attack was so high, the White House summoned the FBI and domestic agencies, and warned them to be on alert.
Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off.
"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied.
Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism."
However, another senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. This official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11 commission.
Full coverage
9/11 commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States wrapped up its public hearings with a two-day session on June 16 and 17.
• No Iraq-al-Qaida link: Story | Statement
• Al-Qaida's plan: Story | Statement
• Day of attack: Story | Statement
• Commission Web site
NBC News has learned that commission investigators also tracked down another FBI witness at the meeting that day, Ruben Garcia, head of the Criminal Division at that time. Several sources familiar with the investigation say Garcia confirmed to the commission that Ashcroft did indeed dismiss Pickard's warnings about al-Qaida.
"When you get two people coming forth and basically challenging a sworn statement by the attorney general regarding a critical meeting in the history of the 9/11 event, you raise serious questions about the Attorney General's truthfulness," says Paul Light, a government reform expert and New York University professor.
Ashcroft's version of events is supported by his top aide, who attended the meeting. But another Justice official also there — who Ashcroft's office claimed would dispute Pickard's account — says he doesn't remember.
"I do not recall the conversation that interim director Pickard referred to," says former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.
Experts say that in the context of Sept. 11, the issue is not trivial.
"Was there a communications breakdown between the FBI and the Department of Justice, at the highest levels of each agency?" asks former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.
Ashcroft's spokesman dismissed the allegations Tuesday, saying, "The suggestion that the attorney general wasn't concerned about terrorism is absurd."
He says if Ashcroft was ever short with FBI officials, it was because "he was unhappy with the quality of information he was getting."
Pickard did brief Ashcroft on terrorism four more times that summer, but sources say the acting FBI director never mentioned the word al-Qaida again in Ashcroft's presence — until after Sept. 11.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
MORE FROM NIGHTLY NEWS WITH TOM BROKAW
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
could not sleep today
pain pills keeping me awake
memories of people
from fort lauderdale
the red book
the rabbit at the door this morning
the gay guy with hiv, made me a web
page
steven, the millionare
what is the significance of a rabbit
like i have a rabbit here, and he hops
away, fear in his eyes as he looks at me
is there a rabbit hole here i have yet
to find?
is there a door here i have yet to open, that
will take me down down down
it is only with the heart one can see rightly
all else is hidden?
what is my purpose here, here and now
in pain
what am i suppose to do
to make
to invent
nana showed me the red book (s) in a dream four
years ago
and now i have a red book here, one james
brought home
and now, here and now
i have in my little room here
my little studio in florida
a red book, with white and empty pages
whatever god is, he is here
he is providing pills for pain
ice for pain
other dimensions
abound here and around me
i can feel them
they are all here
there, their, is majik in this air
this is going to be the summer
of manifestations
of dreams made real
pain pills keeping me awake
memories of people
from fort lauderdale
the red book
the rabbit at the door this morning
the gay guy with hiv, made me a web
page
steven, the millionare
what is the significance of a rabbit
like i have a rabbit here, and he hops
away, fear in his eyes as he looks at me
is there a rabbit hole here i have yet
to find?
is there a door here i have yet to open, that
will take me down down down
it is only with the heart one can see rightly
all else is hidden?
what is my purpose here, here and now
in pain
what am i suppose to do
to make
to invent
nana showed me the red book (s) in a dream four
years ago
and now i have a red book here, one james
brought home
and now, here and now
i have in my little room here
my little studio in florida
a red book, with white and empty pages
whatever god is, he is here
he is providing pills for pain
ice for pain
other dimensions
abound here and around me
i can feel them
they are all here
there, their, is majik in this air
this is going to be the summer
of manifestations
of dreams made real
Monday, June 21, 2004
CBSNews.com: Print This Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Military Specialists Dismissed
SAN FRANCISCO, June 21, 2004
Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.
"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."
The exodus of soldiers like Muller continues even as concerns grow about military troop strength, according to a new study. Some 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged - including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
"Don't ask, don't tell" allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.
The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under "don't ask, don't tell" were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.
Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that six-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men.
The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There are currently about 1.5 million people serving in active duty in the military, and another 1 million in the Reserves.
By Beth Fouhy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Military Specialists Dismissed
SAN FRANCISCO, June 21, 2004
Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.
"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."
The exodus of soldiers like Muller continues even as concerns grow about military troop strength, according to a new study. Some 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged - including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
"Don't ask, don't tell" allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.
The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under "don't ask, don't tell" were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.
Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that six-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men.
The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There are currently about 1.5 million people serving in active duty in the military, and another 1 million in the Reserves.
By Beth Fouhy
Sunday, June 20, 2004
June 19
Whatever you do, don’t shut off your pain; accept your pain and remain vulnerable. However desperate you become, accept your pain as it is, because it is in fact trying to hand you a priceless gift: the chance of discovering, through spiritual practice, what lies behind sorrow.
“Grief,” Rumi wrote, “can be the garden of compassion. If you keep your heart open through everything, your pain can become your greatest ally in your life’s search for love and wisdom.”
Whatever you do, don’t shut off your pain; accept your pain and remain vulnerable. However desperate you become, accept your pain as it is, because it is in fact trying to hand you a priceless gift: the chance of discovering, through spiritual practice, what lies behind sorrow.
“Grief,” Rumi wrote, “can be the garden of compassion. If you keep your heart open through everything, your pain can become your greatest ally in your life’s search for love and wisdom.”
james g got alcohol poisoning this weekend, but he was fun
stayed by his bed a lot, to keep him from falling out
met james friend, lional, nice
im at home, full of pills, in bed most of the time, certainly not on my feet
thats for sure
i see doc jackson again this week or next monday, thank god for ice
dave hell
stayed by his bed a lot, to keep him from falling out
met james friend, lional, nice
im at home, full of pills, in bed most of the time, certainly not on my feet
thats for sure
i see doc jackson again this week or next monday, thank god for ice
dave hell
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
By DOUGLAS JEHL
ASHINGTON, June 17 - For most of 2002, President Bush argued that a commission created to look into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would only distract from the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House.
In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
Such assertions, attributed by the White House until now to "intelligence reports," may now be perceived by Americans as having less credibility than they did before the commission's staff began in January to rewrite the history of Sept. 11, in one extraordinarily detailed report after another.
With its historic access to government secrets, the panel was able to shed new light on old accountings, demonstrating, for example, that Mr. Bush himself, in the weeks before the attack, had received more detailed warnings about Al Qaeda's intentions than the White House had acknowledged.
For now, the panel is casting its work in tentative terms. Its final report is due next month, on the eve of the Democratic convention. In this election year, its contribution has already been to portray Sept. 11 not just as a starting point in the war on terrorism, but also as a point on a continuum, one preceded and followed by other treacheries and failures.
At a briefing, a senior White House official sought again to turn away attention from the past. "The real issue is how do we move forward," the official said. "We've made a lot of changes since Sept. 11, because this country was simply not on war footing at the time of the attacks."
In the studies, Mr. Bush in particular has come off as less certain and decisive than he has portrayed himself. The final report, issued on Wednesday, reminded Americans that Mr. Bush remained in a classroom in Florida for at least five minutes after the second jet struck the World Trade Center, in what he told the panel was an effort "to project calm" for a worried nation.
Initially it was Henry A. Kissinger, the pillar of Republican foreign policy, whom Mr. Bush selected as the panel chairman, with George J. Mitchell, a former Democratic leader in the Senate, as vice chairman.
But those two appointees quickly fell by the wayside, to be replaced by former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana , whose milder manners undoubtedly gave the panel a less partisan demeanor.
Notably, the two men joined forces successfully to persuade the White House to allow the panel access to crucial documents, including copies of the Presidential Daily Brief, and to pivotal figures, including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who testified under oath in March, and to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared jointly in a closed session.
Whether the two leaders and the other panel members, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, can join forces in presenting final conclusions remains to be seen. Among the issues to be decided, and which the White House is closely watching, is the position on how and whether to reorganize United States intelligence agencies, in hopes of closing gaps that might have contributed to the Sept. 11 failures.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation bore the particular brunt of the staff reports, for missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the attack and in intercepting the hijackers.
So too, the Justice Department and the Pentagon came under fire, the Justice Department for doing too little to speed information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the Pentagon for being ill prepared to combat the peril posed by aircraft hijacked by suicide pilots.
The staff has been critical of the Clinton administration, too, pointing out missed opportunities in the late 1990's, when that White House shied from what might have been opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda.
But it was Mr. Bush and his top aides, particularly Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, who were most in the spotlight, particularly in this final week of the public hearings. On Thursday, it was Mr. Bush's self-image of being calm under fire that came under scrutiny, with a portrayal of a White House that was slow to respond as the attacks unfolded.
Starker still were preliminary staff conclusions on Wednesday that took aim at the assertions made by Mr. Cheney, in particular, of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in connection to Sept. 11, including what the White House has repeatedly said might well have been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the chief hijacker, and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.
Much of the support for the American invasion of Iraq last year was based, polls have suggested, on a perception that Mr. Hussein and his government were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush acknowledged last fall that there was no evidence of such ties, but it was a perception that the White House never actively sought to squelch.
With the commission staff's saying it did not believe that the Prague meeting had occurred and that there was no evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq in connection with the attacks, Mr. Bush on Thursday sounded very much on the defensive.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.
The sole example he cited of "numerous contacts" between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda was a meeting between a senior Iraq intelligence agent and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, one that the commission said appeared to have gone nowhere.
In 2002, Mr. Bush did finally sign off on the plan to form the commission, bowing to Congressional pressure. Until now, he has resisted other proposals being pushed by Congress, including a major overhaul of intelligence agencies.
A plan for such an overhaul is expected to be among the commission's final recommendations next month, presenting Mr. Bush and the White House with yet another challenge.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
By DOUGLAS JEHL
ASHINGTON, June 17 - For most of 2002, President Bush argued that a commission created to look into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would only distract from the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House.
In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
Such assertions, attributed by the White House until now to "intelligence reports," may now be perceived by Americans as having less credibility than they did before the commission's staff began in January to rewrite the history of Sept. 11, in one extraordinarily detailed report after another.
With its historic access to government secrets, the panel was able to shed new light on old accountings, demonstrating, for example, that Mr. Bush himself, in the weeks before the attack, had received more detailed warnings about Al Qaeda's intentions than the White House had acknowledged.
For now, the panel is casting its work in tentative terms. Its final report is due next month, on the eve of the Democratic convention. In this election year, its contribution has already been to portray Sept. 11 not just as a starting point in the war on terrorism, but also as a point on a continuum, one preceded and followed by other treacheries and failures.
At a briefing, a senior White House official sought again to turn away attention from the past. "The real issue is how do we move forward," the official said. "We've made a lot of changes since Sept. 11, because this country was simply not on war footing at the time of the attacks."
In the studies, Mr. Bush in particular has come off as less certain and decisive than he has portrayed himself. The final report, issued on Wednesday, reminded Americans that Mr. Bush remained in a classroom in Florida for at least five minutes after the second jet struck the World Trade Center, in what he told the panel was an effort "to project calm" for a worried nation.
Initially it was Henry A. Kissinger, the pillar of Republican foreign policy, whom Mr. Bush selected as the panel chairman, with George J. Mitchell, a former Democratic leader in the Senate, as vice chairman.
But those two appointees quickly fell by the wayside, to be replaced by former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana , whose milder manners undoubtedly gave the panel a less partisan demeanor.
Notably, the two men joined forces successfully to persuade the White House to allow the panel access to crucial documents, including copies of the Presidential Daily Brief, and to pivotal figures, including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who testified under oath in March, and to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared jointly in a closed session.
Whether the two leaders and the other panel members, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, can join forces in presenting final conclusions remains to be seen. Among the issues to be decided, and which the White House is closely watching, is the position on how and whether to reorganize United States intelligence agencies, in hopes of closing gaps that might have contributed to the Sept. 11 failures.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation bore the particular brunt of the staff reports, for missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the attack and in intercepting the hijackers.
So too, the Justice Department and the Pentagon came under fire, the Justice Department for doing too little to speed information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the Pentagon for being ill prepared to combat the peril posed by aircraft hijacked by suicide pilots.
The staff has been critical of the Clinton administration, too, pointing out missed opportunities in the late 1990's, when that White House shied from what might have been opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda.
But it was Mr. Bush and his top aides, particularly Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, who were most in the spotlight, particularly in this final week of the public hearings. On Thursday, it was Mr. Bush's self-image of being calm under fire that came under scrutiny, with a portrayal of a White House that was slow to respond as the attacks unfolded.
Starker still were preliminary staff conclusions on Wednesday that took aim at the assertions made by Mr. Cheney, in particular, of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in connection to Sept. 11, including what the White House has repeatedly said might well have been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the chief hijacker, and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.
Much of the support for the American invasion of Iraq last year was based, polls have suggested, on a perception that Mr. Hussein and his government were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush acknowledged last fall that there was no evidence of such ties, but it was a perception that the White House never actively sought to squelch.
With the commission staff's saying it did not believe that the Prague meeting had occurred and that there was no evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq in connection with the attacks, Mr. Bush on Thursday sounded very much on the defensive.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.
The sole example he cited of "numerous contacts" between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda was a meeting between a senior Iraq intelligence agent and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, one that the commission said appeared to have gone nowhere.
In 2002, Mr. Bush did finally sign off on the plan to form the commission, bowing to Congressional pressure. Until now, he has resisted other proposals being pushed by Congress, including a major overhaul of intelligence agencies.
A plan for such an overhaul is expected to be among the commission's final recommendations next month, presenting Mr. Bush and the White House with yet another challenge.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
washingtonpost.com: Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
washingtonpost.com
Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A11
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
The 383 pages of documents, many with names and other information blacked out, are the first results of a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by a coalition of civil rights groups. Last month, Ellen Segal Huvelle, a federal appeals court judge for the District, ordered the agency to release certain documents indicating how the FBI is carrying out the law. She denied the government's request to withhold such information for another year.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress at the Bush administration's urging six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The law strengthens the executive branch's power to conduct surveillance, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes. Critics have been frustrated that the law allows many of its most controversial powers to be carried out in secret.
The newly disclosed documents, and a second batch the judge has ordered to be issued next month, come as an election-year fight is raging over whether several parts of the law should be extended beyond the end of next year, when they are scheduled to expire. President Bush argues that all of the law should be made permanent, but many Democrats and some conservative Republicans disagree.
The memo involves the provision at the core of that political debate. Until last September, Ashcroft had insisted that the government could not disclose how many times investigators had used the part of the law that allows his agency to get approval from an obscure secret body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which requires less proof than other courts to authorize wiretaps and other surveillance. Ashcroft had repeatedly said that information was classified. But last September, he unexpectedly declassified a memo saying that the provision had never been used.
The newly disclosed memo, dated Oct. 15, shows that an office of the FBI had asked an office at Justice to ask the FISA court to approve a search. The memo does not indicate the nature of the search, whether Justice ever asked the court and -- if so -- whether the court granted the request.
Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, did not accuse Ashcroft of being untruthful in September. But Jaffer said the memo "tells us the attorney general was selectively declassifying information to serve his purposes." He added that the administration did not make public the FBI's request when, late last year, it argued a separate lawsuit over the Patriot Act that the ACLU filed in Michigan.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said yesterday that the disclosed memo does not establish whether the FISA court has ever granted such a request, or even whether the agency forwarded the FBI's request to that court. Asked whether that request -- or any others since -- had been made to or approved by the court, Corallo replied, "That's classified."
Corallo said that in Ashcroft's September memo saying the provision had never been used, the attorney general was "not only . . . being technically accurate. He was being completely accurate."
washingtonpost.com
Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A11
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
The 383 pages of documents, many with names and other information blacked out, are the first results of a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by a coalition of civil rights groups. Last month, Ellen Segal Huvelle, a federal appeals court judge for the District, ordered the agency to release certain documents indicating how the FBI is carrying out the law. She denied the government's request to withhold such information for another year.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress at the Bush administration's urging six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The law strengthens the executive branch's power to conduct surveillance, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes. Critics have been frustrated that the law allows many of its most controversial powers to be carried out in secret.
The newly disclosed documents, and a second batch the judge has ordered to be issued next month, come as an election-year fight is raging over whether several parts of the law should be extended beyond the end of next year, when they are scheduled to expire. President Bush argues that all of the law should be made permanent, but many Democrats and some conservative Republicans disagree.
The memo involves the provision at the core of that political debate. Until last September, Ashcroft had insisted that the government could not disclose how many times investigators had used the part of the law that allows his agency to get approval from an obscure secret body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which requires less proof than other courts to authorize wiretaps and other surveillance. Ashcroft had repeatedly said that information was classified. But last September, he unexpectedly declassified a memo saying that the provision had never been used.
The newly disclosed memo, dated Oct. 15, shows that an office of the FBI had asked an office at Justice to ask the FISA court to approve a search. The memo does not indicate the nature of the search, whether Justice ever asked the court and -- if so -- whether the court granted the request.
Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, did not accuse Ashcroft of being untruthful in September. But Jaffer said the memo "tells us the attorney general was selectively declassifying information to serve his purposes." He added that the administration did not make public the FBI's request when, late last year, it argued a separate lawsuit over the Patriot Act that the ACLU filed in Michigan.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said yesterday that the disclosed memo does not establish whether the FISA court has ever granted such a request, or even whether the agency forwarded the FBI's request to that court. Asked whether that request -- or any others since -- had been made to or approved by the court, Corallo replied, "That's classified."
Corallo said that in Ashcroft's September memo saying the provision had never been used, the attorney general was "not only . . . being technically accurate. He was being completely accurate."
Thursday, June 17, 2004
washingtonpost.com: Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
washingtonpost.com
Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A22
The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday.
"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."
The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. The commentary emerges as public doubts about the Iraq invasion and Bush's handling of national security have risen.
The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush should be defeated in November if the United States hopes to rebuild its credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking later in the day to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."
"I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people," Powell added.
"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," he told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"
Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.
The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA.
On a day when the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda on any missions in the United States, the 27 signers accused the Bush administration of a "cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."
The group said it did not coordinate its statement with the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who shares many of its views. One signer, retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, described himself as a Kerry adviser.
McPeak was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, and he joined Veterans for Bush in 2000.
"This administration has gone away from me," McPeak told reporters at the National Press Club, "not vice versa."
The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."
Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."
"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."
Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world.
"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.
washingtonpost.com
Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A22
The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday.
"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."
The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. The commentary emerges as public doubts about the Iraq invasion and Bush's handling of national security have risen.
The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush should be defeated in November if the United States hopes to rebuild its credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking later in the day to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."
"I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people," Powell added.
"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," he told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"
Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.
The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA.
On a day when the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda on any missions in the United States, the 27 signers accused the Bush administration of a "cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."
The group said it did not coordinate its statement with the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who shares many of its views. One signer, retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, described himself as a Kerry adviser.
McPeak was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, and he joined Veterans for Bush in 2000.
"This administration has gone away from me," McPeak told reporters at the National Press Club, "not vice versa."
The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."
Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."
"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."
Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world.
"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.
The New York Times > Science > Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2004
Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
By KENNETH CHANG
nd the beryllium atom said to the Starship Enterprise, beam me up!
Two teams of scientists report today that for the first time they have teleported individual atoms, taking characteristics of one atom and imprinting them on a second.
In physics, teleportation means creating a replica of an object, or at least some aspect of it, at some distance from the original. The act of teleporting always destroys the original - not entirely unlike the transporters of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies - so it is impossible produce multiple copies.
The prospect of using teleportation to move large objects or people remains far beyond the current realm of possibility. But it could prove an important component of so-called quantum computers. Scientists hope that one day such computers will tap quantum mechanics to solve complex problems quickly by calculating many different possible answers at once; computers today must calculate each possibility separately.
The two teams, one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., and one at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, worked independently, but the experiments were similar, using a process proposed by Dr. Charles H. Bennett, a scientist at I.B.M., and others in 1993.
"This will be an important part of attempts to build quantum computers," said Dr. H. Jeff Kimble, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology. He co-wrote a commentary accompanying the two research papers on the experiments, which appear today in the journal Nature.
"This is a complicated thing that begins to work," Dr. Kimble said. "We've reached this point on our journey and it's really quite significant."
Several scientific groups, including one led by Dr. Kimble, previously teleported photons, and scientists at the University of Aarhus in Denmark reported in 2001 that they had teleported the magnetic field produced by clouds of atoms.
In the new experiments, both teams of scientists worked with triplets of charged atoms trapped in magnetic fields. The Colorado team used beryllium; the Innsbruck researchers used calcium.
The feat of teleportation is transferring information from atom A to atom C without the two meeting. The third atom, B, is an intermediary.
The three atoms can be thought of as boxes that can contain a 1 or a zero, a bit of information like that used by a conventional computer chip. The promise of quantum computers is that both a zero and a 1 can exist at once, just like the perplexing premise described by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in which a cat in a box can be simultaneously alive and dead until someone looks inside.
First, atoms B and C were brought together, making them "entangled" and creating an invisible link between the two atoms no matter how far apart they were. Atom C was moved away. Next, A and B were similarly entangled.
Then the scientists measured the energy states of A and B, essentially opening the boxes to see whether each contained a 1 or a zero. Because B had been entangled with C, opening A and B created an instant change in atom C, what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," and this, in essence, set a combination lock on atom C, with the data in A and B serving as the combination.
For the final step, the combination was sent and a pulse of laser light was applied to atom C, almost magically turning it into a replica of the original A. Atom A was teleported to atom C.
"It's a way of transferring the information," Dr. Rainer Blatt, leader of the Innsbruck team, said.
A quantum computer could use teleportation to move the results of calculations from one part of the computer to another. "Teleportation in principle could be done pretty quick," said Dr. David J. Wineland, head of the Colorado team, noting that directly moving atoms containing intermediate results would almost certainly be too slow.
In the current experiments, the teleportation distances were a fraction of a millimeter, but in principle, the atoms could be teleported over much longer distances. The teleportation was also not perfect, succeeding about three-quarters of the time.
"We're not doing very well yet," Dr. Wineland said. "All of these operations have to be improved."
Teleporting a much larger object, like a person, appears unlikely, if not entirely impossible, because too much information would have to be captured and transmitted.
"It's certainly not useful for any beaming in the 'Star Trek' sense," Dr. Blatt of the University of Innsbruck said. "Consider even some molecules or something small like a virus. I cannot imagine it. As far as I can see, it's not going to happen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2004
Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
By KENNETH CHANG
nd the beryllium atom said to the Starship Enterprise, beam me up!
Two teams of scientists report today that for the first time they have teleported individual atoms, taking characteristics of one atom and imprinting them on a second.
In physics, teleportation means creating a replica of an object, or at least some aspect of it, at some distance from the original. The act of teleporting always destroys the original - not entirely unlike the transporters of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies - so it is impossible produce multiple copies.
The prospect of using teleportation to move large objects or people remains far beyond the current realm of possibility. But it could prove an important component of so-called quantum computers. Scientists hope that one day such computers will tap quantum mechanics to solve complex problems quickly by calculating many different possible answers at once; computers today must calculate each possibility separately.
The two teams, one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., and one at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, worked independently, but the experiments were similar, using a process proposed by Dr. Charles H. Bennett, a scientist at I.B.M., and others in 1993.
"This will be an important part of attempts to build quantum computers," said Dr. H. Jeff Kimble, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology. He co-wrote a commentary accompanying the two research papers on the experiments, which appear today in the journal Nature.
"This is a complicated thing that begins to work," Dr. Kimble said. "We've reached this point on our journey and it's really quite significant."
Several scientific groups, including one led by Dr. Kimble, previously teleported photons, and scientists at the University of Aarhus in Denmark reported in 2001 that they had teleported the magnetic field produced by clouds of atoms.
In the new experiments, both teams of scientists worked with triplets of charged atoms trapped in magnetic fields. The Colorado team used beryllium; the Innsbruck researchers used calcium.
The feat of teleportation is transferring information from atom A to atom C without the two meeting. The third atom, B, is an intermediary.
The three atoms can be thought of as boxes that can contain a 1 or a zero, a bit of information like that used by a conventional computer chip. The promise of quantum computers is that both a zero and a 1 can exist at once, just like the perplexing premise described by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in which a cat in a box can be simultaneously alive and dead until someone looks inside.
First, atoms B and C were brought together, making them "entangled" and creating an invisible link between the two atoms no matter how far apart they were. Atom C was moved away. Next, A and B were similarly entangled.
Then the scientists measured the energy states of A and B, essentially opening the boxes to see whether each contained a 1 or a zero. Because B had been entangled with C, opening A and B created an instant change in atom C, what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," and this, in essence, set a combination lock on atom C, with the data in A and B serving as the combination.
For the final step, the combination was sent and a pulse of laser light was applied to atom C, almost magically turning it into a replica of the original A. Atom A was teleported to atom C.
"It's a way of transferring the information," Dr. Rainer Blatt, leader of the Innsbruck team, said.
A quantum computer could use teleportation to move the results of calculations from one part of the computer to another. "Teleportation in principle could be done pretty quick," said Dr. David J. Wineland, head of the Colorado team, noting that directly moving atoms containing intermediate results would almost certainly be too slow.
In the current experiments, the teleportation distances were a fraction of a millimeter, but in principle, the atoms could be teleported over much longer distances. The teleportation was also not perfect, succeeding about three-quarters of the time.
"We're not doing very well yet," Dr. Wineland said. "All of these operations have to be improved."
Teleporting a much larger object, like a person, appears unlikely, if not entirely impossible, because too much information would have to be captured and transmitted.
"It's certainly not useful for any beaming in the 'Star Trek' sense," Dr. Blatt of the University of Innsbruck said. "Consider even some molecules or something small like a virus. I cannot imagine it. As far as I can see, it's not going to happen."
Scientific American: New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
February 27, 2003
New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
Ever since the proverbial apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head, scientists have been able to calculate the force of gravity over a variety of distances. The first measurement of the gravitational constant came more than 100 years later, but testing gravity over very short distances has proved difficult. Now scientists have examined the gravitational attraction between two objects just a tenth of a millimeter apart--the smallest gap yet for such trials. The findings, published today in the journal Nature, set upper limits for some of the forces predicted by string theory.
String theory has emerged as the most promising approach to unifying quantum mechanics--the laws governing very, very small things such as atoms, nuclei and quarks--with general relativity, which describes the world on a scale as large as that of stars and galaxies. It holds that what appear to be pointlike elementary particles are instead tiny one-dimensional strings whose vibrations give rise to fundamental particles. The hypothesis calls for six or more spatial dimensions (on top of the three that we can observe) that are curled up into tiny spaces. This so-called compactification generates a number of "modulus" forces, some of which would be comparable to gravity at distances approaching a tenth of a millimeter under certain string theory scenarios.
To investigate the forces at work over such small distances, Joshua C. Long and his colleagues at the University of Colorado at Boulder designed a new device containing at its core a tungsten metal strip. The diving board-like plank can vibrate up and down and a second metal strip lies 0.1 millimeter below it. The researchers found that gravity performed pretty much as predicted by Newton. Furthermore, they did not observe any new forces at work. String theory's modulus forces must therefore have a range shorter than 0.1 millimeter. The next step, the authors say, will be to further narrow the gap between the objects in such gravity tests, perhaps to 0.01 millimeter. --Sarah Graham
February 27, 2003
New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
Ever since the proverbial apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head, scientists have been able to calculate the force of gravity over a variety of distances. The first measurement of the gravitational constant came more than 100 years later, but testing gravity over very short distances has proved difficult. Now scientists have examined the gravitational attraction between two objects just a tenth of a millimeter apart--the smallest gap yet for such trials. The findings, published today in the journal Nature, set upper limits for some of the forces predicted by string theory.
String theory has emerged as the most promising approach to unifying quantum mechanics--the laws governing very, very small things such as atoms, nuclei and quarks--with general relativity, which describes the world on a scale as large as that of stars and galaxies. It holds that what appear to be pointlike elementary particles are instead tiny one-dimensional strings whose vibrations give rise to fundamental particles. The hypothesis calls for six or more spatial dimensions (on top of the three that we can observe) that are curled up into tiny spaces. This so-called compactification generates a number of "modulus" forces, some of which would be comparable to gravity at distances approaching a tenth of a millimeter under certain string theory scenarios.
To investigate the forces at work over such small distances, Joshua C. Long and his colleagues at the University of Colorado at Boulder designed a new device containing at its core a tungsten metal strip. The diving board-like plank can vibrate up and down and a second metal strip lies 0.1 millimeter below it. The researchers found that gravity performed pretty much as predicted by Newton. Furthermore, they did not observe any new forces at work. String theory's modulus forces must therefore have a range shorter than 0.1 millimeter. The next step, the authors say, will be to further narrow the gap between the objects in such gravity tests, perhaps to 0.01 millimeter. --Sarah Graham
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Gay News From 365Gay.com
Bush Asks Pope's Help Using Gay Marriage As Wedge Issue In Campaign
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 13 2004 5:01 pm. ET
(Vatican City) New details are emerging on this month's meeting between the Pope and President Bush.
While it was known that the two discussed among other issues, same-sex marriage, (story) the full extent of the conversation had been shrouded in diplomatic secrecy.
But, one of the most experienced journalists at the Vatican reports this week that Bush implored the Pope to increase Catholic condemnation of gay marriage in the weeks leading up to the election, and that the request also was made by the president to senior Vatican officials..
John Allen Jr., writes in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent journal for Catholics, that Bush specifically "asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Allen, the most senior reporter at the Vatican, and considered the dean of the press corps, says that in a private meeting "with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism."
Allen reports that Sodano did not respond to the request.
The head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the report "mind-boggling."
"It is just unprecedented for a president to ask for help from the Vatican to get re-elected, and that is exactly what this is," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn told the New York Times.
Even liberal Catholics said they were shocked.
"For a president to try to get the leader of any religious organization to manipulate his fellow clergymen to support a political candidate crosses the line in this country," Linda Pieczynski, a spokesperson for Call to Action, a Catholic advocacy group, said.
©365Gay.com® 2004
Bush Asks Pope's Help Using Gay Marriage As Wedge Issue In Campaign
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 13 2004 5:01 pm. ET
(Vatican City) New details are emerging on this month's meeting between the Pope and President Bush.
While it was known that the two discussed among other issues, same-sex marriage, (story) the full extent of the conversation had been shrouded in diplomatic secrecy.
But, one of the most experienced journalists at the Vatican reports this week that Bush implored the Pope to increase Catholic condemnation of gay marriage in the weeks leading up to the election, and that the request also was made by the president to senior Vatican officials..
John Allen Jr., writes in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent journal for Catholics, that Bush specifically "asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Allen, the most senior reporter at the Vatican, and considered the dean of the press corps, says that in a private meeting "with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism."
Allen reports that Sodano did not respond to the request.
The head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the report "mind-boggling."
"It is just unprecedented for a president to ask for help from the Vatican to get re-elected, and that is exactly what this is," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn told the New York Times.
Even liberal Catholics said they were shocked.
"For a president to try to get the leader of any religious organization to manipulate his fellow clergymen to support a political candidate crosses the line in this country," Linda Pieczynski, a spokesperson for Call to Action, a Catholic advocacy group, said.
©365Gay.com® 2004