"They died in service to our country".  That sentence will be heard may times as the nation observes Memorial Day. 

I'm a father, a businessperson and a Viet Nam veteran.  Over the past several years I've examined my military experience.  Two time Medal of Honor recipient, Marine Major General Smedley Butler helped me.  He finished his career, looked back and wrote a booklet titled "War is a Racket".  He said he was a thug for big business. My studies confirm what the General said.  Behind all of the flag waving, and the shouts of freedom, democracy and service, is a massive empire devoted to profit by any means.  Weapons are our number one export product.  The military is a tool.  We are taught to puff our chests, and honor the military - alive and dead - but we are never taught to question the business of war.  

They died in "service" to our country.  I hope we think about those words.

Arnold Stieber
Grass Lake, MI

Sending more troops into Iraq is like pouring more water on a gasoline fire. It will never work, and it only makes things worse. You cannot put out a gasoline fire with water, because the water rolls off the gasoline, spreading the fire. And if you pour more water on a gasoline fire, you only make things worse.

Likewise with sending more troops into Iraq: The troops we already have in there are a big part of the problem, and adding more of them will only make things worse.

Here is a clue from the common experience of mankind: If you doing something the wrong way, doing more of it the same way will never fix the problem. Example: You are trying to loosen a bolt by turning it clockwise instead of counter-clockwise. So instead of loosening the bolt, you are making it tighter. If you apply more force in the same wrong direction, you will never loosen the bolt, and you will probably break off its head. The solution is to recognize the problem and change the direction of your efforts. In Iraq, we are doing things the wrong way. Our invasion was the original cause of the problem, because there was no way a Christian-majority army from an infidel country supporting Israel could have ever been welcomed as liberators by the Muslim Arabs of Iraq. The whole idea was ignorant and delusional from the beginning. But we invaded anyway, and now their country is falling apart because of us, and we are stuck in a great big mess of our own creation. So can any reasonable person truly believe that we will make things better by sending in more troops now? No! We should be doing the very opposite: withdrawing our troops immediately, then trying to clean up the mess in some other way. Blessings to you.

May God help us all.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org http://www.loveallpeople.org/searchallpages.html CONTACT William McGinnis (Rev. Bill McGinnis) 1908 Mt Vernon Ave #2543 Alexandria, VA 22301 7037686710 bmcgin@patriot.net

Seeking Peace is Patriotic

As a new resident of Holland, I've followed with interest your series on the peace pole. That a pole stating the fervent wish of most humanity, "May peace prevail on Earth," should spark prolonged discussion puzzled me. I understood the logical argument against two peace poles but still couldn't grasp the underlying reason for such long debate.

After reading Carolyn Marquis' statement opposing the pole, it became clear that in her view peace advocacy is somehow unpatriotic. Such beliefs would certainly lengthen debate over the placement of a peace symbol. What she and those who share her opinion fail to comprehend is that people who oppose war, especially an ill-conceived war like the Iraq war, do "love, support and defend our country."

It is precisely because we love our country that we wish to uphold our own democratic ideals by not invading and occupying another country and imposing those ideals on a culture we little understand. The Iraq war has tarnished our world reputation and shaken the faith, for some of us, that our leaders will honor democratic principles. Because we love our country we deplore initiating death and destruction in another country based on our leaders' precipitous decision. Because we love and support our military we don't want them killed, maimed or emotionally scarred doing the world's most harrowing job for a questionable goal.

We best support our country by holding our leaders accountable, by protesting unjustified wars and by dissenting when we believe leaders' decisions endanger us. Similarly, we support our country's founding tenets when we demand that free speech, free press and privacy rights be maintained and hope that our voices still count in a government allegedly "of, by and for the people."

We best defend our country when we are educated not only about our own democracy but other world cultures. Cooperating in efforts that help nations understand and respect each other and urging leaders to pursue diplomatic options ultimately protect us. Perhaps recognizing our shared humanity is our best defense.

Peace promoters revere the bravery and sacrifice of our war veterans and their families. We separate loathing the war from loving the warrior. Perhaps critics could separate advocating peace from lacking patriotism.

Marty Mulitz,
Park Township

This is a pathetic situation.

To be a radical today -- by the standards of "conventional wisdom" and the mainstream media -- is to be someone who stands up for the rule of law, the Constitution, and holding an administration accountable for launching a failed war that they lied us into. This war resulted in Tens of Thousands of Americans and Iraqis dead and injured, and nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money and debt. Every American now owes $30,000 in national debt.

Is it radical to stand up for our Constitution and honesty?

But it is mainstream to implement such policies, break the law, and not be held accountable. It is mainstream to continue to lie the same lies for five years and have the White House press corps, with the exception of Helen Thomas, nod their heads.

Is there something I'm missing? Has the national press corps had a lobotomy when I was out mowing the lawn one day?

Someone please let me know, because I can't figure it out.

Unless, of course, some people high up in the corporate media are getting a quid pro quo for their corporations -- and in the case of some reporters we have seen cash payments.

Of course, no such thing could happen in a nation with a free press. That would just be too radical a thought?

Right?

Mike O'Donnell

"Under the influence of politicians, masses of people tend to ascribe the responsibility for wars to those who wield power at any given time. In World War I it was the munitions industrialists; in World War II it was the psychopathic generals who were said to be guilty. This is passing the buck.

Today, as Massachusetts becomes the first state in the nation to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, and our nation also marks the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education, there is a connection between these two events -- besides sharing the day -- that is unmistakable.

In 1954, when the Supreme Court delivered its momentous decision in the Brown case, striking down the "separate but equal" doctrine that fostered decades of segregation between whites and African-Americans as a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, echoes of that ruling came back this year when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that marriage rights must be extended to same-sex couples.Last November, when the Massachusetts court ruled 4-3 in Goodridge et al vs. Department of Public Health that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the equal protection clause of Massachusetts' constitution, legislators were so taken aback they asked the court if Vermont-style civil unions would suffice. In February, the court ruled civil unions are not the same as marriage.Civil unions "maintain an unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples," wrote Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. And obviously recalling the effects of segregation and the Brown ruling, she noted that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."But is it an ugly chapter of history our nation is condemned to repeat?As gay couples in Massachusetts line up outside city halls waiting to be wed, Gov. Mitt Romney and many of the states' legislators are making every effort -- reminiscent of Southern states' efforts to circumvent the Brown ruling and keep their schools segregated -- to circumvent the Goodridge ruling and keep gays from marrying. This includes Romney banning out-of-state gay couples from marrying by enforcing a 1913 state law once used to prevent interracial couples from states with miscegenation laws from marrying in Massachusetts. But places like Provincetown and Worchester plan to defy the governor's edict and issue out-of-state couples marriage licenses.Of course, social and religious conservatives -- with a reaction similar to that on ending school segregation -- are trying to create an uproar on extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, this time around going so far as to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prevent gay couples from marrying. And they've updated their rallying cry from "Segregation forever!" to "No rights for sodomites!"In the 1950s, equal rights for African-Americans was a goal caught between our nation's secular ideal and certain religious and social beliefs -- that God intended the races to be separate (or "mongrelization" of the human race would occur), and that African-Americans were mentally inferior -- which fostered blatant discrimination including segregated schools.Today, unfortunately, equal rights for the gay community including the right to marry, is also a goal caught between the secular and the sacred, between the Jeffersonian ideal "that all men are created equal" and an overwhelmingly Christian citizenry fervently claiming "in God we trust."But the beliefs behind denying same-sex couples marriage rights ring as hollow as the beliefs that once supported segregated schools: That marriage is "sacred," when half of all marriages end in divorce. And with such a high divorce rate and almost 1 million children in foster care nationally, it's gay couples marrying that will destabilize the marriage concept. That marriage's purpose is for "procreation," when we live on a planet with over 6 billion people, and 11 children starve to death every minute. That marriage will lose its "special standing" if gays can marry, which likens marriage to a segregated-for-heterosexual-couples-only country club, leaving gay couples outside the gates looking in. That it's OK to discriminate against "behavior," while conveniently ignoring "love."Nevertheless, just as African-American children in the 1950s courageously stepped across once-segregated schoolhouse thresholds, today in Massachusetts, same-sex couples will courageously step across courthouse thresholds to get their marriage licenses in a continuing civil rights goal of equality and to secure the American dream of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

William Butte
Deerfield Beach

Nursing Homes should have to tell people that they are graded by performance and their grade should be used like a school grade using A+, A, A-,B+,B,B-, ect..... to F as a failed grade then the state should have weekly reports until they have completed the probation period of 6 months, using an outside agency to do observations. Rather than doing ANNUAL reports by OMBUDSMAN during the day when nothing is happening but busy with residents. Most of reports by Ombudsman are during the day well what about what happens at night while these people are alone with no Administrator on duty. I've worked in these homes and I know what goes on, it's terrible and the staff cover each. You see during the day families visit and Doctors come in, PT, OT, Social Workers, busy daytime hours. Does Ombudsman go visit whenever they want or do they have schedules to follow during the DAY, what do you think?

Make it Happen use the grading system and probation it will work then the Nursing Homes will get a better name for themselves because right now in Michigan there are approx. 150 Nursing Homes on the National Watch List that's just for Michigan. Is your loved one in one of those homes ?? WE need a better system than this. Much better..

Clean it up..Don't just talk about it make it happen

Signature withheld by request

The Macomb County Probate Court has been making the mistake of appointing outside Guardians for families who are willing to take the responsibility of the guardianship. The Judges think that because of family issues and or problems that an outsider is a better choose. What to do you think? Well, I think they are very wrong especially when talking about senior citizens. Take a look at what has happen already in Washtenaw County and Macomb County; those same guardians the Judges appointed are now under investigation from the same Judges . This tells me that they don't keep up their records to see what is going on in their own court. Some of those investigations are from 2 or 3 years ago. Who is watching those GUARDIANS? Also they keep families away from loved ones and that is shame ... They have taken the rights of the elderly into their own hands and see what happens. The Judges need to use the NEW MEDIATION plans and keep those Court Appointed Guardians OUT of the picture. If you have family issues or disagreements regarding a loved one try to work it out yourself with the help of the MEDIATION by calling The Center For Social Gerontology /
TOLL FREE 1-866-665-1126 or
visit the web site at www. tcsg.org or
e-mail / Sbutterwick@tcsg.org
e-mail / phommel@tcsg.org

The courts need to start using this process for families who have difficulty getting along or just can not decide who will be in charge. Small fees for this service and the service fees can be waived. I only wish I knew about it sooner it would have been a wonderful thing for our family.

Signature withheld by request

The Palestinian American Congress strongly condemns the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas and his aides by the Israeli air force.The air strikes that resulted in the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yaseen as he was being pushed in his wheelchair.The United States must take a firm position in condemning this crime which not only resulted in the murder of a senior Palestinian leader, but also in the assassination of any remaining hope for peace in the Middle East. This assassination is yet another proof that the United States should no longer support Sharon’s barbaric policy. Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has shown through his tactics that he does not qualify to be a partner in peace. This assassination only serves as an invitation to escalating the cycle of violence in the region. History will hold Sharon and his supporters responsible for any blood shed that will follow.

Marwan ElMasri

Incredible! The Democratic Party really is a bunch a gutless, spineless cowards when it comes to taking a stand on any issue. How hard is it for just one Democrat of national prominence (a presidential candidate, preferably) to say: "I support every American's right to be treated equally and fairly under the law. I support every American's right to the pursuit of happiness that is one of the great traditions of this country. Therefore, I support gay marriage. But whether you agree with me on this specific issue or not, every American should be troubled that the current president of the United States is willing to tamper with the most sacred document of our Union, the Constitution, in an effort to discriminate against a minority of Americans. At the very least, let each state decide in its own way how to protect the right of its citizens to be happy in life and love, and let us not meddle with the Constitution for political ends." Fortunately for us, all the fear of the Christian right that leads Democrats to cower in submission, is proving to be a bit premature, as even Republicans in the House and Senate have already voiced their skepticism over using a constitutional amendment to decide this issue, and have pretty much stated that there is no way a two-thirds majority of each chamber will vote for this. But we as liberals and Democrats should ask ourselves, are we really afraid of a fringe group of conservatives that makes statements such as "When you create counterfeit marriages and put them into the law, you're undermining society's most important safeguard against tyranny"? I think that an overwhelming majority of moderate Americans are likely to view statements such as that as more radical than statements affirming support of gay marriage.

Ray D'Antuono

OPEC decided to cut oil production. Our infrastructure badly needs repair. Our educational system needs attention. Air and water pollution cause real health problems. Our economy is suffering. People are homeless, hungry, out of work. Our unelected president has misled, deceived and, maybe, lied to us.

With all the real need in the world today, why would some folks spend time attacking love? This love may be in the form of same-sex marriage, but it is love nonetheless. If we cannot celebrate a healthy commitment between two individuals, what can we celebrate? If we oppose a true sense of caring, what are we for?

There are genuine issues and real needs in this country and in the world today. Putting our energy and our resources into attacking those who are different from us doesn't seem productive. Making an issue out of Sid and Tom or Sally and Mary getting married seems shortsighted and distracts us from legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

Willowbei Eversole
Huntington Woods

The national debate over a ban against gay marriage has become mired in emotions, rather than focused on legal definitions. Marriage, from the standpoint of governance, is a contractual agreement that binds two people together, providing certain tax and inheritance benefits as well as financial responsibilities. This is a basic civil right accorded to citizens by the state.

The problem arises when outdated religious, moral, social and cultural beliefs and definitions of marriage are being purposefully confused and drawn into what is a personal contractual arrangement between individual citizens and the state.

The emotional arguments against gay marriage only create an environment of hostility and intolerance, not to mention violating the fundamental and basic civil and human rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

One possible solution to the debate might be for all people, regardless of life-style or sexual orientation, to enter into a contractual agreement with the state called a "civil union license" instead of a "marriage license." Then let individual religious congregations and the moral conscience of ministers determine whether or not they will support conducting religious marriage ceremonies.

Kerry M. Berger
Farmington Hills

The gay marriage issue has infuriated those who feel it will poison morality and threaten traditional marriage. They should keep in mind the fundamental principle under which this nation was created: freedom -- such as the freedom to pursue your own personal identity and happiness, regardless of popular opinion or religious conviction.

If a gay person is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen who wants nothing more than to live and love with his or her significant other, how can that be interpreted as an abomination of the human soul?

Those who scream the virtues of traditional marriage can't escape the reality of an alarming 50-percent divorce rate. By denouncing gay marriage, their own hypocrisy emerges. Perhaps by expanding the definition, thus broadening the dimensions of marriage, its ethics can be properly applied to the modern world.

David Nowak
Rochester Hills

As Ann Landers might have asked: does writer Tracey Lee have strudel in her noodle regarding the "defense" of marriage? No one, anywhere, is proposing to eliminate heterosexual marriage. This is an example of neocon Bush-speak, where we call something the opposite of what it does (a la "Clear Skies" initiative.) Using Lee's logic, 150 years ago, slavery would have been promoted as "defense of plantations." Ninety years ago, she would have fought women's voting rights as "defense of voting". Fifty years ago, school segregation would be called "defense of education." If gays are allowed to marry, does this threaten anyone's marriage? No. Will it be harder for heterosexual couples to marry? No. Will heterosexuals stop getting married? No. How does this rate tops on the agenda? Are all crimes solved? Schools fully equipped and funded? The economy fully charged? Everyone has health care now?I thought not.

Dennis Blankenship
East Lansing

Seeking submissions for Wives of War: From the Hearts of Those Left Behind, to be published in 2005. Wives of War: From the Hearts of Those Left Behind is an anthology of narrative non-fiction essays covering five American wars beginning with World War II to our most recent Gulf War II. The stories must be original and from the military
wife left behind during a wartime season covering one of the following themes: Wives of Courage, Wives of Love, Wives of Fear, Wives of Hope, and
Wives of Loss. Each story must take place while the husband is away serving in combat.Novice and experienced authors are encouraged, as well as previously published work. Length: 1,000 to 4,000 words. Small honorarium. Deadline: January 15, 2004. Include your name, phone number, e-mail address and a brief bio in manuscript.For inquiries e-mail: wivesofwar@yahoo.com

Guidelines or submit to:
Marlo Brooks
C/O Epiphany Management
P.O. Box 152049
San Diego, CA 92115

Dear Mr. Bush, Well, it's going on two weeks now since your surprise visit to one of the two countries you now run and, I have to say, I'm still warmed by the gesture. Man, take me along next time! I understand only 13 members of the media went with you -- and it turns out only ONE of them was an actual reporter for a newspaper. But you did take along FIVE photographers (hey, I get it, screw the words, it's all about the pictures!), a couple wire service guys, and a crew from the Fox News Channel (fair and balanced!). READ THIS LETTER

Michael Moore

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) * G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)*Aside from the above, American's may choose to follow Moses' example and allow some variation from "divine law" as observed by Jesus at Matt 19:8: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

James

Dear Fellow Citizen:

You are receiving this because I, or someone you know, believe(s) that you are a rare and cherished citizen who understands the threat facing our country today. Many Americans take the actions of George Walker Bush in good faith, bolstered by a media machine that, for the most part, seems unwilling to question his motives on so many issues. READ THIS LETTER

The House Appropriations Committee doesn't know where $79B went!While driving 10/15 I listened to a C-Span broadcast of the House Appropriation Committee hearings on the $87B Bush & crew have requested for their buddies "rebuilding" Iraq. One Committee member asked what happend to the $79B that's already been spent. The Chairman (Bill Young of Florida) said he wished he had an answer. He said he repeatedly asked the Administration, but they don't respond.Someone pointed out that the interest (ah yes, the bankers love war) on this loan will be $4B/yr. And that that's enough to fund medical research for every major disease. (There was virtually no response to this statement.)Anyone have any backbone pills?

Peace,
ARNY

I live in Lake County,, and ALOT fo people with shallow wells, have been running dry. I have a distinct feeling alot as to do with the ICE MOUNTAIN plant. What can be done? As a group, can we do something, as a community ?? Any info is appreciated.

Thanks, STAN

Dumbyaonic Plague — An affliction which carries a self-righteous, condescending and arrogant minority into the fevered delusion that they are called upon to dupe an ill-informed and naive citizenry into believing that endless war, economic inequities, environmental pollution, domestic surveillance, irrational paranoia, religious zealotry, sexual insecurity, media suppression and abdication of civil rights are necessary components of a democracy. Its symptoms include equating debate with sedition and opposition with treason. Persons suffering from this affliction can often be heard uttering phrases like “It’s all Clinton’s fault”, "liberal whackos", "love it or leave it", “Bring ‘em on” and "more tax cuts".Ineffective treatments have included wrapping oneself in a large flag and singing "God Bless America".

Former Conservative
New York , NY

Everyone may or may not have their own god and beliefs, but using a god to defend an argument is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and lately I've been hearing it quite a lot. Would you wear a burqa because someone told you their God said you were required to? Would you make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Would you wear a Jewish skull cap or Mormon garment? I don't think so unless you believed in the same God. Now the Christians are using their God to defend their beliefs about marriage. I don't understand, because since people can be married in a civil service outside a church, what does anyone's god have to do with the decision about who is allowed to marry, anyway? It's a civil court decision. Take your god out of your argument against gay marriage, or anything else for that matter, and you probably won't have much of an argument, just an opinion or bias. I wish for once that people could discuss a topic logically and intelligently without using a god to defend their position. Earth would be a better and less complicated place.

Tom Morse

Those who suggest amending the U.S. Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage on the grounds that "marriage is a sacrament" need to reconsider. Their belief that marriage is a sacrament is one of the strongest arguments AGAINST a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution of a secular republic is NOT the place to institutionalize the qualifications for participation in the sacraments. To address such matters in the Constitution is an exceedingly dangerous idea. Not only would it institutionalize antigay bigotry, it would establish government control of religion.

I can accept that marriage is a sacrament. Baptism is also a sacrament. So is "communion." The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments.

Shall we amend the constitution to say that gay people can't get Baptized, or can't take communion? Of course not. Regulating sacraments is not the purpose of the constitution. The proposed amendment is one of the most radical and dangerous instances of pandering to conservatives that has been suggested in a long time.

The church decides whether a person can partake of the sacraments of that church. Marriage is no different.

If gay people are permitted to get married by the civil law, this does NOT compel any church to host the wedding ceremony, nor does it require the church to recognize the "sacramental" nature of the marriage.

Rudy Serra
Attorney at Law

Hello,I, like many Americans, believe that we were maneuvered into an unnecessary war through active deception on the part of George Bush and his administration. Although I applaud and support all groups who are fighting to keep this issue at the forefront of American consciousness, I do think there is one weapon that has gone largely unused in that battle. That is the power of the catch phrase. By that I mean associating a situation with a phrase that summons immediate negative feelings in the mind of the listener. Consider the following two examples:Viet-raq: If the various anti-war groups were to succeed in tagging the war in Iraq with this label and somehow getting the phrase into the common language, they will have struck a hard blow against the war by associating it with a powerful historical negative.Iraqgate: If those opposed to George Bush's tactics in leading this nation into war were able to associate his behavior with this phrase, they will have gone a long way in establishing his guilt in the eyes of the average person. Very few people could tell you what "travelgate" was all about but most of them could tell you it involved Hillary Clinton and was somehow bad.

Dan Kacsir

"If gays can change, homosexuality is not genetic. If homosexuality isn't genetic, then gays aren't entitled to the same equal-rights protections as other minority groups." Let's put that argument to the test. "If Jews can change, Judaism is not genetic. If Judaism isn't genetic, then Jews aren't entitled to the same equal-rights protections as other minority groups." Strikes the ear as a bit dangerous, doesn't it? - a slippery slope we've slid down before. Let's assume for argument's sake that homosexuality is a choice. So are one's political party and religion. The mere fact that something is a choice does not make it a legitimate basis for discrimination. The real question is whether I can legally discriminate against you if I don't like your choice. It really doesn't matter whether homosexuality is genetic, determined by infant nurture (as Freud believed), or a matter of reasoned adult choice. Those who object to homosexuality base their views on religion - that is to say, their interpretation of certain Biblical verses - and on religion alone. Millions of people in this country, including (obviously) most homosexuals, don't share their religion or their Biblical interpretations. Thus, laws which discriminate (or allow discrimination) against homosexuals are laws which align the state with a particular religious viewpoint and which force a particular Biblical interpretation not only on Christians and Jews who might disagree, but also upon millions of citizens who do not even recognize the Bible as a religious authority. That such laws therefore constitute an "establishment of religion" could not be more clear. And that is what the First Amendment absolutely forbids.

Very truly yours,
Paul Morgan Fredrix

For me, being American is something like having white privilege, that is, an unearned privilege, that brings me all sorts of benefits just by virtue of where I happened to be born. I have the benefits of liberty, choice, safety, comfort, education, travel, energy resources, information, satisfying employment, a great variety of food all seasons of the year, street lights that work, phones, clean water, garbage disposal, a great public health system, ditto emergency medicine, no restrictions on who I can marry or how many children I can have; I can own property, rely on a functioning court system, protest my government, and be supported by an array of social services when I need them, all because I happened to be born here and carry a US passport. (we all can think of egregious exceptions to each of these privileges, but you get my drift).As with white privilege, I also have the privilege of not concerning myself with what happens to people who don't have these privileges, that is, people in other countries who suffer as a result of my standard of living, or my government's business interests or its wars of liberation.Because all this privelege is unearned (I might just as easily have been born in Afghanistan or Tierra del Fuego) it's not really something to be proud about. It's not the result of something I accomplished or helped my group accomplish, really, even though I try to be a "good citizen." Those enormous benefits are a result of a lot of history, some of it very grisly and greedy, some of it inspired and creative and humanitarian.But the fact that I personally happen to benefit from it all is sheer accident. Now I could feel guilty and ashamed of my privilege, which I never asked for (but for which I am grateful, -- ANY fool would be grateful for these priveleges, after all!) But feeling that way (or getting stuck there) misses the point, I think. As with white privilege, if you happen to have it, you know you can't really divest yourself from it, but you CAN use that privelege to work for a more egalitarian world, refusing to shut your eyes to people who are getting tromped on because of the skewed system. Which is what we're all doing.So I would say that I'm not proud to be American any more than I'm proud to be white. However, I AM proud to be a peacemaker, and as a white American peacemaker my voice is louder than others. That's why I need to use it.

Helen

I'm an 80 year old "length of service military retiree". I have been betrayed for 39 years by the U.S. Government on the monthly retired pay loss, and for 31 years on the loss of my "earned" health care. Our government has been and is the epitome of lies, lies, lies, lies. I am not an authority on the Geneva Convention or Protocol but it's parameters are out of date. When it came into being there were no 11 ton (21,000 lb) bombs. There were no night sighting devices, etc. The list could go on an on. We use these night devices but if the Iraqi have one pair of them them they were terrorists attacking an American trooper unfairly. My wife of over 55 years who served with General George S. Patton's Third Army Field Hospital in France, Germany and Austria has had to endure these injustices also.

Willard D. Gray
Sumner, IL

Many people in the USA stand behind and with Michael Moore's anti-war statement at the Oscar awards ceremony on March 23, 2003. If it is not already clear, let me say that my heart and the collective hearts of the patriots who have publicly assailed this rush to war, grieve for the anguish of soldiers of the allied forces as well as the Iraqi people. There remains no justification for a war with Iraq. It was the Bush administration that created the sham necessity and urgency, playing on the fears from September 11, 2001. The rule of Saddam Hussein is a despicable example of how a terrible regime can become more firmly entrenched when companies such as those in the U.S. and Europe freely sell materials of war and mass destruction. People who produce and articulate the mainstream news through television, radio and print have largely let the facts be overshadowed by the Bush administration's zeal for war, along with the Pentagon public relations campaign. These messengers for the Bush administration, who cooperate to keep their jobs, bear untold and unmeasurable responsibility for the reality that many Americans have been fraudulently convinced that this is a war for freedom, rather than a war for natural resources and strategic access to the Persian Gulf. The suffering of families in the U.S. along with Iraq as a result of this devastating invasion only adds to the suffering perpetrated by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The net result of punishment of the very victims of the Hussein regime is absolutely inevitable under circumstances of a war whose spokespeople boast that more weaponry was used in the first three days than that of the entire first gulf war.

The verbal attacks which appear to be brazen acts of scapegoating, on celebrities who speak out against the Bush administration are further cause for concern because these attacks serve to threaten those who dare to support the troops by questioning the rationale for the attack on Iraq.

Cindy Shapiro
Benzie County

Is censorship patriotic? Are death threats an expression of patriotism? Does war put a president suddenly beyond reproach? Is the supply of freeedom so limited that we must surrender ours to Iraq? Absolutely Not! "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918 Nothing is more American, and more democratic, than our right to disagree, and disagree publicly, with our government. War does not change that. War doesn’t revoke the bill of rights. There are conservatives who believe that dissenters should be charged with sedition once the war starts. When did fascism become patriotism? (And where does the constitution give Congress the right to limit freedom of speech?)I am a veteran, and a patriot. Here's what I have to say to those who say that we need to unite behind Bush. Neither you, nor Bush, nor the republican party, own the flag. You don't have the right to define patriotism. Nothing is more cynical, more disingenuous, more un-American, than saying that support for our troops and George Bush are one and the same. There is no legal or moral justification for this war. Bush has cynically manipulated and lied to the American people to build support for this war, and he continues to do so. He contines to invoke the memory of 9/11 to justify the war, despite the fact that Iraq doesn't support al-Qaida. He continues to refer to weapons of mass destruction, even though the "proof" that he has provided to weapons inspectors has been laughable. A building identified as a "chemical weapons facility" was found to have no plumbing. A "al-Qaida training camp" in northern Iraq (why wasn't it bombed?), when visited by journalists, was found to be some dusty shacks with no sign of human activity. A "mobile chemical weapons facility" was found to be a mobile food inspection facility. In fact, UN weapons inspectors characterized the US intelligence to consist of "garbage after garbage". Bush continues to refer to nuclear weapons, even though Iraq has no nuclear program (and has never explained why he claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that Iraq was "6 months from producing an atomic weapon", when they have never said anything that could be interpreted as such.)The reason that Canada (How dumb do you have to be to insult the Canadians? We now know.), France, Germany, Mexico, China, Russia, and 120 other countries don't support the US because they know that 1) Bush is a liar (see above), and 2) There is no credible evidence that Iraq is a threat. Even Spain, a stauch supporter of the war, denies the existance of an al-Qaida link. Tony Blair said, " ...we do not know of a link between Iraq and the September 11 attack." There is exactly one country in the world where a majority of the population supported Bush's position. It's not the US. (It was Israel). Could we be more isolated?Bush spent a couple days with Blair and Aznar in the Azores just prior to issuing the deadline. The White House characterized this as "going the last mile for diplomacy". Now... he went to a remote island, met with the two people who agree with him, and that's "going the last mile for diplomacy"? Given what seems to be his idea of diplomacy, he must have been trying to alienate them, too. Bush has NEVER engaged in diplomacy! His efforts have been dedicated toward getting authorization for war. Any suggestion that further diplomatic action might be possible were dismissed out of hand.

Name Withheld
Kalamazoo, MI

Teach peace and nonviolence, if you don't know about peace and nonviolence, feel free to email me I have textbooks and recommended reading to learn peaceful living. Peace and nonviolence must be at the center of all of our actions. Buying gasoline is not a peaceful action, it is a product of hate, war, and violence. We must educate ourselves our families and our local communities, together collectively we can change the world. It won't happen overnight but together we can hope and bring about a brighter future. Boycott all products of hate and violence. Don't think that there is nothing you can do. Every individual has his/her part in resistance to violence and hatred. Where there is no love, put love there and draw love from it, you must know that even the people who are closest to you will try to put hatred and negative energy into your hearts but remain strong love those who try to make you hate, if something is negative do not dwell on the negativity or mourn the negativity but rather tell yourself and others around you that you are going to change that negative energy into love and peace. Love everyone during these times of hatred and violence, it willd o no good to anyone to declare your hatred for BUSH and his administration, of course disagree with him, dislike his ways but love him and create a loving and positive atmosphere wherever you go by remaining calm and peaceful. If you believe that walking rather than driving will stop fueling the war than do it, don not let negative energy and people keep you from your hearts desires and your willingness to create a better world. Practice kindness and beauty in every action, word, thought the comes from your body. This is what will turn the tide, collective energy and civil disobedience against the wrongs of the world will create peace. PEACE LOVE AND UNITY THROUGHOUT ALL HUMANITY.

Sincerely,
Gabriel Barrio

Some people like to bring up Hitler as a reason we must kill. Hitler was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What he did have was attitude. He could walk up to the podium and proclaim that he had a solution to Germany's problems.He selected an easily identifiable enemy. He said if you will kill that enemy, that is a good thing. He then said that if you kill other enemies, that will be even better. And the majority of the German people cheered and followed their leader and began the killing. And the ultimate goal was to take over the world and make it a better place.Sound familiar?I give my whole hearted support to those who oppose war. I am one of them. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1954 said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft - from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of scientists, and the hopes of its children." I agree. Killing to solve a conflict is ignorance. At this point in time in my life I have come to realize that there is always a peaceful way to solve every conflict. It may take time. It may take negotiations. It will take skill. It will take intelligence. But there is ALWAYS a way.People MUST SPEAK OUT and persistently demand that their leaders develop the skill to peacefully deal with conflict. To do otherwise is to be a lemming.

Arnold Stieber
Vietnam Veteran
Grass Lake

If in a democratic nation millions of citizens march to protest the actions of their government and not even a hesitation is warranted by that government, is it not their same commission as citizens to challenge the validity of the very democracy to which they cling? Millions of people across the globe took to the streets in support of a peace that seems to balance on a razor’s edge, but the imminence and tide of war seem too strong to stop - even hesitate. The administrations of the UK and the US have become so attached to securing a ‘lasting’ peace that they are willing to sacrifice the fragile one that already exists.Any peace, no matter how timid, must be harbored by democracies around the world. If there is any alternative to war, it must be allowed full maturation and its every facet fully expended. The loss of life must deter us at every possible junction away from war. These things must occur, because in a democracy peace is the greatest virtue. Peaceable, lawful advancement is the foundation by which all democracies are allowed to survive. War, though, is a great stumble, and its outcomes widely variable.The US claims to be the symbol of democracy throughout the world, a symbol other countries use to navigate toward democracy. What then do other countries do when their compass steers them from course? When their guide becomes reckless and ignores their voices? The United Nations stands alone as the greatest example of a world struggling toward egalitarianism, yet the United States, a pillar of this international dialogue, withdraws from the discussion when it cannot impose its will. It steps away from the table when democracy is at its finest.The US is undeterred in its war preparations and appears uninterested in global democracy. Is, then, the acclaimed symbol of democracy in default, and will this default be but the first domino in a world of teetering freedom?

Bryan Siddall

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! I'm Losing My Patience With My Neighbors.For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. READ THE REST OF THE STORY

Terry Jones
Terry Jones is a founding member of Monty Python

I've written Rabbi Lerner very polite letters and he has not once taken the time to respond to even one even so briefly. Sorry to say.

Mik

A KKK cannot demand being a main speaker at an NAACP rally the same way a Zionist cannot demand being a main speaker at an anti-war rally.Rabbi Lerner is free to make his own little Zionist demonstration without demanding unearned legitimacy from ANSWER by insisting on being a speaker at an ANSWER, and not a TIKKUN rally.

Sami

An idea for a news article: I was in the first graduating class from Southfield High School in 1954. We had about 160 in our graduating class and it was all white. Southfield has changed a great deal since then, especially in population and racial make-up. The current Southfield High School is largely African American.

Why don't we hear news reports about Southfield? Maybe because the residents are middle class; they mow their lawns, pay their taxes and send their children to college (check the percentage of Southfield HS grads who enter college). The NEWS is dominated by negatives, it is about people who have difficulty making it in society, commit crimes and/or call attention to themselves in some (usually negative) way. Why not an article on the current Southfield, or Southfield High School? (I can't write it, but it needs to be written.)

Larry Smith

Their smooth descent was burned through and through
until on a cloudless morning they became a man-made comet
streaking across the Texas sky. Texas, which last week executed three in such quick succession
that the national comedian joked their last meal was a buffet.
Texas, where Crawford Ranch sits astride a tyrant's pride,
hosting unctuous Saudi princes and rickety Chinese presidents.
Texas, where a small man straddles the world
and spurs it on to wider war,
his bombast and buffoonery beyond laughter,
no longer funny to anyone. What does the comet auger apocalypse or opening?
Did God pick our best and brightest as sacrifices
to demonstrate this nation's spectacular demise?
Or is it just more media fodder,
a diversion from a diversion? That space-plane fireball careening across a perfect sky
"the most complicated machine man has ever built"
reduced to chunks of metal raining down on America,
silently driven into the Texas soil.
Not bombs here, just debris.

Martin LeFevre

"Colin Powell's departure to the "Dark Side" signals the serious and swift nature Bush intends to make war. Now is the best time to seriously ratchet up all possible criticism of the White House, Bush and the senseless nature of this proposed war. Timing is everything. The war can still be averted but it is utterly critical to ratchet up the criticism to peak decibel levels. Now is the time to scream "No War!!" if this war is going to be averted. Start criticizing with sheer and punishing intensity. Today, tommorrow and Wednesday are key windows of opportunity given the State of the Union address." Sincerely,

Eric E. Johansson
Ex-US Army Paratrooper and Infantryman
President, SF Bay Area Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69
San Francisco, CA
http://www.veteransforpeace.org

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men &women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

Ann Melichar
Traverse City Commissioner

Thank you for your organizational efforts and great website. Although I've
never protested against anything before, I am definitely against this
government's push for war in the Middle East.Although I don't have funds to give, I have been e-mailing information,
sending e-mails to congresspeople, meditating, and sending out prayers and
meditation.I've never been a religious person but find that we can indeed manifest
positive change through focused, loving intentions. Below I have cut and
pasted 12 Peace Prayers along with a short meditation and the science of prayer. Please feel free to use and share any of this information to anyone
open to these possibilities. Know there are millions of people around the
world, meditating, praying, and gathering for peace. Thank you for your work!Sincerely,

Dawn Shepard,
Santa Clara, CA

George W. Bush has decided to oppose the University of Michigan affirmative action policy. He intends to influence the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Should we be surprised?Bush claimed racism was bad for America, when Trent Lott cheered on segregation. Then he re-nominated Charles Pickering to a lifetime federal court. Pickering has a racist record. Nearly all the recent Bush nominations, which have already once been rejected by the Senate, have racist, sexist, and/or homophobic records. Not to mention racial profiling against immigrants, supporting public funding of charities that discriminate, dismantling free public education, and opposing a woman's right to choose. The list goes on.Now Bush has decided to oppose affirmative action calling it "divisive." What transparent spin. It is racism that is divisive, not affirmative action, which works to remedy hundreds of years of racism.Bush has waged a war on minorities, fairness and the environment, even before he entered the White House.What are we as Americans supposed to do with a President working to dismantle our constitutional protections and destroy the very natural resources we rely on for health and sustenance.We must stand up as an anti-racist movement to support minority access to an excellent education. The only way to eradicate poverty and racism is to provide people with the tools to advance in our society.Sincerely,

Sean Kosofsky
Director of Policy
Triangle Foundation

In 45 days I will celebrate my twenty-fifth anniversary as a United Airlines pilot. I have had two employers in my thirty-one year flying career -- United and the United States Air Force, where I spent twenty years in Active and Reserve service. I know I speak for the 125,000 active, furloughed and retired United employees and the one half million stunned family members they represent, when I express my shock and anger with the recent decision to deny UAL a loan guarantee. READ MORE

I am Sheikh Azim Ahmed Tousif (Pakistani citizen) from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and I am deeply grieved by the tragic events that took place on Sept. 11 2001. Thousands of people were killed, thousands of children were orphaned, countless people lost their jobs, their businesses, their means of survival.

Therefore I seek that the people responsible for the 11 Sept. bloodbath be brought to justice, and the punishment meted out to them be as horrific as the sin they have committed. READ MORE

President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative is a very slippery slope. Having seen the problems with Islamic theocracies today, and Christian theocracies of days past -- such as the New England colonies under the Puritans? Have you not heard of the law of unintended consequences?Taxpayer money will be used to promote the various religions of those who take the grants. Take the case of the Florida-based National Center for Faith-Based Initiative, which, given $700,000 in tax dollars, reflects the following statement on their Internet home page: "Our goal is as simple as it is strategic: To create wealth! And empower our people to steward that wealth for the purposes of the kingdom, the strengthening of their communities and for the economic well-being of their children's children! However, for us, the prototype is not the world but rather the word..."Do you really think that this group won't use federal tax dollars to promote religion?Lastly, much of the federal funding will not directly benefit at-risk children or the homeless. Much of it will simply fund groups to learn how to apply for further public funding. This is not the most effective use of tax dollars to aid the needy.

Jim Dunn

There was a referendum in the Michigan town of Homer yesterday. More than eighty people voted to allow one family to secede from the town, because their tax bill forced them to pay for city water, but the water pipe didn't reach their home. More than fifty Scrooges voted to continue draining the family's water-budget. This "secession" business is a great idea. Think about it.

I've often said; "If you want a cop in The City of Detroit, you may as well send a letter." Suppose everyone who called 911 and didn't get a response within, say, fifteen minutes, just secedes from the city? No more 911 tax on your phone line, and no more Detroit income tax.

Better yet, the people of Homer had a referendum. Michigan voted for Gore. Suppose we Michiganians have a referendum? We could vote to have George Bush secede. The U.S. Senate Republican Caucus can vote on whether Trent Lott should secede from the position of majority leader (he supported 100 year old ideas from a 100 year old Senator from the first state the seceded from the Union). Many of us, according to the evening news, are going to secede from telemarketing lists. The concept has potential.

Rudy S

President Bush showed his zest for dark humor when he put out the word on Thanksgiving Friday that federal workers won't get part of their scheduled raise next year because of "our national situation." The White House couldn't say how many workers that affects or how much money the decision will save.There was no humor in the next announcement -- that 2,000 political appointees in government jobs paying $115,000 to $140,000 are eligible for $15,000 bonuses. What "national situation?" That gesture shows unwrapped contempt for low-level public servants.President Clinton excluded political appointees from the bonus program for upper-level officials. His reason was that employees used to