What Are The Marks of a Person Who Possesses Integrity?

Here's my Top 10:

1. What you see is what you get. Outer and inner are connected, parts of one whole.

2. A person who has basic integrity honors commitments and keeps promises. If they say they will be there, they are. If they promise to do something, they do it.

3. A person with integrity is truthful. You can trust what they tell you.

4. Consistency. Someone who has integrity isn't your new best friend one week and then next week doesn't seem to know you.

5. Integrity doesn't mean that a person never makes mistakes. But a person with integrity accepts responsibility for his or her own mistakes or failures and does what's in his or her power to put things right.

6. Related to No. 5, people with integrity are slow to blame others for their problems or frustrations. They aren't whiners.

7. People of integrity care about the work, the mission, or the product and about a job well done, and not just about what they personally will get out of it in terms of money, recognition or advancement.

8. While receptive to learning and change, people of integrity are skeptical of simple answers to complex problems, and not inclined toward fads or buzzwords.

9. A person of integrity minds his or her own business. I don't mean isolation. I mean paying attention to your own responsibilities and work rather than freely inserting yourself into the responsibilities of another.

10. People with integrity know that they aren't perfect and that sometimes in this life it's not possible to avoid disappointing or hurting others. Because of this they are able to forgive and they recognize their own need for forgiveness.

Clear Channel Bans Ads for Harry Shearer's CD Over Anti-Bush Image

Clear Channel, the radio station and billboard powerhouse, has banned an ad for Harry Shearer's new CD "Songs of Bushmen" because it depicts George Bush with a bone through his nose, the New York Post's Page Six reports:

The outdoor advertising arm of notoriously conservative Clear Channel has banned signs for "Songs of the Bushmen" because the cover depicts the president with a bone through his nose. "Their tone turned from genial salesperson to angry schoolmarm - 'This is unacceptable,' " Shearer, the voice of Mr. Burns and Flanders on "The Simpsons," told Page Six. "And it's not like this is a dangerous time to criticize George Bush."

Last October, Clear Channel's Palm Beach arm refused to air an ad for VoteVets during Rush Limbaugh's show because the ad "would conflict with the listeners who have chosen to listen to Rush Limbaugh."

CNN's Electoral Map: Two States Shift to Obama

(CNN) — Two more states have shifted to Barack Obama's column in the new CNN Electoral Map that charts the candidates’ strength leading up to the November election.

"Toss-up" states Minnesota and Wisconsin were re-designated to "Lean-Obama" Friday, giving the presumptive Democratic nominee another 20 electoral votes in CNN's current estimate. The Illinois senator now has 231 electoral votes — 39 shy of winning the presidency.

CNN made the change after new polling conducted by Quinnipiac University showed that Obama holds double-digit leads over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in both states. CNN's analysis estimates McCain has 194 electoral votes.

This is only a CNN estimate and is likely to change many more times in the lead up to the election.

The Quinnipiac surveys, released Thursday, showed Obama with a 17-point lead in Minnesota, 54-37 percent, and a 13 point lead in Wisconsin, 52-39 percent.

Marriage Ban Fails Vote for Arizona Ballot

The Arizona State Senate's 14-11 vote is two shy of what's needed to send Nov. 4 voters a constitutional marriage ban, but they vote to try again.

The Arizona state Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have placed a measure on the November ballot to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, the Associated Press reported.

The 14-11 vote was two shy of what was necessary to send the initiative to voters, according to AP.

Senators then voted to reconsider the bill at a later date, which could come as early as Friday.
Supporters of the proposal say it would prevent marriage from being redefined by a court or future lawmakers. Opponents counter that existing law makes the amendment unnecessary.
In 2006, Arizona voters became the first in the nation to stories related to Marriage ban fails vote for Ariz. ballot.

Enough Is Enough In Zimbabwe

Anderson Cooper

It is hard to watch what is happening in Zimbabwe.

Sickening to see thugs armed with steel clubs beating people whose only crime is to want a fair election.

For years Robert Mugabe has sent out his henchmen to intimidate his own people. For years he has run Zimbabwe into the ground. Enough is enough.

This used to be one of the most prosperous countries in Africa. I first went there in 1985, when I was seventeen and driving across southern Africa in a truck. I was there again in 1992 when I was working in Africa as a reporter.

It is a beautiful country, and the people deserve better than this. Robert Mugabe helped bring independence to Zimbabwe, but he makes the mistake all tyrants do. He believes he is indispensable, he believes he has a right to rule. He has been president for nearly 30 years. Enough is enough. The people have a right to replace him…

“They can shout as loud as they like from Washington or from London or from any other quarter,” Mugabe said recently, “our people, our people, only our people will decide, and nobody else.” The truth is, the people there have already decided.

Mugabe came in second in March when his countrymen went to the polls. Now there is a run-off election and he is doing all he can to make sure he doesn’t lose again. While the world seems to be waking up to what is happening there, little it seems is going to be done about it.
The United Nations Security Council has finally condemned the violence, but their outrage is not backed up by the threat of force. South Africa’s president and the leaders of other African countries have repeatedly turned a blind eye to Mugabe’s tactics, and without greater involvement from them, it’s unlikely much pressure will be brought to bear.

We sit and we watch, that’s all it seems we’re able to do.

Mormon Church Asks Members to Fight Same-Sex Marriage in California

A letter from the First Presidency of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City to be read in Sunday services by California church leaders urging their congregations to do what they can to support the state's ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage was leaked early, and has pissed off the gay and lesbian Mormon support group "Affirmation".

Says the letter: "The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

Affirmation's executive director released a statement in response: "Like all Mormons, the members of Affirmation believe strongly in the worth and sanctity of families - all families."

IRS Raises Auto Mileage Claim Rate Nearly 16%

By JIM ABRAMS, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service, citing the drain that high gas prices are having on people's finances, said today it is raising the automobile mileage rate that businesses and others can claim.

The tax agency said the optional standard rate to calculate deductible operating costs for vehicles will rise from 50.5 cents a mile to 58.5 cents, or 15.8 percent, for the final six months of 2008.

That rate also applies to those operating automobiles for charitable, medical or moving purposes.
"Rising gas prices are having a major impact on individual Americans," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. "Given the increase in prices, the IRS is adjusting the standard mileage rates to better reflect the real cost of operating an automobile."

The IRS said it was also changing the rate for computing deductible medical or moving expenses from 19 cents to 27 cents a mile for the final six months of the year.

The IRS normally updates the mileage rates once a year in the fall for the next calendar year.
"This is welcome news for a lot of folks out there. There's no question that the cost of operating a vehicle has risen exponentially due to the dramatic increase in gas prices," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

Coleman last week sent a letter to Shulman and called him to urge that the rate be increased to better reflect rising transportation costs.

He said he talked to Coleman again Monday and "he said that these are certainly unusual times, these are volatile times, and it requires that we act nimbly and quickly."
Associated Press reporter Fred Frommer contributed to this story.

Oregon Woman Details Abortion, Relationship with Mike Erickson

Now a "pro-life" congressional candidate, he gave her $300 and took her to the clinic in Northeast Portland, Tawnya says

Monday, June 23, 2008 JANIE HAR and STEVE MAYES The Oregonian

An Oregon City woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head no, she said, and paid for her abortion.
In interviews with The Oregonian, the woman said she met Erickson in September 2000, and she had the abortion in January 2001. They saw each other afterward, she said, even going on a trip to Mexico in March, before the relationship ended. She spoke on the condition that only her first name, Tawnya, be used.
Her story is backed up by medical and other records, and the accounts of two friends, one of whom was with her at the abortion. Their story conflicts directly with Erickson's version.
He agrees that he gave Tawnya $300 for medical help, and a ride to a doctor's office near Lloyd Center, but said he didn't know she was pregnant or planned to get an abortion. He said he doesn't think he saw her again after that day.
Erickson, a Lake Oswego businessman, is the Republican candidate for the 5th Congressional District and is running on a "pro-life" platform. The charge that he provided money to Tawnya nearly derailed his campaign for the May 20 primary and could hobble his chances in the Nov. 4 general election against state Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby.
Tawnya, now 34, recalled sitting with Erickson in his new Mercedes that January, parked across from the abortion clinic.
"I was bawling so hard I couldn't speak. He looked so sad. He looked like he cared," she said.
"I asked him, 'Are you sure you don't want a baby?' " she said. "He shook his head. I opened the door, got out bawling and crossed the street and walked up to the clinic."
Erickson, 45, said he dated Tawnya "for a couple of months." He told The Oregonian he didn't remember many details about their relationship, including where they met or when they dated. He said she betrayed no emotion during the car ride.
"Did I pay for an abortion? Absolutely not," Erickson said.
"She was having some financial troubles," he said. "She asked for some money to go have a doctor's appointment -- not knowing what that was -- and whatever happened, happened, I guess. I didn't even know she had an abortion."
Erickson has campaigned on a strict anti-abortion platform that favors abstinence education and adoption over abortion. His opponent in last month's primary, Kevin Mannix, spotlighted the abortion story in a mass mailing to voters a week before the election. Mannix did so without Tawnya's knowledge or consent.
Tawnya reluctantly agreed to talk after repeated requests from The Oregonian. She said she was motivated in part by seeing Erickson tell his version to television reporters before the primary election.
"I'm just sick to my stomach watching him be interviewed on the news completely lying about everything," she said.
She requested her medical records from the Bours Health Center in Northeast Portland. The record shows an abortion was performed Jan. 30, 2001. She paid $300.
The record also shows she was accompanied by Kristi Oetken, identified on the form as her best friend.
"Cried the entire time"
Tawnya was 26 years old when she met Erickson, then 37.
She was a single mom of a 3-year-old girl, earning $13.77 an hour at a Milwaukie warehouse and living in a small apartment. She let her ex-boyfriend move in to help care for their daughter.
Erickson prospered as president of AFMS, a fast-growing business that advises companies on ways to lower their shipping expenses.
They met at Mount Angel's Oktoberfest in September 2000, according to Tawnya and her friend Joy Johanson, who was there. Erickson handed her his business card. His title -- president -- impressed her. She called him.
They dated, Tawnya said, and spent time on his houseboat at Portland's Macadam Bay Club, cooking meals and playing hide-and-seek with her daughter.
She couldn't recall exactly when she learned she was pregnant, or when she told Erickson. But she did tell him, she said.
"I just remember him being fairly solemn about it. He didn't tell me I had to get an abortion. He didn't force me," Tawnya said.
But he also wasn't going to marry her, she said, and she didn't want to raise another child on her own.
She scheduled the appointment and said she asked Erickson to take her there. He stopped at an ATM to withdraw $300 to give her. During the drive, he told her that because of work he couldn't stay, she said.
Oetken held her hand during the procedure and drove her home afterward.
"She cried the entire time," said Oetken, 36, who is a recruiter for a Portland-area high-tech company. "I was just being a friend but lecturing her at the same time, 'You need to be rid of this guy, and I hope this is the last straw.' "
Oetken said she called Erickson later that day and left him a scathing voice mail.
Johanson, who worked with Tawnya at the time but hasn't stayed in touch, said she never spoke to Erickson about the abortion. But Johanson was relieved when Tawnya told her that Erickson would take her to the clinic and pay for the procedure.
"He took her and dropped her off, so she started freaking out," Johanson said. "It enraged Kristi that he just ditched her like that."
"It made me sick"
The abortion first cropped up two years ago when Erickson ran against Democrat Darlene Hooley.
Tawnya, a registered Republican, said she received a campaign flier with a photo of Erickson next to a baby, touting his endorsement by the anti-abortion group Oregon Right to Life.
The mailer made him out to be "some sort of safe haven for babies, and honestly, it made me sick," she said.
She called Oetken, who sent an e-mail to a handful of news outlets calling Erickson a hypocrite and offering to tell their story. The e-mail was copied to Erickson and Hooley.
Erickson denied the allegation in a statement to reporters who inquired about Oetken's e-mail.
No news stories appeared. Tawnya said she wasn't ready to talk about her abortion then.
Erickson's account
Erickson gives a far different account of events.
He said he thinks that a week or two before the appointment, Tawnya called asking for help with money to see a doctor. A day or two before the appointment, he said, she called to say she had car troubles and needed a ride.
He said he didn't ask her why she needed to see a doctor, saying he didn't want to pry.
"I knew her pretty well but not like -- it wasn't my girlfriend -- but it was somebody that I had a relationship with," Erickson said.
Erickson didn't wait around. "She said her friend was picking her up and they were going to do something at the mall, or something like that."
Erickson said that he does not remember seeing Tawnya again after she left his car.
"I think we talked on the phone once or twice (afterward), and none of this ever came up. (We) never dated again," Erickson said.
The relationship ended, he said, when he learned she was sharing her apartment with her ex-boyfriend.
Photos from a trip
But Tawnya and Johanson said Erickson accompanied them on a Mexican getaway in March 2001, a month after the abortion. She provided documentation and photos of the trip.
Erickson suggested they take a trip as a way to mend their relationship, Tawnya said. They were accompanied by Johanson and three of Erickson's male friends.
Erickson said he believes the Mexico trip took place before the medical appointment, although he couldn't provide a date.
"She flew down there with her girlfriend. I was there with three other friends. It happened to be we were down there around the same time. That's true," he said. "I forget if we were on the same plane or not, or different flights."
Johanson said she went at Erickson's invitation and that he subsidized some of their expenses. She and Tawnya flew to Mexico on the same flight as Erickson.
The women shared one room. The men were in another, she said.
Johanson said Erickson spent much of the trip with his friends, although she recalled Erickson and Tawnya spent at least one night together.
Johanson said it was clear to her the romance between Tawnya and Erickson was done.
"They were over by this trip. It wasn't like they were a couple."
On that point, Erickson agrees. "It wasn't like we were on a boyfriend-girlfriend trip," Erickson said. "We were friends, mostly."
Erickson said he's almost certain he did not spend an intimate evening with Tawnya in Mexico.
"I don't think I did," he said. "I don't believe I did."

Days are Numbered for Ballard Denny's

By AUBREY COHEN P-I REPORTER

Seattle officials issued a permit Friday morning to demolish the Ballard landmark that formerly housed a Manning's Cafeteria, then a Denny's restaurant.

Building owner BCC Mikie Ballard LLC, a partnership led by the Benaroya Co., has a deal to sell the site to developer Rhapsody Partners, which applied to replace it with an eight-story building containing retail space and more than 260 homes.

The city Landmarks Preservation Board gave the building a reprieve in February, when it declared the slope-roofed structure a city landmark. But the board decided last month that there was no economically viable way to save the building and declined to impose any controls that would block demolition.

Project spokesman Louie Richmond said early Friday afternoon that he did not yet know when the building might be demolished.

Modern architecture fans had rallied behind the building, erected in 1964 at Northwest Market Street and 15th Avenue Northwest. They consider it an excellent example of the Googie style, which got its name from a Sunset Strip coffee shop designed in 1949, and was notable for flamboyant elements designed to attract passing motorists.

BCC Mikie Ballard LLC paid the now-defunct Monorail Authority $12.5 million in 2006 for a large site that included the building.

Lou Dobbs : Impeach Bush Over Tomatoes

Huffington Post - June 20, 2008

Thursday night, Lou Dobbs called for George Bush's impeachment over his mismanagement of the Food and Drug Administration which has, in Dobbs' view, ultimately led to the ongoing salmonella scare surrounding tomatoes.

You know, I have heard a lot of reasons over the years as to why George W. Bush should be impeached. For them to leave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this state, its leadership in this sorry condition and to have no capacity apparently or will to protect the American consumer - that is alone to me sufficient reason to impeach a president who has made this agency possible and has ripped its guts out in its ability to protect the American consumer. It's insane what is going on here.

Bush, Cheney Wanted McClellan to Say Libby Wasn't Involved In CIA Leak Case...

Laurie Kellman, AP, June 20, 08

WASHINGTON — Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said President Bush has lost the public's trust by failing to be open about his administration's mistakes and backtracking on a promise to tell all about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."

The White House was dismissive of the event and McClellan himself.

"I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

In his recently released book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan said he was instructed to tell what turned out to be lies about the role of senior White House officials in the leak of Plame's name.

Bush's spokesman from 2003-2006, McClellan said that former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff at the time, was not involved in the leak.

"I was reluctant to do it," McClellan said. "I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."

In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters. Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. Rove remained, eventually leaving office in August 2007. Rove has never been charged in the case.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, of Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq.
Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time. "It was special treatment," McClellan said of the commutation.

McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Lingering public mistrust of the administration in the sunset of the president's second term comes from errors in Bush's justifications for the war and broken presidential promises, McClellan told the panel.

He said the White House "packaged" prewar intelligence to justify going to war.
"It's public record that they were ignoring caveats and ignoring contradictory intelligence," he said.

Bush also backtracked on his promise of accountability in the Plame matter, McClellan said.
The White House had said in 2003 that anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise in June 2004.

By July 2005, Bush qualified his position, saying he would fire anyone for leaking classified information if that person had "committed a crime." He then commuted Libby's sentence.
McClellan said the White House helped the Justice Department investigate the leak, but he knew of no internal White House probe to ferret out and fire the leaker.

"I certainly think that the president should have stuck by his word on the matter, and I certainly view the commutation as it was special treatment," McClellan said. "It does undermine our system of justice."

Republicans cast his testimony as old news. Ranking Republican Lamar Smith of Texas questioned the impartiality of McClellan's publisher and said that whatever McClellan had been instructed to say about the Plame affair was typical work of the White House press office.

"It should be of no surprise that there was spin in the White House Press Office," said Smith.

"What White House has not had a communications operation that advocates for its policies? Any recent administration that did not try to promote its priorities should be cited for dereliction of duty."

Opponents of Gay-Rights Laws Abandon Repeal Effort

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
BILL GRAVES, The Oregonian Staff

Organizers conceded Monday that their initiatives to repeal two Oregon gay rights laws will not make the November ballot.

The fact that the initiatives are stalled offers more evidence that opponents are losing support, say gay rights activists, who were also celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriages in California on Monday.

But conservatives and church groups that are pushing the Oregon initiatives say their support is growing.

"We're just getting stronger," said Marylin Shannon of Brooks, a former Republican state senator and chief petitioner in the initiative drives. "The network is growing daily."

They are targeting two laws passed by the 2007 Legislature. One law banned discrimination against gays in work, housing and public places such as restaurants.

The other created domestic partnerships, civil union-like contracts that give government recognition and most of the state benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.
The domestic partnership law went into effect Feb. 4, and so far 2,065 same-sex couples, from every county in the state, have registered for partnerships. About 70 percent of the couples are women, and nearly half live in Multnomah County.

Basic Rights Oregon, the state's largest gay rights group, challenged ballot titles for the initiatives in April and May with petitions to the Oregon Supreme Court.

The court has yet to rule, and until it does, initiative supporters cannot collect signatures. With the July 3 deadline less than three weeks away, initiative supporters concede they will not have time to collect the 82,769 signatures they need for each initiative.

Opponents argue domestic partnerships give same-sex couples marriage by another name and violate the spirit of Measure 36, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2004. The measure declared marriage legally valid only between a man and a woman.

Critics tried to collect enough signatures last year to refer the domestic partnership law to voters but fell 96 signatures short. They challenged the count in federal court, lost and appealed. Three members of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear that appeal July 8 in Portland.

Meanwhile same-sex couples are planning summer ceremonies, and activists say public attitudes are changing.

"There is a sea change in the sense that the opponents of our laws don't have the kind of support in this state that perhaps they once did," said Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.

A CBS News poll released Sunday shows a shift in attitudes nationwide. In the poll, 30 percent of Americans say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, up from 21 percent in 2004. Another 28 percent support some form of legal recognition such as a domestic partnership.

But while Oregonians may be more tolerant of giving benefits to gay couples -- such as the right to transfer property or make health care decisions -- most remain firmly opposed to marriage, said Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family Council, a Christian organization.

"They are as strong, if not stronger, on the idea that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman," he said Monday.

They also worry about gay rights conflicting with their religious beliefs or affecting their children in public schools, Nashif said.

Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, a chief petitioner for the initiative to repeal the domestic partnership law, said he was discouraged by the Oregon Supreme Court's lack of action.

"We are not authorized to pick up one signature yet," he said. "Something is not quite right with that."

Basic Rights challenged the title of the initiative to repeal domestic partnerships because it did not make it clear to voters that it would not only repeal the domestic partnership law but also nullify similar local laws, said Margaret Olney, a Portland attorney representing the group.

Basic Rights also complained the initiative challenging the anti-discrimination law was difficult to understand and did not make it clear to voters that it would apply retroactively, Olney said.
Opponents now must consider whether to file new initiatives for 2010, Shannon said.

"We're getting tired of the way we're being treated," she said, "but we're not giving up."

A CBS News poll released Sunday shows a shift in attitudes nationwide. In the poll, 30 percent of Americans say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, up from 21 percent in 2004.

Another 28 percent support some form of legal recognition such as a domestic partnership.

But while Oregonians may be more tolerant of giving benefits to gay couples -- such as the right to transfer property or make health care decisions -- most remain firmly opposed to marriage, said Tim Nashif, political director of the Oregon Family Council, a Christian organization.

"They are as strong, if not stronger, on the idea that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman," he said Monday.

They also worry about gay rights conflicting with their religious beliefs or affecting their children in public schools, Nashif said.

Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, a chief petitioner for the initiative to repeal the domestic partnership law, said he was discouraged by the Oregon Supreme Court's lack of action.

"We are not authorized to pick up one signature yet," he said. "Something is not quite right with that."

Basic Rights challenged the title of the initiative to repeal domestic partnerships because it did not make it clear to voters that it would not only repeal the domestic partnership law but also nullify similar local laws, said Margaret Olney, a Portland attorney representing the group.

Basic Rights also complained the initiative challenging the anti-discrimination law was difficult to understand and did not make it clear to voters that it would apply retroactively, Olney said.

Opponents now must consider whether to file new initiatives for 2010, Shannon said.

"We're getting tired of the way we're being treated," she said, "but we're not giving up."

CBS's Lara Logan Slams American Coverage of Iraq War

On last night's Daily Show, Lara Logan, CBS's Chief Foreign Correspondent, spoke out against the coverage of the Iraq War by the American press.

At about 6 minutes into the clip, Logan recalls being asked if she felt responsibility for how Americans perceived the war.

Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier. What does that look like? Who in American knows what that looks like? Because I know what that looks like, and I feel responsible for the fact that no one else does. ... And the soldiers do feel forgotten, they do. No doubt. From Afghanistan to Iraq, they absolutely feel -- you know, we may be tired of hearing about this five years later, they still have to go out and do the same job.

David Beckham Does Giorgio Armani

Seattle's Housing Growth is Off the Charts

By Stuart Eskenazi, Seattle Times staff reporter

It should come as a surprise to no one that Seattle is growing fast.

But this fast?

In just over three years, Seattle already is halfway to reaching its targeted housing growth for 20 years.

And a few sections of town — Ballard, Eastlake, the Central Area, Greenlake, Lower Queen Anne and downtown — already have exceeded their 20-year targets.

The numbers, included within a city report on residential growth, provide fodder for those who argue that runaway growth has sacrificed Seattle's quality of life.
They plan to use the report to oppose a proposal at City Hall that would expand tax exemptions for developers who build condos and apartments in areas targeted for significant growth. To get the tax breaks, some of the units must be priced below market rate.
The City Council's Housing and Economic Development Committee is to consider that proposal today.
"There's been so much focus on Seattle absorbing its fair share of growth to stop suburban sprawl," Councilmember Nick Licata said. "Well, we have to pat ourselves on the back. We are more than meeting our responsibility.
"Now's the time for us to step back and ask ourselves if we are accompanying that growth with improvements to our public services, cultural amenities and open spaces. And I would say the answer to that question is no."
Alan Justad, spokesman for the Department of Planning and Development that created the report, cautioned that the 2024 targets are minimum projections and should not be interpreted as prescribed limits on residential growth.
He said the numbers are neither terribly alarming nor particularly surprising.
"A target is a planning tool to help us decide how to invest to accommodate growth," Justad said. "We expected high and low cycles during this 20 years. We've just been through a very high construction spike — very high. It's quite possible that cycle is changing right now."
Between January 2005 and March 2008, Seattle experienced a net gain of more than 10,600 housing units, with an additional 13,000 or so in progress. That's 50 percent of the city's 2024 target of 47,000 additional units.
Among the city's 38 urban villages (neighborhood centers targeted for high-density growth), Ballard wins the prize as being the farthest above its 20-year target.
Since 2005, Ballard has added 287 units, with a whopping 1,452 more permitted, many almost ready for occupancy. Combined, that's 174 percent of Ballard's target of adding 1,000 housing units.
"On some level, I'm surprised the numbers are that low," said Catherine Weatbrook, who works on planning issues for the Ballard District Council, a neighborhood group. "I mean, all you have to do is just look around."
She said services to accommodate Ballard's rapid growth are not keeping pace. For example, buses that service Ballard are standing-room-only during rush hour, sometimes so packed they don't even stop to pick up waiting passengers.
"The demand for services is not going down and we don't seem to have the structure in place to respond," she said. "Growth is going to happen. We can plan for it — or we can have chaos."
Jim Jacobson, Metro's deputy general manager, said Metro constantly adjusts its service to meet demand, but that Ballard is only one of several rapidly growing areas wanting more buses. Metro is adding some service to Ballard this fall, he said, "but are we adding as much as people would like? Probably not," he said.
To contain suburban sprawl, the state's Growth Management Act required counties to set growth targets. In King County, Seattle is responsible for absorbing a large percentage of that growth. As part of its planning process, the city apportioned its share among its urban villages.
The targets are to be revised in 2011.
Other parts of King County growing faster than anticipated include downtown Bellevue, downtown Renton, Covington and Maple Valley, while some areas of Southwest King County are behind targeted levels, said Paul Reitenbach, senior policy analyst for King County's Department of Development and Environmental Services.
"It's not unusual to exceed targets where demand for housing really spikes," he said. "To me, it's a healthy thing. I'd rather be on the upper edge with far more growth than lagging behind, which is a sign of a struggling economy."
In Seattle, Eastlake already is at 158 percent of its residential growth target, second only to Ballard.
"While some Eastlake residents might mourn the change of their neighborhood, others appreciate the urban vitality they see growing up around them," said Matthew Stubbs, president of the Eastlake Community Council. "I would not say there is a universal cry to halt development, but there are some common desires for our neighborhood that I hear repeatedly.
"We want to ensure that our voices are heard in the development process. We want our infrastructure to keep pace with our growth. We need access to our neighborhood schools, reliable mass transportation, well-maintained open space and community gathering places. These needs become more critical as each new development opens its doors."
Other parts of town are falling shy of target, such as Rainier Beach, where only 41 additional housing units have been built or permitted since January 2005. That's just 7 percent of its target of 600.
One area where the city is promoting significant growth — Northgate — is at 30 percent of its target of 2,500 additional units. South Lake Union, which was targeted for the most growth at 8,000 new units, is at 19 percent.
The residential-growth report was highlighted in a recent Seattle Displacement Coalition news release that calls for opposing Mayor Greg Nickels' proposal to expand tax exemptions for developers.
The coalition opposes development that jeopardizes low-income housing.
"These numbers ought to dispel the myth that Seattle isn't taking its fair share of responsibility for growth, which is something the mayor uses to justify upzones and other perks for developers and builders," the coalition's John Fox said. "This reinforces people's suspicions that we're accommodating special interests at City Hall."
Nickels' proposal would make the tax incentive available to developers who build housing geared toward people earning just shy of median income — such as rookie cops and firefighters, teachers and hospital workers. It would spread the program across the city, including to areas that have surpassed their 20-year growth targets, such as Ballard, Eastlake, parts of the Central Area, Greenlake and Lower Queen Anne.
"Meeting the growth target doesn't mean an area is at capacity," said Alex Fryer, Nickels' spokesman. "Ballard has more capacity. Growth is going to come there anyway. The mayor just wants to make sure that the new units are affordable for people like school teachers and firefighters."
But Licata said priorities should focus on providing services to areas that already have grown.
"This is an example of some developers latching onto a public subsidy scheme without comparable public benefits," he said. "Just stuffing more people into the city without making investments in infrastructure is irresponsible."

This disgusting pin was being sold at the Republican state convention in Texas this past weekend.

Gavin Newsom is a ROCK STAR!

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGERTue Jun 17, 11:10 AM ET

Same-sex couples began marrying late Monday night in courthouse ceremonies across California, putting triumphantly happy human faces on a debate that is nevertheless far from over. Crowds turned out to welcome - and, for some, to protest - weddings in Beverly Hills, Oakland and the wine country north of San Francisco.
In San Francisco, hundreds gathered to see long-time gay rights icons Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin marry after more than half a century as a couple. "When we first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," Lyon said to laughter, standing behind Martin's wheelchair. "I think it's a wonderful day. We are very happy." "Ditto," said Martin.
But even as the state braces for thousands more weddings in coming weeks, some of the most ardent supporters of same-sex marriage are casting anxious glances at the calendar and wondering how long the wedding bells will chime in California. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is one of them.
Just before officiating at the Lyon and Martin nuptials Monday evening, Mayor Newsom took a break from what he described as the increasingly electric atmosphere around City Hall to worry about what the fall might bring. "There is just a great sense of pride here this afternoon," Mayor Newsom told TIME. "But there is a great deal of trepidation, concern and worry, too."
The weddings will stop abruptly this fall if California voters approve a November ballot initiative banning gay marriage. "There are a lot of mixed emotions about this," Newsom said. "It's exhilarating on the one hand. But it's by no means certain that California won't take back what it has given."
He should know. He had already married Martin and Lyon once before, in 2004. "Disgusted and outraged" at President Bush's State of the Union address that year, the mayor decided to challenge California ban on gay marriage by giving a marriage license to the couple. More than 4,000 other couples followed suit, and while their weddings were later voided, the court challenge led to last month's Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage.
Newsom told TIME he never expected to be in the middle of a fight for gay marriage. "Gay marriage was not on my radar. No one had asked me what I thought about it, and I had never really given it any thought one way or another." But the Bush State of the Union address changed all that. "I just felt deeply disconnected to my country, about which I care about very much. So I decided I'd make my stand by marrying one couple, and we decided [in 2004] we'd issue a marriage license for Phyllis and Del. Little did we know, we'd have 4,036 couples marry before it was over."
By the time Newsom presided over Martin and Lyon's new marriage on Monday, the battle lines for the fight in the fall had begun to form. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the archdiocese of Los Angeles. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened."
But the church's warnings are likely to do little to stem the tide of weddings between now and November. Newsom said there are already 1,670 couples registered for marriage licenses in San Francisco - and another 636 have booked space for weddings at city hall.
And it will be those weddings, Newsom told TIME, that will be gay-marriage supporters' best weapon in defeating the amendment. "There are some who just can't get over the idea, the image even, of two men kissing. But for most Californians, I think, if they just pause and think about what gay marriage means to the people they know, they won't want to take it away. The people getting married are your teachers, your neighbors, your cousins. They are the bus drivers, waiters and waitresses and your doctors. They are going to say, well, I never knew Doctor Bob was with his partner for 30 years. But you know, he is a good man, a good doctor. And this has made him just so happy."
Newsom says that it has been a struggle within his own family to accept his support of gay marriage. "I was educated by the Notre Dame nuns and went to a Jesuit college. It has been a challenge in my own family. Some just don't get it. My father took a while. He was a judge on the California Court of Appeals and he did not approve of what I was doing [in 2004.] But I told him, just come into City Hall. Don't tell anyone who you are, no one will recognize me. Just come by yourself and see for yourself what these marriages mean. He did that, and when he came and talked to me, he had a hard time keeping himself together. This isn't just about the couples themselves, and it's so much bigger than the gay agenda. It's about the families and the children of the couples who get married. He came away realizing that his marriage was not going to be effected."
Come what may in November, Newsom says, he'll rest easy knowing he helped make weddings like the one he performed Monday as legal as the one he'll take part in next month, when he marries his girlfriend. "I'm extraordinarily proud of what we've accomplished. I'll sleep well because of this." View this article on Time.com

What's The Best Sunblock You Got?

Triple Threat Pugs

FINALLY, Utah Gets a Clue and Nixes Obama Monkey Doll

The Associated Press

Posted: 10:07 AM- The Web site for a Utah company that had offered a sock monkey named for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama now says the toy won't be manufactured.

Some had called the toy racist.

On Saturday, Sock Obama LLC issued a statement saying it didn't mean to anger anyone. On Sunday, a statement on the company Web site said, "We are very apologetic to all who were upset by our toy idea. We will not be proceeding with the manufacturing of this toy."

Jeanetta Williams, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, had called the toy "pure racism at its extreme."

Thornton Place

Judge Sees Equal Rights for Gays & Lesbians

Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, June 15, 2008

California Chief Justice Ronald George is prepared for the voters' verdict on his ruling legalizing same-sex marriages - but whatever comes this autumn, he says it won't be long before most Californians accept equal rights for gays and lesbians as a matter of course.
In an interview about the court's May 15 decision overturning the state's marriage law, George drew comparisons to another historic 4-3 ruling 60 years earlier that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage.
That ruling is no longer controversial, but it was a different story then. The 1948 court was far ahead of public opinion both nationally and in California, where 16 years later the voters amended their Constitution to authorize racial discrimination in real estate sales. Both the state's and the nation's high courts later ruled that initiative unconstitutional.
"I suspect it will not take as long for the public to adjust to the idea of gay marriage as it did to racial equality," George said. One reason, he said, is California's increasing diversity.
"When people count among their friends, as I do, gay individuals, and have friends who have gay children, and mix with a number of ethnic groups, I think it's much harder to demonize in one's mind any kind of minority," he said.
Court may not be done
George wouldn't discuss the court's deliberations that led to the ruling overturning the state law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, or the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot that would write a ban on gay and lesbian marriages into the state Constitution. If the measure passes, George's court will almost certainly be called upon to decide whether marriages already performed remain valid, and possibly whether the initiative itself is constitutional.
But the chief justice disputed one of the main arguments by critics of the ruling, including the dissenting justices: that the court had overstepped its bounds and thwarted the will of the people who reaffirmed the ban on same-sex marriages in a 2000 initiative.
"That's a false dichotomy," George said. "The ultimate will of the people is the Constitution." By adopting the state and federal constitutions, he said, "the people have put limits on their ability to enact laws."
The voters' ability to override the court by rewriting the state Constitution "does weaken the argument that the popular will is being frustrated," George said.
George, 68, was named a Municipal Court judge in Los Angeles by Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972 and has won promotions from three other governors, Republican George Deukmejian, Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Pete Wilson, who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1991.
A moderate Republican, he has written opinions in several civil rights cases that could easily have come from the liberal majority that held sway on California's high court for more than four decades, until Chief Justice Rose Bird and two colleagues were removed in a 1986 election that focused on their votes to overturn death sentences. Among the most notable was a 1997 ruling overturning a law requiring parental consent for minors' abortions.
George's same-sex ruling relied heavily on the court's 1948 decision on interracial marriage, written by a renowned liberal, Justice Roger Traynor. No other state's court had ever recognized a constitutional right for interracial couples to marry, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not do so until 1967.
A lesson from that case, George said in the interview, was that laws denying "certain basic rights could not be justified just because of history and tradition."
He recalled a trip with his parents to the still-segregated South as a teenager, when he was shocked to see whites-only signs on drinking fountains and restroom doors.
"It sensitized me to the fact there are minorities of all sorts of types who can be victimized by the majority," George said. Protecting vulnerable minorities, he said, is "one of the purposes of the courts and of our Constitution."
Logic behind ruling
That experience influenced his approach to a critical issue in last month's case: whether homosexuality belongs in the same legal category as race, gender and religion. California courts reserve that classification for groups that have been historically persecuted for reasons unrelated to their character or abilities, and almost invariably overturn laws that discriminate against those groups.
Once George and three colleagues agreed that bias based on sexual orientation deserved the same treatment - a conclusion no other state's high court had ever reached - their decision to strike down the marriage law was virtually inevitable, he said.
Broader decision
The ruling was much broader than the 2003 decision by Massachusetts' high court, the only other state court to legalize same-sex marriage. That court found no rational basis for continuing to deny marital status to gay and lesbian couples, but did not address the overall issue of discriminatory laws.
The California court's treatment of anti-gay bias as akin to race or sex discrimination "will have, I think, vast consequences, not only in California but in other states," whose courts often follow California's lead, George said. That part of the ruling is a precedent that will survive even if voters ban same-sex marriage in November.
Was it the right time for the court to take the lead on the issue? It was the same question that confronted the state's high court in 1948, and it is certain to be raised between now and Nov. 4.
"We don't go out and look for these cases," George said. "We have to rule on what comes through the door."
Still, the court could have sidestepped the case after a state appeals court upheld the marriage law in 2006. Instead, the justices, despite their disagreement on the constitutional issue, voted unanimously to grant review.
Justices saw it coming
"It was the importance of the issue," George said. From the first events in 2004 - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's order authorizing same-sex marriages, followed by nearly 4,000 weddings at City Hall, then by the state Supreme Court's decision to nullify those marriages and refer the legal dispute to lower courts - "we probably all felt that this was a case that was going to end up in our laps."
George said he wrote the marriage opinion himself, rather than assigning it to a colleague, for the same reason he wrote the earlier abortion case - that it's part of the chief justice's job to take the heat.
As leader of the court, "I should have the broad shoulders to take this one on," George said. His job, as he has frequently observed, "wouldn't be worth having or keeping if you had to look over your shoulder."
That could make him a target the next time he stands for election to the court in 2010. Some backers of the November initiative are already talking about campaigning to unseat him when his 12-year term expires.
George has long been eligible to retire with full benefits and find more-lucrative work as a private arbitrator. But he made it clear he's not going anywhere, so long as the voters will have him.
"There are no greener pastures," he said. "As long as I feel I have the physical and mental stamina to do the job, there's nothing I'd rather be doing."
Ronald George
Position: Chief justice, California Supreme Court
Age: 68
Education: Princeton University, Stanford University Law School
Experience
Deputy attorney general, state of California, 1965-72
Los Angeles Municipal Court judge, 1972-78
Los Angeles Superior Court judge, 1978-87
Second District Court of Appeal justice, 1987-91
California Supreme Court justice, 1991-96. Chief justice, 1996-present
Family: Married, three children

Obama Sock Monkey Ripped by NAACP

FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah company offering online a sock monkey named for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says it didn’t mean to anger anyone with a ‘‘cute and cuddly’’ toy that some are calling racist.

‘‘We simply made a casual and affectionate observation one night, and a charming association between a candidate and a toy we had when we were little,’’ according to a statement issued Saturday by Sock Obama LLC.

Jeanetta Williams, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called the toy ‘‘pure racism at its extreme.’’

Longtime Partners & Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage, Prepare For California's Historic Law

(CBS) Even for a state used to earthquakes, the California Supreme Court's decision last month to legalize same sex marriage was a jolt. But even as gay couples make plans to wed this week, opponents say tradition should - and will - be restored. Our cover story is reported now by John Blackstone:
In the cheery rotunda of San Francisco's City Hall … always a great place for a wedding … it's a moment of calm before the storm. Tomorrow this grand old building will reaffirm its place at the epicenter of the same-sex marriage debate, with what's likely to be the very first legal gay wedding in California performed by San Francisco's mayor Gavin Newsom. "I don't know what's the big deal at the end of the day to allow people to be treated fairly," Newsom said. "My gosh, what more American value is there than that?" But American values have generally viewed marriage as joining a man and a woman. Thirty days ago in California that all changed. Gay couples cheered and began making wedding plans when, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. When the ruling takes effect at one minute after 5 tomorrow afternoon, California becomes the only state besides Massachusetts where it's legal to marry someone of the same sex. For Mayor Newsom it was an unexpected victory in a controversial movement he unleashed in 2004 when he authorized the City Hall marriage of one couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80s, together more than 50 years. "I never imagined that at 9:01 when the courts opened after we had married that couple, that they didn't shut us down," Newsom said. "And another couple got married." As the word spread, dozens and then hundreds of same-sex couples showed up at City Hall, to get licenses and get married. "And then all of a sudden, 4,036 couples from literally 46 states and 18 countries came together over the course of a month, and then there was a different energy and a different expectation," Newsom said.
America changes. America is made up of decent people.
George Takei
Finally the State Supreme Court ordered it to stop. Some couples, who were waiting in line for their chance at marriage, were crushed. Now the lines will begin again. And not just in San Francisco, but at city halls and county offices across the state. "There are thousands and thousands, and thousands of couples that want to see their lives affirmed," Newsom said, "but the fact is we're gonna be fine. This is all going to be okay." For many gay couples, that's an understatement. Some of the more high profile marriage seekers include Ellen Degeneres, who publicly came out on TV more than a decade ago. She announced her intention to wed actress Portia de Rossi. Actor George Takei, best known as Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek," plans to wed his partner of 21 years, Brad Altman. Blackstone asked Takei what was the reaction in his household when the news of the Supreme Court decision came. "We didn't know about it," Takei said, "and we were having a bite to eat in the kitchen over there. And I think I bit into a sandwich when the word came down. "And all of a sudden Brad fell down to the floor. I mean, he got down on his knees. And I said, you know with my mouth full of food, 'What are you doing?' And he was on his knees and said, 'George, will you marry me?' And I said, 'Darn it! I meant to ask you. You beat me to it!'" "I just want to be a part of the mainstream American society, which I am," Altman said. "But I don't want to feel like I'm a second-class citizen - That I can have a domestic partnership but I can't have a marriage." Opponents of same-sex marriage say marriage is much more than a word; it's an important concept with only one meaning.
"By definition marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (left). He is among those urging Californians to vote in November for a constitutional amendment to again ban same-sex marriage. "Now what's gonna happen in the interim?" Brown said. "Likely all the effects we've seen around the country - parents being taught they have no say in what their kids are taught in school, and that Johnny needs to be taught that it's the exact same thing to grow up and marry Jimmy as it is to marry Mary, that there's no distinction at all. That's what the law now says." Brown says the state supreme court improperly overturned the will of the people. In 2000 California voters approved a measure declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". But California does recognize domestic partnerships. Arguing against gay marriage, the state attorney general said domestic partners have rights equal to those of married couples, just under a different name. The state supreme court however ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal. A CBS News poll conducted last week found that a majority of Americans - 58 percent - support some form of legal recognition for same sex couples. But many still don't want that to be called "marriage." Twenty-eight percent approve of civil unions, 30 percent for allowing gay couples to marry - the highest number since CBS began asking that question in 2004. Massachussetts issues same-sex marriage licenses only for residents. Since California has no residency requirement, gay couples from across the country are expected to head west - and then go home to an uncertain legal future. Right now, 44 states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Eight states do provide some spousal rights to same-sex partners, but only New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. "So this is something that's gonna challenge a lot of people," Newsom said. "But I think when they realize that this is really about humanity, this is about human love and expression, it's nothing more than that, then they'll soften. And they'll understand. 'You know what? It's okay. Let's move on to other things.'" But the opposition in California is strong… Citizens in Kern County lined up to show their support for County Clerk Ann Barnett. She dodged a reporter's questions after announcing that her office will no longer perform wedding ceremonies. It's an issue several county clerks in California are wrestling with. Even the most ardent supporters of the new law say it's going to be, well, different.
Blackstone asked Contra Costa County Clerk Steve Weir (left) what was changed about the marriage application. "Well, instead of 'bride and groom,' it's 'party A and party B.'" "That's not very romantic!" Blackstone said. Weir, who said he plans to be the first in line at his own office Tuesday morning to marry his longtime partner, John Hemm ("I will be 'party B'") admitted, "Yeah, it's not very romantic. It's just the way it is. I'm doing it for the ceremony. I'm doing it for the public ritual, which I believe in. "I like to see people go to the polls to vote because it's a ritual, and I like for people to declare their love for each other and also have some responsibility, and some benefits that come from it, and we're looking forward to all of that." For the 18 years Weir and Hemm have been together, the closest they got to a marriage ceremony was a staged photo, taken after one too many cocktails. Hemm was wearing white. "I was just waiting for the time when you could just do it like everybody else does in the world, you just go down to City Hall or to the county clerk's office, get the paperwork done, and not make anything different or special," Hemms aid. "You know, some people in the world want it to be different. They want to be able to point that finger and say, you know, 'Oh, there go those gay people again, making a spectacle of themselves.' No, it's just like anybody else." But it's not like anybody else, says Brian Brown. To him, gay marriage is an attempt to normalize something that isn't normal at all. What's normal for George Takei is a world that's ever changing.."People change," he said. "There was a time when there was no role for women in the institutions of American society. And the strongest contender against the African-American candidate was a woman. People have changed. "And I know that people can change. Because I grew up behind the barbwire fences of American interment camps. That was in my lifetime. And here I am now, a popular actor, supported by many, many people throughout the country. America changes. America is made up of decent people." But when the weddings begin again in California, some decent people will see only indecency. Though that is not likely to diminish the joy for those who thought marriage could never be theirs.

Olbermann Special Comment: McCain should know better

Context and decency elude the GOP presidential nominee
SPECIAL COMMENT

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
updated 6:23 p.m. PT, Thurs., June. 12, 2008

Tonight, a Special Comment on Sen. John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.
Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger. For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.
This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything. Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.
"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."
"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.
"If it’s now working, Senator," Lauer continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.
That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it."
And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.
The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.
Yes, sir. You.

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.
"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.
Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists: "There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators – " John McCain, March 24, 2003.
Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"
"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.
You were asked about the troops, and the future.
"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.
When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.
"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.
And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.
"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.
That, Sen. McCain, is context.
You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not that important.
That, Sen. McCain, is context.
And that, Sen. McCain, is madness.
The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."
In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though, they were already wounded.
And when they come home, is not that important.
Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces," agreement with Iraq, a treaty which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.
The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U.S. military bases in Iraq,from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.
Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain’s MCEscher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.
And when they come home, is not that important.
Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars... to shoot him in the knee.
Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.
In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.
And when they come home or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back, when they come home, is not that important.
You’ve sold them all out, Senator. You.
You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.
You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars or be maimed or be held prisoner or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.
You, who should know better.
Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."
Where is he, Sir? Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?
Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades, yesterday.
The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator, they are your comrades, too.
And you are condemning them to die.
To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies, for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.
That, Senator, that is context.
It is an easy thing to dismiss Sen. McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.
Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Sen. Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark - or trying to.
Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.
Sen. McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."
It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Sen. McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution, not after the last seven years.
It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."
It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Sen. McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.
"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."
These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.
And then one remembers Sen. McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al Qaida for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.
And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark...
"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No."
No?
The surge is working and even that still tells Sen. McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?
Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?
If we cannot tell, if McCain cannot even guess, doesn’t that, by definition, mean... the surge isn’t working?
And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not... too... important" remark, in its full context:
The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions—and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."
Your tragedy, Sen. McCain?
No. I’m sorry.
This tragedy is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana. And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach. It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A. The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas. It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.
And who are they, Senator?
They are ten Americans, who have died in Iraq since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.
And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men... will never know any of it.
Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…
They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage

By Tara Parker-Pope

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.

Next week, California will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reigniting the national debate over gay marriage. But relationship researchers say it also presents an opportunity to study the effects of marriage on the quality of all relationships.

“When I look at what’s happening in California, I think there’s a lot to be learned to explore how human beings relate to one another,” said Sondra E. Solomon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Vermont. “How people care for each other, how they share responsibility, power and authority — those are the key issues in relationships.”

The stereotype for same-sex relationships is that they do not last. But that may be due, in large part, to the lack of legal and social recognition given to same-sex couples. Studies of dissolution rates vary widely.

After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.

Controlling and hostile emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common among gay couples.

Same-sex couples were also less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically agitated after a conflict.

“When they got into these really negative interactions, gay and lesbian couples were able to do things like use humor and affection that enabled them to step back from the ledge and continue to talk about the problem instead of just exploding,” said Robert W. Levenson, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Dr. Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

Evie's 10-Month Pictures!

Bush Misused Iraq Intelligence!

By Randall MikkelsenThu Jun 5, 1:23 PM ET
President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.
The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."
The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.
It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.
Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.
The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.
PUBLIC CAMPAIGN
The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.
"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.
"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."
A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.
The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.
"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."
PUBLIC SUPPORT
U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.
The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.
The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.
A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

Request to Delay Same-Sex Marriages in California Denied

By Deborah BulkeleyDeseret News
Published: June 4, 2008
The California Supreme Court has denied a request by Utah and nine other states to stay its ruling allowing same-sex marriages until after the November election.
Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General's Office, said the request for the delay was to protect the state from potential, unnecessary, lawsuits.
"We're disappointed and we will prepare to defend the state against any (marriage) recognition lawsuits, and do the best we can to make sure taxpayers don't bare the brunt of this litigation," Murphy said.
Today's decision means that same-sex couples will be able to marry in California on June 17. However, in November, voters there will decide whether to overrule the Supreme Court's ruling by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
"People are going to get married in June," Murphy said. "In November voters will decide whether that will continue. During that time, marriages will be taking place."
Today's decision to deny requests for a hearing on a stay were denied in a 4-3 vote, with the same four justices in the majority who comprised the earlier majority opinion that it was discriminatory to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. The majority didn't give reasons for denying the stay in its one-page order.
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff had petitioned the court for the stay on behalf of himself and nine other attorney generals. California conservative religious and political groups had also requested a delay.
Utah's constitution prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage and other domestic unions. Shurtleff had argued in the friend-of-the-court brief last week that without the delay, Utah and other states could face "premature, unnecessary, unnecessarily difficult," lawsuits to determine whether to recognize California marriages of same-sex couples.