Who's Running the Obscenity War?

NOTE: THIS STORY IS FROM AUGUST 2005 (originally published in the September 1, 2005 edition of New York’s Gay City News)

By Cody Lyon

Lavinia is a tiny community in eastern Montana about 30 miles north of Billings. There’s a gas station, a post office, according to some residents, that’s about it. It was in the post office where 65 year old former school teacher Thomas Lambert was caught committing a crime that would eventually send him to jail for over two years. Lambert and his two alleged co-conspirators, Sanford Wasserman and Gary Robinson were prosecuted and convicted of what the federal government called a serious crime, distributing obscenity.

Since 2001, the United States Department of Justice has prosecuted 40 obscenity cases, with indictments pending against an additional nineteen persons or organizations. That compares to just four prosecutions during the Clinton administration from 1993 through 2000. Each has been handled by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity unit or CEOS at the DOJ criminal division. The more aggressive approach faces greater challenges because of the internet and the borderless distribution it allows.

Regardless, the Bush White House, an administration politically beholden to some of its most conservative constituencies has made the crusade against pornography a policy priority. In fact, a few members of a closely connected web of anti-porn warriors now play official roles in the Department of Justice’s new efforts. To them, the conviction of an individual like Thomas Lambert is a triumph over what they have long seen as a scourge on society.

“It’s pretty simple how he got caught, since everybody knows everybody in that little town,” said Mark Errebo, Lambert’s attorney in Billings.

“Lambert kept bringing in these brown, unmarked packages to be mailed to people across the country, and the girl who works in the Post Office, got suspicious and called the Postal inspector general here in Billings,” he said.

According to Errebo, a Lavinia Postal worker informed higher ups in Billings that Lambert had been sending an inordinate number of packages to points across the country out of that Post Office. A warrant was obtained, one of the brown packages opened, and inside, inspectors found hard core pornographic videos. At that point, federal prosecutors were notified, another warrant issued, and then a raid by federal agents on Lamberts home near Lavinia.

“Lambert’s house is out in the country, and that’s where they found the copying equipment, and the gig was up,” said Lambert attorney Errebo.

“That’s when he contacted me.”

“It actually took them a while to charge the case, for whatever reason, “noted Errebo during a phone conversation from Montana.

At first, Lambert pled ignorance, shifting part of the responsibility to co-defendant Wasserman. Errebo says Lambert explained Wasserman had told him the adult video distribution would be legal. Wasserman apparently owed Lambert around $60,000, and had offered to set up the video distribution operation as an alternative to paying him back. Wasserman allegedly said he’d not only would he make his money back, but then some through the mail order and distribution system. The other convicted individual in the case, Gary Robinson, had later joined Lambert and Wasserman as an employee.

In the end, defendant Lambert admitted the videos were obscene and was convicted in July, 2005. He is now serving a 30 month sentence in a California federal prison. Co-defendant Robinson was sentenced to one year while Wasserman faces up to 10 years since this is his second conviction

Lambert’s case was prosecuted personally by Montana U.S. Attorney Bill Mercer. .

When an obscenity case is charged and brought before a jury, prosecutors use a three prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in the 1973 Miller v. California ruling. The Miller case provided prosecutors with a tool that lets them ask a jury three important questions; whether or not the “average” person in that community would view the material in question as appealing to “the prurient interests,” whether it was presented in a “patently offensive” manner, and whether it was lacking serious artistic, political or scientific value. Film, print or live performance has to meet all three tests to be judged as obscene. For all their detail, the questions are vague and subjective, relying in large part on a particular community’s standards. Adding greater confusion is the advent of the borderless Internet, which present even more complicated legal questions to prosecutor efforts.

Regardless, some observers say that the Bush administration’s Department of Justice has been flexing its muscles in more conservative districts where it believes it might find a jury willing to convict on charges of obscenity. In other words, what might be deemed obscene and win a conviction in Lavinia, might not be as easy in a more liberal community like New York City. In the Lambert case, clues indicate that directives from Washington to Montana were indeed at play.

In a phone conversation from Billings, Lambert’s attorney Mark Errebo said that he had worked on a number of federal cases in his practice but that it was rare for him to deal directly with the U.S. Attorney, especially in a case such as this. But, Errebo said all it took was a phone call for him to realize the “sense of urgency” that federal law enforcement officials felt regarding Lambert’s case.

“I knew it was a priority when the actual U.S.attorney for the district, Bill Mercer, called and said he would personally handle the case,” said Errebo.

“I knew this was more than your regular run of the mill prosecution” he said.

According to Errebo, Mercer informed him that there had been a directive from the top to “aggressively prosecute obscenity cases.

“I’ve known Bill for years and he said, hey, we’ve got our orders here, this is serious and we are going to take this case very seriously,” Errebo said.

Errebo speculated that the fact the case was brought in Montana was probably coincidental, however, he noted that the particular jurisdiction near Lavinia played right into the government’s prosecutorial efforts.

“This is an extremely conservative judicial district, with very conservative residents,” Errebo said.

“I think the fact that the district is conservative made the case something the U.S. attorney’s office would want to pursue,” he said.

Earlier, in the nation’s capital, details of a new task force were revealed by the Department of Justice.

On May 5, 2005, the DOJ announced plans for the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force whose exclusive mission would be the investigation and prosecution of sexual content crimes. The task force included a $13.8 million increase in the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section budget at the Criminal Division provided for the hiring of several new attorneys, FBI agents and forensic experts who specialize in cyber technology.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had on several occasions publicly expressed his commitment to going after pornography, saying “obscenity and child pornographers rip at the heart of our moral values and easily corrupt communities,” going on to say that “prosecution and enforcement is absolutely necessary to protect our children and citizens from exposure to obscene materials.”

Critics charge such rhetoric that loops together what some see as legitimate adult material together with child pornography that has led to a controversial and complicated red herring in the debate over whether or not sexually explicit material is worthy of free speech protections.

The DOJ had also announced plans to strengthen the 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, U.S. USC 2257 laws. The original intent of the 2257 regulations was to keep minors from being used in adult material. The justice department’s new more meticulous 2257 regulations would require adult material producers to keep paper files of government issued identification on file at a disclosed physical location a move they said would prevent children from exploitation by pornographers.

But in fact, there had been only four documented where underage performers have slipped through existing regulations over the past 20 years according to available prosecution records.

The newer 2257 laws would also extend the existing rules from covering primary producers to all distributors of pornographic material. For online web sites with sexual content, the new requirements mean that official government identification of all models or anyone who appears on their web pages must be available for government inspection for seven years.

Failure to comply with the rules could result in five years prison time for first time offenders and up to ten years for a second offense.

Adult entertainment industry lawyers immediately charged that the new 2257 regulations would place what it called “burdensome” record keeping requirements on distributors and websites. The fear being that the rules could potentially inhibit the production and distribution of all adult material. Eventually they formed their own advocacy group Free speech Coalition, challenging the 2257 requirements in federal court where they now await a decision from a Denver judge who will decide whether an injunction will be issued.

“When you have a new regulation that broadly interprets and expands the government’s power, that’s a significant event” said First Amendment attorney Bob Corn-Revere in Washington DC.

“Under the justice department’s new interpretation, its authority under 2257 is actually very broad, so as a result, we will all be watching to see what the courts have to say about it” he said.

While recognizing the depravity of child exploitation, some critics of the 2257 regulations argue that they serve as smokescreen for a broader agenda since most pedophiles operate in a shadowy, underground world amongst themselves. In addition, they say there are clear distinctions between purveyors of child pornography and the more established adult entertainment industry.

The current crusade against porn has roots in the Reagan administration when then Attorney General Edwin Meese led a commission that would strengthen criminal penalties against the then, less regulated adult entertainment industry. After not meeting with much success, commission members discovered the way to win the public’s sympathy was by using child protection talking points as a means to meet an end.

“The mandate of the Meese Commission was how to get rid of porn, and after a number of attempts to win public support, what they found was that there were two hot button issues people respond to, the big one being kids” said New York photographer and artist Barbara Nitke.

Nitke, whose work includes erotic S/M imagery is among plaintiffs challenging the federal Communications Decency Act, another measure intended to place potentially sharp limits on sexual material on the Internet. She says the use of children in the rhetoric makes it difficult for people to speak up against the new moves by the DOJ.

““With every law regarding adult material, it is always about protecting children, but I’m cynical enough to believe they don’t really care about kids” she said.

Recognizing the bread and butter risks it now faces from more aggressive DOJ officials, the Adult Entertainment Industry says that it has taken new steps in its online networks to police its distributors and consumers including the creation of the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection. A spokesperson for the group, Joan Irvine, said the industry employs a number of technologies meant to protect and prevent children from exposure to pornographic material. The technology includes subscriptions that require credit card and age verification.

Among civil libertarians watching the crop of new obscenity prosecutions is the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The DOJ can make themselves look heroic, saying we’re just protecting children” said Marvin Johnson, legislative counsel for the ACLU in Washington.

Still others warn that pedophiles and child pornographers have indeed utilized the internet and other distribution networks, but they say, the last thing are worried about is compliance with DOJ rules.

“This is a moment where there is a great deal of exploitation of children through images, and the internet has been a major facilitator of how people can do that,” said Amy Adler, law professor at New York University.

But she added “Pedophiles are criminals, on the fringes of society and are probably not worried about complying with 2257 in the first place.”

ACLU’s Marvin Johnson says he understands how the controversial and uncomfortable nature of adult entertainment makes it difficult for politicians to be outspoken, but he says the fact is, there are already existing laws and computer technologies that if enforced, would accomplish the stated mission of protecting children from pornography.

“There are laws on the books that specifically protect children without having to restrict any one industry or free speech” he said further pointing out that parents can install blocks to adult content when necessary.

Even still, the very topic, marketing and consumption of pornography by adults, presents a difficult political land mine that even the most liberal leaders find difficult to defend, an industry seen by millions as nothing more than a factory of “smut” and cultural corruption.

But in spite of widespread disdain for pornography, there are those who say DOJ efforts to rid the country of pornography is an illegal government intrusion that will ultimately fail because of what they say is a greater threat to free speech.

When asked about the latest increase in DOJ obscenity prosecutions despite new industry self policing efforts and the available technologies, a DOJ spokesperson said it was a matter of official policy that comes directly from the White House.

It is no secret that the White House has used hot button social issues, from Gay marriage to abortion in its attempts to appease the Religious Right. Indeed, one of the longest running stated goals of the social conservative movement has been the elimination of pornography. But in this case, it appears that the Bush DOJ was not only willing to make obscenity prosecutions a top priority, it would also utilize the resources offered by members of these groups as tools for carrying out that goal.

Back in June, 2005, Family Research Council president, Tony Perkins, revealed that he had been assured by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the DOJ was undertaking what it called a new war on pornography. Perkins told readers of his widely read Washington newsletter at the FRC web site, that the attorney general said he “intends to smash these criminal enterprises on the Internet and elsewhere” with what Perkins called a “new obscenity strike force.” Perkins went on to write ‘this is the only way to handle hard-core pornographers.”

Perhaps even more telling, a 2002 report from PBS “Frontline” written by reporter Nicholas Confessore detailed a meeting between a cast of conservative players and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Confessore report said that Ashcroft assured the dozen or so leaders in attendance that aggressive prosecution of the pornography industry was a top priority of the Bush Administration Among those at the meeting in Ashcroft’s private conference room were Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Beverly La Haye of Concerned Women of America and Bruce Taylor, and attorney and prosecutor who got his start in law as a Cleveland city attorney.

Bruce Taylor has said that he has gone after more pornographers than any other prosecutor in the nation. Among those Taylor prosecuted, Hustler magazine Larry Flynt.

“Bruce claims to be the architect of a number of Internet laws that were eventually stricken by the courts,” noted ACLU’s Marvin Johnson who added with a sigh, “Bruce has been around a long time.”

In fact, Bruce Taylor was general counsel to Charles H. Keating’s Citizens for Decency Through Law or CDL, which had pressed for Flynt’s 1977 prosecution and was also instrumental in the highly publicized 1990 indictment of The Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center then-director Dennis Barrie in the infamous Robert Maplethorpe exhibition flap.

In 1990, Charles Keating was convicted of fraud for his role at Lincoln Savings part of the nation’s saving and loan scandal of the 1980’s.

In the meantime, Bruce Taylor went on to head The National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families which is now located near nation’s capital in Fairfax, Virginia. Presently, that organization describes itself as a “law enforcement assistance and public education center” providing resources to state and federal prosecutors, police investigations and legislators. In recent years, the group has focused much of its energies on cyber pornography.

After the 2000 election of President George W. Bush, Bruce Taylor found himself in a new job at the Department of Justice, senior counsel to John Richter, the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. Richter is the official that the new Obscenity Task Force reports to. Efforts to reach Taylor weren’t successful, but reports show that in addition to other duties, Taylor edits the new task force newsletter that appears on the official Department of Justice web site. There, readers can find information about recent obscenity and child exploitation convictions.

By 2005, a few weeks before the June meeting between Focus on the Family’s Tony Perkins and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, another group of leading conservatives gathered once again to strategize on how best to fight what they see as the scourge of obscenity.

Headlining the meeting on May 19 was Florida Republican Congresswoman Katherine Harris, then more famous for her role as that state’s Secretary of State during the heated 2000 Bush-Gore election who was then also a Senatorial candidate.

During the meeting, Harris lambasted pornography for its misogynistic content as well as the potential for porn to incite crimes against children.

“Too many studies have linked pornography with horrific crimes against children and women for responsible lawmakers to remain silent,” Harris reportedly said at the meeting.

Also attending the May summit was a U.S. assistant attorney general and leaders of at least two groups that appear to have risen to quasi governmental status, providing assistance to the current Department of Justice. Each, Morality in Media and Enough is Enough are now featured on the official Department of Justice web site alongside official government agencies including the FBI and U.S. Postal Service- as resources or entities where citizens can “report” obscenity or child exploitation violations.

The president of Enough is Enough is Donna Rice Hughes, who first came to national prominence after photos of her sitting on the lap of then-Senator Gary Hart on a boat named “Monkey Business” appeared in national media and eventually sunk the Democrat’s 1988 presidential ambitions. For a number of years, Rice’s group shared office space in Fairfax with Bruce Taylor’s National Law Center for Children and Families as well as the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families. When visiting the Enough is Enough website, readers can view recommendations for sexual counseling along with reading suggestions like the book “Crisis in Masculinity” and “The Battle is the Lords.”

A few hundred miles away in New York City is “Morality in Media”. That organization is headed by its president Robert Peters. Each fall, the group sponsors a visibility action called White Ribbons Against Pornography. In 1992, the organization’s then-Massachusetts chapter’s president spoke to the group’s religious undertones when she said “we are a Christian nation.” Peters himself is no stranger to controversial positions as shown by his claim that the television program “Queer as Folk” is a “frightening indication of how far the gay rights movement has come.”

Further evidencing a new found cooperation between the DOJ and conservative interests was money. In 2005 as liberal eyebrows rose over Bush administration funding cuts meant to combat hate crimes, the DOJ secured and distributed discretionary grants of $500,000 to Enough is Enough and $150,000 to Morality in Media.

Artists, free speech activists and other observers are clearly concerned over these relationships and what they see as greater threats to free speech. However, they acknowledge that the controversial topic pornography has led to a more nuanced reaction. Additionally, some have advised caution when attempts are made to interpret the current efforts of the DOJ.

“While some of the conservative political supporters of this administration have been talking about wholesale censorship, you can’t necessarily impute what they say in the political market place and assume it will have an impact on what is going on within the justice department” said attorney Bob Corn Revere in Washington.

New York Artist Barbara Nitke worries that the American public is not paying attention to the greater issue of free speech.

“I think you’re going to have trouble getting the average person to really care about this particular topic because people simply don’t understand the broader free speech principals at stake,” she said.

“It’s going to creep up on people and it’s going to be to late.”

Rules May Limit Health Program Aiding Children

The "New York Times" August 21, report by Reporter Robert Pear
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.
Link to story at NYT

About That Upcoming Report On Iraq.....Another Rabbit Trail?

CBS NEWS Bob Schieffer invokes a little Texas wisdom on a White House that appears to, well, lack it.
LINK

CBS NEWS Video Report on Tragic Fire at Ground Zero

CBS NEWS reports on the tragic fire at Ground Zero that killed Firemen Joseph Graffagino,34, Brooklyn and Robert Beddia, 54, Staten Island. Link to REPORT

The Deconstruction of the Deutsche Bank Building (From The Real Deal)

Here's my article that takes a look the demolition business as well as the deconstruction process happening at the former headquarters of Deutsche Bank that was damaged on 9/11. As has been widely reported, two New York City firemen were killed in a tragic fire in the building this past Saturday August 18.

FROM New York Real Estate Magazine - LINK AT THE REAL DEAL
The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, which oversees construction projects in Lower Manhattan, wouldn't offer a cost estimate for the demolition of 130 Liberty, but reportedly the range has been anywhere from $45 to more than $250 million. Interestingly, this is the price range of buildings in the area, so it could cost more to take down the building than it would to buy it.

Deborah Wetzel, spokesperson for the construction planning group, in explaining the high cost of the Deutsche Bank building's demolition noted that one has to factor in labor costs, equipment and materials.

So You Think Your Home is Insured for its Full Value?

An revealing look from the PBS news program NOW about how the home insurance industry is failing many of its customers. The report serves as a warning to consumers to be careful when purchasing insurance plans. Here's the link

Getting Fit for Good Grades

My Story from "RESIDENT PUBLICATIONS" New York

Fitness advocates are seeking to transform physical education into a lifestyle that incorporates physical activity, health and wellness. And while the health benefits of exercise are obvious, more experts are also pointing out that physically fit students do better academically.

Physical education classes appeared in American schools prior to World War I after the federal government mandated them for the purpose of military readiness.

LINK TO STORY

Iliteracy Colors Outrage In a Small (Alabama) Town

From the Sunday August 12 "Birmingham News"
By David Nichols
From AL.COM-Bham News- On Christmas Eve 1980, Montevallo, a quaint, college town of 4,000 residents, awoke to the news of a gruesome murder of one of its own: an elderly, highly respected woman and widow of a former dean of Alabama College (University of Montevallo). Within hours, suspects were in custody - two young black men who grew up in this college community: a community with two distinct cultures divided by race, social, economic and residential lines of demarcation. There was a silent yet widespread sense of outrage among folks, both black and white.
Link To Story

Italian Anti-Mafia Investigators Uncover $40 million Iraq Arms Deal (From Associated Press)

Story by Charles J. Hanley and Ariel David at AP-As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases. LINK TO STORY CLICK HERE

What About Our Infrastructure?

BY CODY LYON

At an August 9 press conference, US President George W. Bush was asked whether or not he thought a proposal to raise gasoline taxes by 5 cents a gallon with revenue being used to solidify the safety of the nation’s bridges was a good idea.

He said “before we raise taxes which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.

Some might say the President needs to examine his own priorities and perhaps study the nation’s infrastructure a little harder, that is if one takes a 2005 Report Card from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) seriously. That report found dangerous flaws not only in bridges, but in some of our most basic modern life lines. Those life lines are the backbone of our nation’s economy, the very nuts and bolts. The ASCE report warns that if more isn’t done to repair the nations bridges, roadways, water supply, electrical grids, dams among others, we potentially face disruptions in the way we get around, surf the web, fly in a plane, drink our water and as New Yorker’s learned yet again this week after a summer downpour, if and when we can take the subway.

The potential impacts of any type of infrastructure failure are clear. The nation’s economy relies on the transport of goods, services and people from point A to B. Blackouts are a real threat and when they happen, entire cities, even the nations largest, can come to standstill. Airports are more crowded than ever, as are our skies, safety on the runway is essential. Childhood nightmares of a dam giving way, walls of water gushing downstream, are more of a threat than ever. A number of states are sniping with one another over water rights as towns and municipalities secure a resource more precious than oil, water.

All of that may sound unnecessarily apocalyptic, but, as the recent horrific bridge collapse in Minneapolis proved, the potential threat to human life by crumbling infrastructure is real and some would say, in need of urgent attention.

For example, the 2005 ASCE report card said that in fact, 27.1 percent or over 160 thousand of the nation’s bridges are considered structurally deficient. The ACSE says it would cost around $9.4 billion annually for 20 years to bring all these bridges out of deficiency.

ASCE estimates it would cost around $1.6 trillion over a five year period to bring the entire national infrastructural system up to fully safe status. ASCE says that much of that money has already been allocated in existing budgets, but is continuously “raided” to be used in other programs.

While $1.6 trillion is somewhat hard to comprehend, so is the estimated $450 billion spent so far on the war in Iraq. Economists have estimated that the cost to taxpayers in that conflict would approach $1.2 trillion in the coming years. And, it would take more than a nod to or pronouncement of a figure to fully acknowledge and give due respect to the loss of life and sacrifice in American blood.

A great deal of the money has been used to rebuild infrastructure, some of which we helped destroy. But, there is one disturbing note, during a period from October 2003 until June 2004, $9 billion of the money earmarked for Iraq’s reconstruction, went un accounted for according to a 2005 Special Inspector General Report led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr. That was $9 billion that could have brought the states one year closer to safer bridges.

So, as we pour tremendous amounts of money into a nation, now teetering on the brink of a civil war we helped enable, can we also afford to sit idly by, while our economy’s most basic fundamental physical support system, its infrastructure, crumbles from within?

Edwards, Clinton, and Obama debate about Lobbyist

John Edwards poses a challenge and the real debate begins on how America finances its elections.

CBS News Bob Schieffer Grills Condoleeza Rice

CBS News Washington Chief Correspondent Bob Schieffer asks tough questions of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in a "bordering on hot" exchange. From "Face the Nation"

P!nk - Dear Mr. President Offical Video

If you haven't seen/heard Pink's message to the President, well, it's time you did.
CL

More On Alabama's Former Governor

More officials asking questions about Alabama's Former Governor Don Siegelman's conviction.
FROM TPMMUCKRACKER

White Elephants of Manhattan

My story in the August "Real Deal" magazine

NYC SUMMER 2007

Just a simple picture of a West Village Street in the Summertime.

Colombia's Civil War and Birmingham

An intriguing story about transnational companies and a country torn by civil war written by Kyle Whitmore.
From "Birmingham Weekly"

House Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq

The United States House of Representatives approved a resolution that would prohibit the establishment of permanent US Military Bases in Iraq. Here's a link to coverage of this important vote as reported by Dan Robinson of "Voice of America".

The Power of Art

by the artist Joseph Mallord William Turner: The Greatest British Picture of the Nineteenth Century: From Simon Schama's Power of Art;
Link to PBS.ORG

The horrific story behind the Slave Ship painting from BBC UK.
LINK

Public Restrooms as Gender Identity Battlegrounds- FROM EDGE PUBLICATIONS

Link to my story at EDGE PUBLICATIONS
In spite of any laws on the books, the transgender individual, the feminine man, the butch lesbian or anyone who expresses gender identity and subsequent appearance that runs counter to what society sees as normal can find the most common act of a human being--using a facility to relieve oneself--a humiliating experience. And public restrooms can present the most difficult challenges that can lead to perilous situations and even arrest.

It is in this most mundane of spaces--a place where individuals relieve themselves, wash their hands and muss with their hair--where unwritten, unspoken social mores and traditional views of gender are challenged
www.edgenewyork.com

Revival of a Gold Standard ?

In 1968, upon returning from reporting on the ground in war ravaged Vietnam, CBS News Anchorman Walter Cronkite assessed and editorialized before millions of viewers about what he had seen and discovered. He cited mounting evidence that reinforced the perception that America's involvement in Vietnam was turning increasingly tragic and that the victory we originally sought may not be possible. His ending paragraph in an evening newscast almost 40 years ago, feels all to applicable today. The last paragraph of Cronkite's words were as follows:
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This past week, CBS News' Bob Schieffer and anchor Katie Couric both asked bold, honest and important questions of current Bush administration policy.

Below is a link to Shieffer's commentary about the the Iraqi Parliament taking a long recess over the month of August, all the while American troops continue to die. It is powerful, honest and served up with a dose of truth, much like Cronkite's frank assessment in 1968. (The issue of heat,the Parliament's vacation, while American soldiers suffer in the same heat, was first questioned by ABC News Reporter Martha Radditz who was quick to point out our troops fate to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. The questions from Radditz came after Snow defended the Iraqi parliament's August vacation at a White House Press Conference, which he said was due to the fact that it is hot (130 degrees) in Iraq in August.)

Schieffers commentary, short but stinging and powerful, is refreshing to hear from this veteran of journalism, especially when compared to what some see as a long period of timidity, and gussied up broadcast and cable news programs. And, Couric's brief commentary/question from her "notebook" regarding the President and the law (found in the second link) sends a velvet dagger through the heart of what increasingly looks to be an ethically challenged White House. One can only hope that the powers that be at CBS News, continue to allow, perhaps encourage such critical commentary, analysis and reporting. There is power in the press beyond just the facts and hopefully more television news outlets will accept greater responsibility and embrace that truth fulfilling its necessary role as a guardian of democracy.
Shieffer's Commentary from CBS NEWS-FACE THE NATION

An important question from Katie Couric's notebook

Above the law? From CBS NEWS

Brother, Sister, Do You Know Who You Are?

Birmingham writer Marie Sutton's plea to her community from the "Birmingham News"
LINK To "B,ham News" essay

I love black people, my people, but some of us are lost. It's as if we are sleepwalking, traveling through life without a compass. And I am convinced it is because we don't know who we are.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think I am any better than the people I saw that day. And they, by no means, represent all black people. They are, however, a segment of our community that deserves our attention and care because they are sick, suffering from spiritual amnesia and totally clueless about the greatness that lies within them. From the linked essay by Sutton

From "B, ham Weekly"- On Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

Below, find the link to an insightful but sad look at a former Alabama political star who allegedly went 'bad'. At the end of the day, the disappointed people of Alabama have to watch a former Governor they had originally elected to enact positive change, go to jail.

Perhaps, this is just an example, albeit Southern style, of a system steeped in back slappin, bourbon soaked political wheeling and dealing as well as the explicit pedaling and purchasing of Government influence. In this case from the Heart of Dixie, exposed for all to see. The final verdict, opportunistic and corrupt, and a slap in the face of those who believed in a man's initial message.
Go to the link below for"Birmingham Weekly" reporter Kyle Whitmore's column "War on Dumb"

LINK TO STORY

America's Mayor?

Perhaps The Former Mayor Should Stop Finger Pointing
OPINION by CODY LYON

In an April 2007 open letter that was published in the “Huffington Post”, former Colorado Democratic Senator Gary Hart ask former Mayor Rudy Giuliani where he was “on terrorism between January 31^st 2001 and September 11?”

The letter, clearly retribution for a string of attacks on Democratic leadership in the years before 9/11 by Giuliani prompted Senator Hart to ask what specific steps the former Mayor had taken to protect the city from terrorism or the effects of such an attack.

“Until you do,” wrote Hart “then I strongly suggest you keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.”

But a quick stroll down New York’s political memory lane indicates a silent Giuliani is not likely. Instead, Giuliani the politician is more known to dismiss or attack, often with divisive and sometimes hurtful rhetoric. Many observers say that in the past, the former Mayor often used such tactics to further a self serving agenda along with the interests he represented. A number of those who dealt with him directly have said his methods involved bullying and were mean spirited. According to a January 2007 “Newsweek” column by Ana Quindlen, some described Giuliani as a man who considers those who disagree with him “enemies, not opponents, a divider not a uniter.”

There were times when Giuliani did go to great lengths in order to quiet down his critics as he did in 1997 when he tried to get the MTA to remove magazine ads from city buses that lampooned his style. Or when he went after the Brooklyn Museum over a controversial British exhibit that included a piece of work the artist said was the Mother Mary with elephant dung, an obvious affront to the Mayor’s strict catholic upbringing.

More importantly, it would appear that much of America and for that matter New York, paid little attention to the behind the scenes effect of the Mayor’s “zero tolerance” policies since all obvious indications pointed to a job well done-especially if you were a strictly day time person. Crime dropped and the economy boomed in the city. Many simply assumed and accept, that Rudy cleaned up the ‘big bad apple’ removing the homeless, bringing Disney to Times Square and an elimination of pesky squeegee men who terrorized the drivers from Jersey. But while he played a role in making New York a more manageable metropolis, dig a little deeper, and one finds that much of this credit is simplistic and overstated.

For example, more cops had been hired before Giuliani came on the job, the contract with Disney was already in the works, crime was dropping in all American cities and those missing homeless were simply moved away from Manhattan. Besides, as America’s economic engine, New York’s renaissance came in part due to a national expansion, simple economics that trickled down from forces beyond the control of a Mayor. And, as the curtain began to lift and expose the man behind the screen in the later years of his administration, the mayor’s popularity began to wane.

But, then, there was 9/11.

No one can deny the important leadership role that Mayor Gilliani played in the days after September 11. The sense of calm provided by his strong words of comfort and calm were seen as a beacon of hope by many New Yorkers during what proved to be some of the city’s most challenging days. But, soon, as the city moved on, and the former mayor began to show inklings of entering what is proving to be a highly contentious national political campaign, an opening has arisen allowing greater scrutiny and criticism. And, when the former Mayor brings his self righteous style of attack onto the national stage, he should be ready for a volley. The election of a President, is, after all, a decision not to be based on simple rhetoric, or timing.

Like a number of politicians, Rudy Giuliani, has capitalized from 9/11. Most New Yorker’s can’t forget the shameless exploitation of tragedy by the GOP when it brought its convention to a city where most estimates show only 1 in 5 to be declared Republican. And, most will not forget his claim before the cheering throes and a television audience of millions, that as he looked at the burning towers, he said to Bernie Kerik, “thank God George Bush is our President”

But, although Giuliani is Republican, he is a New Yorker not a Texan and his socially moderate ideology often doesn’t square with the Republican ideology of the more conservative elements in his party. So now, it appears his best weapon will be his ‘I was there’ claim of superiority, which he has used to shut down critics of Bush policy, like fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul, who pointed out America’s role in inciting anti-American sentiment while debating Giuliani in a campaign debate.

The 9/11 claim to fame has reportedly benefited Giuliani financially as well, thanks to paid speaking engagements where he is said to often speak of those dark days in Gotham. In fact there was a period where he was so busy making money speaking, that he eventually had to resign from the Iraq Study Group according to reports from “Newsday”. He eventually found plenty of time to criticize the group’s conclusions.

And, as far as the Mayor adhering to Gary Hart’s request to silence his critiques of Democrats and their policies concerning terrorism, fugetaboutit.

During a June 27 speech, Rudy Giuliani told a Virginia Beach Va., audience that President Bill Clinton made a big mistake when he didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as an “act of terror” versus a mere crime.

Reportedly, Giuliani said “the U.S. Government and then President Clinton did not respond,” and after naming off other terrorist attacks added that “Osama Bin Laden declared war on us and we didn’t hear it”.

If the former Mayor wishes to take this kind of ugly and accusatory rhetoric to the national playing field, he should expect tit for tat.

Mayor Giuliani made a big mistake when he did not insist, and see through to full implementation, in the years before 9/11, that all emergency response personnel be equipped with interoperable radios so that the fire and police departments could communicate with each other during emergency situations, like raging infernos inside tall buildings. According to information documented by “Media Matters” the failings of Giuliani regarding terrorism preparation are clear, as reported by Wayne Barret and Dan Collins in their book “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11”.

As the book reports, on 9/11, the New York City Fire Department was using outdated VHF radios that were not compatible with the Police Department’s UHF radios. Author’s Barret and Collins said these were the same radios the fire department used back in 1993, when the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred.

The book says that as a result, as many as eight Fire Department companies in the North Tower did not receive the evacuation order via radio or from other first responders. Because the radios were not interoperable, fire department rescuers never heard the police helicopter “pilot warning that the South Tower was about to fall” or “the pilot’s repeatedly warning about the North Tower, some 25 minutes before it fell.

Perhaps this go round, instead of pointing fingers, and shooting down one’s critics, the former Prosecutor and Mayor should come down from his mountaintop, and begin to offer a vision for the future, not an indictment of the past.

INDEPENDENCE

Independent journalism and ( hopefully) decent, informed commentary require diligent effort, persistence and time. Pursuing a story on one's own, without the backing of a publication (or constraint) or help of an editor, can be a challenging process in more ways than one. With that said, this blog will continue to make every attempt possible to provide as much original content as possible. Thank you for reading, commenting pro or con and for any other contribution you care to make.
CL

END GAME: From PBS FRONTLINE

PBS FRONTLINE Producer Michael Kirk and Reporter Jim Gilmore document the latest attempt to take control of the situation in Iraq. Watch the entire program in segments at PBS.ORG.
"On December 19, President George W. Bush said for the first time that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. It was a dramatic admission from a President who had insisted since the war began that things were under control," FROM PBS FRONTLINE.

With its graphic imagery and meticulous insight from observers, experts and hands on players, this film, by far, offers one of the most disturbing indictments of the widely acknowledged failed policy that has become our modern day equivalent of Vietnam. Hopefully, all Americans will pay attention to the details and truths revealed in this latest stellar FRONTLINE project. -CL

Watergate Scandal Escalates......Nixon fires the prosecutor

A different assessment of national interest. A note from history.

Would We Pay Attention?

Would We All Pay Attention?

Cody Lyon

OPINION

On one hand, to go there, might be seen as caving into media frenzy, talking about a subject, many are embarrassed to admit they follow, a topic that will surely invite criticism. But, to not, would be missing an opportunity to ask some deeper questions about national priority, fame, and the places Americans obtain information they consider important.

Paris Hilton is headed back to jail. Across the country, thanks to feverish coverage, voices both pro and con, are being raised regarding California Superior Court Judge Michael Sauer’s decision to remand Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and his release of Hilton to electronically monitored home confinement the previous day.

As is widely known, Hilton’s legal saga began after being stopped by police, and found to be under the influence, with a Blood Alcohol Content level of .08, the legal threshold in California. As is fairly standard under California law, her license was suspended and she received 36 months probation and a $1,500 fine. But, over the next few months, she was stopped twice more by police, found to be driving with the suspended license ultimately finding herself in Judge Sauer’s courtroom where he issued the 45 day jail sentence. Then, after 5 days in jail, the sheriff, at the behest of the Hilton camp, released Paris to home confinement. Observers have said in news reports that many Californians convicted of non violent misdemeanors, end up serving time in home confinement or other alternative environments, in many cases, because of overcrowding. But, according to most news reports, Judge Sauer was furious at the sheriff, and ordered Hilton back to court, and re-issued his 45 day punishment.

As Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson told the “New York Times” “she’s a pawn in a turf fight right now” and “it backfired against her because she’s a celebrity” noting that because of the incredible public attention, it didn’t sit well with the court that she’d been released.

In fact, most legal observers say that in California, low risk offenders often serve only five percent of their jail time, which essentially, Hilton had fulfilled. In addition, many say, it is un heard of, where a judge goes through the trouble of actually ordering a low risk defendant back to jail.

Regardless, the attention meter was running at high speed during the Friday circus surrounding her return to prison.

The arrest at the mansion, trips to court and jail were all covered live by the cable networks from up in the sky, ala OJ. On the ground, minute by minute reports, graphic descriptions of tears, screams and pleas all poured in from reporters. An assortment of Pundits, cable anchors, activists, legal “experts” and even a sheriff from New Mexico, all cawed like crows in a cornfield with, opinions rants and raves on the three cable news networks.

Evidence that a huge swath of America found satisfaction in Hilton’s return to jail was soon evident all over the web. Comments like, “I think she deserves it”, “She’s long overdue”, “Celebrities are no better than the rest of us”, “she’ll serve as an example” and the endless rich bitch girl comments that in the end, quiet frankly, sound just a bit mean spirited.

On Fox News, Rev. Al Sharpton weighed in by phone about what’s good for one is good for all, Geraldo and Shep Smith hollered and giggled and Greta worried that Hilton was ill, or perhaps, “twitching”. But then, of all the pundits, a very interesting comment came from the high priestess of outrageous and offensive right wing ideology herself, Ann Coulter.

Of the madness, Coulter hypothesized, that if this were Tom Hanks, you wouldn’t have all this blood lust.

Perhaps she’s correct. For one, Tom Hanks is a respected and talented actor who, unlike Hilton, earned his status as such. But more significantly, regarding the Coulter comment, Tom Hanks possesses a wholesome Americana Jimmy Stewart like image. Most people can’t help but like him, he embodies nice guy and rarely shows up in tabloids or in gossip columns.

On the other hand, Paris Hilton is the quintessential example of what many Americans claim to hate, a symbol of tawdry excessiveness, seen as spoiled, fame and wealth for no reason, and most of all, the privilege that money affords anyone in America who has it.

But, Hilton, a woman with the genes of Conrad in her system, is, for some reason the object de jour of countless magazines, television programs a virtual all you can eat buffet of guilty pleasure that Americans love to chow down on and the media loves to feed.

But, there is an even deeper sad truth revealed by this celebrity studded legal hoe down. The cable news networks, decided, or perhaps knew, that this past Friday, more Americans would be interested in what was happening in the entertainment capital, than in the capital of government, where the country’s highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, was essentially being laid off, because members of the Bush administration knew that he’d face hostile questioning during re confirmation hearings from an angry Congress over his leadership role in Iraq.

One wonders if the Senate hearings of General Peter Pace, and the answers they may have provided would have, just perhaps, led to a drama that even the nation’s cable news networks would have covered. Perhaps too, the American people would have paid attention.

.

The Ultimate War Sacrifice: By Joey Kennedy, "Birmingham News"

A powerful column about Marine Sgt. Nicholas R. Walsh and the ultimate sacrifice of war. Written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and editorial writer, Joey Kennedy of the "Birmingham News".
al.com link

The Return of the Taliban

Understanding Pakistan's difficult role in fighting the Taliban, and terror.
From PBS FRONTLINE:

An Old Story Re-Visited-AQ KHAN'S TRAIL

Misplaced Priorities?

BY CODY LYON

RE PUB FROM 2004

On December 2, 2004 a high level United Nations panel issued a warning of diminishing international barriers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The 16 member panel that included former United States security advisor Brent Scowcroft, had been commissioned by UN Secretary Kofi Anan.

Titled “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change”, the report warns that the world is “approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible resulting in a cascade of nuclear weapon proliferation.” The report points out barrier breakdowns that increase the likelihood of terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons.

The UN report confirmed that the list of nuclear-armed nations was growing. It also become clear that one of America’s allies in the war on terror, Pakistan, had been the main supplier of these products of mass destruction, which in the end, created a complicated, tense yet apparently necessary relationship between the two nations.

In the course of just a few years, as the United States responded to the events of 9/11, the world had become a more lethal place. The idea of clearly defined, traceable and easily identified possessors of weapons of mass destruction had become increasingly blurred.

“The nuclear barriers may not be crumbling, but there are certainly worrisome cracks” said Mellissa Flemming, spokesperson at the International Atomic Energy Association in Vienna.

Flemming said that when the IAEA discovered “a sophisticated black market in nuclear technology, we realized that nuclear technology was basically up for grabs.”

According to a number of sources, one major base of this new international nuclear bazaar was perhaps one of the United States' closest allies.

In October 2003, The Italian Coast Guard seized a German flagged ship named the BBC China. On board, authorities found aluminum tubes, molecular pumps and gas centrifuges allegedly meant for enriching uranium for Nuclear weaponry.

That vessel was headed for Libya.

That same year, authorities eventually traced the technology and equipment back to Pakistan.

It was in 2003 that Pakistani Scientist, Dr. A.Q. Khan had been identified as a major player in the nuclear black market. In February 2004, IAEA officials said Khan had sold technology and equipment to companies in at least five countries, including Iran. Khan, known as the “father” of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, confessed his actions but was almost immediately pardoned by President Pervaz Musharaf.

Pakistani officials placed Khan, a hero to many Pakistanis for his role in equalizing the nuclear playing field with India, under house arrest. Officials there have not allowed any foreign interrogators access to Khan, some say, because of potential internal outcry from that country’s citizens.

The exposure of an open clandestine nuclear market was chilling to a number of experts.

“Khan’s black market nuclear bazaar exposed a leaky export control system and willingness for customers like Libya and Iran to clandestinely pay millions of dollars for sensitive centrifuge parts” according to IAEA’s Mellisa Flemming.


The 2004 UN report reflects the concern felt by nuclear proliferation experts around the world. According to one of the world’s leading proliferation experts, this could lead to a very troubling outcome that includes increasing threat of tangible nuclear terrorism.

“It is inevitable that we will see a terrorist with nuclear capability within the next decade” according to Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Cirincione backs up the UN report’s warnings that barrier breakdowns like the one illustrated through the Khan network, increase the likelihood of a terrorist with nuclear capabilities.

“There are groups out there intent on mass destruction” warned Cirincione of terrorist groups who actively seek out nuclear weaponry.

But, Mellisa Flemming at the IAEA, cautions against jumping to dire conclusions. She says the technology involved in making a nuclear weapon may be beyond the capabilities of a terrorist network.

“Whether terrorists, without the backing of a country, could make use of the goods on offer is questionable” said Flemming.

She notes that the centrifuge parts and designs of the kind that Khan was selling, require a tremendous amount of money and expertise to master. Further, there is the challenge of obtaining the nuclear material itself.

“Nuclear material is the required ingredient, and it does leave trails” insisting “there is no evidence of non-state actors who were customers” said Flemming.

But, that doesn’t appease the concerns of a number of leaders, including a New York congresswoman who expresses concern about the dangerous black market activities of Dr. Khan and Pakistan.

“It would be naïve and dangerous to assume that terrorists are incapable of acquiring nuclear materials or weapons, whether from a rouge nation, or on the black market, or by theft” said New York Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez.

She believes that U.S. officials should still be in direct contact with Pakistani scientists, especially those associated with Khan, and persuade them to reveal a detailed and complete trail of his role in nuclear technology proliferation.

“The more we know about this black market network, the more likely we are to prevent nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands” said Congresswoman Velazquez.

However, Pakistani officials claim that the network has been completely destroyed and that they are offering a full accounting of the trail of proliferation.

“The government of Pakistan has completely broken the ring of A.Q. Khan’s networkand Pakistan has provided all details to the IAEA” according to Haroon Shaukat, Consul General of the Pakistani Embassy in New York.

From the perspective of the IAEA, Pakistan has been cooperating and providing valuable information on the those on the receiving end of Kahn’s market.

“We are presently working out modalities with them to get more information” said Flemming.

But, as to whether or not, the United States should exert greater pressure on Pakistani leaders to obtain direct access to Khan, Flemming is ambivalent.

“We are not in a position to judge US policy on this issue.”

Even still, one of the more puzzling aspects of the Khan tale was his rapid pardon by President Pervaz Musharaf. Khan, one of the most instrumental and known figures in the spread of nuclear technology to nations some consider hostile to western interests, is now under house arrest, and not available for any sort of interrogation by anyone outside of Pakistan.

Some observers find this suspicious.

“The confession and quick pardon of Khan was staged” said Joe Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cirincione says US officials have not been able to question Khan directly because of internal politics in Pakistan.

He goes on to say that the “staged confession” and the house arrest is part of a greater cover-up meant to protect military officials who may have known or even participated in the sales of nuclear technology.

“It is inconceivable that this was a private citizen affair” and that the nuclear proliferation conducted by Khan “could not have been done without the knowledge of military and political officials” said Cirincione.

“There was a deal for Khan to take the blame in public, and that’s why we saw the fastest pardon since Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon.”

Khan’s network of proliferation was vast. It involved the shipping of materials through a large distribution network that reached far beyond clandestine labs and backrooms and countries beyond Pakistan. It would strike many as an obvious point of urgent interest for United States intelligence officials.

But the State Department, at least publicly, has not confronted Pakistan’s alleged complicity.

Cirincione’s claims, as well as other evidences of a larger network are dismissed by the State Department and other officials who argue the fragile alliance with Pakistan is more important considering that country’s role in the fight against terrorism by extremist factions.

“It is more fruitful for the United States to work through diplomatic channels with Pakistani officials in the matter of the Khan black market network” according to Sara Styker, Asia Expert at the State Department.

According to the State Department’s Stryker, “the cooperation US officials have received from Pakistani officials has helped us in eliciting vital information” and that “we are now focused on results”. Stryker points to success in Libya, as evidence that the information provided by Pakistan has been helpful in disarming dangerous nations and stopping nuclear proliferation. She says she understands concerns like those expressed by Cirincione, but notes that Khan is under house arrest, and out of the proliferation business.

Indeed, after the exposure of the Kahn network, Libya opened itself up for nuclear weaponry inspection and pledge cooperation with western interests.

Cirincione still has serious doubts. “The Bush administration apparently believes the Pakistanis have done all they can do” and “I take that as a very troubling sign that we are not doing all that we should be doing.”

Cirincione says that “while the Bush administration was focused on the Axis of Evil, we should have been paying attention to our ally, Pakistan.” “If it was not for Pakistan, Iran would not have nuclear technology now, the same holds true for Lybia, maybe others” said Cirincione. He argues that the US placed other security issues, including President Musharaf’s stability, above our own real security issues. “We’ve placed nuclear proliferation second” and “that has come back to haunt us in the past, and I think it will again this time”. Edit Text

Al Queda and Iraq: The Panel and The President

Here's a link to a letter published in the June 18th,2004 edition of the "New York Times" regarding flawed intelligence and failures by the mainstream press.
"Times" Letter to the Editor

PBS- Dick Cheney wanted to attack Iraq right after 9/11

A clip from PBS FRONTLINE'S "The Dark Side"-Offers details on the lead to Iraq

Notes On A Thursday in Spring

BY CODY LYON

The weather goes from cool to warm and the sun is bright this particular Thursday in New York’s East Village. At a Mexican takeout shop, beef tacos are purchased, then eaten sitting on a bench in Tompkins Square Park, under a tree that appears very lush, and filled with chirping birds.

The park is crowded, the playground full of kids, the grass covered with sun bathers, the dog run is noisy, chaotic.

At the dog run, people gather, watching the dogs, apparently a fight has broken out, first between dogs then it spreads among humans. One man pushes another, barks and shouts are traded, as all the dog owners yell at an older man, because of what they say is an aggressive dog.

But the cell phone rings, it’s a friend in Alabama, she says hello and the conversation lasts for a while.

She’s been dating a new guy, she thinks she really likes him and he’s taking her on a trip to Las Vegas.

Near the end, she asks the price of gas and says that it's over $3 a gallon down there. Fortunately, she drives a compact car.

Meanwhile, the older man in the dog run is not leaving, voices are even louder, the others appear mad, they keep shouting at him to leave, the dogs keep barking.

The phone rings again, it’s another really good friend, it goes to voicemail.

“Hey, I’ve had a problem and I need some advice” the message he left said.

Later, after doing some work, a bike ride is taken across the village on 9^th Street to the Westside. The bike crosses Fifth Avenue, Washington Square Park’s arch is to the south, the sidewalks still crowded even for 8 pm, couples holding hands, more men with dogs, shopping bags are everywhere, summer fashions are here.

The bike makes it to Christopher Street the river is in sight, headed towards the pier, there’s music everywhere, smiles cross many faces, but up ahead there is congestion.

Two women in a car are blocking traffic, apparently one took another home, the street is narrow, they’re in an SUV, cars begin backing up, horns are being honked. Finally one of the women gets out, she’s young, very pretty and she appears oblivious to the anger behind her.

In one of the cars behind the two’s, a man who is driving and listening to disco music hollers at her, she doesn’t appear to hear it.

“I’d like to go home too b*tch ” he screams in a slightly southern accent, while she climbs onto the sidewalk with her IPOD head-phones on.

Once the biker makes it to the river, the sun is gone and the sky is filled with pinks, orange and streaks of red. The river glistens, almost metallic, as the rays of light glimmer from the west that is New Jersey, the mainland.

To the south, is New York’s financial district, the skyline still misses it towers but a new one has filled in at least part of the gap.

A man walks by, he smiles, a smile is returned, here appears the peace and that moment of reflection only sharable by writing it down.

A couple walks by, they are laughing, holding hands, one of them just told a story about his Mother and the fact that her voice cracks when she's angry.

A large number of joggers are out, all shapes, all sizes, some run fast, as if they're catching up on training for a marathon. They compete with bikers for space. Sometimes, the shoot each other nasty looks.

In the grass, two women on a blanket appear to have brought in some wine, they better be careful, the park police will give them a ticket.

The view to the south offers New York harbor, the statue of Liberty but then, the geographic direction of Tennessee comes to mind.

The night before, PBS “Newshour” was watched, part of a report was aired, it was called “The Costs of War in Iraq” and was reported by Economics correspondent Paul Solman. That report gave pause to this beautiful and busy day in New York City that was now saying goodbye.

Part of the story showed returning Army reservist Brad Heun of Tennessee.

The “Newshour” report showed Huen as he struggled to get up out of a chair, obviously in great pain. It also offered a photograph of Heun, at an earlier date, a well built, athletic looking young man, who’d probably have fit in with the fit and fast joggers this day in New York.

Heun’s vertebrae was crushed in a 2003 truck accident in Iraq.

He now has fused discs, a steel bar in his back and constant excruciating pain in his hip and leg according to Solman’s report.

“Literally, it feels as if somebody just took a baseball bat and blindsided you across your back” Heun told the “Newshour”.

In the report, viewers learn that the army discharged him with only 20 percent disability, which means no benefits. Heun does get medical care from the VA plus $2,500 a month to support a family of five, but no insurance for his wife or children. He’s trying to afford a COBRA policy, but that is too expensive. His 2 year old daughter now needs surgery, but the family has had to put it off, because they simply can not afford it.

Heuen’s wife Beverly tells correspondent Solman, that they don’t want to do the daughter’s surgery at the expense of her not having a home to live in.

“I think it’s a disgrace to this country for me to even be sitting here trying to tell you this” she told “Newshour”.

Earlier in the report, Brad Heun described his constant physical pain in graphic detail.

“At its worst, I have been on an emergency room gurney, curled up, and not even be able to concentrate on simple questions” he told “Newshour”.

Concentrating on simple questions, during a sunset along the Hudson in New York City overcame earlier observations of urban life. Questions about the fate of the around 25 thousand seriously injured military members coming home from Iraq begin to puncture the relative calm of an evening by the river. How many limbs have been lost, how many bones crushed, how many skulls shattered, how many bills not paid, how many minds damaged? Why?

Suddenly, some questions appeared to have answers.

Memorial Day was just a few days away.

Randi Rhodes talks to Antonia Juhasz part 1

More analysis on Iraq's Oil Law from Antoina Juhasz's March "Air America" appearance.

Kennedy asked about US pushing Iraqi oil law

Senator Kennedy on the Oil Law

Rudy Loves Bush

Thank God For George Bush!
(at least that's what a front runner in the Republican party's race for the White House claims he said on a certain September day)

Toxic Trailers Story By CBS NEWS

A really infuriating-important story by "CBS News" investigative reporter Armen Keteyian about FEMA trailers provided to Katrina victims by FEMA. Apparently, the trailer's interior's, treated with toxic materials, are making children sick with serious respiratory illnesses. The video footage is worth watching.
CBS NEWS LINK

The Anti Gay Bias Of U.S. Immigration Policy

By CODY LYON
On a cold night this past February, around 20 New Yorkers gathered in an upper west side brownstone to view and offer support to filmmaker Sebastian Cordoba and his latest project, a documentary film called “Through Thick and Thin.” The movie details the uncertain plights of seven bi national gay and lesbian couples, who, under current U.S. immigration laws, often face devastatingly difficult choices, including if and how to stay together.

The film takes on added relevance after Federal legislation was re introduced this past week in Washington that seeks to address the issues illustrated in the film.

Unlike heterosexual bi-national couples who can choose to get married, and then legally sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes, the legal options available for gay and lesbian bi national couples are virtually non existent, often resulting in daunting choices with uncertain outcomes.

“You meet somebody and you fall in love, maybe you move in together and then you both realize, that perhaps you’ll either have to move, or even worse, separate” said filmmaker Cordoba of a current common scenario among bi national same sex couples in the United States.

But, this past Tuesday May 8^th, New York Representative Jerrold Nadler re-introduced the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, formerly known as the Permanent Partners Act or PPIA. If UAFA were passed into law, a new option would be opened for such couples.

UAFA would provide a mechanism under the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in bi national same sex relationships to sponsor their foreign born partner for immigration benefits to the United States.

Under the UAFA, to qualify as a permanent partner, a person would have to show commitment, financial interdependence, exclusivity, the inability to marry in a manner that is “cognizable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the absence of blood relationship.

As current immigration law now stands, bi national same sex couples in the United States are sometimes forced to relocate to the country of the foreign partner, if that country offers immigration benefits to same sex partners, or, face long periods of separation or even still, face what some would say is a cruel and imposed breakup

“The most cruel form of anti-gay discrimination is to physically separate a couple from one another” said Rachel B. Tiven, a lawyer and Executive Director at Immigration Equality, a national organization that seeks to end discrimination in U.S. immigration laws.

She says current U.S. immigration laws create a situation by which the benefits of American citizenship are being denied because of one’s sexuality.

“The end consequence is that they lose the person they love the most in the world” said Tiven of scenarios where couples are forced to separate.

In 2006, after his organization Human Rights Watch compiled a 196 page report on the plight of same sex bi national couples in the United States, Scott Long, Director of the organization’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights program, said that “Discriminatory U.S. immigration laws turn the American dream into a heartless nightmare for countless U.S. citizens and their foreign partners.”

In the same report, Human Rights Watch noted that U.S. immigration policy has deeply rooted anti-immigrant policies where sexuality has long played an exclusionary role. For instance, from the McCarthy era until 1990, U.S. law barred foreign born lesbian and gay people from immigrating into the country.

Around 35,820 of the 594,394 “unmarried” same sex couples counted in the 2000 United States census included one U.S. citizen, and one non-citizen. According to a report by Gary J. Gates, Phd., at the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation at The University of California in Los Angeles, 79 percent of those bi-national couples include a foreign partner who comes from a country that does not provide immigration benefits to same sex couples.

Currently, 19 countries recognize partners of same sex couples for immigration purposes, including, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain Sweden and the United Kingdom.

But, in United States, the tone is not as accepting. In fact, some observers have gone so far as to warn gay foreigners with non-immigrant visas in same sex relationships, that they should avoid local domestic partner registrations, civil unions, commitment ceremonies or any other public acknowledgement of a coupling, because this would signal immigration officials that the foreign partner is planning, or desires to, stay in the country, which is grounds for deportation.

The current UAFA legislation introduced this past May 8, does not have any status outside of immigration laws. It would not create any kind of relationship recognition separate from the immigration benefits. In other words, the policy is not a step towards gay marriage, a fear expressed by those who oppose any legal sanctioning of gay couples.

As filmmaker Sebastian Cordoba points out, of those countries that do recognize same sex partners for immigration purposes, only three have legally sanctioned gay marriage.

One of the couple’s highlighted in Cordoba’s film are Mark and Fred of Harrisburg, New Jersey. Fred, a native of France, has been able to stay in the United States through work and student visas. But, when Fred’s last work visa came to an end, the couple, who have two children, faced tough choices, they would have to find an employer that would be willing to go through the process of sponsoring Fred, or the couple would be forced to move to France.

After a great deal of contemplation, the couple is planning on moving to France this summer.

“We don’t want to move to France, we do much better here in Harrisburg if we’re both working” and if we do move, “I won’t be able to work” which Mark worries will put a real financial strain on the family of four.

Mark, who’s been a registered Republican most of his life, often finds himself discussing his situation with conservatives. He says that he just deals with the facts based on tax and laws.

“I don’t go into the emotions” he said noting his argument doesn’t go near gay marriage or other hot button social issues. He speaks of the contribution Fred makes as an educator, teaching people a new language, and the fact that they both contribute to their community, pointing out that most of his friends and neighbors are heterosexual and don’t understand why the couple has to leave in order to obtain some sense of normalcy.

“Fred can’t work, even though he has his doctorate in education” noted Mark of his highly skilled partner who he can’t sponsor for a green card.

But, then, during the same conversation, basic human emotion seeps in, as Mark shares the pain and fear of what could happen to the couple and all they’ve tried to accomplish together “all I’m talking about is two people staying together, all we want is to just stay together” he said as his voice cracked.

“One of the rights of Americans is to pursue happiness” said Mark

“I don’t even have a chance to pursue it, if my partner and family is taken away from me, one of my fundamental rights is gone” he said of the current immigration laws that do not allow him to continue living life in the United States with his partner of 15 years.

And, Mark says he is concerned about his children, ages 3 and 6, who are used to life in small-town United States, and how the cultural adjustment to France will affect them.

Regardless, he says he’s exhausted from worrying about it all and has given up on the struggle to try and stay in the United States legally.

“The life if the fight is gone, which is sad for me” he said with a sigh.

Back in 1996 when the Senate approved and then President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, marriage for all purposes of the federal government was defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

A consequence of DOMA’s quick passage was the foreclosure of any possibility that foreign, permanent same sex partners of U.S. citizens could be recognized as “spouses” under current immigration laws.

The current legislation proposed by Congressman Nadler in the House (HR-3006) and Senator Patrick Leahy in the Senate (S-1278), would add “permanent partner” to sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act where “spouse” now appears.

On background, some political observers expressed some doubt that the law would see passage while the current administration is in office. But, they noted that with Democratic majorities in both houses, as well as increased public awareness of the often cruel outcomes that immigration policy bias has imposed, there was still hope.

So far, most Democrats appear to be on board with the current proposal including House Speaker Pelosi.

“The speaker supports Congressman Nadler’s efforts in this area and has co-sponsored the measure in the past” said Drew Hammill, Deputy Press Secretary for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While most supporters of the bill agree, that part of the key to successful passage is the education of Americans about current policy, some worry that the gay community itself has not been exercising its own political activist connections in seeking eventual passage. They point out that current immigration policy is one of the most blatant, clearly spelled out examples of lesbian and gay inequality in the United States.

“The first thing is to tell gay people that this point in time, they are not equal to straight men and women in the United States” said Sebastian Cordoba.

“To educate America at large about this painful issue, is just too much for one little film” he said of his film “Through Thick and Thin”.

Cordoba hopes his film reaches, and inspires the gay community to be more actively involved in politics, and that all Americans who see it are able to relate to the basic human emotions communicated by its subjects.

If the tears flowing down faces at the viewing this past February were any indication, the film’s doing its job in showing the devastating impact that politics can have on human beings and their day to day lives.