Forever A Fangirl

On This Day/ Chicago For Auction?

ON THIS DAY  (from NYTimes.com)

On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the partitioning of Palestine between Arabs and Jews.

Being my birthday, I sort of hoped for a better "On This Day...",  'cause this one as we all know, didn't turn out very well.

Here's  a story printed today that I like a lot more.

To Stretch City's Budget for the Arts, Chicago  Turns to eBay

"If you want something wonderful to happen in Chicago, it happens." 

Burt Wolf, an award-winning cooking personality and author, on his idea for a city-sponsored auction.

 

 

CHICAGO, Nov. 28 - The view out of Lois Weisberg's office window is of the dazzling art installations at the new Millennium Park and the Art Institute of Chicago, one of the world's great museums. For Ms. Weisberg, commissioner of cultural affairs in Chicago, the view is a constant reminder of how important the arts are to this city.

And for the last 20 years, Ms. Weisberg has dreamed up scores of ideas to cultivate and promote the arts in Chicago. Now, with the city facing a $220 million budget deficit and civic arts financing slowly drying up, Ms. Weisberg is trying out another new idea: an online auction on eBay.

In December, the city will hold what Ms. Weisberg said is the first charitable eBay auction to be sponsored by an American city. Proceeds from the "Great Chicago Fire Sale" (a reference to the city's worst calamity, 1871) will benefit some of the city's cultural programs, which are increasingly strained by a reduced budget.

Since August, the city's Department of Cultural Affairs has been collecting auction items from Chicago celebrities and sports figures, local businesses, hotels and restaurants and other benefactors.

"I think selling the city on eBay could be a big deal," Ms. Weisberg said. "This may be the most creative thing we've ever done. I'm sure that if this catches on, other cities will want to do it, just as they did with the cows."

Five years ago, Ms. Weisberg unleashed a stampede of 300 life-size fiberglass cows, decorated by local artists, onto the city's streets for a summer. She followed up "Cows on Parade" the next summer with 300 Ping-Pong tables in public spots around the city. The Ping-Pong festival was another first for an American city, but failed to catch on nationally the way the cows did.

Then came "Suite Home Chicago," a living-room motif public art exhibition. The show, another first, displayed 350 decorated fiberglass loveseats, chairs, ottomans and television consoles, mostly on the sidewalks of the city's downtown shopping district. It also did not match the enormous popularity of the decorated cows.

Now, Ms. Weisberg believes, Chicago's latest project just might finally top the success of "Cows on Parade."

The items that bidders can vie for include an architectural drawing of the Millennium Park band shell, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion, signed by Frank Gehry, who designed it; an original 1960's Playboy Bunny outfit (one fetched $14,340 last year at Christie's); a painting by Ed Paschke; dinner and hotel packages; and pieces of Chicago memorabilia, including an original Chicago Theater sign and an official resolution, passed in 1997, absolving Mrs. O'Leary's cow from starting the fire of 1871.

Other items for sale are tours of Millennium Park, the Lincoln Park Zoo and historic firehouses as well as a dinner party for 12 people anywhere in the country prepared by Art Smith, personal chef to Oprah Winfrey; a walk-on role in "A Christmas Carol" at the Goodman Theater; and a chance to dye the Chicago River green on St. Patrick's Day, a Chicago tradition.

The auction begins on Thursday, and runs for two weeks. A preview of all of the 300-plus auction items, with full descriptions, is available on www.thegreatchicagofiresale.org, the city's own Web site. New items are also being added daily through Dec. 16, the final day of the sale.

But Ms. Weisberg said she might extend the auction, perhaps making it a continuous year-round sale.

"This is going to need a good year, at least, to find out how far this can reach," she said.

The projected value of the auction lot is $200,000 to $250,000, an aide to Ms. Weisberg said.

But Leslie Hindman, a Chicago-based auctioneer who is chairwoman for the auction, is unsure how much the sale will raise, pointing out that it is generally difficult to predict final prices at charity auctions.

"How much will someone pay to have lunch with Nate Berkus?" Ms. Hindman said, referring to the celebrity decorator from Chicago. "There's no precedent for it. It's worth whatever someone will pay for it."

Organizers said that beyond raising money for the city's arts, the auction could have promotional benefits for Chicago. "Every item you got, you are learning about the city," Ms. Weisberg said. There are 125 million registered users on eBay, and Ms. Hindman said the auction would "showcase Chicago to a national online audience."

The Department of Cultural Affairs sponsors more than 1,000 citywide programs and exhibitions, almost all free. The department, which includes the Office of Tourism, is also responsible for luring visitors and big events to the city.

Because of the city's large budget deficit, Ms. Weisberg said she was seeking out more creative ways to raise money for local artists and arts groups.

"The mayor is strapped," she said. "I can't get the city, especially in times like these, to raise that money, nor would I even ask them."   

(This abstract piece is by Rene Magritte. It's housed at the Art Institute. Other photos are of  Millennium Park. All photos by Cyn. Please credit if reprinting.)

The Cultural Affairs Department's budget declined to $9 million this year, from $11.8 million just two years ago, a drop of almost 25 percent. But Ms. Weisberg called the plunge deceptive. "Even though you see a cut, it's not a real cut," she said. "They don't increase, let's put it that way. If I want to do anything beyond the $9 million, I have to find the money myself."

She said more money from private sources and foundations has augmented the department's budget gap and allowed it to sustain all of its programming and services. And its grant-giving foundation, which doles out about $1 million annually to Chicago artists and arts organizations, has not changed in several years, she added.

But it is also true that the department has reduced its staff by 22 people since 2002, from 114 to 92, and left vacant positions unfilled. Nine more jobs will be lost next year, according to a department spokeswoman, and the department's budget is projected to drop even further, to $8.5 million.

Randy Cohen, vice president for research at Americans for the Arts, an arts advocacy group based in Washington, said the budgets of many city arts agencies were also on a downswing. For example, Los Angeles's city art budget fell to $9.6 million this year, from more than $14 million in 2002. And New York's final cultural budget shrank to about $118 million this year from $127.4 million just two years ago, according to Mr. Cohen, though one sector, public art installations, has doubled in number since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took office.

Whatever additional funds are raised from Chicago's auction, Ms. Weisberg said, will benefit the Chicago Cultural Center; Gallery 37, an arts job-training program for youths; the Clarke House Museum, the city's oldest house, built in 1836; and grants to individual artists and arts organizations, particularly emerging arts groups.

"I would never have enough money to do everything I want to do," Ms. Weisberg said. "Pretty soon we have another idea, and we have to raise money for that. That's the way it goes."

In this case, though, she credits Burt Wolf, an award-winning cooking personality and author, with the initial idea for a city-sponsored auction.

Interviewed by phone in Manhattan, Mr. Wolf said he came up with the idea earlier this year, when he visited eBay's headquarters in San Jose, Calif., for a television special on the history of shopping.

Mr. Wolf said he thought first of Chicago, not New York City, where he lives, because he is chummy with Ms. Weisberg and the city's mayor, Richard M. Daley, and because New York's bureaucracy is "too complicated."

"If you want something wonderful to happen in Chicago, it happens," Mr. Wolf said. Ms. Weisberg, he added, "just took it and made it happen, God bless her."

Mr. Wolf said he hoped New York other cities would hold their own auctions. "If they don't, they've really missed the boat," he said.
Story by David Bernstein

Quick and Dirty Post

It's very late,  so here's just a few shots I submitted to the Mirror Project ( see link in my side bar).

Perspective  

The  Day after Thanksgiving, Art Institute--American pre-1901, my son and I (l to r).        

11 2004    

     

A Plateful  

The Day after Thanksgiving-- European Decorative Arts, Gunsaulus Hall, The Art Institute of Chicago.  

   

Cyn

Chicago, Illinois, USA      

Gunsaulus Hall Reflection

Day-after-Thanksgiving trip to the Art Institute in Chicago. Though three floors in size, one can only use the first floor to travel among the three buildings that comprise the Museum. Here, I am pausing in what I call the weapons room (much armor and weaponry here) in the European Decorative Arts area.      

 

Ukraine Parliament Says Disputed Poll Invalid

Mr Yushchenko says poison caused
a sudden change in his appearance

This story is too wildly labyrinthine for me to fully analyze atm, but I can't help but be reminded of Lech Walesa from Poland and his rise with the support of the working class, from factory foreman to a internationally respected representative of the citizens of Poland.

It gives me hope that if the people really feel a wrong needs to be righted, if they persevere as if they've got nothing to lose (when in fact, persevering could cost them their lives), they may be able to make it happen. Why do these folks seem more courageous than the current crop of us Americans that seem to be trying to change the status quo ( money/power=control of the populace) but are we really trying as hard as these people? Do we want widespread corruption to cease-- enough to take to the streets and stay there until our voices are heard? Or shall we just squawk for a while then trudge back, chins hung low, grudgingly accepting that we've been screwed again? Where is our Viktor Yushchenko?

Ukraine Parliament Says Disputed Poll Invalid

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Ukraine

By Yuri Kulikov

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine's parliament, in a vote providing a moral boost for opposition supporters massed in the capital, said on Saturday the disputed presidential poll handing victory to Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich was invalid.

Parliament has no legal authority to annul the election results, but with vast crowds backing liberal challenger Viktor Yushchenko's call for a new vote, the declaration carries political weight.

The declaration was issued two days ahead of a Supreme Court case examining Yushchenko's complaints of poll irregularities and as the European Union  said it wanted to see new elections.

The chamber passed by a large majority a resolution proclaiming the Nov. 21 poll was invalid, subject to many irregularities and failing to reflect voters' intentions.

But at the end of a highly charged emergency session, it failed to pass a motion on staging a rerun of the vote.

"You now have the time to work through the resolution and prepare the documents necessary to develop it," parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn said in closing the session.

Yanukovich called a news conference after the debate. But his press secretary later said he was detained at a meeting and would not be appearing at his largely deserted headquarters.

Yushchenko aides said their candidate had no plans to address crowds in Kiev's main square -- as he has daily since last Sunday's election.

After talks between the two rivals on Friday, overseen by mediators from Russia and the European Union, Yushchenko told supporters he wanted a new poll on Dec. 12.

In eastern Ukraine, the prime minister's power base, similarly large crowds have backed Yanukovich as president.

The disputed election has raised tensions between the West and Russia, which fears losing its hold over Ukraine, and exposed old fault lines dividing the country into east and west.

During its four-hour debate, parliament also expressed no confidence in the Central Election Commission and called on outgoing President Leonid Kuchma to appoint new members.

SUPREME COURT TO RULE

On Monday, the Supreme Court will examine Yushchenko's complaints of widespread poll irregularities.

"People will not leave the street until a new commission names a new date for elections," said deputy Ivan Zayets, a Yushchenko ally. "These decisions do not solve the problem. They only point in the correct direction for an ultimate resolution."

As the session opened, 100,000 Yushchenko supporters massed outside parliament chanted their candidate's name and the European Union pressed for a new vote.

"We think the best, the ideal, outcome would be elections," Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, speaking on behalf of the EU as its president, told reporters in The Hague.

"If we are heading for elections, it should happen rather soon, before the end of the year."

Speaker Lytvyn took a swipe at outgoing President Leonid Kuchma's scandal-plagued 10 years in office, saying authorities were to blame for the loss of public faith in institutions.

"The outcome is the direct embodiment of public policy undertaken in recent years ... We did not take the people into account, we did not listen to the people."

Members of nearly all political stripes wanted quick action.

"We must put an end to this comedy with a court decision," said Socialist Oleksander Moroz, a close ally of Yushchenko.

But many members placed conditions on any proposal to stage a new election, among them longstanding proposals to overhaul Ukraine's political system, mainly by taking political power away from the president and handing it to parliament.

On the streets, passions remained high.

Heeding Yushchenko's call to stay in the streets until they secured victory, thousands of supporters wearing scarves, hats and ribbons in his campaign's orange colors braved snow and wind to man blockades around government buildings.

Yanukovich supporters were seen boarding trains to return to the prime minister's Donbass stronghold in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. Mass rallies took place in eastern Donetsk region.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said Russia had to accept the will of the electorate in Ukraine.

"Neither Russia nor anyone else has anything to fear about a democracy in Ukraine based on the rule of the law," Fischer told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has congratulated Yanukovich twice. Russia has since backed off, urging Ukrainians to settle their differences through the courts.

Profile: Viktor Yushchenko

Yushchenko turned from a quiet banker into a street hero

Once a cautious and loyal technocrat, Viktor Yushchenko is now leader of Ukraine's powerful opposition that is demanding radical political change.

Trained as an accountant, Mr Yushchenko drew Western admiration after leading some of Ukraine's bravest reform efforts in President Leonid Kuchma's quarrelsome governments.

The 50-year-old former reformist prime minister broke ranks with Mr Kuchma to form his Our Ukraine opposition bloc.

The Art Institute ~ Chicago ~ Transfixed

Pic of the day...

Chris transfixed.
Today we made the 30- minute drive to the Art Institute  in Chicago, because my son mentioned that he'd studied some Abstract/Surrealist/? (not sure if another category, too) painters recently, and he liked what he saw of Rene Magritte. He mentioned seeing what you see below, and as soon as I heard that I suggested we go to the Institute the day after Thanksgiving---so he could see the real deal-- and because I will use the very slightest of excuses to visit the Art Institute. Also, we now have Millenium Park right across the street! Major bonus!

Time Transfixed ~ Rene Magritte

The "Liberal Agenda" Update

Everybody has an opinion.. Forum Quote from moi, in re: The Wisconsin hunter gunning-down and killing 6 other hunters... In response, XXXX asks: please explain what you mean by this? I don't believe that the weapon used is relevent. The point was that a man killed 6 ppl. Many hunting rifle's are semi automatic.   Is it a normal occurrence to shoot animals with a semi-automatic SKS military-style rifle? Would the outcome of this incident possibly have been any different if the weapon has been a traditional hunting rifle?  My response: Quite simply, I am promoting the "liberal agenda" or what I sometimes call, "my opinion." IMO, anyone that uses more than what Davy Crockett used (a musket (sp) I think), is a p*ssy. People who are around guns more than people who aren't, get shot more often and shoot others more often than people who don't make it a hobby or habit to use guns. My agenda is to have less people killed by guns--any kind of gun. Sorry. This is 2004, not 1776. And jeez Louise yes of course, it's awful that innocent people died. Because a nut had a gun. In this specific situation, if the guy had been using a bow and arrow or a knife-- not all these people would have died. He just couldn't have pulled this off--alone--without the weapon he had. EDIT: Early on in  this thread discussion, the expression "Liberal Agenda" came up. It was in an anti-gun context, so I feel pretty sure they include me in that category. Problem is, I'm not really a Liberal. I'm a smack in-the-center Libertarian, according to several tests and measures (oh boy,  right?;) ) and more importantly, when I go issue by issue--am I Democrat, Green, or Libertarian? (Republican is not even in the running. :/) , I again and again am somewhere in the Libertarian arena. And they'll never win. :sigh:

Band Aid 20

Band Aid 20

Oi! I'm still getting way too many hits. I'm waaaaay over my bandwidth allotment and have been for a while. I'm trimming older posts all over the place but I still had 1200 1351 hits today. While most of my blog is disposable, there's a couple posts that I simply will not take down (Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate and a few others I've listed on the first page). So whilst checking the count today I noticed I'm getting hits for a post from last Christmastime about the song, Do They Know It's Christmas? by the insta-group Band-Aid. Since I pretty much quit reading the BBC on-line news--just not enough time, I had no idea that a remake of  "Do They Know..." was in the works. Well it done and released and since people are hitting me anyway, I thought I may as well give the people what they want. :D

From Wednesday, 17 November, 2004, 10:35 GMT

Bono sings famous Band Aid line

 

Bono: "I just tried it more of a whisper"

Producers of the new Band Aid single have chosen to use Bono's version of a controversial lyric from the song.

The U2 frontman sings "Well, tonight thank God it's them instead of you" 20 years after singing it the first time.

Darkness star Justin Hawkins had also recorded a version of the line, saying his version was better.

Bono flew into Britain late on Sunday to record the well-known line of Do They Know It's Christmas?, which gets its first radio play on Tuesday.

Bono said he "really, really loathed" the powerful line from the song.

He added: "I hated singing it in the first place. I really didn't want to sing it again."

"I did an impersonation of Bruce Springsteen," said the singer, who was persuaded by Bob Geldof to perform the line in 1984 and had to be persuaded once more to record the lyric.

Madonna support

       

                                 

I did it and I did it better than him - so, his management kicked up a stink                                                          Justin Hawkins on rivalry with Bono                                                                                                                                                                                     R&B star Beverley Knight's account of the weekend                             Full Band Aid 20 line-up

        Madonna has lent her support to the new Band Aid single by recording an introduction to the song's music video.

The pop queen will tell fans to "feed the world" before the video gets its premiere on BBC One on Thursday.

Madonna was not among the stars who assembled to record the song in London at the weekend.

Bono returned from Ireland to record the new rendition and said he took a different approach to his emotional 1984 contribution.

"Rather than that raw, I just tried it more of a whisper tonight," he said.

The Darkness' Justin Hawkins had earlier claimed: "I did it and I did it better than him.

"So his management kicked up a stink and it obviously means a lot to him. "

The single will get its first radio play on stations around the UK at 0800 GMT on Tuesday and will be released on 29 November. It will raise money for food aid in Darfur, Sudan.

The video will be unveiled at 1755 GMT on BBC One on Thursday.

                                 

Bob Geldof and his friends are here to remind you that none of us can forget - not ever                                                           Madonna

"Twenty years ago I performed at Live Aid," she will tell viewers. "You saw me and my generation demanding a change.

"Once again, here we are 20 years later and more people die of hunger in Africa than war and Aids put together.

"In a world of plenty, it is hard to imagine that there are African children going to bed tonight hungry.

"Bob Geldof and his friends are here to remind you that none of us can forget. Not ever. Feed the world. I am honoured to introduce Band Aid 20."

The video will feature stars including Coldplay's Chris Martin, Will Young, Jamelia, Sugababes and Busted, who took part in the recording sessions at the weekend.

The single will be titled Band Aid 20 to mark the 20th anniversary of the original song, which featured stars such as George Michael, Duran Duran and Phil Collins.

It was organised by Geldof after he saw news footage of the starving in Ethiopia, and sold more than 3.5 million copies in the UK alone.

Sold on CD for £3.99 and also available as a download, the new version is hot favourite to be Christmas number one in the UK this year.

Retailers expect to sell about 500,000 copies in its first week.

Woolworths and Virgin Megastores will give their proceeds to the Band Aid Trust charity, while Chancellor Gordon Brown has decided not to charge VAT.

---

Band Aid 20 - Who sings what

Chris Martin (Coldplay) - It's Christmas time, there's no need to be afraid. At Christmas time, we let in light and we banish shade

Dido - And in our world of plenty we can spread a smile of joy. Throw your arms around the world at Christmas time.

Robbie Williams - But say a prayer, Pray for the other ones. At Christmas time it's hard, but when you're having fun.

Sugababes - There's a world outside your window, and it's a world of dread and fear.

Fran Healy (Travis) - Where the only water flowing

Fran Healy and the Sugababes - Is the bitter sting of tears

Fran Healy and Justin Hawkins (The Darkness) - And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom

Bono - Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you

Will Young and Jamelia - And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmas time

Ms Dynamite and Beverly Knight - (Oooh) Where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow

Group of 10 and Joss Stone - Do they know it's Christmas time at all?

Tom Chaplin (Keane) - Here's to you

Justin Hawkins - Raise a glass for everyone

Dizzee Rascal - Spare a thought this yuletide for the deprived, if the table was turned would you survive

Busted - Here's to them

Justin Hawkins - Underneath that burning sun

Dizzee Rascal -  You ain't gotta feel guilt just selfless, give a little help to the helpless

Joss Stone and Justin Hawkins - Do they know it's Christmas time at all?

Tom Chaplin - Feed the world

Tom Chaplin and Chris Martin - Feed the world

Tom Chaplin, Chris Martin and Sugababes - Feed the world

Everyone - Feed the world, let them know it's Christmas time again (repeated)

Fran Healy - Wooo

Group of 10 - Feed the world

Everyone - Feed the world (repeated to end)

Joss Stone - Ad-libs over outro             

The Most Pierced Woman In The World

Update 2007~

This post has garnered more site viewings (hits) than most any other (I've removed several due to bandwidth issues). I don't quite know what that says about the "information superhighway," but far be it for me to slow down traffic. In that spirit, I present this year's edition of the ongoing bizarre pastime of one Miss Elaine Davidson.

Tue Nov 16, 7:10 PM ET
Most pierced : Elaine Davidson, the most pierced woman in the world, shows off some of her 2,520 piercings at the 50th anniversary of the Guiness World Records in London. (AFP/Nicolas Asfouri)

Lighting The Town Square Christmas Tree

Highlight tonight was going to Chris's choir's performance at the Town Square for the annual tree-lighting ceremony. They fire-trucked in Santa and he rode the ladder up, up, up to the treetop and flicked on the lights. Yay!

Here the kids are sharing both music sheets and a flashlight!
My son is on the far left. :)

Giant Steps Backward

This kind of shite is really making me determined to fight them every step of the way. What a bunch of sneaky bastards.  This is gonna get worse before it gets better but we will prevail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

November 20, 2004

Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill

 

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG  and CARL HULSE

   

WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including
President Bush, in the election.

House officials said Saturday morning that the final details of the spending measure were worked out before midnight and that the bill was filed for the House vote on Saturday.

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

"It's something we've had a longstanding interest in," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee. He added, "This is in response to an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion groups across the country to use government agencies to coerce health care providers to participate in abortions."

The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

Ms. Boxer said that she complained to Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but that he told her that House Republican leaders insisted that the provision, which was approved by the House in July but never came to the Senate for a vote, be included in the measure.

"He said, 'Senator, they want it in, and it's going in,' " Ms. Boxer recalled.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Stevens, Melanie Alvord, said on Friday that her boss would have no comment on the spending bill because House and Senate negotiators had not settled on the final language.

Some lawmakers and Congressional aides interpreted the House leaders' insistence as reflection of the new political strength of the anti-abortion movement and of Christian conservatives, who played an important role in re-electing Mr. Bush this month.

"They are catering to their right wing doing this," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. "It doesn't make it right. I think this is the first step."

Mr. Harkin said he intended to try to force a vote next year on support for upholding the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion. "I think it is time the women of America understand what is happening here," he said.

The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer's warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.

Lawmakers in the House and the Senate intended to vote on the omnibus bill on Saturday, when a stopgap spending measure is set to expire at midnight. Congress failed to pass 9 of its 13 required spending bills before its election recess, leaving much of the government - with the exception of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security - to operate under the interim measure.

The 11th-hour controversy over the abortion language capped a long and chaotic day Friday. In the House, the ethics committee ruled that a Democratic lawmaker had brought exaggerated charges against Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority leader, a finding that provoked another round of bitter recriminations between Republicans and Democrats.

In the Senate, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his re-election bid, delivered a poignant farewell speech that brought him a standing ovation.

"It's had its challenges, its triumphs, its disappointments," Mr. Daschle said of his 26-year career in Congress, which included a decade as the Democratic leader. "But everything was worth doing."

Mr. Daschle is the first Senate party leader in more than half a century to lose a re-election campaign. His emotional talk, in which he also urged his colleagues to find "common ground," was attended by nearly all of the Senate's Democrats, who gathered him in their arms and hugged him afterward.

But only a few Republicans showed up, and Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who broke with Senate tradition to campaign against Mr. Daschle in his home state, South Dakota, did not appear until after Mr. Daschle finished speaking. The scant Republican showing provoked Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, to speak out. "I don't know why, why in the closing days, some element of comity, some element of grace, some element of respect for a human being, could not have gotten some of our friends out of their offices," Mr. Lautenberg said.

Oh, I think I know why.

Outside the Senate chamber, the common ground Mr. Daschle spoke of seemed hard to find. House and Senate negotiators were still trying to salvage a reorganization of the nation's intelligence agencies. And Ms. Boxer was trying to negotiate changes to the abortion language, she said, with little success.

Louise Melling, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has opposed the provision, said it would effectively strip states of their right to "enforce laws that were designed to protect women's health."

For instance, she said, there are four states - Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Washington - that pay for some abortions for low-income women through their Medicaid programs. Under the language included in the omnibus bill, hospitals would not have to comply with those requirements.

On Friday, nine female senators - eight Democrats and one Republican, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - wrote a letter to Senator Stevens asking that the language be changed and complaining that it had not gone through committee or to the Senate floor for a vote.

Ms. Snowe called the language "a bad provision" that would "adversely affect reproductive health access for women across the country." She added, "It is an ill-advised policy that is clearly harmful to women."

The bill generally holds spending to the level sought by the White House. The huge measure also contains scores of home-state projects sought by lawmakers.

So maybe we should just give up on the red voters and listen to some of what this guy

http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/  has to say, though personally I enjoy hockey and am not too concerned about the weather differences between here--Chicago and say, Toronto. I have no problem with leaving.  Lack of employment is the only obstacle.

It's time for the Democrats to face reality: They are the party of urban America. If the cities elected our president, if urban voters determined the outcome, John F. Kerry would have won by a landslide. Urban voters are the Democratic base.

THE URBAN ARCHIPELAGO

It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live on islands in red states too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map. Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Austin is our island in Texas; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are our islands in Florida. Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are rubes, fools, and hate-mongers. Red Virginia prohibits any contract between same-sex couples. Compassionate? Texas allows the death penalty to be applied to teenaged criminals and has historically executed the mentally retarded. (When the Supreme Court ruled executions of the mentally retarded unconstitutional in 2002, Texas officials, including Governor Rick Perry, responded by claiming that the state had no mentally retarded inmates on death row--a claim the state was able to make because it does not test inmates for mental retardation.) Dumb? The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money on building new roads rather than public transit.

If Democrats and urban residents want to combat the rising tide of red that threatens to swamp and ruin this country, we need a new identity politics, an urban identity politics, one that argues for the cities, uses a rhetoric of urban values, and creates a tribal identity for liberals that's as powerful and attractive as the tribal identity Republicans have created for their constituents. John Kerry won among the highly educated, Jews, young people, gays and lesbians, and non-whites. What do all these groups have in common? They choose to live in cities. An overwhelming majority of the American popuation chooses to live in cities. And John Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000. He took half the cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000. The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities. An urbanist agenda may not be a recipe for winning the next presidential election--but it may win the Democrats the presidential election in 2012 and create a new Democratic majority.

For Democrats, it's the cities, stupid--not the rural areas, not the prickly, hateful "heartland," but the sane, sensible cities--including the cities trapped in the heartland. Pandering to rural voters is a waste of time. Again, look at the second map. Look at the urban blue spots in red states like Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico--there's almost as much blue in those states as there is in Washington, Oregon, and California. And the challenge for the Democrats is not just to organize in the blue areas but to grow them. And to do that, Democrats need to pursue policies that encourage urban growth (mass transit, affordable housing, city services), and Democrats need to openly and aggressively champion urban values. By focusing on the cities the Dems can create a tribal identity to combat the white, Christian, rural, and suburban identity that the Republicans have cornered. And it's sitting right there, on every electoral map, staring them in the face: The cities.

The urbanites. Howard Dean had it wrong when he tried to woo the "Pickup Truck with Confederate Flag" vote. In fact, while Kerry won urban areas by a whopping 60 percent--that actually represents a 15 percent drop in urban support from 2000 when Gore won the election. The lesson? Democrats have got to tend to their urban base and grow it.

In cities all over America, distressed liberals are talking about fleeing to Canada or, better yet, seceding from the Union. We can't literally secede and, let's admit it, we don't really want to live in Canada. It's too cold up there and in our heart-of-hearts we hate hockey. We can secede emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland. We can focus on our issues, our urban issues, and promote our shared urban values. We can create a new identity politics, one that transcends class, race, sexual orientation, and religion, one that unites people living in cities with each other and with other urbanites in other cities. The Republicans have the federal government--for now. But we've got Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York City (Bloomberg is a Republican in name only), and every college town in the country. We're everywhere any sane person wants to be. Let them have the shitholes, the Oklahomas, Wyomings, and Alabamas. We'll take Manhattan.

EMBRACING URBAN SELF-INTEREST

To all those who live in cities--to all those depressed Kerry supporters out there--we say take heart. Clearly we can't control national politics right now--we can barely get a hearing. We can, however, stay engaged in our cities, and make our voices heard in the urban areas we dominate, and make each and every one, to quote Ronald Reagan (and John Winthrop, the 17th-century Puritan Reagan was parroting), "a city on a hill." This is not a retreat; it is a long-term strategy for the Democratic Party to cater to and build on its base.

To red-state voters, to the rural voters, residents of small, dying towns, and soulless sprawling exburbs, we say this: Fuck off. Your issues are no longer our issues. We're going to battle our bleeding-heart instincts and ignore pangs of misplaced empathy. We will no longer concern ourselves with a health care crisis that disproportionately impacts rural areas. Instead we will work toward winning health care one blue state at a time.

When it comes to the environment, our new policy is this: Let the heartland live with the consequences of handing the national government to the rape-and-pillage party. The only time urbanists should concern themselves with the environment is when we are impacted--directly, not spiritually (the depressing awareness that there is no unspoiled wilderness out there doesn't count). Air pollution, for instance: We should be aggressive. If coal is to be burned, it has to be burned as cleanly as possible so as not to foul the air we all have to breathe. But if West Virginia wants to elect politicians who allow mining companies to lop off the tops off mountains and dump the waste into valleys and streams, thus causing floods that destroy the homes of the yokels who vote for those politicians, it no longer matters to us. Fuck the mountains in West Virginia--send us the power generated by cleanly burned coal, you rubes, and be sure to wear lifejackets to bed.

Wal-Mart is a rapacious corporation that pays sub-poverty-level wages, offers health benefits to its employees that are so expensive few can afford them, and destroys small towns and rural jobs. Liberals in big cities who have never seen the inside of a Wal-Mart spend a lot of time worrying about the impact Wal-Mart is having on the heartland. No more. We will do what we can to keep Wal-Mart out of our cities and, if at all possible, out of our states. We will pass laws mandating a living wage for full-time work, upping the minimum wage for part-time work, and requiring large corporations to either offer health benefits or pay into state- or city-run funds to provide health care for uninsured workers. That will reform Wal-Mart in our blue cities and states or, better yet, keep Wal-Mart out entirely. And when we see something on the front page of the national section of the New York Times about the damage Wal-Mart is doing to the heartland, we will turn the page. Wal-Mart is not an urban issue.

Neither is gun control. Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities, but the more guns lying around out there in the heartland, the better. Most cities have strong gun-control laws--laws that are, of course, undermined by the fact that our cities aren't walled. Yet. But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt, to take one example, to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members out there in red states? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad.

We won't demand that the federal government impose reasonable fuel-efficiency standards on all cars sold in the United States. We will, however, strive to pass state laws, as California has done, imposing fuel-efficiency standards on cars sold in our states.

We officially no longer give a shit when family farms fail. Fewer family farms equal fewer rural voters. We will, however, continue to support small faggy organic farms, as we are willing to pay more for free-range chicken and beef from non-cannibal cows.

We won't concern ourselves if red states restrict choice. We'll just make sure that abortion remains safe and legal in the cities where we live, and the states we control, and when your daughter or sister or mother dies in a botched abortion, we'll try not to feel too awful about it.

In short, we're through with you people. We're going to demand that the Democrats focus on building their party in the cities while at the same time advancing a smart urban-growth agenda that builds the cities themselves. The more attractive we make the cities--politically, aesthetically, socially--the more residents and voters cities will attract, gradually increasing the electoral clout of liberals and progressives. For Democrats, party building and city building is the same thing. We will strive to turn red states blue one city at a time.

From here on out, we're glad red-state rubes live in areas where guns are more powerful and more plentiful, cars are larger and faster, and people are fatter and slower and dumber. This is not a recipe for repopulating the Great Plains. And when you look for ways to revive your failing towns and dying rural counties, don't even think about tourism. Who wants to go to small-town America now? You people scare us. We'll island-hop from now on, thank you, spending our time and our money in blue cities. If an urbanite is dying to have a country experience, rural Vermont is lovely. Maple syrup, rolling hills, fly-fishing--everything you could want. Country bumpkins in red rural areas who depend on tourists from urban areas but vote Republican can forget our money.

You've made your choice, red America, and we urban Americans are going to make a different choice. We are going to make Seattle--and New York, Chicago, and the rest--a great place to live, a progressive place. Again, we'll quote Ronald Reagan: We will make each of our cities--each and every one--a shining city on a hill. You can have your shitholes.

Ugh, I suppose the gloves are going to have to come off in order to "win back the country." I wonder how much blood is going to be spilled? Maybe a Civil War II, or has that already started?

Tonight I feel...

...like this.

http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine/classic.asp

 

Way more newsworthy than the Laci Peterson case:

To kidnap and kill anyone is inexcusable. But it is repugnant to commit such a crime against a woman who has spent most of her life working for the good of the people of Iraq."
—British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped British aid worker who is believed to have been killed in Iraq

Carville Eggs-On "Press"

In this television frame grab provided by NBC, Democratic strategist James Carville cracks an egg on his forehead to demonstrate he's got egg on his face after his projection of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election was wrong on NBC's 'Meet the Press' during a taping at the NBC studios Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004 in Washington,. Carville projected 52-percent of vote for Sen. John Kerry ), D-Mass., 47-percent for President George W. Bush and one-percent for Ralph Nader . (AP Photo/Courtesy of Meet the Press/Getty Images)

CARVILLE CRACKS UP ON 'PRESS'

Mon Nov 15, 3:16 AM ET (NYPost PageSix)

THE yolk's on Clinton political guru James Carville — who shocked everyone on "Meet the Press" yesterday morning by smashing a raw egg on his head.
The point?

To dramatize the fact that he had egg on his face after wrongly predicting that Democrat John Kerry  was going to win the presidential election.

"Meet the Press" host Tim Russert and Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who is Carville's wife, jumped out of the way to keep from being drenched by the flying egg white.

Now couldn't that have slightly pervy connotations?
C'mon, look at the egg white spraying off to the side of Carville's noggin.

Carville — known as the Ragin' Cajun for his fiery partisanship — predicted Kerry would get 52 percent of the vote and President Bush  47 percent.

That projection was really scrambled because, in the end, the final tally turned out to be eggs-actly the opposite of the eventual vote tally.

Hero Machine

You too, can be a superhero....

It's 3 a.m. (or it was) and I'm lonely... so what do I do? I play with a superhero machine. (Yes, of course I've always wanted to be a superhero. ) http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heroMachine/classic.asp

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"I've done my time. I've got a brand new baby and a wife, and I haven't touched the controls of an aircraft in seven years. I'm 47 years old. How could they be calling me? How could they even want me?"
RICK HOWELL, former Army helicopter pilot.
In NYTimes.com

Should the US remain a member of the United Nations?

http://tinyurl.com/52xt2

U.S. and U.N.Renew Quarrel Over Iraq

Pool Photo by Nicolas Asfouri

Secretary General Kofi Annan met Prime Minister Tony Blair in London last month. The United Nations is under renewed attack over Iraq.

Over the past few years I've often heard top American officials dismiss the UN as "irrelevant."

It always strikes me as odd hearing that, as I recall as a fifth grader on a school field trip, being awed and feeling almost reverent about the United Nation's chambers (it's like an interactive theatre-in-the-round--with Annan commanding center stage) where dozens of countries come together to discuss how best to behave as a global community.

The United States has made it apparent we believe that the United Nations is toothless, that it essentially has no power or even influence, at least not over us.

Is there any point then for the USA to remain a member of the United Nations?

November 14, 2004
DIPLOMACY
U.S. and U.N. Renew Quarrel Over Iraq
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 12 - Secretary General Kofi Annan's reluctance to commit staff members to Iraq in large numbers and a series of comments he has made about the war have strained relations with the Bush administration and left many Americans bewildered, according to both supporters and critics of the United Nations.

Mr. Annan withdrew international staff members from Iraq in October 2003 in the wake of attacks on relief workers and the bombing of the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters, which killed 22 people, including the mission chief, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Although the United Nations has been assigned the task of setting up elections scheduled for January, Mr. Annan has declined to send more than a handful of electoral workers to Iraq, citing the lack of security forces to protect them.

"The Iraqis and the Americans are completely frustrated," said a senior American official at the United Nations, reporting views he said he heard in the White House this week. "The secretary general is still recommending many thousands of peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and the Congo, and yet there are seven election workers in Iraq. That tells the whole story."

This official said that warnings were resurfacing at the White House that the United Nations was risking becoming irrelevant and that such comments were now being combined with a dismissive attitude toward Mr. Annan himself.

"We're beyond anger," the official said. "We won re-election, Kofi's term is up in '06 and though we have been asking him to define the U.N. role in Iraq, he is thumbing his nose at us."

William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the United States, acknowledged concern among the organization's backers. "I think a lot of Americans who are very sympathetic to the U.N. are confused with this last phase," he said.

"Most Americans don't really take into account the rule-of-law aspects of international behavior," Mr. Luers said. "We generally think what we do is right and in a certain sense we set the rules. Nonetheless, the world doesn't see it that way, and I think Kofi is talking to that world. I think he almost has to be where he is, but it's a tough time for him among Americans."

In an interview Thursday night at his office overlooking the East River, Mr. Annan said he was distressed by the criticism.

"I have tried to be as helpful as possible, and I have stated at every opportunity that the stabilization of Iraq is everyone's responsibility," Mr. Annan said. "I have argued that regardless of one's position on the war, we must all come together to stabilize Iraq."

At issue are three recent actions by Mr. Annan. In September, he suggested in a BBC interview that the war in Iraq was "illegal." He barred lawyers with the United Nations war crimes tribunal from taking part in training sessions last month for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who will be trying Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi leaders. And two weeks ago he sent a letter to the United States, British and Iraqi governments warning that a military assault on Falluja could further alienate Iraqis and undermine the elections scheduled for January.

"All of these actions were unhelpful," said Rich Williamson, who was a deputy United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2001 to 2003. "Iraq is a place where the U.N. could show that it can make a valuable and important contribution, but it is just hurting itself in not helping the Iraqi people and sitting on the sidelines."

Further jeopardizing Mr. Annan's image in American eyes are the allegations of corruption and a cover-up in the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program and the intense anger on Capitol Hill at the refusal of the independent investigation headed by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, to share documents with the various Congressional committees conducting their own inquiries.

Officials in Mr. Annan's office say they fear a return to the mood of the 1980's when the United States, the organization's single biggest donor, reacted to Congressional displeasure with the United Nations by withholding payments.

In the interview, Mr. Annan denied that he was being obstructionist over Iraq, and he contended that the United Nations had been instrumental in selecting the interim Iraqi government and had succeeded in training 6,000 election registrars and opening up hundreds of registration places across the country, despite a low number of United Nations staff members now in Baghdad.

Asked if he was under pressure from countries opposed to the war not to cooperate with the Americans, he replied: "Actually, it's the other way around. I am the one who is always telling governments, including those that did not support the war, that the civilization of Iraq is everyone's business because we cannot have a chaotic Iraq in the middle of that region."

He said he had had little success in persuading any countries to contribute troops to a 4,000-member force called for in a Security Council resolution in June that was intended to protect the United Nations and allow it to increase its presence in Iraq. Asked why countries were resisting, he said, "I think they are concerned about the security situation, and they probably have their own public opinion and parliaments to convince."

He said he was concerned about the damage to the United Nations' reputation caused by the oil-for-food scandal and accusations that he was being passive in reacting to it. But he said his interest in protecting the integrity of the Volcker investigation and his obligation to maintain its independence prevented him from taking any individual action.

As for the requests from Congressional committees for records and documents, he said, "It's a bit like having a case in court in New York, and you have several other courts from other places that want to deal with the same case."

Speaking of his directive preventing United Nations judicial officials from helping to create the Iraqi courts, he noted that there was no Security Council mandate for such assistance and cited the organization's formal opposition to judicial systems that include the death penalty. "As you know," he said, "quite a few members of this organization won't even extradite someone to a country where the death penalty exists."

With the United States pressuring him to increase the United Nations presence in Iraq and with the unions representing the world body's 60,000 employees around the globe demanding that the organization leave Iraq all together, Mr. Annan said he had to find creative ways to maintain a balance. "At least we are there, and many others are not there," he said.

"Without being boastful," he said, "I think that except for these activities of ours, we would not have moved as far as we have, whether it was the establishment of an interim Iraqi government or the preparation for the elections. I think our role has been essential, and not one that is played by an organization that is irrelevant."

Star Wars Technology

For all the technogeeksphiles: Star Wars technology

courtesy of J

"God doesn't have a party."

Clickety-click the pic

Today I received a comment from a true Southerner in response to my query
So What Do The Democrats Need To Do? and it is an eye opener. You might want to sit down to read it,  as this person isn't stupid or fanatical or any of the other adjectives that have been flung in the direction of the red states. He simply has a very different point of view about how he wants this country run. Read on if you are the least bit curious.

Being a southerner, 9th generation East Tennessean, I can tell you that the moral issues were of great importance.

Look, Christians who voted for Bush WILL NOT budge on the questions
of abortion and same-sex marriage or civil-unions. How do you
compromise here? We know where Hillary and Edwards stand on these
issues. How can they win or appeal to us? Talking about the book of
Mathew or Mark now is too late. Christianity is not something you take
on or off or leave at home when you get elected. For so many people
throughout this Republic, God comes first over everything else. Party
doesn't or shouldn't matter. God doesn't have a party.  He does have
rules for us to live by. Helping others is a biggy. Forcing me to give
to others should be a crime and is not in the Bible nor is it a
function of government. We will not compromise here.

Taxes. I won't budge here and most fiscal conservatives feel the
same way. I strongly feel that we are overtaxed and even feel more
strongly that my tax dollars are being used to fund unconstitutional
programs, agencies, art, etc., etc. I will vote for the person who
mirrors this opinion. I voted for Peroutka of the Constitution Party by
the way. How do we compromise here? I know we need to fund projects
dealing with infrastructure and the military. That's it ,though.

(Isn't this a Libertarian point of view? I need my brother's input here.)

Then there's the problem with wars and the military. Though I want
our boys home, I will not speak out or lend any support to those who
criticize Bush on the war. My full support and prayers, daily and early
and often, go out to our boys. In the south we have a strong military
heritage. We understand that sometimes you have to fight and defeat
those who wish to harm you. I want the terrorists
killed....period...before they kill us. How do we compromise here? More
talk with the U.N.?

My message to liberals is just move or secede. We don't cotton to
socialism or liberalism down here. Don't try to win us over. We both
would have to compromise our beliefs and that ain't happening. My
message to Democrats? As we would say down here, you need to be shed of
those damn liberals that are ruining your party and listen to Zell
Miller. Then you will see some compromising.

Second-Hand News

Hmmm. I received a comment today lamenting the election of GWB and warning me that "the second beast is rising."  I have a couple questions about this. First, who/what was the first beast? Second, how big is this second beast? I mean, if we convince Buffy to reunite with the Scooby Gang just this once, could they take the beast out?

My blog evolved into something quite political as the elections approached, and though we re-installed Pres. George, I'll probably not stop talking current affairs including politics, as there is still much to comment on. Therefore...

I was reading both Newsweek and Time  magazines last night for some in-depth, behind the scenes, "how George won and Kerry blew it,"  info. and there was some pretty juicy stuff in there. It's funny, the amount of "stuff" that insiders are aware of--and that they are now spilling with the election relegated to the history books. Some things I suspected. My suspicions came from the many candid photographs as well as video, and reams of finely-spun commentary over the course of the campaign. A gut thing more than anything else.

Some of it's very disappointing, if unsurprising. Teresa Kerry comes off as a spoiled, rich bitch who imbibed nightly on the campaign trail--often to excess (her friends defend this as the behavior of a "bon vivant"). It's said too, that she's wanted to be First Lady since the days she was married to the late Senator John Heinz.

More bits:

Kerry talked on his cellphone almost constantly--to the point that a top aide took it away in order to save his hoarse voice for stumping.

Alexandra Kerry (adult daughter) of John, was accosted by anti-Kerry demonstrators (she previously had been able to move among the Kerry crowd anonymously) shouting, "Your father is baby killer."
Kerry hadn't told his daughter that he shot Vietnamese whilst in Vietnam and Alexandra was quite distraught to learn of it this way.
Why would Kerry send her out to stump for him and not properly brief her?

There was more in the two magazines about how awful the organization of the top Kerry campaign management was, and surprisingly, it came down to two women wrestling for control of  how things  should be spun.

The commonality between the Bush and Kerry campaigns was the importance of spin (which I'm assuming is now considered a noun, as well as a verb?). Bush's team did it much better than Kerry's and sadly, the American people are consumers of the highest order. Boiled down most simply: A candidate is a product and we chose the Bush brand over the Kerry brand.

 

Dead Kids and Parentless Children or, A Cherry Tree Weeps

 

Yesterday in Fallujah. Hope this guy made it.
All hope is not lost however,
if you believe exiting Attorney General John Ashcroft ( see below) who says, "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

Honestly, this American doesn't look terribly safe.
 

Ashcroft, Evans Resign From Bush Cabinet
By SCOTT LINDLAW, AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON -

They served President Bush in different ways, but both will leave large, empty chairs in the Cabinet Room: Attorney General John Ashcroft, the face of the administration's tough tactics against terrorism, and Don Evans, the longtime friend who headed the Commerce Department, are leaving the president's team.

Both resigned Tuesday, the first members of the Cabinet to leave as Bush heads from re-election into his second term.

The gospel-singing son of a minister, Ashcroft is a fierce conservative who doesn't drink, smoke or dance. His detractors said he gave religion too prominent a role at the Justice Department _ including optional prayer meetings with staff before each work day.

He has also been a willing lightning rod for critics who said his policies for thwarting terrorists infringed on the rights of innocent people.

Ashcroft championed many of the most controversial government actions following the Sept. 11 attacks, most notably the USA Patriot Act. It bolstered FBI surveillance powers, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months and allowed secret proceedings in terrorist-related immigration cases. When there was a break in a terror case, he was the man at the lectern soberly informing the American people.

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," Ashcroft said in his handwritten resignation letter to the president, dated Nov. 2 _ Election Day.

"Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration," said Ashcroft, whose health problems earlier this year resulted in removal of his gall bladder. "I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons," he said.

Evans, Bush's 2000 campaign manager and close friend of more than three decades, said he longed to return to Texas.

"While the promise of your second term shines bright, I have concluded with deep regret that it is time for me to return home," he wrote.

Bush issued statements of praise for both men, and for the policies they advanced.

"John Ashcroft has worked tirelessly to help make our country safer," the president said. "John has served our nation with honor, distinction and integrity."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was less flattering.

"We wish John Ashcroft good health and a good retirement, and we hope the president will choose a less polarizing attorney general as his successor," Schumer said.

Bush's farewell to Evans was effusive and personal. They have been friends for more than three decades, dating back to the oil business in Midland, Texas, where they would attend church together and meet every day for a three-mile jog. Evans was CEO of Tom Brown Inc., an independent energy company, when Bush picked him to head Commerce.

Evans partied with Bush the night the president says he swore off drinking. It was 1986 and both men were celebrating their 40th birthdays. The lingering hangover from that night prompted Bush to abandon the bottle altogether, Bush has said.

Evans has been part of Bush's political career from the start: a fund-raiser for Bush's losing congressional campaign in 1978 and chairman of Bush's successful gubernatorial campaigns in 1994 and 1998. He raised more than $100 million for Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.

"Don Evans is one of my most trusted friends and advisers," Bush said. "Don has worked to advance economic security and prosperity for all Americans. He has worked steadfastly to make sure America continues to be the best place in the world to do business."

Evans has told aides he was ready for a change.

Bush was considering this year's campaign money man, Mercer Reynolds, for Evans' job at Commerce. As national finance chairman for the Bush campaign, Reynolds raised more than $260 million to get him re-elected.

Speculation about a successor to Ashcroft has centered on his former deputy, Larry Thompson, who recently took a job as general counsel at PepsiCo. If appointed, Thompson would be the nation's first black attorney general. Others prominently mentioned include Bush's 2004 campaign chairman, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, and White House general counsel Alberto Gonzales.

Meanwhile, three high-ranking Bush administration officials said they would like to remain on the job. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Leavitt all said they want to continue.

Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, is considered a possible successor for either Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin Powell, should either depart.

Toward the end of the story below, I could feel the faint tuggings of the sorrow that resonates from  September 11, 2001. What first caught my eye though, was in the opening sentence  with the phrase the weeping cherry tree. 
A cherry tree that weeps.
Weeps for whom or what?
Then information gleaned, and the 'sigh'.
Dead kids and parentless children.
Sigh.

What started me reading these too related stories was my curiousity about what the gov't is saying about how things are going in the war in Fallujah (they can put a cheery face on anything) versus the mainstream media's spin .
Dead babies and mother and fatherless children.

At least the cherry tree will weep for them.

Memorial Tree Honors Child Victims of Sept. 11

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9, 2004 -- A newly planted weeping cherry tree on the grounds of the Pentagon will serve as a living memorial to the children killed or who lost parents during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the building.

Carol Carter, president of the National Capital Area Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., spreads soil around the newly planted children's memorial tree at the Pentagon, Nov. 9. With her are, from left, Tara Speisman, who lost her father in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack; Ralph Newton, director of Defense Facilities Directorate for Washington Headquarters Services; and Darryl Kosisky, the Pentagon's chief landscape architect. Photo by Donna Miles
high-resolution image available.

A group of Pentagon officials, friends and families of those killed in the attack and representatives of local garden clubs gathered today for a ceremonial tree planting. The ceremony took place just outside the Pentagon's busy subway entrance and bus terminal, the busiest mass-transit point in Northern Virginia.

During the ceremony, Ralph Newton, director of Defense Facilities Directorate for Washington Headquarters Services, helped scatter soil and ashes around the tree taken from the debris of the crash site.

Joining him was Tara Speisman, whose father, Bob Speisman, was aboard the American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon; Darryl Kosisky, the Pentagon's chief landscape architect; and Carol Carter, president of the National Capital Area Federal of Garden Clubs, Inc., which sponsored the event.

Newton said the memorial tree will serve as a constant reminder to the more than 34,000 Pentagon workers, commuters and visitors to the Washington area who will pass it daily.

But no one is likely to find it more meaningful, he acknowledged, than those who lost loved ones or friends or who work in the building the terrorists targeted. "That day is a constant in our hearts," he said.

Speisman said she hoped the memorial tree would help others remember her father and others killed in "an act of unfettered hatred." She urged attendees at the ceremony to "remember the love" extended by those they lost. "Through this love, they will live forever," she said.

Mary Gregerson, chair  of the local garden club federation's memorial tree committee, called the new memorial tree a fitting way to recognize those lost and provide "solace, comfort and peace" to those who carry on without them. She said she got the inspiration for the memorial tree after visiting the Pentagon on Sept. 12, 2001, and seeing a lone tree standing amid the devastation of the attack.

Carol Carter, local garden club federation president, said the tree's weeping posture represents ongoing sorrow over the losses of the attack. But next spring, when the tree bursts into full bloom, Carter said, it will represent hope, rebirth and life.

"To plant a tree is to believe in the future," said Shirley Nicolai, a vice president for National Garden Clubs, Inc.

Seventh grader Zachary Jongema, who with his brother Matthew, played taps at the end of the ceremony, said it held special significance to him. Zachary's fellow Boy Scout, Bo Dolan, lost his father, Navy Capt. Bob Dolan, in the attack. 

I like to think that I'm playing for him, Mr. Bob Dolan, he said. 

	A memorial plaque near the children's memorial tree at the Pentagon honors "the children who perished and those who lost parents on Sept. 11, 2001." Photo by Donna Miles
	High resolution photo

Maps and cartograms of 2004 US presidential election results

I think it's rather fitting that a seemingly more scientific "red & blue" map of the United State's presidential election results (go to bottom of page, last link) looks like a Rorshach ink-blot test

Maps and cartograms of 2004 US presidential election results

Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman
University of Michigan

On election night and in the days since then, we have seen many maps that look like this:

 

The states of the country are colored red or blue to indicate whether a majority of their voters voted for the Republican candidate (George W. Bush) or the Democratic candidate (John F. Kerry) respectively.  The map gives the superficial impression that the "red states" dominate the country, since they cover far more area than the blue ones.  However, as pointed out by many others, this is misleading because it fails to take into account the fact that most of the red states have small populations, whereas most of the blue states have large ones.  The blue may be small in area, but they are large in terms of numbers of people, which is what matters in an election.

We can correct for this by making use of a cartogram, a map in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population.  That is, states are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer topographic acreage -- which has little to do with politics -- but to the number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground.  Thus, on such a map, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants, would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million, even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island.

Here are the 2004 presidential election results on a population cartogram of this type:

The cartogram was made using the diffusion method of Gastner and Newman, which is described in detail in this article. Population data were taken from the 2000 US Census.  Iowa and New Mexico, which at the time of writing were officially undeclared, we have assumed to have a Republican majority -- all indications are that this will be the final declaration once recounts are complete.

The cartogram reveals what we know already from the news: that the country was actually very evenly divided by the vote, rather than being dominated by one side or the other.

But we can go further.  We can do the same thing also with the county-level election results and the images are even more striking.  Here is a map of US counties, again colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic majorities respectively:

Similar maps have appeared in the press, for example in USA Today, and have been cited as evidence that the Republican party has wide support.  Again, however, a cartogram gives a more accurate picture.  Here is what the cartogram looks like for the county-level election returns:

Again, the blue areas are much magnified, and areas of blue and red are now nearly equal.  However, there is in fact still more red than blue on this map, even after allowing for population sizes.  Of course, we know that nationwide the percentages of voters voting for either candidate were almost identical, so what is going on here?

The answer seems to be that the amount of red on the map is skewed because there are a lot of counties in which only a slim majority voted Republican. One possible way to allow for this, suggested by Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University, is to use not just two colors on the map, red and blue, but instead to use red, blue, and shades of purple to indicate percentages of voters.  Here is what the normal map looks like if you do this:

And here's what the cartogram looks like:

So what do the Democrats need to do?

In these days post-election, I've been doing a lot of reading of op-ed pages and politically-leaning blogs trying to get a bead on the opinions of others about what those of us that didn't re-elect Bush should do about "the problem," which is, the consensus seems to be, that the Democrats need a new platform.
Most of us in the "minority" are out of synch with the red states and will continue our downward slide if we don't very soon learn to relate to them and most imporantly, have them relate to us and support our platform.

One good reason to do this is because GWB says he's  "earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now (he intends) to spend it."

Asshat.

Ahem. I know, we must make nice with the GOP if we want a chance at wrestling control back of any piece of our Executive and Legislative Branches. Right now I am open to listening to just about any opinion about how we are going to do this...so here's an opinion that I found thought-provoking. It includes another endorsement for John Edwards (and Evan Bayh, son of Birch, who I've thought for years would suffice nicely enough to get the job done).

Time to Get Religion
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 6, 2004
If Democrats want to know how to win again, they have a model. It's the British Labor Party.

When I studied in England in the early 1980's, the British Labor Party seemed as quaint and eccentric as Oxford itself, where we wore gowns for exams and some dons addressed the rare female student as  "sir."  Labor was caught in its own echo chamber of militant unions and anti-American activists, and it so repulsed voters that it seemed it might wither away entirely.

Then Tony Blair and another M.P., Gordon Brown, dragged the party away from socialism, unions, nuclear disarmament and anti-Americanism. Together they created New Labor,
which aimed for the center and aggressively courted Middle Britain instead of trying to scare it. The result is that since 1997, Mr. Blair and Labor have utterly dominated Britain.

The Democrats need a similar rebranding. But the risk is that the party will blame others
for its failures - or, worse, blame the American people for their
stupidity (as London's Daily Mirror screamed in a Page 1 headline this
week: How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?.

As moderates from the heartland, like Tom Daschle, are picked off by the Republicans, the
party's image risks being defined even more by bicoastal, tree-hugging, gun-banning, French-speaking, Bordeau-sipping, Times-toting liberals, whose solution is to veer left and galvanize the base.

But firing up the base means turning off swing voters. Gov. Mike Johanns, a NebraskaRepublican, told me that each time Michael Moore spoke up for  John Kerry, Mr. Kerry's support in Nebraska took a dive.

Mobilizing the base would mean nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and losing yet again. (Mrs. Clinton has actually undertaken just the kind of makeover that I'm talking about: in the Senate, she's been cooperative, mellow and moderate, winning over upstate New Yorkers. She could do the same in the heartland ... if she had 50 years.)

So Democrats need to give a more prominent voice to Middle American,
wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting centrists. (They can tote The Times, too, in a plain brown wrapper.) For a nominee who could lead the Democrats to victory, think John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh, or anyone who knows the difference between straw and hay.

I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector.

There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers.

So what do the Democrats need to do?
Here are four suggestions:

• Don't be afraid of religion. Offer government support for faith-based
programs to aid the homeless, prisoners and AIDS victims. And argue
theology with Republicans: there's much more biblical ammunition to
support liberals than conservatives.

• Pick battles of substance, not symbolism. The battle over Georgia's Confederate flag
cost Roy Barnes his governorship and perhaps Max Cleland his Senate
seat, but didn't help one working mother or jobless worker. It was a gift to Republicans.

• Accept that today, gun control is a nonstarter. Instead of trying to curb guns, try to reduce gun deaths through better rules on licensing and storage, and on safety devices like trigger locks.

. Hold your nose and work with President Bush  as much as you can, because it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists. Sure, block another Clarence Thomas, but here's a rule
of thumb: if an otherwise qualified Supreme Court nominee would turn the clock back 10 years, approve; back 25 years, vote no; back a half-century, filibuster.

The first thing we have to do is "shake the image of us as the obstructionist party," notes
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who manages to thrive as a Democrat in the red sea. He says Democrats must show a willingness to compromise, to get things done, to defer to local sensibilities. We have to show the American people he says, that Democrats aren't going to take
away your guns, aren't going to take away your flags.

Rethinking the Democratic Party will be wrenching. But just ask Tony Blair - it's
not as wrenching as sliding into irrelevance.

Do You Have Cable TV Up Here?

From thestar.com via my Dad.

(Click it)

The Red Zone

The Red Zone

I like Maureen Dowd's blustery response to the Re-election of the Bush/Cheney regime.
One must laugh, as the alternative is too depressing.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 4, 2004

WASHINGTON

With the Democratic Party splattered at his feet in little blue puddles, John Kerry told the crushed crowd at Faneuil Hall in Boston about his concession call to President Bush.

"We had a good conversation," the senator said. "And we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."

Democrat: Heal thyself.

W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."

The president says he's "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?

While Mr. Bush was making his little speech about reaching out, Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.

"He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts. "He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents American troops kill, the more they create.

Just listen to Dick (Oh, lordy, is this cuckoo clock still vice president?) Cheney, introducing the Man for his victory speech: "This has been a consequential presidency which has revitalized our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world." Well, it has revitalized the Halliburton segment of the economy, anyhow. And "confident" is not the first word that comes to mind for the foreign policy of a country that has alienated everyone except Fiji.

Vice continued, "Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love."

Only Dick Cheney can make "to serve and to guard" sound like "to rape and to pillage."

He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.

The Day the Enlightenment Went Out

This column articulates the opinion that as Gary Wills states, "many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than Darwin's Theory of Evolution."
Sigh.

NYTimes.com
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004

Evanston, Ill

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage.

Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists.

Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.

President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.

In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."

*We can't defeat them. It's like night of the living dead.*

Excellent post on Jack's polling experience, and his subsequent rethinking of his written reaction. Comments on this post are well worth reading, too.
This one is my favourite:

To all of you from other countries, we tried but there are just too many stupid people in the US. I'm sorry. We can't defeat them. It's like night of the living dead. They just eat the brains of the intelligent people.

It's a visceral reaction to what appears to be the truth. The nation's majority are a mix made up of-mostly dumbasses --plus the much smaller bunch of rich white guys that lead them around by the nose.

Purple Car isn't afraid to express her anger.

I share Purple Car's feelings. I've thought (and sometimes said) far worse but I'm becoming a pragmatist in my old age.

Some of my comments today:

As I just mentioned in M.P.'s comment section, we (Liberals) need to have a crystal-clear message and then dumb it way the hell down for the red states to "get it."

I will NOT however, support the Bush regime in the meantime.

It goes without saying that we support our troops. It's almost trite to even bring it up, (edit).
This isn't Vietnam where we are going to shout "baby-killer" at them when they return. We're just going to screw them out of their Vets benefits or at best, make them navigate a labrinthe of red tape to get what they justly earned by laying their lives on the line.

P.C.: It's your right to be angry. I'm reacting with bitter disappointment and sadness. I'm going to focus now on working with NOW to see if there's any way to preserve the right to choose under the Bush Regime, Part II.

God help America (No, I do not believe in "God" per se--just using this in the context it's used in politics).

...............................

Thank you for thinking positively, M.P. It's really difficult for me to do, atm. About the only thing that I'm feeling okay about is that Obama is now my state senator. Not sure if the he or the country will be ready for him as a presidential candidate in '08--though I'd be overjoyed if I thought he was ready and could pull it off.

I wonder though if instead of focusing strongly on an individual candidate, that the Democratic party doesn't instead need to make the party platform R-E-A-L-L-Y simple in order to attract the "mom's with no college education" and others that revere Bush. I think we need to dumb the message down. It seemed to work extremely well for the GOP.

My 12 y.o. saw the humour in this and tore it out to show me. Goes right back to the opening quote in this post.

Elect John Kerry President ~ John Kerry's Congressional Testimony Video ~ Voter Challengers?!

John Kerry's Congressional Testimony

This doesn't sound right...I thought poll workers were the only ones checking ID's and residencies and such.
This is such an ugly election. :/

Court OKs Voter Challengers at Ohio Polls

BY LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court has cleared the way for challengers to be present at polling places throughout Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day was allowed under state law.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruled 2-1 to grant emergency stays of two federal judges' orders Monday that barred voter challengers from political parties. The judges also consolidated the two appeals, which stemmed from separate lawsuits in Cincinnati and Akron.

Both cases had been appealed the 6th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). It was unclear whether the high court would issue a ruling before polls opened Tuesday morning.

The federal appeals court said that while it's in the public interest that registered voters cast ballots freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

The judges also said that smooth and effective administration of the voting laws means that the rules can't be changed hours before the election.

The dissent by Judge R. Guy Cole said the citizens of Ohio have the right to vote without the "threat of suppression, intimidation or chaos sown by partisan political operatives."

Cole said that partisan challengers are seeking to target precincts that have a majority black population, and that when "the fundamental right to vote without intimidation or undue burden is pitted against the rights of those seeking to prevent voter fraud ..." the court must err on the side of voters.

Republicans say they wanted challengers in many polling places because of concerns about fraud. Democrats have accused the GOP of trying to suppress Democratic turnout. Hundreds of thousands of voters have been newly registered in a state President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) both say they need to win.

Mark Weaver, legal counsel for the Ohio Republican Party, planned to file the GOP response with the Supreme Court prior to the opening of Ohio polls. "We think the 6th Circuit made the right decision," he said. "The state law is an important safeguard against election fraud."

He said Republican challengers had been told Monday to show up outside the polls pending the appeals court ruling.

David Sullivan, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said Democratic challengers would be at the polls to protect voters' rights. "It is unfortunate that a court of appeals has permitted the Republican Party to continue its plan to challenge voters on Election Day, but we were prepared for this outcome," he said in a statement released Tuesday.

Two federal judges ruling on separate cases Monday had barred political party representatives from challenging voters at polling places throughout Ohio, saying poll officials should handle disputes over voter eligibility.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott in Cincinnati said plaintiffs in a lawsuit likely would be able to prove that Ohio's law allowing polling place challengers was unconstitutional. The GOP appealed her ruling to the 6th Circuit.

Dlott said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting. She ruled in a lawsuit by a black couple who said GOP plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in heavily Republican Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, was meant to intimidate and block black voters.

In the second case, U.S. District Judge John Adams of Akron said poll workers are the ones to determine if voters are eligible.

Adams ruled in a suit by the Summit County Democratic Party, which claimed the law allowing registration challenges is unconstitutional because it does not give a disqualified voter a chance to appeal in time to cast a ballot.

He wrote that representatives could not be at the polls for the sole purpose of challenging voters' qualifications.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Ohio law authorizing the presence of challengers at the polling places is presumed to be constitutional and "has been on the books for a decade."

Based on the two lower court rulings, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's office had told county elections boards to bar all challengers from polling places.

After the appeals court disagreed in its overnight ruling and allowed the challengers, secretary of state spokesman Carlo LoParo said he assumed poll workers wouldn't learn of the news until voting began at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday.

"Our concern at this point is trying to figure out a way to get that information to Ohio's poll workers," he said.

Also Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified that political parties are allowed one challenger apiece for each precinct.

The GOP registered about 3,500 challengers, and Democrats say they've registered thousands but won't give a specific number.

Under state law, voters may be challenged on their citizenship, age or residency. Poll workers generally would challenge someone if his or her signature didn't match the one in the poll book, or if the poll worker recognized the individual as someone who didn't belong in that precinct.

Republicans have said they plan to check names of voters against lists of absentee ballots and of people who have died recently.

Check out these links before heading to the voting booth: http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm http://www.vote-smart.org/