Contact: red_ankle@mac.com

WWW Mac-a-ro-nies

Contribute:

Entertainment: Aretha's new release reaps mixed reviews

Aretha Franklin has released a new CD, So Damn Happy. Some trendsetters, including Rolling Stone's Barry Walters, say though listenable, this production pales in comparison to 1988's hip hop influenced effort.

The queen of soul is still the Queen. But that doesn't mean the material on Aretha Franklin's latest album is deserving of her crown. Last time around, on 1998's A Rose Is Still a Rose, Lauryn Hill, Puff Daddy and other hot hitmakers plied fresh beats and old-school samples to aim Aretha's R&B at young ears. Here, Mary J. Blige appears on and co-writes two of the hipper tracks, "Holdin' On" and "No Matter What," but both come up short in the melody, hook and rhythm departments, and those deficits afflict much of the rest. Ten different producers replace Rose's hip-hop energy with an adult-contemporary slickness that sometimes makes the sixty-one-year-old legend's voice seem shrill. Her Highness deserves more r-e-s-p-e-c-t than this.

Walters gave the album only two stars.

Jon Pareles of the New York Times amplifies Walter's criticism in a review of a recent concert in which Franklin reprised some of the songs that made her deservedly famous.

Aretha Franklin works by her own regal whims. On Saturday night at Radio City Music Hall, she operated in a realm far removed from most performers' attempts to please a crowd: a realm of long memory, odd caprices and ambivalence about the confines of pop. Listeners are welcome to admire the way her voice dives into sultriness, dodges the beat, cascades through long melismas or rushes heavenward. But where most soul and rhythm-and-blues turns listeners into a congregation, Ms. Franklin leaves them on the sidelines as spectators.

. . .The Baptist church music that Ms. Franklin grew up singing is never far from her best performances. She sat down at the piano to splash gospel tremolos in the title song of her new album, "So Damn Happy" (Arista), and in a version of "Dr. Feelgood" that was pure gospel music with earthy lyrics. She was joined by the Rev. Michael Jemison for the hymn "Precious Memories," and sang rings around him. Soon afterward, she topped "Freeway of Love" with a gospel reprise, shouting, "Jesus!"

It wouldn't be an Aretha show without peculiar moments. She suddenly demanded a handkerchief from her band, complained that Barbra Streisand would already have a handkerchief at hand and tossed away a proffered face cloth. She noted problems with the sound system by saying she hadn't attended the afternoon rehearsal. She took a mid-set break while her (unnecessary) dancers did a number to a recording of Nelly's "Hot in Herre," not a favorite of her graying audience. But when Ms. Franklin sang, she earned every whim.

I believe Pareles gets very close to why Franklin isn't embraced as fully as she should be when he alludes to the way she can distance herself from people. It is a theme one sees in her life off-stage as well as on. The distancing appears to have begun after the violent assault on her beloved father in 1979 and his subsequent years as an invalid Franklin helped care for. Experiencing traumatic events can lead to hyper-vigilance and distrust of people. However, I could be wrong about causality. Her sister, Carolyn, says what people often interpret as standoffishness by Franklin is actually shyness. The impact of the insularity has sometimes been seen in legal troubles for the Queen. A continual problem has been neglect of her properties in Detroit and failure to pay taxes on them -- something that could be easily solved if she paid more attention to her mail and delegated a trusted person to manage her real estate.

Not all reviewers are dissin' Franklin. Josh Tyrangiel of Time is enthralled.

With just one song, "Respect," Franklin introduced feminism to popular music, but she has also sung about lesser things convincingly -- like riding on a freeway of love in a pink Cadillac -- and being drawn through destiny to duet partner George Michael. She can basically do anything, and So Damn Happy, Franklin's first album in five years, proves the point again. So Damn Happy doesn't have a single great song, and it doesn't matter.

Most of the album is structured to let Franklin do her trademark thing: sing about making it through heartache with her faith intact. The Queen of Soul never really did melody: like an expert surgeon who leaves the nurses to stitch up, it's a little beneath her. Instead she rises and plunges over songs like "The Only Thing Missin'" and "Ain't No Way." It's a style the Mariah Careys of the world have copied and perverted into a circus act, but Franklin actually invests her rumbles and squeaks with authentic emotion.

The production on So Damn Happy is modern, minimalist and first-rate. Franklin has always had a great ear for contemporary music, which is why she has appeared in the Top 10 recently and James Brown hasn't. She gets Mary J. Blige to contribute some fine backing vocals and Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis to offer up a nice song and -- presto! -- Aretha is radio-ready. It doesn't take much to make the timeless timely.

If you have seen the gorgeous cover photo for So Damn Happy, you may have exclaimed, "Bravo! She lost the weight!" as I did. For several years, Franklin's petite frame has carried enough pounds to make her morbidly obese, threatening her life. Those of us who care about her wish she would lose enough weight to reduce the risk to her health. Furthermore, she is a very attractive woman when thin or buxom. Unfortunately, it tain't so. The cover photo is the product of digital wizardry, not successful dieting.

I'm willing to drop the dough for the Queen's latest, regardless of Rolling Stone's two-star rating. In these times of paid and boosted MP3 downloads, we may be forgetting that it used to be common for listeners to buy albums knowing they were imperfect. The songs that soared were adequate justification, and, one could learn much about what works musically and what doesn't from the selections that didn't quite make it. That standard is one I'm comfortable with.

Blogospherics: Race, partisanship and the blogosphere

Greg at Begging to Differ drew my attention to a discussion of 'identity politics' started by Michael Bowen of Cobb the Blog.

What does it mean to be a black blogger?

I'll start with the number of black blogs I have on my blogroll. There is a discernable disproportion of black bloggers on my blogroll to the percentage of blacks in America and presumeably the blogosphere. That's 15.2% for me.

As far as I know, I am the only Republican black blogger and everybody who carries at least one link to a visibly black blogger goes after Oliver Willis (who needs no introduction or links from me). So the simple answer to the simple question is, you get more recognition from other black bloggers than from non-black bloggers, unless you are Oliver Willis. Since Willis is clearly a big liberal wonk there's a similar deal with liberal blogger recognition vs non-liberal recognition. What's it like to live in the shadow of Oliver Willis? I don't know because I don't read his blog.

There is a deeper question implied by the black blogger question. But that devolves back to the simple question: What does it mean to be black and stand up and say what you believe? I'll get to that after I dispatch with a few other things.

. . .Certainly, none of us wants to be pigeon-holed and would prefer to think of themselves as free thinking individuals who approach each issue rationally. Fine.

But our system of democracy depends upon partisanship and defining the boundaries of left and right. To an extent, the same can be said about race. (And here, I'm straying into an area where I don't have a lot of depth.) Certainly, we are each defined by our racial (and ethnic, religious, etc.) backgrounds, though the effects are differing and complex. Colorblindness, like the presumption of innocence, is a useful legal fiction and a laudable ideal, but it's not really a way of life.

I believe that recognizing distinctions, both political and racial, ought to be a constructive part of political and social dialogue. Instead "race" and "partisanship" are often presented as derogatory concepts that ought to be shunned. And I think that's a shame.

I think something more complex and nefarious than mere 'shunning' of discussion of race is going on in Bloggersville. Three facts of life in the blogosphere shed light on what is occurring.

Several white self-declared 'leaders' of the liberal blogosphere have set themselves up as policemen of minority bloggers. They have declared whatever they say about race is received wisdom and that minority bloggers who don't agree with them are to be ostracized or abused. It is not clear to me how or why they would be the arbiters of racism, something they don't experience and the folks they are telling to shut up do. However, many people don't stop to ask such questions. They just do what they're told. In fact, among some liberals, one can almost hear a sigh of relief when the likes of Lisa English or Jim Rittenhouse gives them their marching orders. Now, they know what to say and do. If lack of a spine was a crime, they would all be locked up. Cobb asked: What does it mean to be black and stand up and say what you believe? In the blogosphere, it can mean having to withstand the puerile assaults of people like these.

On the conservative side of the blogosphere, there is little pretense at any enlightenment in regard to racial matters. Large blogs such as Cold Fury and Silflay Hraka regularly post material that reads as if it issued from a time warp in the 1950s. Hardly anyone dares to disagree with support for neo-Confederates or efforts to cleanse the Ku Klux Klan's reputation. I don't know whether that response is because of genuine agreement with the sentiments expressed or because there are also enforcers of a line to take on race in the Right blogosphere. Both, perhaps.

Greg's perspective, though mainly accurate, misses a movement toward centralism in the blogosphere. It is championed by longterm Mac-a-ro-nies ally Rick Heller of Smart Genes, among others. The centrists attempt to chart a course between liberal and conservative orthodoxy. The result is a mixture of opinion that can be characterized as liberal, moderate, conservative or progressive at different times. Among the topics treated thus is racism. For example, Heller recently supported David Horowitz in a dispute with the Southern Poverty Law Center. I consider Horowitz to be a contributor to bigotry, at the very least. However, Heller is usually on the side of the angels when it comes to racial discrimination, unlike the hypocrites of the liberal blogosphere, who are part of the problem, not ameliorators of it. And, he is honest enough to clearly state his positions and how he arrives at them.

In summary, race is a topic that reveals Bloggersville at it worst. The liberals are far too much under the thumbs of a few white 'leaders' with rather obvious personal problems with racism themselves. The conservatives largely ignore the multi-racial reality of 2003, preferring to dwell in a world of white hegemony, circa 1950 or so. The only ray of hope appears to be the centrists, who can at least be counted on to bring ideas to discussions of racism that are not pre-packaged and pre-approved.

Note: No, I am not finished with the Portland Seven . . . Six . . . Five . . . Four. I am discussing the case(s) with some people who know more about the inside story. An update will appear as soon as I've absorbed the new information.

Revisited: The strange saga of 'Mike' Hawash

trai-tor n.

One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Ed. ©2000.

1. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country. See Treason.

O passing traitor, perjured and unjust! --Shak.

2. Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer. ``This false traitor death.'' --Chaucer.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ©1996, ©1998 MICRA, Inc.

Maher 'Mike' Hawash, the seventh of the defendants in the Portland terrorism case, became a traitor for all seasons when he pled guilty to some of the charges against him and agreed to testify against his co-defendants. He admitted to betraying the trust of his country by attempting to travel to Afghanistan to fight against U.S. forces with the Taliban. He is now in the process of betraying the trust of the friends he hatched the harebrained scheme with.

I last wrote about Hawash when he entered his guilty plea Aug 6. A longer entry, one of an eight-part series about the Portland Seven, was published June 22. In it, I said I believe Hawash was a man who wore the mask and cited a poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar.

We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,--
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Why should the world be overwise,
In counting all our tears and sighs?
Nay, let them only see us, while
We wear the mask.

We smile, but, O great Christ, our cries
To thee from tortured souls arise.
We sing, but oh the clay is vile
Beneath our feet, and long the mile;
But let the world dream otherwise,
We wear the mask!

Reaction to Hawash's guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the prosecution has been unsympathetic to him, with those who are pleased with the outcome openly hostile. However, much of that hostility has been transferred to the friends of Hawash, in and out of the group formed to advocate his release. Newspaper reader Don Taylor expressed the perspective sharply and succinctly.

Shame on Hawash backers

August 15, 2003

Let me be the first to say "Shame on you and in your face" to the family, friends and supporters of the terrorist Maher 'Mike' Hawash.

For so long we heard them cry and whine that the police and feds were out of their minds and they were discriminating against him just because he was Middle Eastern. Well, now that he has pled guilty and admitted to preparing to take up arms and die as a martyr, what do you have to say now?

It's unfortunate that our great Constitution protects the scum like him. What would happen to someone in Iraq if they were to plot against Saddam? They would be put to death immediately!

-- Don Taylor

Salem

Right Wing Oregonian columnist Dave Reinhard took up the chant to some effect in an entry on Aug. 7. His introduction?

Well, there goes the swell TV miniseries story line: Good old All-American "Mike" Hawash -- U.S. citizen, Intel engineer, husband and family man, suburban guy -- scooped up in Attorney General John Ashcroft's dragnet. His only crime: Hawash is an Arab American in post-9/11 America. But in the teeth of this latest American Inquisition, the "Friends of Mike Hawash" stand by "Mike." They put up a "Free Mike Hawash" Web site and collect funds. Others liken him to "the disappeared" of Latin America or the Jews of Hitler's Germany. They cast law-enforcement agencies as the Gestapo and anyone who raises questions about their friend's innocence as Nazis, bigots or dupes. ("First they came for an Arab American software engineer and I said nothing.") Cut to storm clouds over the land; dub in the sound of jackboots marching.

The Friends of Mike Hawash leader Steven McGeady responded with a denial that he and group members are contributors to Hawash's delinquency.

In his Aug. 7 column, "It's time for Hawash's pals to come clean," David Reinhard again gets both the facts and their implications wrong. In Reinhard's view, presuming a suspect's innocence until guilt is proven, insisting on the due process of law and supporting friends through hard times all apparently constitute "excoriation" of the government.

Let's correct Reinhard's facts: No one connected with the "Free Mike Hawash" Web site ever compared his case with the fate of Jews in Nazi Germany.

. . .Hawash's friends protested his five-week "material witness" detention -- a misuse of that detention since he was in fact a suspect -- and asked for nothing other for him than the same justice that any American would receive.

I believe both Reinhard and McGeady fail to 'see' Hawash. Instead, they reduce the complexity of his personality and situation to stereotypes that suit their political views. Mike/Maher Hawash could be both of the persons they are describing, or neither. As I said in my earlier blog entry, Hawash's reality never really matched that of just another suburban American guy. By the time he was 10 years old, he had probably experienced more discrimination and observed more violence than someone like McGeady will in his entire life. Hawash managed to hide what must have been considerable disgust and anger as an adult, even while enduring the humiliations a Palestinian is put through while working in Israel. Eventually, he joined a group consisting of mainly African-American Muslims, also victims of racial and religious discrimination, in an ill-fated attempt to 'do something.' The effort failed and Hawash's mask permanently slipped from his dusky face.

I will address the impact of Hawash's guilty plea and other developments in the case against the Portland Six in a subsequent entry. For now, I believe my earlier remarks suffice.

Am I saying Mike Hawash is a terrorist? No. Based on the evidence, I can't say whether any of the Portland Seven are terrorists. They seemed more interested in making gestures to show their solidarity with the Muslim world than in actually harming anyone. The compelling question is whether they really intended to extend gesturing to taking up arms.

A compelling question, indeed.

Reading: Franzen's The Corrections is a worthy late read

I am a late reader of Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections for three reasons. I've been busy reading other books. I was not amused by his snub of Oprah. I try not to read domestic realism when I am deep into writing some of my own, which I was at the height of the hubbub over The Corrections.

In case you missed the Franzen versus Winrey imbroglio, I'll fill you in. When Franzen's book was chosen as a monthly selection for Oprah's Book Club, he responded by expressing surprise that she was interested in literary fiction. Apparently, Franzen imagined the queen of talk a connoisseur of romance novels and talking cat fantasies. As anyone remotely familiar with Winfrey knows, she has long been a fan of some of our smartest contemporary novelists, and, her book club choices often reflect that interest.

But now, urged by another blogger who had just finished it, I have read The Corrections and succumbed.

Much of the key to the success of the book is its cast of main characters, the Lamberts.

Father: Not Daddy or Pops. Father. Alfred is a patriarch, earning the money that makes sure the family always has a roof over its heads, is fed and clothed. Beyond that, he expects little from life. He is equally determined about one other aspect of his life -- brooking no dissent from his dependents. Alfred is a man who lacks both imagination and one thinks, for most of the book, generosity.

Mother: Enid guaranteed herself a life of frustration when she set her cap for the handsome hulk who visited her mid-Western hometown as a temporary railroad worker and stayed. About 50 years of marriage will leave her with three children achieved without passion or even, seemingly, affection. Her idealized notion of what family life should be, largely garnered from Hallmark commercials one suspects, will be overturned again and again. She will painstaking rebuild the illusion until it collapses under its own weight each time.

Child One: Gary is the image of the senior child psychologists have drawn -- domineering, manipulative and successful in achieving his goals. Behind it all, he is the most frightened of the children as an adult. I have often been amused by the weakness of many men who wear the facade of success. If subjected to any real challenge, they evaporate like drops of water on a hot grill. Franzen's is one of the best modern descriptions of the Successful White Male as secret wimp I've ever read.

Child Two: Chip wants to put as much space as possible, both literally and in regard to his interests, between himself and the first three members of the family. After his mediocre career in academia collapses as the result of naivete and stupidity, he latches onto an offer to become the American member of a scheme to use the Internet to defraud American investors in an East European country. It has been in turmoil since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a turmoil that is a macrocosmic image of Chip's mental state. The quixotic adventure becomes the first step that will land this Peter Pan on a path that, surprisingly, recasts him as a responsible person by the time he turns 40.

Child Three: Along with her parents and elder brother, Denise prides herself on being a bedrock, mid-Western American, not involved in any of the excesses associated with either Coast. Ironically, her life style completely contradicts those beliefs.

The mechanism Franzen uses to make these characters strong enough to support a 500-plus page novel is humor. He is a master when it comes to seeing the often funny contrast between perception and reality. For example, the best part of Enid's marriage occurs after her husband is too senile to resist her. She is able to hold all the conversations he would have walked out on with him while his mind is lost in fog. That, really, is the main thing she wanted all those years. Meanwhile, Alfred has as interesting interactions with talking turds and imagined cellmates as he ever did with his family or co-workers.

The title, The Corrections, refers to changes in economic cycles. It could be said of those cycles that the more things change, the more they remain the same. The Lambert family reminds us that with people, that is more often true than not, as well.

Note: There is a thorough discussion of the Oprah's Book Club controversy at the online book review site The Complete Review.

Save the SCV leader says give group a chance

After receiving a recent email from a member of Save the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I made time to catch up on the organization. The SSCV is a group of members and former members whose objective is to end the SCV's current extremism. That extremism includes denial that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War and vilification of President Abraham Lincoln. These people and their sympathizers rationalize the South's secession and advocate it seceding again. (Some of them claim that the Southern states never rejoined the Union and that they live in the Confederate States of America under occupation.) The leaders of the the SCV, who increasingly hail from overtly racist groups, are also advocates of a federal government that would be a Christian theocracy and resegregation if secession cannot be achieved. SSCV chapters consist of people who were comfortable with the organization before it was prodded so far to the Right. I last wrote about the SSCV for Atrios' Eschaton when the SCV expelled several of its leaders months ago. The purging and abuse of critics has continued.

SSCV officer Walt Hilderman writes:

Folks: I have read some of your writings on the Lincoln statue in Richmond and the protests by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) establishment, League of the South types, and others. I don't know how aware of it you are but part of the larger picture in this and related topics is the current conflict within the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A group of which I am a co-founder, Save the SCV, (www.savethescv.org) is trying to wrest contol of the SCV away the extremists who are now in charge. You are partly correct when you refer to these folks as neo-secessionists and racists. They are the only part of the SCV that is getting any serious attention. Sadly, the SCV in recent years has come under the domination of the League of the South and the Council of Consevative Citizens. We at Save the SCV have been fighting these people for almost a year now. If you take a look at our website, you will see that we are a voice of reason. The point of my message to you is that not all SCVers are racists and/or neo-secessionists. In fact, most of us are patriotic Americans, many of whom carry-on local history/heritage programs with little or nothing to do with the extremists who now dominate the national organization. No one much in mainstream media is bothering with the fact that there are good SCVers and bad SCVers, because to acknowledge that fact makes a lie of the dominant media attitude that all Southerners who honor their Confederate heritage are racists and neo-secessionists. Most media outlets take the attiutde that it doesn't matter who wins our internal squabble because we're all racists. Please give these issues some additional consideration and investigation as you write your articles. We at Save the SCV believe that our seemingly unimportant side issue is THE issue, and that it has implications for all Americans. We believe that it really DOES matter who wins. Walt Hilderman. Save the SCV.

Hilderman has taken a risk by signing his name to this missive. He may be ejected from the SCV and he will surely be 'buked and scorned by its very active extremists online.

Ed Sebesta, ace researcher and proprietor of the blog Neo, is loathe to distinguish between the SCV and the SSCV.

"What is somewhat amusing is that the Save the SCV people are shocked that if you have a cultural tradition of honoring secessionists, well, some people might think secession is a good thing. They are shocked that people who think Jefferson Davis is a hero in reading "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" might be racists. "Who would imagine?" you might say with humorous dramatics."

. . .One thing regarding the Save the SCV which I must say upfront, is that I would regard it as a set back in fighting white nationalism if Save the SCV wins their battle with the radical forces. The radical faction are white nationalists also, but the difference is between explicit and non-explicit racism. Nothing has been better to fight Confederate nationalism than the current leadership of the SCV, and their actions.

Sebesta believes Save the SCV does not differ enough from the SCV for people concerned about civil rights to take it seriously. He is accurate in observing the underpinnings of both organizations are the same -- a gross romanticization of the slavocracy South that ignores the suffering imposed on millions of people by its shameful peculiar institution. Friends who are lapsed SCV members tell me it became impossible for them to pretend that heritage and hate had not merged in the organization before neo-Nazis such as Kirk Lyons became elite members and the SCV virtually merged with the unabashedly white supremacist League of the South.

Still, as a person reluctant to write off people who are at least fumbling toward the light of understanding what a horrible thing racism is, I am not going to consign the SSCV to the same category, 'Hopeless,' as the SCV leadership. The reforms the members of Save the SCV will achieve if they acquire sufficient muscle in the SCV will include eliminating Lyons' clique from the leadership positions it has achieved, partly by intimidating much of the membership. I also believe they would break with Michael Hill, the President of the LOS and possibly the most virulent American apostle of bigotry not currently behind bars, with Matthew Hale and David Duke on ice. SCV Commander in Chief Ron Wilson, head sneak of the group, may even be ousted, which would reduce the group's ability to dissemble by half. The campaign to inject neo-Confederate symbols into public schools, mainly the work of Lyons,' might be curtailed. All of these reforms are worthwhile. I believe racial tensions in the South would be reduced significantly if they were not continually being fueled by the neo-Confederate leaders cited here.

Would such reforms be enough to convert the SCV into an organization one could accept, if not support? Possibly so. I've accepted the Georgia flag compromise, which will probably replace the brazenly Confederate anti-civil rights movement flag of 1956 -- with another version of the Confederate flag. I accept the compromise because it is a considerable defeat for the neo-Confederates. They wanted the flag that heralded their contempt for integration, not another that most people don't realize is also a relic of the Confederacy. A similar argument can be made for accepting a reformed SCV. We might still be skeptical about why such an organization is needed at all, but at least the group would no longer be doing its darnedest to get white Southerners to re-fight the Civil War. If Sebesta's suspicion that the SSCV is just the SCV wearing a more congenial face is confirmed, we can continue our exposure of the SCV, despite its having changed leadership. I hope the SSCV prevails. But, I will be scrutinizing its activities just as closely as I have the current SCV leaderships' if it is succesful.

News and opinion

The progenitor of the hydrogen bomb is dead.

Edward Teller, 95, the Hungarian-born physicist who blended a persuasive personality with keen scientific creativity to become known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, died yesterday in California.

...He was a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been driven from Europe by the rise of the Nazis, and he helped lead the U.S. effort to design and build the atom bomb during World War II.

After the war's end, when many of his fellow physicists, for a variety of reasons, appeared to show little enthusiasm for designing and developing the next and more powerful stage in nuclear explosives, Teller worked with steadfast vigor to persuade the nation's leaders to push ahead with the hydrogen bomb.

Teller went on to push the most popular boondoggle of my youth, Star Wars, the Strategic Defense Initiative. It, still championed in some quarters, is a dubious effort to develop a space-based defense against nuclear missiles.

What does one say about the father of the bomb reaching his inevitable end?

As people who have been reading Mac-a-ro-nies for a while know, I am a moderate science fiction buff. I'm also a fan of science in moderation. For example, I support a competently run space program, but am skeptical about some of what passes for science, such as the claim that autism is just male-female differences exaggerated, in the entry below. I believe Teller's death reminds us that the cautionary tale of Pandora's box is true in the way that fiction often proves to be. The human race has been 'blessed' with a remarkable invention, which it will likely use to destroy itself. Mainly good luck has kept us alive for more than a half-century after the invention of the bomb. May our progeny be so lucky.

Last month, I annoyed a gay blogger by mentioning in passing that homosexuals have higher rates of diagnosed mental illness than heterosexuals. He misinterpreted my statement of fact as deriding gay people. A study, supported by gay activists in England, offers new evidence of the problem.

Two out of three gay, lesbian and bisexual people are likely to have mental health problems - compared to just one-third of heterosexuals, according to the largest study of its kind in the UK.

Nearly a third of gay men and more than 40 per cent of lesbians, who are open about their sexuality, also reported prejudice from mental health workers, the study reveals.

The findings will be published this week in a report by Mind, the mental health charity, launched at a conference about the mental health needs of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Researchers at University College London (UCL) interviewed 2,400 gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals in a three-year study financed by the Community Fund. The Independent on Sunday has been campaigning for more than a year for better services for people with mental health problems.

As I told the fellow who thinks I'm wrong about this topic, the issue isn't whether gay people have significantly higher rates of mental illness. They do. The issue is what to do about the problem. The solution? Better preventative mental health care, I suspect. And, to obtain that goal, one must acknowledge the need for the services.

The FBI is probing an incident in which a man shipped himself from New York to Texas as air cargo.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal officials are investigating how a man managed to hide inside a crate that was flown by a major cargo carrier from New York to Dallas, Texas.

Charles McKinley wanted to go to his father's house in Dallas and decided to "ship himself rather than pay for a ticket," said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Suzanne Luber.

McKinley secured himself in the crate, apparently with some help, along with his computer and some clothes.

The incident highlighted a potential hole in aviation security.

McKinley shipped himself through cargo carrier Kitty Hawk Inc., which said it was told by the shipping firm, Pilot Air Freight, that the crate was loaded with computer monitors.

. . .Carl Smith, assistant chief of the De Soto Police Department, said that when the deliveryman went to remove the box from the truck he noticed a person inside.

Authorities believe Smith had moved something he had been using to cover himself, so the driver was able to see him through a slit in the crate.

"At that time, the young man kicked one side of the crate out, crawled out, got his box, and walked around to the back of the house," Smith said.

The driver contacted police.

I seriously doubt Smith had any terroristic intent. It also strikes me as unlikely that terrorists would choose this scheme for transporting themselves. Someone out to bomb a building or plane would want to use the most direct and effective means possible. Mailing oneself as cargo meets neither objective. If Smith is prosecuted under the Patriot Act, the slippery slope is not just beginning, we are well into it.

The TSA has stepped fourth with a bad idea based on Smith's prank.

"Should Congress ask us, we are ready to train cargo pilots as federal flight deck officers." Federal flight deck officers are armed with guns in the cockpit.

Equipping the thousands of people who work with cargo with guns is both unnecessary and expensive. Nor would doing so have foiled Smith. He was discovered by a delivery truck driver, not cargo handlers.

Writing: Help for bad bloggers

I am experiencing the bad writing blues. They appear when I read too many poorly written pieces in a short period of time. Within the last 48 hours I've read several sad excuses for blog entries and tortured myself with the worst written of the magazines for Macintosh users, MacHome. Though, as some of you know, I have written for Mac periodicals and sites in the past, I try to avoid MacHome, because, despite changes in ownership and staff, it is consistently inferior in regard to both writing and content. Still, I pick up an issue from time to time lest I let something slip by me on the Mac beat. Pick it up only to throw it across the room in frustration numerous times while trying to read it.

But, the bad blogger problem comes first. Let's examine an example of poor blog writing and consider what can be done to improve it.

Degrees of Separatism (Dammit I'm Hungry)

My company has relocated to a new, more modern and highly secure building. Every morning I run, literally, down to the cafeteria for breakfast. We have been warned: not to eat at our desk, not to have drinks at our desk, any food must be consumed in the cafeteria. We are urged to sit in the front of the cafe, not to fraternize (read: bother) anyone from other departments and any food left from the meal must be disposed of before returning to the floor. Anyone caught with food at their desk will be reprimanded. For food?

The building we just left, I agree was nasty, but they had been in that building upwards of 8 years of course it was going to be nasty, especially when you only have 1 person cleaning in behind 500.

I understand their train of thought: Keep this new building new. But is treating adults like children really going to accomplish this?

You can see people at their desk choking on crumbs when management walks by. Nabs are hidden in the far crevices of desk drawers. Should people really fear losing their job if they spill water? (And yes it really is that serious)

The saddest part is the walk to the cafeteria. You have to take the elevator down to the Plaza and then walk through the hub, 1/4 mile, to get to the cafe. The hub is basically the stock hall. Everything that doesn't work or has no more use is stored there(Cletus are you trying to tell me something?). The hub is straight out of a major motion thriller. It leaks. Its dark. You can hear unidentified movements lurking behind unaccessible doors. Did I mention my department is the only section that has to use the hub? To take the conspiracy theory even further, our access to floors and doors that would be quicker en route to the cafe are off limits.

The major issue is that, none of the other departments are under such stringent guidelines. And it is causing quite the issue in the office. We feel like we are the step children of the company. Whenever we attempt to address our discourse it is simply implied "Be glad you have a job!" Is that truly the right response? What about work morale? They are doing nothing to improve it but they continue to expect outstanding results.

It's like High School all over again. Managers patrol the floor looking for any sign of edible contraband. That lets me know that my job has to be expendible if this is all you have to do all day!

Whats even worse than us being the children under the stairs is the cleaning people in the building are treated even worse. They sit on the far side of the cafeteria in nothing less then a corner, where they are instructed to sit. They sit by themselves, too themselves. If we make eye contact (as is the Southern way) they speak then proceed on their way with heads down. Why aren't we able to mingle amongst one another? What separates management from us and us from them besides title and responsibility? And the most important question: would I have noticed had I not been in the same position as them?

Likely, the first problem you've noticed is a tendency toward run-on sentences. The best way to remedy the habit is to remember that a sentence can be defined as a complete thought. If you are communicating more than one complete thought, you probably need more than one sentence. Caveat: Good writers can use long sentences effectively. But someone writing at a level this low should not try to.

We have been warned: not to eat at our desk, not to have drinks at our desk, any food must be consumed in the cafeteria. We are urged to sit in the front of the cafe, not to fraternize (read: bother) anyone from other departments and any food left from the meal must be disposed of before returning to the floor. Anyone caught with food at their desk will be reprimanded. For food?

The passage above is easily rewritten to fix the problem:

We have been warned not to eat at our desk and not to have drinks at our desk. Any food must be consumed in the cafeteria. We are urged to sit in the front of the cafe and not to fraternize (read: bother) anyone from other departments. Any food left from the meal must be disposed of before returning to the floor. Anyone caught with food at their desk will be reprimanded. For food?

Better, you say. But, there's still a problem with subject-verb disagreement. Let's repair it, too.

We have been warned not to eat at our desks and not to have drinks at our desks. Any food must be consumed in the cafeteria. We are urged to sit in the front of the cafe and not to fraternize (read: bother) anyone from other departments. Any food left from the meal must be disposed of before returning to the floor. Anyone caught with food at his desk will be reprimanded. For food?

I also think the parentheses interrupt the flow of the middle sentence. Away they go:

We are urged to sit in the front of the cafe and not to fraternize with, i.e., bother, anyone from other departments.

You will notice I corrected the use of fraternize by adding the preposition 'with.' A verb, 'having,' should also be added to the last sentence for clarity. There are other grammar and usage problems throughout the entry. Here are some rules to follow to prevent them:

And let's not forget the important matter of spelling. If you are not naturally an excellent speller, it is a good idea to keep a pocket dictionary next to your computer. You can check the correctness of a word in a snap. Just as easy is using an online spellchecker, particularly if you have a broadband connection. There is one built into Jaguar's version of Sherlock on the Mac. Just type in the word and, voila!, its spelling, meaning and synonyms will appear. Alternatively, you can add Dictionary.com or a similar site to your bookmarks.

Some readers will ask: But does it matter? Yes, it does. The way information is presented can influence how people interpret the issues it addresses. In the entry above, the topic, which it is not presented as clearly as it should be, seeks the reader's sympathy. It is the creation of a demoralizing work environment that also mirrors class, and, possibly, race divisions. A reader not particularly sympathetic to the writer's perspective would probably use the entry as evidence against better treatment of the workers, viewing the many mistakes as proof of the incompetence of one of them. Obviously, that is not the writer's goal.

Here are some more suggestions for poor writers:

Note: This entry has gotten pretty long, so I will save what I have to say about MacHome for a later one. The magazine, which I will hold to a higher standard than I do bloggers, will not get off lightly.

Newsweek paints pretty picture of autism

This week's Newsweek cover story is a puff piece about autism. Ironically, I read it a few days after taking a trolley ride that happened to have teenagers from a facility for the autistic in half the seats. (I know this because their caretakers handled out pamphlets explaining why their charges behaved so strangely.) The adolescents whimpered, screeched and made faces. At least one had soiled himself and the smell permeated the car. It was difficult for the caretakers to keep some of them in their seats, though standing up without bracing oneself is dangerous on the vehicles. There was much exchanging of glances and moving away from the group among the normal passengers. Several of them muttered remarks about public transit not being a proper way to transport handicapped people who disturbed others. I believe some of them got off before their intended stops. My own reaction was that what I was observing was just another aspect of reality and that it was worthy of the same consideration as any other. Any writer worth his or her salt does not avoid such experiences. No, I didn't like the odor, but I learned something by staying on the trolley until I reached my destination.

A reader would have a hard time recognizing that the Newsweek piece is talking about the same people as those on the trolley ride. Possibly pressured by advocates who object to any press that does not misrepresent autism after its last, more realistic article on the topic, it caved in and decided to paint a pretty picture instead of telling the truth. There is hardly a word about the the severe retardation of most people with autism. Or about the physical handicaps that sometimes accompany the illness. Or about the obsessive and malicious behavior associated with Asperger Syndrome, or that AS is classified as a mental illness. Instead, the story focuses on an unlikely theory that autism is just an extreme example of 'male behavior,' disseminated by Simon Baron-Cohen, a psychologist shilling his new book. His theory does nothing to explain either the physical or mental symptoms of the illness. It just offers a few male versus female stereotypes that may appeal to the shallow and those running away from the reality of autism. This is the kind of 'research' that will not even be acknowledged five years from now. The editors at Newsweek should have been perceived it as such. Baron-Cohen has intentionally tailored a theory to appeal to people more concerned about putting a 'positive' public relations face on autism than understanding the disease. I suspect he was surprised by the response of some of the people he expected to like what he is saying.

Participants in an on-line conversation, many of them parents of autistic children who are not looking for misleading PR, called Baron-Cohen on his pattern of evading the reality of autism.

Scarborough, Canada:

I'm concerned that this week's cover story trivializes the impact of autism for most people. The perception that one gets from reading this article is that autism is a condition primarily characterized by "quirkiness" or social awkwardness. My child is severely developmentally delayed because of autism, requires extensive (and expensive) therapies and social supports to survive and likely will never lead an independent life. I feel that it is misleading to present autism as a disorder responsible for creating "math-loving engineering types."

Carpinteria, CA:

I think your theory is interesting but the Newsweek article discounts the intensive interventions that many families have to deal with and the severe behaviors that many children with autism display and what we as parents have to do to extinguish these behaviors. I do not think my child is just quirky. I think he has a serious autoimmune disorder caused by vaccinations and antibiotics before the age of 2.

Orlando, FL:

Can you discuss the similarities, in terms of both surface details and possible underlying mechanisms, between the deficits associated with autism and the negative symptoms of schizophrenia? I have in mind specifically the deficits in social ability (empathy, facial expression, processing, etc....) and difficulty with abstract reasoning. Thank you.

When challenged, the psychologist beats a hasty retreat.

Simon Baron-Cohen: I am pleased to have the opportunity to fill in the wider picture. You are absolutely right that in classic autism, there is typically a lot more going on than just impaired empathy and an interest in patterns or systems. So, as you mention, there is often general developmental delay, and many children with classic autism also have very serious other problems, such as epilepsy, language delay, self injury, sleep disturbance, gut problems -- and the list goes on. The theory outlined in the Newsweek article was not aimed at a complete list of symptoms that can occur in autism. . . .

However, he can't bring himself to admit he has avoided discussing major symptoms of autism because they don't fit his unethical objective -- dispensing a feel good tonic to the ignorant and the self-deceiving.

I believe that this kind of misrepresentation does a disservice to both the general public and sufferers of autism spectrum disorders. It cheats us by lying to us -- telling us a teenager slobbering on his shirt, soiling his underwear and unable to speak a full sentence is a secret genius, the opposite of the truth. (Yes, there are high-achieving autistics, but they make up a miniscule part of the population.) Since taxpayers end up picking up the tab for services to handicapped children, we have a right to know what the handicap actually is. The pretty picture defrauds the autistics by treating them as if the reality of their lives is so unacceptable, false stories about them need to be made up to mask it. The majority of autistics will no more become software engineers in Silicon Valley than they will spin gold from straw. And, that is okay. We, the people who make up the public, accept that humans are susceptible to many kinds of handicaps. We can accept the truth about autism, too. In the future I hope the reporters at Newsweek will not be deceived by the 'autism is not an illness' lobby and tell us the truth.

The Diva gets incorrect

At the risk of being accused of, Lord forbid, not toeing the liberal line, I've decided to discuss some topics I disagree with conventional liberal wisdom on. The first I wrote about below, in "Perverse Portland: Police scandal outs city," to an extent.

Too often liberals behave as if they actually believe the stereotype of kindly Officer Fitzpatrick who finds children who have wandered out of the yard and rescues kittens who have climbed trees and are afraid to come down. Then, they go ballistic when the police do what they exist for -- maintain a modicum of public order. The modern cop is constantly saying 'no' to the citizenry and any contact you have with him is unlikely to be fun. This failure to be reasonable about the role of the police is very noticeable in Portland, where an officer is just as likely to be complained about for giving someone the finger as for shooting an unarmed suspect. A lawsuit has been filed by National Lawyer's Guild types against the city. They are representing middle-class white people who were manhandled or teargassed during the raucous protests of George W. Bush's visit to Puddletown last year. Other than pay lip service, the same people have done nothing in regard to the shooting of Kendra James, a poor, unarmed African-American woman who tried to drive away from a police stop and was shot dead as a result this year. This unwillingness to distinguish between the unpleasant and the deadly makes me doubt the judgment of the sort of people attracted to the NLG. I quit associating with them years ago, having had my fill of their hypocrisy. Their behavior since, observed in three cities, has convinced me my decision was right.

Protests of police misconduct should be saved for real abuses in my opinion. Caterwauling whenever a middle or upper-class white person gets his ego bruised by a cop cheapens protests of serious police brutality.

A couple months ago, some of us in the blogosphere, including Venomous Kate and Angry Bear, engaged in a spirited discussion of how public and semi-public space should be used, a topic I've been fascinated with since I was a law student.

My position is that it is acceptable to exclude people from using a locale for something that contrasts with its primary purpose. One of the uses I would exclude is hijacking city sidewalks for sleeping and, in most cases, sitting. (We won't even get into evacuation, though I have seen people use them for that, too.)

My perspective sorely conflicts with the 'official' Leftist position in some cities. One is supposed to say efforts to prevent people from converting city sidewalks into livingrooms and bedrooms are attacks on the homeless.

Homeless advocates and civil liberties lovers have been steaming ever since Seattle's so-called civility laws made it illegal to sit on a public sidewalk. It's pretty clear the laws are aimed at the homeless who often rested, slept, panhandled or just plain sat in the nearest available public space -- the sidewalk. Sidewalk cafes were not affected by the ordinance, and it's still acceptable to take up sidewalk space with planters and sandwich boards.

Their reasoning is that the homeless don't have anywhere else to be and allowing them to take over the sidewalks solves the problem. That simply is not true. There are shelters and drop-in centers available in just about every city, though many of the shelters have labyrinthine rules or force religion on residents. Given a choice between a sidewalk and a shelter, the latter seems the more reasonable to me. Yes, I know there aren't enough shelters. However, the 'give'em the streets' response doesn't solve that problem. Instead, it takes a situation that is a dilemma for a small group of people and makes it a problem for everyone. When the sidewalks have been confiscated, the rest of us, the majority, cannot use them for their intended purpose, pedestrian transit.

The Seattle group cited in the alternative press story above has set up a network of benches for people to sit on. I believe that to be a partial solution to the problem because it returns the sidewalks to their owners -- all of us.

This issue arose when a gay blogger recently suggested heterosexuals have ruined this society. Though I don't disagree that the society in messed up in myriad ways, I don't think blaming breeders alone is a fair assessment. I believe someone who jumps to the conclusion incompetence and villiany are the attributes of heterosexuals is making two errors in reasoning:

It is often said women would have done a better job of running the world than men have because we are more peaceful people. I have yet to see any proof of that. My guess is women have not have been as despotic as men because they haven't had the opportunity. African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Indians sometimes believe there is something inherently evil about white people, but not their own 'races.' Again, there is no proof of the supposition. The record of abuses in the Second and Third Worlds suggest just about any color of leader can be corrupt, immoral and violent. Privileged people everywhere expect more than their share of resources and that sense of entitlement has more to do with 'what's wrong with white people' than the color of their skins. The gay blogger is making the mistake of assuming homosexuals would not have created the society we live in, a doubtful premise. Middle and upper-class white homosexual men with the right connections have played a role in running this society from the beginning -- because they can keep their difference secret, unlike women and people of color. But for Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover and other men like them, the abuses of the McCarthy era would not have occurred. According to writer David Brock, a 'gay mafia' also has been very much involved in the outrages of the contemporary conservative movement. If we knew who was gay among the white men who ran this society from its inception, we could doubtlessly hold them just as responsible as their heterosexual counterparts for the way things are.

In summary, believing the black, brown, red, yellow, gay, lesbian and/or female are a higher form of human being is a leap of faith best not taken. I suspect there is no superior group of people.

I own up to not being a 'proper' liberal when it comes to some issues. If a claim doesn't make sense to me, I will analyze it and let the chips fall where they may. I've already paid the price for having a mind of my own in the blogosphere, where so many of the liberals march in lockstep. So be it. The alternative -- echoing opinions I don't agree with -- is worse.

Perverse Portland: Police scandal outs city

The "second city" of the Pacific Northwest receives accolades far and wide for some aspects of its lifestyle, including urban design, mass transit and being bicycle and pedestrian friendly. However, Portland also has a perverse streak that it has now presented for national scrutiny.

Hey, you -- the reader heading for the door! The fact I am writing about a place way out West somewhere does not mean what I have to say isn't generally of interest. Portland is, as I said, a leader among cities in many ways. Furthermore, this anecdote is about police chiefs and those guys (they're almost always males) hop from city to city like the human equivalent of Mexican jumping beans. The person who is our police chief one day could be yours the next. So, I suggest you stay and read on.

Portland Mayor Vera Katz fired Police Chief Mark Kroeker Friday. The dismissal was so shoddy it seemed the incompetent work of a City Hall intern not a veteran of a decade. After claiming she was standing by the chief, the mayor used a friend to shove him out the door.

Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker, visibly upset with tears welling in his eyes, announced Friday afternoon that he would resign under pressure from Mayor Vera Katz.

"This resignation was requested of me through some intermediary," Kroeker said. "I believe it would have been better had we had an opportunity to discuss the conditions, and to strategically work together towards a solution of those problems that continue for the bureau."

. . .Kroeker, looking pale and tired, issued his announcement at the Justice Center Friday afternoon about 45 minutes after he sent a one-page letter to the mayor saying he was resigning effective Oct. 17.

The 59-year-old chief, his supporters and even critics blasted the way Katz handled his ouster. While the mayor publicly and repeatedly voiced her support for the chief throughout the difficult week, city and law enforcement insiders said ex-City Commissioner Mike Lindberg relayed her ultimatum to Kroeker: Resign by 11 a.m. Tuesday, or she'd fire him.

Lindberg, describing himself as a personal adviser to the chief, acknowledged he met with Kroeker midweek. On Friday, Lindberg was reluctant to say what was discussed.

Considering that the mayor has just months left in her term and has announced she will not seek reelection, firing the current police chief at this time is ill-conceived. Furthermore, Kroeker recently took steps to distance himself from some of his errors of the past, including suspending a cop who shot an unarmed suspect and agreeing with a report that said the Portland Police Department has a history of making a mess of investigations into incidents involving shootings or other extreme uses of force.

Some of Kroeker's errors, such as presenting awards to officers who shot and killed a mental patient who became unruly in a psychiatric hospital are embarassing.

Kroeker's resignation caps a tumultuous 31/2-year tenure in which the chief stumbled from one controversy to another. At various points, he came under fire from Latino groups outraged by his awards to two officers involved in the shooting death of a Mexican citizen in a local psychiatric hospital. Gay activists took offense at his antigay remarks taped a decade ago. And tensions came to a head this year in the African American community when a Portland police officer shot and killed a 21-year-old black woman who drove away from a traffic stop.

In the past week, the chief accepted an outside consultant's blistering report on the Portland Police Bureau's reviews and investigations of police shootings, faced criticism and fierce demands from dismayed city commissioners, and riled the rank and file with his 51/2-month suspension of an officer.

However, I've lived in about five cities and, as a journalist, scrutinized police chiefs pretty closely. I cannot honestly say Mark Kroeker was worse than others I've observed. Instead, his problem seems to have been the inability to form a rapport with people in Portland, on either the macro or micro level. Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn has this to say about him.

. . .Usually, police chiefs appear in public surrounded by uniforms -- and when things are going well, by suits -- but Friday he stood by himself behind a lectern, with only his statement, and when he'd finished with it he walked away.

Being alone, or at least disconnected, always seemed to be part of Mark Kroeker's difficulties. Katz brought him up from the Los Angeles Police Department, where the police cars say "To Protect and Serve" but everybody knows it's just a prop. It was a curious place to look for a Portland police chief, and from the beginning Kroeker seemed oddly matched to a city that sees policing not just as an episode of "Dragnet" but also something like a call-in talk show.

Somehow, Kroeker, an impressively smart man who'd done some impressive things, never quite got connected in Portland. With every problem, with every complaint and charge of a cover-up, more groups attacked the bureau and demanded changes. Somehow, he never seemed any more responsive to them than the mayor was to him on Friday.

So, the inability to emote Portland style seems to have cost us a police chief -- and not for the first time. Former top cop Charles Moose departed these parts for much the same reason, though he was not unceremoniously kicked out. He was regularly upbraided if he, an African-American, dared mention any of the instances of discrimination I am sure he did experience in this not quite perfect city. Moose, who went on to achieve fame for solving the D.C. sniper shootings case, has since resigned from the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland. I can't help but wonder if fatigue with what he went through in perverse Portland played a part in his decision to leave law enforcement.

The mayor's 'solution' to the problems of the police department is to shoehorn a veteran of the force who happens to be black into the position of police chief. She seems to think having a minority in the job will still protests about police conduct. I doubt that. Chief Moose may have been somewhat less of a magnet for protest than Chief Kroeker, but many of the shootings described in the independent report occurred on his watch. It seems to me that Moose, a cop's cop, did not change the institutional biases of the bureau. Derrick Foxworth, a 22-year veteran of the force who doubtlessly learned to fit in, is no more likely to do so. I don't mean that remark as a personal criticism of Foxworth, who struck me as an affable fellow the few times I've met him in off-duty venues. I just don't believe he is anymore likely to please critics of the Police Department for more than a few months than previous recent chiefs did. Portland will soon prove its perversity again.

Technology: More options for road warriors

• Stay in touch while you fly

New for business travelers on commercial airlines is Verizon JetConnect. The service allows laptop-equipped travelers to access many Web services without the Internet. One can send and receive emails, check the market and even instant message without their one's feet touching the ground.

The actions are accomplished by a small on-board server. The cookie-sheet sized server connects with routers in thousands of towers on the ground. You connect your computer to the network via Verizon AirPhone and a RJ-11 cable.

The flip side is speed. Your interaction will occur at 9.6 Kbps, a throwback to the early days of interconnectivity. The future scheme is to equip planes with WiFi (802.11b or later) access. Verizon is seeking approval from the Federal Aviation Administration for the upgrade. But, JetConnect is currently the only solution to the long flight on which you need to send or receive short messages via laptop. At $5.99 per flight segment, it is probably worth the cost.

• Laptops: The best of the batch

This month's edition of Laptop Magazine rates the top WiFi embellished notebooks. The winners are:

• Apple 12-inch PowerBook G4

• Averatec 3150P

• Compaq Business Notebook nc4000

• Dell Latitude D400

• Fijitsu LifeBook P5000

• Gateway 200XL

• IBM Thinkpad T40

• Sharp Actius PC-MV14

• Sony VAIO PCG-TR1A

• Toshiba Portege M100

The Dell Latitude D400 and the Gateway 200XL were selected as best buys. There is considerable variation among the computers, though most boast large hard drives and reasonably fast CPUs. Some are the current standard 802.11b compatible. Others, such as the Dell Latitude D400, come with 802.11g. Since most access points have yet to be updated, bleeding edge WiFi users will often find their speeds throttled back to 802.11b's. I was pleased to see the Apple PowerBook G4 included on the list, since Apple products are often overlooked in the general technology press, though it is lauded mainly for style, not utility.

• Portable products may be plum for Apple

Speaking of the guys and gals in Cupertino, BusinessWeek recently devoted a special report to the company, largely singing its praises. The five-part package focused on the success of Apple products and prophesied a change in strategy. The reporter, Stephen H. Wildstrom, says the vanguard of that change is the iPod, the portable hard disk and MP3 player many of us road warriors take everywhere with us.

Though iPod got rave reviews, it soon became clear that most people weren't going to abandon their Windows PC just for the chance to use what arguably was the best MP3 player on the market. So in August of 2002, Apple introduced an iPod for Windows. By Christmas, it plans to launch more new Windows-compatible products, such as the wildly successful music-download service, the iTunes Music Store, originally just for Macs.

"That represents a shift in strategy, whether they realized it at first or not," says Wolf. "The iPod was the first product that wasn't tethered to the Mac." Apple executives decline to comment on company's strategy.

Considering that the iPod and the music store will seduce many a Windows user in coming months and that the PowerBook has garnered a higher share of the laptop market than Apple's stationary computers have of the desktop market, BusinessWeek may be on to something -- and portability is the key.

Back to the past
Part III: Neo-Confederate romance with past effects present

Several of the latest neo-Confederate efforts to prevent progress revolve around Reconstruction, which neo-Confederates and their sympathizers abhor, describing it as the seed of the 'upppityness' which has made blacks unmanageable ever since slavery ended. They are currently exercising their antipathy by trying to prevent historic preservation efforts that will document and memorialize Reconstruction. Preservationists throughout the country have turned their attention to South Carolina, where Reconstruction began.

A bill shepherded through the U.S. Senate by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., has set aside $300,000 to complete two studies over three years.

One study would be a national search designed to identify U.S. sites and resources significant to Reconstruction.

The second would determine whether five Beaufort County sites with strong ties to Reconstruction should be added to the National Park System.

Second District Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of Lexington introduced a similar bill in the U.S. House that could be debated when Congress reconvenes next month, if Wilson pushes it.

The mainstream view of Reconstruction captures the complexity and hopefulness of the time.

Reconstruction was that period immediately after the war, from 1865 to 1877, when the Union tried to heal itself socially, spiritually and economically.

Factories were down, millions of former slaves had no education, land or other means of self-support, and families were torn apart. The country's future seemed fragile.

"The term Reconstruction referred to the literal rebuilding of the war-ravaged South and the metaphorical rebuilding of the Union," the National Park Service's Brenda Barrett told Congress earlier this year.

The neo-Confederates, and most white Southerners who were brought up on the myth of the valiant South, disagree.

Popularly in South Carolina, Reconstruction is that period when the federal government imposed its will and blacks headed state government, ruling corruptly and ruining the lives of poor whites.

Though 60 years of historical research shows that view to be racist and wrong, it persists.

"Denigrating and dismissing black officeholders as illiterate, venal, propertyless rogues is one of the most enduring myths of Reconstruction," USC history professor Walter Edgar wrote in "South Carolina: A History."

"Most black legislators (87 percent) were literate; more than three-fourths were property-owners and taxpayers. A majority were middle-class artisans, farmers and shopkeepers -- not former field hands.

"At least one in four had been free persons of color before the war. Contemporary whites and their descendants either refused to acknowledge or deliberately distorted the accomplishments of the state's black leaders."

About 190 blacks served in the S.C. Legislature during Reconstruction, more by far than in any other Southern legislature.

That is part of the state's special history. It is one of the few to have been predominantly black and remained so into the 1890s. Like other states with large West African-derived populations, such as Alabama and Mississippi, South Carolina has a long history of using any means possible to subvert the political will of its black citizens.

The controversy there has been stoked by the increasingly radical Sons of the Confederate Veterans. Now dominated by the segregationist and secessionist League of the South, the SCV is more open than before about considering blacks and Northerners its archenemies. The drive to monumentalize the history of Reconstruction has members' blood boiling.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of Civil War veterans' descendants, wants to stop the effort to federally protect several sites honoring South Carolina's and Beaufort County's prominent historical roles in the post-Civil War period.

"If the National Park Service wants to honor blacks being free from slavery and blacks getting the right to vote, that's fine," said Michael Givens, first lieutenant of the state division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "Just don't do it under the pretenses of Reconstruction."

. . .Givens, of the SCV, said Reconstruction was a terrible time for Southern whites, who he said were "punished" by Northern whites, or "carpetbaggers," who came South. "The genesis of bad relationships between the races is Reconstruction," rather than slavery, Givens said. [Emphasis mine.]

. . .Recently, the park service included an explanation at a new exhibit at Fort Sumter, which it operates, saying slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War. Southern groups, such as the SCV, maintain the war was fought over "states rights."

The SCV wrote Wilson, drafted a resolution against the Reconstruction study and put it on the group's Web site. Reconstruction study supporters countered by also writing Wilson.

People are focusing on Rep. Wilson because he epitomizes the conflict. Not only is he is a legislator needed to get the bill passed and program funded, he is a member of the SCV. When SCV members have refused to toe the party line in the past, they have been ejected from the group. Among ejectees is filmmaker Ken Burns, who neo-Confederates deride as much too affectionate toward Yankees and "the Negroes."

Ken Burns, Ex-compatriot

"Compatriot" Ken Burns has been stripped of membership, largely as a result of one man's courage and devotion to integrity in our ranks. Virginia's General Hank Morris, a camp commander and retired Army Brigadier, demanded that the little mop-headed anti-Southern snippet with a penchant for mentioning Robert E. Lee and Adolph Hitler in the same sentence be defrocked by the Virginia Division. Over the whining objections of J.E.B. Stuart Camp Commander Phil "Sheridan" O'Neill, who called for his own ouster should Burns be removed, the Division muckety-mucks voted to give the nasty little excuse for humanity the heave-ho.

It seems, however, that J.E.B. Stuart Camp officers tried to procure an 11th hour transfer of the miscreant to an obscure camp in New England. However, Burns' status as not being a member in good standing (i.e. facing charges), as well as the fact that the transfer papers were not signed, did not allow the cowardly shell-game tactic to go through.

When given notice of his hearing, to be held at a Shoney's, the effeminate New England phlegm-maker replied, "I don't eat at Shoney's!"

Score one for the good guys. Kudos to General Morris, Thirty Pieces of Silver to J.E.B. Stuart Camp (to be hereafter known as the Judas Iscariot Camp to avoid confusion with the J.E.B. Stuart Camp in Pennsylvania), and may Ken Burns realize the error of his ways and repent before he meets General Sherman and Abraham Lincoln in the hereafter.

One second thought, the hell with him!

If Wilson continues supporting the plans to memorialize Reconstruction, he will likely be denounced and rejected by the SCV.

What are the sites so offensive to neo-Confederates they oppose monumentalizing them?

The Penn Center, the first school in the South for freed slaves, is one of the Beaufort County sites. The others are:

• The Freedmen's Bureau, where ex-slaves first voted

• Michellville, on Hilton Head Island, established as the first freedmen's village

• The Old Fort Plantation, where the first ex-slaves gathered to hear the Emancipation Proclamation read, and

• The Robert Smalls house and other sites associated with the Reconstruction leader and Civil War hero.

Opposition to Americans remembering these places, the first of their kind since many slaves in South Carolina were effectively free in 1860, is opposition to the end of slavery. Many people would like to believe that the neo=Confederate movement is unimportant. However, when we see actions such as this effort to prevent American history from being recorded, it is obvious the movement is powerful enough to be a threat in regard to matters important to all of us.

One of our most respected historians summarizes why this controversy matters.

"I think this is really ridiculous," said Eric Foner, a Columbia University history professor who is recognized as the leading authority on Reconstruction.

"Reconstruction is one of the most misunderstood periods of American history. There was great progress and great failure in many ways. But it was an integral part of our history. A new and up-to-date version of Reconstruction can benefit everyone."

On the frontlines

Back to the past
Part II: Blogger denies slavery cause of Civil War

Central to neo-Confederate dogma is the claim that the Civil War was fought over just about anything but slavery. Our current specimen of the movement, blogger Al Barger has, unsurprisingly, expressed that view.

Re-subjugating the Confederacy to northern domination was turning out to be much bloodier and more costly than Lincoln had expected. He needed more and better reasons for northern families to give up the lives of their sons, preferably something of a moral nature. Therefore, halfway into the war he declared that it was about ending slavery. Yeah, that's the ticket!

But, though there were ancillary issues, there is no real question in regard to slavery being the proximate and predominate cause of the Civil War. The best evidence of this fact comes from the horses' mouths. The Confederates themselves stated slavery was the main reason they were seceding from the Union. South Carolina, with its huge slave population, was the first to proclaim its intention to secede and why it was doing so. It had first attempted to leave the Union in 1852.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . .The non-slaveholding States have denounced as sinful the Institution of Slavery, they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes, and those who remain have been incited by emissaries books and pictures to servile insurrection... The public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate Extinction.

Slaves in the Family, Edward Ball, p. 324.

That extinction of slavery was not going to be allowed to occur, either then or in the future. If the Confederate States of America had won the war, it might well have maintained overt slavery or a form of apartheid into this century, as South Africa barely fell short of doing. The enabling text of each of the 13 states articles of secession can be read here. No person reading the articles of secession of South Carolina and its cohorts can doubt the Confederates considered slavery the primary reason they were leaving the Union -- unless he is being willfully obtuse.

Barger's denial runs deep.

Again, it's tough to say entirely what the "main issue" was to "the southern states" in that there is no Southern State you can ask about her opinion. It's a whole bunch of different people with differing values and priorities.

Probably you could go through letters and find a couple of southern soldiers writing about how important it is to keep black folks in their place. I doubt you'd find very many such things though.

The vast majority of white southerners were NOT slave owners. Barring strong evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen, I find it difficult to believe that southern boys were going off to fight and die motivated by the desire to protect the rich folks' right to own slaves. Doesn't make any sense to me. Especially since there wasn't yet even any attempt by the north to emancipate the slaves. [Emphasis mine.]

Let's consider a pretextual reason for secession offered by Barger and his allies.

A typical evasive tactic of neo-Confederates is to claim the Civil War was about tariffs. They assert the South was so burdened by tariffs it chose to rebel. The historical record proves otherwise. The organized opposition to taxes weighted against wealthy Southerners began in 1828.

In March 1833, Congress passed the Compromise Tariff, which shrank the tax rates, when [John C.] Calhoun [the former Vice President, who had resigned to show his loyalty to the South] supported the Compromise, the states' rights movement was able to claim victory." Ball, supra, at pp. 309-310.

The federal government caved in to Southern pressure in regard to tariffs long before the Civil War began.

Other revealing evidence against the neo-Confederate viewpoint is the Confederate Constitution. It unequivocally embraces slavery, with no hint whatsoever that abolition of the abominable practice is even to be considered.

Article IV

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

However, the Confederate Constitution does outlaw foreign importation of slaves, eliminating competition and guaranteeing maximum profit from the natural increase of slaves owned by Southerners.

Article I

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the rationalization for slavery and the basis for declaring "the South was right" for most neo-Confederates -- Biblical justification. Their denial of the role of slavery in the Civil War is usually two-pronged:

•The War Between the States was not fought over slavery;

•Besides, there was nothing wrong with slavery. If the Yankees opposed it, they were in error.

Most neo-Confederates are deeply relgious. Among the constant demands for the head of Jesse Jackson and enshrining the Confederate flag in their forums, a visitor will notice numerous requests for prayers. There is no cognitive dissonance occuring from a neo-Confederate perspective. An esteemed Southern clergyman penned an article called "The Bible View of Slavery," which is avidly promoted at many neo-Confederate sites. John Henry Hopkins, writing in 1864, offers several reasons slavery is Biblically justified, including the story of Ham, and concludes.

The Scriptures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a MAN AND A BROTHER. But though he be my brother, it does not follow that he is my equal. Equality can not be found on earth between the brothers even in one little family. In the same house, one brother usually obtains a mastery over the rest, and sometimes rules them with a perfect despotism. In England, the elder brother inherits the estate, and the younger brothers take a lower rank by the slavery of circumstances. The eldest son of the royal family is in due time the king, and his brothers forthwith become his subjects. Why should not the same principle obtain in the races of mankind, if the Almighty has so willed it? The Anglo-Saxon race is king; why should not the African race be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, more useful, and more happy than in any other which has yet been opened to it, in the annals of the world?

I know that there may be exceptions, now and again, to this intellectual inferiority of the negro race, though I believe it would be very difficult to find one, unless the intermixture of superior blood has operated to change the mental constitution of the individual. For all such cases the master may provide by voluntary emancipation, and it is notorious that this emancipation has been cheerfully given in thousands upon thousands of instances, in the majority of which the gift of liberty has failed to benefit the negro, and has, on the contrary sunk him far lower in his social position. But no reflecting man can believe that the great mass of the slaves, amounting to nearly four millions, are qualified for freedom. And therefore it is incomparably better for them to remain under the government of their masters, who are likely to provide for them so much more beneficially than they could provide for themselves.

The head of the League of the South, and other neo-Confederate leaders, hold the same beliefs as Hopkins despite the passage of time. They would prefer a return to slavery, but will settle for disenfranchisement and resegregation of nonwhites if they can get it.

Michael Hill, president of the League of the South and probably the key ideologue of the movement, calls slavery "God-ordained," while other leaders in his group defend segregation as a policy that merely preserved the "integrity" of white Southerners as a group. In North Carolina, the League recently added a new "advisor" to its list of local officials -- Steven Barry, a hard-line racist and official of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the other key group in the neo-Confederate movement, recently editorialized on its main web page about "greasy white yankee girls [who] make sure everyone notices their lust for black men." White supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons a man who was married at the Idaho compound of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations -- has become a key player for the League and most of the other neo-Confederate groups. And these are only a few telling signs of a movement that almost admits its own racism.

"Let us not flinch when our enemies call us 'racists,'" Hill wrote on a private Internet posting recently. "Rather, just reply with, "So, what's your point?'"

. . .Supporting the neo-Confederate enterprise are historical revisionists, men such as Michael Hill who, like deniers of the Holocaust, are rewriting the history of the Civil War and the South. In their view -- a view shared by virtually no serious historian -- the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery.

Though I suspect he will deny it, this is the tradition, one of white supremacy, Barger is speaking from.

History after the Civil War seems equally compelling as history before the Civil War in regard to this issue to me. If the South were truly a region with no race problems except those caused by meddling Yankees, why was the aftermath of the war a failed Reconstruction, the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan, lynching as an entertaining pastime, Jim Crow and violent opposition when integration became law? It seems to me those are the behaviors of a people with deep racial problems, not of folks who never had anything against blacks and fought a war over something other than maintaining slavery, as the neo-Confederates claim. I believe the history of the South is that of a region conceived in white supremacy and still enmeshed in it.

In summary, the claim the Civil War was not fought over slavery is false. But for the Southern oligarchy's perceived need to protect the peculiar institution, the war would not have occurred. The denials of modern neo-Confederates are lies meant to mislead the uninformed. They are mired in nostalgia for the past and hope of returning the country to it.

Back to the past
Part I: Blogosphere hosts new attack on Lincoln

Those of you who began reading my commentary before I had my own blog or who have been reading Mac-a-ro-nies from its inception already know I honed my blog teeth on the neo-Confederate movement. Readers who came along later have probably noticed I mention that pathetic band of Neandertals from time to time. It appears I need to return to writing about it often. A blogger sympathetic to the neo-Confederate movement has been promoting claims that President Abraham Lincoln was a despot and that the Emancipation Proclamation was meaningless.

Thanks for nothin' Abe

On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued his so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" supposedly freeing the slaves.

Lincoln personally disliked blacks and had publicly stated that he would willingly accept the institution of slavery if it would stop the southern states from seceding. Slavery was not a main issue to the southern states, however, and they left anyway.

Re-subjugating the Confederacy to northern domination was turning out to be much bloodier and more costly than Lincoln had expected. He needed more and better reasons for northern families to give up the lives of their sons, preferably something of a moral nature. Therefore, halfway into the war he declared that it was about ending slavery. Yeah, that's the ticket!

His real view of the moral imperative of ending slavery, however, was better reflected in the clever lawyerly construction of this worthless Emancipation Proclamation, which did NOT apply to slaves held in Union states. In short, by design this Emancipation Proclamation freed ZERO slaves.

Unfortunately, due to lack of information, I gather, quite a few bloggers and readers believe the false assertions Al Barger is making. I will take on the responsibility of providing that information.

I last wrote about the neo-Confederate movement at length in regard to its effort to prevent a statue of Lincoln being erected in Richmond, Va. It was my pleasure to act as a conduit between Robert Kline, the man whose idea the statue was and the media, since I totally sympathized with him. (Besides, he needed the protection the attention brought. Neo-Confederate goons had come to his office and threatened him, an elderly man who would not be able to defend himself.) Atrios, Roger Ailes and Zizka helped me in in that worthwhile effort.

Among the mechanisms the neo-Confederates used in that failed battle was a made-up claim the U.S. Historical Society was guilty of fraud, which it had the Virginia attorney general investigate, web pages defaming the society and fellow traveler legislators in the state legislature and Congress who tried to prevent the monument being built. The neo-Confederates fight dirty and should be given no quarter.

The current assault on Lincoln relies on the same people behind the attempt to prevent the statue of our best president ever from being sited in the southern United States. As you may recall, their chief academic is Thomas DiLorenzo, a non-historian who has written a volume depicting Lincoln as a tyrant who caused the Civil War. DiLorenzo was the guest of honor at a neo-Confederate conference held to protest the opening of the Lincoln statue. The current smear of Lincoln relies on DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, and other neo-Confederate sources. Mainstream historians have thoroughly dismissed DiLorenzo when they bother to acknowledge him at all. Even the reviewer for the far Right Washington Times declined joining DiLorenzo in defaming Lincoln. He has found a home in the neo-Confederate movement, but is not taken seriously anywhere else. His ludicrous platform is easily summarized. This reviewer, from a conservative site, incidentally, sees right through his lies.

In this hopelessly pro-Southern book, DiLorenzo offers tired explanations for why the South was righteous, and the Lincoln-led North was tyrannical. It is typical fare for the Southern apologist crowd, which oddly still inhabits the Civil War era. The Loyola College (Maryland) economics professor continuously hammers the theme of states' rights throughout the work. Predictably, he infuses his writing with deliberately selective quotes from Lincoln and others so that he can make bold accusations (i.e. He implies that Lincoln was a racist, for example).

Interestingly, he pays little attention to the 'peculiar institution,' which is otherwise known as slavery. Instead, he focuses the reader's attention on what he calls "Lincoln's real agenda: the American System." Basing one's arguments primarily on the states' rights component is a lot like having a polite dinner conversation with a 2000 pound pachyderm in the room.

The professor argues that slavery would have died out on its own at some point (he does not offer how long this might have lasted), since many nations were eliminating slavery peacefully throughout the 1800s. Perhaps the armchair historian is comfortable with that conclusion, but I have a feeling that the slaves of 1865 might have had slightly different feelings about the gradual phasing out of slavery.

He thinks he has our sixteenth president captured when he boldly announces that "Lincoln stated over and over that he was opposed to racial equality." Unfortunately, DiLorenzo fails to understand that history always involves a context. It is quite obvious that an abolitionist (or even someone who believed in equality for all people regardless of race) would never have garnered the support of the American public. We are talking about the mid nineteenth century, where people's concepts of race and prejudice were drastically different from today's standards. Using twenty first century standards to judge a president from the 1800s is foolish from a historical standpoint, and blatantly incorrect. It also exposes the weakness of one's argument.

. . .Professor DiLorenzo is looking for controversy when he labels the Civil War as an "unnecessary war" in the subtitle of his book. Asking whether or not Lincoln was a dictator, DiLorenzo draws a ludicrous comparison between King George III and the Civil War era president. (George the Third was King of England when the American colonists rebelled, and eventually formed the United States.)

Reducing the Civil War's root causes to those involving free trade and government philosophy, DiLorenzo all but dismisses the slavery debate. He writes that, "Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire." He adds that ultimately the conflict centered around "the battle between the free-trade South and the protectionist North." While it is true that several factors were involved in the war, slavery's prominence is undeniable. The reality is that Southern gentry could not command thousands of men to go to their deaths for the aristocracy's slaves. Rather, framing the debate around "states' rights" provided a platform that would attract both rich and poor. It also covered up the heart of the issue -- whether or not men had the right to own other men.

DiLorenzo has compiled standard pro-Southern dogma, and placed it in new packaging. His "new look at Abraham Lincoln" is recycled material from a long-lived legacy of defeat from a few Southern, Confederate sympathizers, who refuse to live in the present. By the book's end, we are no closer to finding the real Lincoln than when we first began.

Once they stop snickering at the mention of DiLorenzo's name, historians take his book apart. About what? Everything. The Real Lincoln has been cited as faulty in every way. A commentator has organized the types of errors in the book as factual errors, distortions of interpretation and shoddy scholarship. Among the monolith of mistakes are purposeful misrepresentations of the Emancipation Proclamation and its effects. For example:

DiLorenzo states that the emancipation proclamation "caused a desertion crisis in the U.S. Army. At least 200,000 Federal soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and at least 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada while thousands more hid out in the mountains of central Pennsylvania to place themselves beyond the reach of enrollment officers." This statement is referenced to p. 67 of The Confederate War by Gary Gallagher. However, this is wrong in two ways. First, no such statements are to be found in Gallagher's book, either on the page noted or anywhere else. (Gallagher's book tends to focus only on the Confederate side of the war.) Second, DiLorenzo is blaming all desertions on the U.S. side of the Civil War on the Emancipation Proclamation --- 200,000 is the consensus estimate for the total number of deserters throughout the war, according to Mark Weitz's article on desertion in the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000). Needless to say, some Federals deserted before the proclamation was passed, so not all the desertions can be ascribed to it, and it seems unlikely that every U.S. soldier who deserted after September 1862 did so because of the proclamation.

Barger's claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, which relies on DiLorenzo and other neo-Confederates, is of course, false. As the Northern army progressed through the South, thousands of slaves were freed. However, of equal significance is that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the nature of the war, making it clear it was a war of liberation, and reinspiring Union troops.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

So, why would people denigrate Lincoln while lionizing Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Even a cursory examination of neo-Confederate sites answers that question. Lincoln's critics hate him because they believe he ended the possibility of the kind of society they prefer -- theocratic, racist, sexist and isolationist -- prevailing in the United States. Though they are still working to create such a society, they know there is little hope of achieving their goal. The best they can do is mislead other Americans about the historical events that shaped this country.

Am I saying Abraham Lincoln was a perfect person? No, but compared to most leaders of his time and since, the man was a giant. Virtually no one who had the same conflict brought before him or her could have dealt with it better. Most importantly, Lincoln grew as a person. After observing the valiant performance of black troops who fought for the Union during the war, he rejected the notion that African-Americans should be relocated elsewhere or permanently become second-class citizens. I believe that if Lincoln had survived, Reconstruction would have been successful and we would not have the shameful societal divisions we have today. To demean this man is to demean someone we all, as Americans, should be proud of.

Note: Most of the material describing and analyzing the Lincoln statue controversy can be accessed at Zizka's site and is well worth reading. (I prepared it before I had a blog.) It is a good introduction to the neo-Confederate movement.

The Mac-a-ro-nies mailbag

I was listening to an oldie but a goodie, Smokey Robinson's "Sweet Harmony," on my iPod, Titania, when I wrote this entry last night. Let's harmonize with some of this week's letters to the Diva.

Blogger Rebecca Blood wrote to say she disagrees with blogger Mark Bernstein's analysis of her goals as the proprietor of a weblog. She says issues of social change are important to why she blogs and that she doesn't consider herself a personal blogger exclusively. I wrote about Bernstein's review of Blood's book in "Whither the weblog?"

Composer and blogger Richard Einhorn of Tristero agrees with me about the iRock, an FM radio modulator, and offers some advice.

I too was unimpressed with irock, but the batteries lasted longer. I now have an itrip from griffin technologies. It is trickier to use but has no batteries. Once you get it set up however, it works very well. The main tip is not to over or under modulate the output from iPod. About 70% total volume works well.

And btw, it is quite a lot of fun to use the itrip cum ipod on any fm radio, not merely a car's.

My most determined recent correspondent has been a fellow who calls himself Jeremiah Black. Jeremiah says I am a dupe of Communists. He is perturbed by an analytical essay/book review I wrote about the Congo.

I. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:53:36 -0400

Hi,

I just read your review on The Poisonwood Bible, and just wanted to add (before everyone gets too sentimental over Lumumba) that Lumumba was a Communist warlord who led the two year invasion and slaughter of the democratic Congo province of Katanga. He advocated and supported the massacre of the civilians of Katanga, and, with the help of a UN "peace keeping" force, was able to conquer and force the assimilation of Katanga (UN's Operation Morthor) back under Congolese rule. In a directive to the heads of the Congolese provinces, Lumumba wrote that they should use "terrorism, essential to subdue the population." Over ninety percent of the buildings bombed and shelled were strictly civilian structures with no military value. After protesting the attacks on ambulances, Mr. Georges Olivet of the Swiss Red Cross was murdered by pro-Lumumba UN troops as he traveled in a Red Cross ambulance. Upon his death, the murderous Lumumba was lionized by Soviet dictator Khrushchev; Khrushchev renamed the Moscow "Peoples Friendship University" the "Patrice Lumumba Friendship University." The history of the Belgian Congo stands as a testament to the moral bankruptcy of European colonialism. But rewriting history with Lumumba as a hero simply because he rightfully despised a despicable Belgium and was eventually murdered is a huge mistake. It's also worth noting that blood-thirsty Lumumba (like the blood thirsty Stalin) is still only spoken of highly in pro-Communist and anti-Christian (Katanga was a non-white Christian province) propaganda. And it's even further interesting to note that Kingsolver had Mumia Abu-Jamal, a malevolent copkilling terrorist, proof read her book before publication. (Since Mumia Abu-Jamal is neither Congolese or a literary figure, I can only assume that Kingsolver wanted to get the book's anti-white/anti-western tone right. But this is a personal conclusion.) Anyway, if you have the time and are still interested you might want to surf online for?a?list of historical inaccuracies in the book.

Hope I didn't come off as rude; just interested in African history like you.

Take care,
-- Jeremiah Black

II. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:10:13-0400

J.G.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but your response clearly won't do.

You complain that all anti-colonial leaders were simply dismissed as communists (true, no doubt), but then you casually dismiss the historical facts of Lumumba's murderous actions by saying there's nothing novel about my "perspective." This is not "perspective." These are concrete facts of history. I'm really not concerned whether he was a communist at all, nor am I offering "my perspective" on struggles between competing political systems. The fact is that Lumumba was a brutal murderer and oppressor of innocent civilians (incidentally, he destroyed an all black, native province). This fact of history has been unacknowledged, and needs to be recognized. Also, he was a communist, heavily backed by Moscow, but that's not particularly the issue. These are the facts. And for this reason Lumumba does not deserved to be lionized, even if he did oppose the evils of colonialism. He was not a hero, but an evil ruler who hated the evil European rulers who came before him. Also, it's ridiculous to believe that the only people who considered Lumumba a communist did so because they were sympathetic to white supremacy rule when the Communist Party, Khrushchev, and Lumumba himself declared him to be a communist. Ignore the communism, then, if it clouds the issue. Just please don't forget the important part: that Lumumba was a barbaric, murderous ruler who does not deserve to be thought well of by history.

I was just firing off a friendly email as a fellow student of African history. I didn't mean for this to get heated, and I'm sorry if I conveyed to attitude that your review of the book was ignorant or poorly written. It certainly was not. My critique was more with the book itself which either failed to mention or distorted these important points. I think, in westerners' zeal to repudiate colonialism (itself a good thing), we tend to make a hero out of anyone who fought the colonialists. But this is a scholarly mistake. Lumumba was just as evil as Belgium, and as soon as he had power, was just as brutal to his fellow Africans as Belgium was to the Congo.

Sincerely,
- Jeremiah Black

III. Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:38:51 -0400

JG,

Sorry to bother you, but I'd also like to point out that Lumumba was not a "leader of an anti-colonial movement", but that Belgium had already agreed to willingly give up and withdraw from the Congo. Lumumba was simply the next warlord to rule. He hated Belgium, of course, (who could blame him), but he was not leading an anti-colonial movement -- Belgium was already gone by the time he gained power on June 30, 1960. Belgium only came back to restore order after Lumumba began murdering his own populace and the populace of his neighbors. This is one of the historical inaccuracies in Kingsolver's book, and I can only assume that she chose to tell the history as if Lumumba threw the Belgians out because it makes for a better story. The novel is, after all, fiction, not biography. But it's still dangerous to portray Lumumba as some sort of peace lover, and I guess that was the original point I was trying to make. :)

--JB

IV. Mon, 25 Aug 11:41:46 -0400

Well, it's clear to me now that you've never read any Congolese history except The Poisonwood Bible, which was fiction, or maybe you got a very altered version from Marxist.com or some other website commited to making Lumumba a hero of the cause. The fact that Lumumba was brutally murdered seems to dominate your mind, and you seem somehow unable to consider him anything but a holy martyr. The fact is, that from june 30th 1960, to january 1961 (roughly 6 months as you stated), Lumumba was able to request 10,000 UN troops to back his invasion of Katanga as well as vast amounts of military equipment and weapons from the USSR. His written military orders still exist for posterity, and I believe I quoted from one in my inital email. His butchering of Katanga led to President Kasavubu (Lumumba was only prime minister) to dismiss him and install Mobutu (who actually ended up being more evil). Lumumba then set up a rival goverment in Stanleyville, until the new prime minister Mobutu had him captured, beaten, and shipped to Katanga to be murdered by mercenaries (most likley Belgian as you stated). Lumumba's supporters continued to fight the war against Katanga that Lumumba had sarted even after his death for another year and a half.

I guess this is the danger of reading no history and only fiction. You mind is completely ruled by it, and you will never acknowledge any facts that interfere with the story you cling to, that perhaps moved you (rightfully), but that nevertheless contained many historical errors. That Lumumba was an innocent, Christ-like victim is simply not true. Please do not respond to this email, as it is obvoius to me that you couldn't be less interested in actual history. I was also disappointed about with the nasty tone your last email took, since I went out of my way to be friendly. But I guess that's what fundamentalist ignorance does to a person.

Sadly,
-- JB

Could someone send me a Soviet-era Russian flag? In the interest of harmony, ya know?

News and analysis:
Moore's legal loss may be political gain

It is out of sight, but not out of mind. The huge monument Judge Roy Moore had installed in the rotunda of the building where the Supreme Court of Alabama meets has been moved.

"Roy's Rock," the chunky Ten Commandments monument that became an icon of the battle over separation of church and state, rolled out of sight at the state Supreme Court building rotunda in Montgomery, Ala., this morning.

Demonstrators, who have camped on the courthouse steps for more than a week in hopes of stopping the removal, dropped to their knees in prayer after spotting a work crew gathering around the two-ton monument. Some pastors, who have led a demonstration that often resembled a round-the-clock religious revival, lay prostrate on the ground. Others held signs aloft praising Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, who moved the monument into the courthouse two years ago and last week defied a federal court order to remove it.

"I am angry and sad," said the Rev. Phil Fulton of the Pentecostal Union Hill Church in Peebles, Ohio. Fulton, who was on his knees praying outside the courthouse when the monument was removed, called today "one of the most of tragic days for America. I feel like our constitutional rights, our religious freedoms, are eroding away."

The monument was relocated in time to prevent the fines a federal district judge said would begin to accrue for violating his order on Friday. It is not clear where the heavy granite statuary was moved to.

As a great admirer of the civil rights movement, I have found the displays of support for Moore, which mimic the actions of civil rights demonstrators, rather surreal. It seems to me that these protesters are missing an important point: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, sought to expand the promises of our government in regard to individual rights. Their movement seeks to restrict those rights to Christians, and, if one follows the trail to the neo-Confederate movement, males, whites and the well-off. Any similarity between the two movements is superficial.

Meanwhile, another Alabama politician, seeing the incredible political mileage Moore has derived from his antics, is seeking his own Ten Commandments spotlight by introducing a bill in Congress to let states decide whether to display the commandments.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) today expressed disappointment with the removal of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial complex in Montgomery, and repeated his call for legislation allowing states to decide whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed in public buildings.

. . ."This issue is about our national heritage, and the role that faith has historically played in the foundation of this nation," said Congressman Aderholt. "The legislation I've introduced addresses this very issue. Each state should have the right to display the Ten Commandments in a city hall, state house or state court building without the federal government interfering. If the State of Alabama wants to display the Ten Commandments, it should have that right - pure and simple.

. . .Congressman Aderholt believes that legislation such as his recently introduced Ten Commandments Defense Act is needed to clarify the issue.

The strategy Aderholt is attempting to use is called interposition. It is a claim that the states retain the right to make decisions impacting federally protected individual rights. The states rights are said to be derived from the U.S. Constitution, despite the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified the role of federal government as dominant to most modern legal thinkers. Interposition was roundly rejected when used to try to prevent desegregation during the civil rights movement and will be in this context, as well.

However, failures for Moore and his cohort in the legal arena may lead to success in the political arena. Moore swiftly climbed from a minor judgeship to his present position at the top of the state's legacy hierarchy by pandering to Christian fundamentalists. It is possible he can ride that support to the governor's office or to Washington as a representative or senator. Some people believe that was his plan all along. A letter writer to a television station in Huntsville, Ala., explains his perception of Moore's career:

I support the removal of the monument and Justice Moore. As a resident of Alabama , and a practicing Christian, I believe and attempt to follow the teachings of the Ten Commandments. However, as an American citizen I hold the concept of "separation of church and state" as paramount in maintaining the freedoms and principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. While I support the teachings of the monument in question, the idea of a State supported religious ideal frightens me. It is MY job, not that of elected officials, to instill religious values and beliefs in my children.

Justice Moore's blatant misuse of his office is even more disturbing when viewed as a calculated political move. Does anyone believe this ploy wasn't planned from day-1 as a step to the Governors office? And sadly, he will probably win by a landslide. He consciously trampled on the very ideals this country was founded upon to gain support from those individuals who put their personal views above the strength and future of the Country as a whole. As an American Citizen, I find this offensive. And as a Christian, I see the use the Lord's name for political gain as blasphemy and a direct violation of those Commandments he supposedly supports.

Patrick

Huntsville

Another Alabaman, a Moore supporter, vehemently disagrees.

I think that judge morre is the best judge in our whole country, He stands on the truth that God gave us to live bye, when you don`t live by the ten commandments that is why there is so much killing and stealing, and other bad thing happens in our country. Having the ten commandments there does not mean you have to look at them are read them. But living them makes him abetter judge and better person so that he will be a fair judge to all people, and treat each person the same. I wish we had more honest judge and who lives by Gods laws keep up the good work Judge we will are behind you one hundred per cent. Our prays are with you and God is with you too.

Imogene

My friend Russell says I am naive, though I consider myself cynical, because I have yet to accept that many, if not most, people are foolish. This is the kind of situation that makes me wonder if he is right. Though the focus of our attention is Judge Moore, he could not have climbed into his position without the votes of a lot of foolish people. That may be the core of this issue. The Moores of America, and the messes they create, would not exist but for a populace willing and eager to enable them.

Entertainment: Ten reasons not to hate Tom Cruise

1. He is not running for governor of California. Considering that 135 people filed for the recall election and at least a quarter of them are public figures or public officials, we should appreciate Cruise's being humble enough to stay out of the race.

2. Neither of his ex-wives is running for governor of California. A bonus.

3. 'Cruise' is his real name. Yes, it is his middle name. However, at least he acted reasonably in choosing a stage name. Arnold Schwarzenegger lacks such good judgment.

4. He is not a philanderer. He has been involved in serial monogamy from his early adult years -- engaged in a series of relationships with one woman at a time.

5. He is an excellent actor who stars in good movies more often than not. Born on the Fourth of July, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, and Rain Man, alone, prove his acting ability. Each required creating a different kind of character and he excelled each time.

6. He works well with other fine actors. Few players in his age group have co-starred with older actors or peers and benefitted from the pairing. Cruise has. He shares the spotlight instead of trying to steal it.

7. He doesn't try to sing. Most actors who do, can't.

8. He is the adoptive father of two mixed-race children born in America. Most white Americans are unwillinging to adopt children who have African or Indian ancestry, despite their claims of not having an iota of racial prejudice. Cruise should be commended for doing the right thing.

9. He makes charitable contributions to honorable organizations. Not U.S. English, the World Church of the Creator or the Republican Party. And, he does it without seeking attention.

10. He does not proselytize for Scientology. If a person is going to belong to a silly religion like Scientology, it is wise of him to not try to shove it down other people's throats.

Note: There is an immortal entry called "Ten Things I Hate About Tom Cruise" that has appeared on various weblogs for nearly a year, always eliciting numerous responses if the blog has a comments section. This is a response to it.

Incorrigible Alabama judge is neo-Confederate hero

The chief judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama has been suspended after he refused to remove the monument to the Ten Commandments he had installed in the foyer of the building where the Court is housed.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's chief justice was suspended for disobeying a federal court's order that he remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Yet, Saturday, the massive granite marker remained in place and there were no signs it would soon be moved.

Chief Justice Roy Moore, who installed the 5,300-pound monument two years ago, was suspended with pay Friday when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred an ethics complaint against him to the Court of the Judiciary, which can discipline and remove judges.

Moore had no immediate comment after the decision. His spokesman, Tom Parker, said his attorneys would respond to the complaint Monday.

Most followers of the news are aware of the chronology of this situation. Moore pandered to fundamentalist Christians to forward his career. His most notorious acts were installing the Ten Commandments in both the courtroom of the low level judgeship he held previously and in the Alabama high court after he was elected to it and became chief justice. The legal conflict occurred because installing the monument to religious mandates obviously violates the Constitution's ban on governmental promotion of a religion.

However, there is a subtext many readers may not be aware of that I've learned about from neo-Confederate sites. The federal judge who Moore has tried to provoke, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson , is African-American. That fact appears to have played a role in Moore's successful positioning of himself as a victim of political correctness and provides a look into the minds of his followers. Neo-Confederates assert that only white, Christian, property-owning males should be allowed to vote and hold authoritative positions in society. From their perspective, Thompson is ineligible to be a judge. Therefore, any ruling he makes is illegitimate.

The largest of the neo-Confederate groups, the League of the South, and its allies, would like to impose a theocratic government in the region. It would consist of Southern states which have seceded and be run by leaders of the neo-Confederate movement. The new government would support racism, gender discrimination and opposition to other religions.

Moore met with the [judicial] commission on Friday as about 100 of his supporters at the federal courthouse ripped and burned a copy of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order for the monument's removal.

He said he told the commission he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. He has said Thompson had no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

. . .Thompson ruled last year that the monument's placement in the public rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.

He ordered the monument removed by Wednesday - the same day the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for an emergency stay.

I don't know whether Moore is a member of the LOS, the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the Council of Conservative Citizens. However, Moore has spoken at a C of CC event on at least one occassion. He has become quite a hero in the eyes of the neo-Confederate movement. He is perceived as one of a vanguard of 'correct' leaders who must be supported if the movement's goals are to achieved. If, as is likely, he loses his battle to impose the Ten Commandments on the people of Alabama, he will become a martyr to the Cause to neo-Confederates.

A newsletter from the North Carolina LOS expresses the prevailing view.

It is important for every true patriot in this country to show their support for Judge Moore. We should all be writing letters to the editors of papers here and in Alabama.

We also need to contact groups that are raising money for the Judge's defense fund and donate, not just once, but every month until this case comes to an end.

But most importantly, we need to pray that God would protect this man and send America more like him.

We need true patriots, men who know what this country was founded on and are not afraid to defend what their ancestors gave them.

Not only is Confederate culture under attack, but increasingly America's Christian and Colonial heritage is being targeted by those in power as being too devisive [sic] to be tolerated anymore.

In the pleadings for the case, Moore has requested Thompson's removal without being explicit about why he wants him removed.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore accused a federal judge of bias in early October and asked him to step away from a lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building.?

In an affidavit, Moore said that U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson "has a pervasive and personal bias and prejudice against me in favor of plaintiffs, that Judge Thompson's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and that there exists an appearance of impropriety in these cases, warranting Judge Thompson's recusal."

Perhaps in private, Moore makes himself clear to the conservative Southern white people who are his main supporters.

Another thorn in the side of the neo-Confederates is that their archenemy, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a plaintiff in the case against Moore. The SPLC is the most prominent civil rights monitoring group in the country and known for winning judgments against racist activists, including the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan, groups that some neo-Confederate leaders have been affiliated with. They passionately hate the Center.

"The law is clear, and the evidence in this case was overwhelming," said Center chief trial counsel Morris Dees, who headed the Center's legal team in the case. "Chief Justice Moore clearly crossed the constitutional line that separates church and state. By hauling the monument into the judicial building, he intended to impose his own brand of Christianity on the state. This he cannot do."

The case was an important one for the Center. "We believe that Chief Justice Moore's conduct threatens the very values of tolerance and justice that form the core of the Center's mission," Dees said.

The main focus of sympathy for Moore is his support for establishing Christianity as the official religion of America. But, we must ask ourselves why would people want to do that. The answer, in a nutshell, is to turn by the clock. The neo-Confederates believe religion can be a weapon in their war to reestablish a more inequitable society.