of course I was sitting in probably one of the largest biotech centers in the us, watching the inauguration, and the "restore science to it's rightful place" BROUGHT THE FREAKIN' HOUSE DOWN. It was amazing, the entire auditorium exploded.

Like I said, I was sitting in the center of our microbial building, our newest one, and our campus is 90 percent science oriented. I mean, we're building a fuckin' stem cell clinic! It was sweet.

So I celebrated our new President, by changing my nose jewel from white to a lovely sapphire BLUE. We've FINALLY got a blue president. It's been eight LONG years.

I love that Prez Obama (WHOO!) acknowledged us nonbelievers.

woohoo! isn't the term "president obama" amazing to hear? Yes, it was AMAZING to hear him acknowledge nonbelievers too! Finally, fucking FINALLY a president I can look up to! And the committment to science is a godsend to me! I'm giddy.

I know, I was listening to NPR on during lunch today and they were saying "President Obama this" and "President Obama that" and I literally breathed a sigh of relief. I think I'd gotten so used to tuning out most news that mentioned "President Bush" to avoid mental anguish, that this is just so refreshing. It's just wonderful to know that there's someone competent at at our helm. I know there's no way he's going to live up to people's expectations, or get everything done that he wants to do, but at least I know decisions he makes and plans he lays out now are based on knowledge and thoughtfulness.

And now for your moment of Zen: I post on the wedding message boards over on Facebook and there are people there who are seriously concerned that Obama is the anti-Christ and that the world will be ending any day now. Then there was somebody griping about how Michelle Obama's inaugural dress and ball gown weren't 100% Made in the USA, and that was just appalling.

He's human. Of course he's not going to live up to everyone's expectations. You can find me singing "Cult of Personality" all the way to the bank!

I'm really hoping that the next hundred trillion times I hear "shrub" it's in reference to landscape. ha HA!

sometimes i really love chris matthews. today on 1600 pennsylvania ave, he said, "you go to war against the enemy, not a tactic... that's why obama doesn't believe in terrorism, it's a tactic, not an enemy. i think obama is smart enough to know that, bush wasn't."

Oh well. Even if he is, the world is ending on December 21, 2012 And we'll go to hell with some dignity.

I wish I could have watched the Inauguration as it happened, but term started THAT DAY and I was trapped in Physics. Damn it all.

hi j! good to see you!

someone was pointing out a very interesting point on the radio-- the stimulous packages that have all been discussed so far have been male oriented, granted that's kind of an overstatement, but they had a point. yes, yes, shovel ready construction is fine, but they pointed out that one of the inventive things tony blair did to jumpstart the economy in the uk, was to have childcare for working people. it would not only put lots of women to work, but also enable working mothers to have enough time to work too.

i'm curious what y'all think about that-- you know the relabeling of childcare as women's work, but also the possibilities of a national childcare system, and if you can think of other "feminine" areas to focus the stimulus package.....

(ok i will admit that last sentence was way too sexual, but it was unintentional, or unintentionally hilarious)

with the need of having 2 incomes in today's economy, i think the view of childcare as "women's work" is outdated now. my belief in feminism is that the personal is political or else we would not be fighting for the rights for reproductive rights, affordable healthcare, and the importance of research in women's health. childcare is a national issues. i think the lack of childcare limits not only women from the choice of working outside the home and daycare options, but, it also limits men from these same options of wanting to be home or being involved as a parent. children suffer because there are not alternative programs to keep them off the streets. there is no flexibility. all parents are affected, single parents and same sex parents. i don't want to sound like i'm talking about just heterosexual, married couples. if people are expected to work to support themselves and the economy, then how are we going to provide them affordable childcare so they can work and care for their children. i don't think childcare reform should be viewed as a "women's rights" cause, but as a "child's rights" issue. what is the country doing to care for its own? i am surprised by pres. obama's appointment of arnie duncan as american education administrator. his presence in the chicago public school system has been mixed. schools in low income, predominantly african american communities continue to close which require students to be bused to schools to communities farther away from home.

gosh. i don't think i made any sense. good topic, gt.

Hi GT! It's refreshing to come here and not hear a ton of anti-Obama rhetoric... My part of Texas still seems to be smarting, lol.
I personally think childcare for workers would be a really smart move. But I don't see it happening, unfortunately. Too many worthless fat cats will be taken care of, I think. I don't know of any female-oriented industries off the top of my head that can be stimulated. But I have to say, I'm delighted that Obama is reversing Bush's EO prohibiting funding to international groups that provide abortion info/services.
Tell me what you all think of this Guantanamo Bay business.. I'm having mixed feelings about it, and would like more views. So far I've only heard "OH NOES!! The prisoners at Gitmo will come and kill us!" and "Our standing with the rest of the world has been compromised because we aren't living up to our own values."

oh no, star, you made perfect sense-- i think that was what i was sort of wanting to say in my clumbsy way. the idea of childcare being "woman's work" is a throwback, but the idea of there being childcare is certainly one that would benefit women-- particularly single moms.

i raise the issue because i find it a bit distressing to see the same old ideas bandied about, and while i agree that childcare is hardly women's work, can we really deny that in many ways women would be the first in line, and there would be a proverbial lifting of all boats if childcare were a focus?

thing that gets me is in many ways an idea like this is more than shovel ready. the spaces used could be empty office buildings, that uncle same can give the owners tax breaks on. the jobs could be better than minimum wage which would bring new consumers on line in less than 3 months-- a shorter time scale than most of the road projects.

all the same, i can't see it happening as things now stand. the ideas touted now are all the same old, moldy, rotted discredited bs that old white men have said is needed since the start of this country. it is money flowing to the wealthy, trickle down dressed up. banks, finance and business are the first in line, with nothing left for anything else.

that said, do we not have an advantage? i think most women can instantly see the virtue of the idea i was talking about, and even now, they are in positions of power. if we work to 'put this bee in their bonnet' so to speak, would they not be fantastic advocates for it? i am thinking there are two female congresspeople in my state alone, there is hillary, michelle obama, but i think if we talk to them, if we show them that we think the idea is a good one it could take flight. i could be overly optimistic, but i would so like to see this. i really think it would transform america.

***************



i think the best take on G bay is one i heard yesturday. let's say that we have the worst of the worst in at GB, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. are you telling me we couldn't handle them in our prisons? we've got serial killers, people who don't need bombs and followers, who will kill people and eat them, and we can't handle a terrorist? please. republicans act like they are super evil boogie men who have super powers like they would hypnotize people to pull another 9/11. the worst of the worst still depend on having followers, and they are still at heart logistics men, and ideologues. if we prove that they are evil, what could they do in a supermax prison where they don't get contact with another human? i heard some other republican talking about how our prison system would be overwhelmed. really? there are only 200 some prisoners left. how would they overwhelm our prisons? it's all just more of their scare tactics. even if they broke out, it's not like they'd blend in. they don't even speak the language, for fucksake.

Obama lifts the global gag rule!

w00t!

i can't believe how fast he's acting on reversing some bush policies. i can't believe the sanity is returning to the US.

Just last night I was explaining to Sheff about the gag rule. It was so great to tell him when he came home that the gag order had been reversed! I didn't see anything about it on the nightly news, but that' because they were busy talking about all the other things that happened today (especially stem cell research).

Cod, it's so crazy all this stuff that's being fixed in the last three days. The gag rule, the stem cell research, the transparency policies he's putting into effect for lobbyists....my head is spinning with joy.

Unfortunately, I think the work of childcare is really still done overwhelmingly by women, and it is mostly done as unpaid work. The burden of providing childcare is still very firmly on women's shoulders--and it is taken for granted by our society that women bear this responsibility. Not just when they're of childrearing age, either: many grandmothers raise their grandchildren free of charge so that their sons and daughters can work full time in order to survive.

I think I have some idea why it is that childcare/daycare is not provided here in North America, for free, and in a uniform, high quality way (even as part of the education system). I know in Canada people have been waiting for this "promise" since the end of the second world war--no doubt that promise was made in the US as long ago as then too. A few years ago I had an opportunity to travel to Italy to study economic cooperatives, and looked at the structure of the economic model there--we met with labour union heads in various industries (metal workers, education workers, utility workers, etc). All of them said, without exception, that the labour union and the idea of economic democracy could never have taken hold in that country if free, high quality day care was not made a reality.

It freed up more than half of the population to devote time to their higher education goals and their careers (women!) and when they did become full time employees, their added numbers gave everyone much more strength in terms of labour law. Women can leave their children in day care starting at 6 months; since it's part of the education system, the kids are actually schooled in preschool programs people here pay thousands of dollars for per year (it's Montessori, after all). The standards for the day care providers are really high and they're paid much more than people doing that work here, with full benefits and pensions and training. Everyone pays for most of the cost through taxes, it's subsidized.

So, yes, things would really change for women and for workers if daycare were high quality and fully accessible--lots more jobs to build and provide the daycare, lots more freedom for women to go out and make themselves able to earn money and build careers, much better educated and socialized children...and ultimately, many more people in the work force who can have a say in the way they're paid and the way they work. Tony Blair is not considered a great Prime Minister at all, but he has been very successful with one important thing: putting money into the "Pink Collar" work so that child poverty could be virtually eliminated in that country. It's only become exponentially worse in Canada in the last twenty years, with no change in the trajectory in sight. Same in the US.

I don't think North America has wanted that change to take place, especially over the last 20 years or so (because of "globalization", and specifically, the kind of globalization governments have wanted to establish here). What they've in got in Italy (and that's one example, other countries have similar programs) is not ideal by any means, but it is far better than what's available here.

Oh, yes, and when they set it up (it took years and didn't happen overnight) they were war torn--no economy, no industry, devastated, poor. It didn't happen overnight, but it was made a priority because it was seen as a means to create prosperity. So, in our case, the only thing that's held us back has been political will--the money has always been there, it still is. It's just being used to subsidize other interests. Special ones, with lobbyists.

I think GT is right about putting that Bee in the Obama administration's bonnet. It's a crucial one. In fact, I think everything else will only have limited, temporary effects on the economy until the "Pink Collar" work (education, health care, child care, the service industry) is given a real boost.

um, as if i didn't already love you, cha....you just made my heart skip a beat.

obama talks a good game about government from the bottom up, but there's been precious little of that, he seems to take his cues more from congress than from the people, which is sad. if congress people had the solutions, wouldn't they have been implementing them all this time?

that said, i think they-- congress women -- are the key. contact them. press them on the idea. only time can tell if obama turns out to be a great president. after the last 8 years, i hope that he is, but this sort of change-- more than most of the projects they propose -- in my opinion, has the chance to change opportunities for women forever in this country.

can someone pls link to the obama stem cell research business? i haven't heard anything about this and am having trouble searching for news briefs. plus, i'm too bleary wiping tears of joy from gitmo and the gag rule.

Now that I go back and read the article bunny posted, it actually said, "In a separate move earlier on Friday, US regulators cleared the way for the world's first study on human embryonic stem cell therapy. While the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration is independent of White House control, Mr Obama is widely expected to adopt a more pragmatic and science-oriented approach to stem cell research."

So it's not something Obama actually did, but at least he's expected to support it.

you can skip the obama quarters, dollars and plates, etc, and go straight to this:
oreally? obama!

(and yes it is real)

I don't know, but that release date is awfully suspicious!


<3! to you, GT!

The funniest thing about this link is under the "customers who bought this also bought" there are a pair of crocs mammoth clogs.

about the stem cells thang, they are using the lines of stem cells that were created before the 2001 ban,
The ban allowed researchers to get federal funding if they used these limited lines of stem cells created before 01, anyone that wanted to create new lines of stem cells had to get private funding. In response to this states started funding their own stem cell research with California being the first state to do so. Geron, the company that is doing the testing also has private funding as well.


the study is seeking to make sure that the procedure is safe and efficacy is their secondary focus.If they find the procedure to be safe ( injecting embryonic stem cells into spinal cord injuries ) that may lead to more human testing and a repeal of the ban. Thank goodness for Science Friday on NPR.

Now I have go back and change the notes I give to my students about stem cells.

y'know, the stem cell thing affects me DIRECTLY in two different ways....the UW, where I work, and repair equipment, is very involved in stem cell research. So much involved that they are already building a stem cell clinic. Seriously. It's called the "institute for discovery".

And, stem cell research is promising developments in repair of brain injuries and cures for the particular form of deafness that I have. I really hope Obama "restores science to its rightful place", indeed.

chacha, thanks for writing all that about free high-quality daycare. It's incredibly interesting. Definitely something to urge like-minded friends to contact their Congresscritters about.

Chia Obama - bwahaha! Comes in both "Happy" and "Determined"!

I've been reading a lot of Obsidian Wings lately for good quality political commentary. They haven't posted anything on stem cells yet though.

tree,
Wisconsin is a state that has funded stem cell research, as my home state of Illinois, New Jersey and some others I can't think of off the top of my head

Squeeeee!!
Obama kicks more ass every day

Two steps forward, one step back:

Family Planning Stripped from Stimulus Bill

That's particularly irritating, especially considering that those idiots who caused the economic collapse are doing just what we thought they would - taking bonuses! It's like they don't even realize 1) What the hell just happened with our economy and 2) Where the money will be coming from. Bastards.

The cowards who donated money to help pass Prop 8 don't want the world to know who they are. Are they not proud of what they've done?? I'm of the opinion that people should put their name on their work.

what does everyone think about the New Republican Party Chairman.

Honestly, I think the GOP is trying to make the "shit sandwich" look more appealing (anyone else watch the Daily Show ).

post post

yeah i love the daily show's take on it. 'specially the tickle me elmo bit. but i think he won more out of attrition rather than any sort of urge of the republicans to reach out or be inclusive or even to "black wash." i think it was more a matter of mr. steele seeing an opportunity and going for it. but he's no better than the other black republicans who they put up for office. (anyone remember alan keyes? lol.) they are shills, little more. i will say this, he does have a certain amount of intellectual gravitas. i heard him doing an interview on local radio after obama came thru, and he seemed to delight in knocking him. i think there was a fair bit of jealousy. the unfortunate thing is the white people (sorry white people) in the audience seemed to take him at...uh... face value. but many of his arguments were straw dogs, and easily refutable to most black folk.

i find it funny tho, that he seems to be mimicking much of what obama says in a republican vein. it will be interesting to see how long he is chair, how much lattitude they give him, and if he is more than a figurehead.

Leslie Hagen, one of the U.S. Attorney's fired under Alberto Gonzalez, reportedly because she was a lesbian, has been re-hired.

ok, i'll admit, i'm a gloomy gus. as much as i was a cheerleader for obama before election, i am terribly skeptical of him now. i honestly think he is way to conservative for what we need now. that said, watching his press conference, it's so nice not to have a president who is talking out of his ass, trying to do a song and dance because he doesn't have a clue.

i am sooooo happy that we've got an articulate policy wonk as president. hooo-ray for longwinded, detailed answers to short questions.


but BOOOOOOOO! for him not having the bawls to say that he is going to lift the ban on coffin pix. you're the fucking president. pix were taken during WW2, korea and vietnam, what the fuck is different now that says there shouldn't be those photos now. it's not even 4 weeks and you are caving on transparency. and this is sooooo light on the scale of things. that you couldn't just give an answer is a point against you. grow some spine barry, grow some spine. this is a no-brainer. there is no excuse for this. *throws a shoe* booooo!
(good hustle for the reporter who asked the question, tho.)

oh, gt, i was wondering what everyone thought of his speech tonight. i will say that i'm impressed with how vocal pres. barack is so far. it was nice to see him leave the white house to motivate the passing of the stimulus bill. it will be smart of him (and his approval ratings) if he keeps himself involved with the public by leaving the white house throughout his presidency.

as for the coffins pix ban, why would you want the ban lifted? i'm not too informed on this topic. i did read little about it by googling the topic. not sure how the coffin pix ban would affect the public? i'm curious about your view on this one.

it's a matter of moral honesty. in this country we never see anything of war. we bomb whole villages thru a video screen, never seeing a drop of blood, or any of it's aftermath. our soldiers are sequestered on bases, hidden from view. consequently we have no problem starting and continuing wars as long as need be. we never give it a second thought. we never deal with war's nastiness so the idea that most of our tax budget goes towards war making machines. we never bat an eye.

i think that if we go to war, we need to see the carnage, we need to see the blood. we need to understand the damage we do fully, not pretend it does not exist. the thing that turned americans against the vietnam war was the photos, of coffins, of dead bodies, of the violence. without that we kill and kill and kill and never feel it.

we need to understand the blood that is being shed.

when bush instituted that ban it wasn't to shield the families, it was to keep the population ignorant of the deaths. it went hand in hand with censoring photogs that were in the field. democracy depends on an informed populace-- particularly when we are at war. censorship-- especially government censorship is an anathema to what this country is about, and this-- the dropping of this ban is to tiny but it means so much more. for a constitutional scholar like obama there should be no question, no hesitation, no hedging....

but all he gave was the bullshit answer. there will be no review, because if he wants to remain popular, people can't see the evil that we do over there.


*sigh* i'm rootin' for the guy, believe me, i just want him to do the right thing.

I'm a little shocked to hear Obama hasn't done anything about that ban, it kind of makes me question his committment to terminating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan any time soon.

The idiot Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to pull that ban several times, the first time with Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan several years ago--particularly the ones killed by American soldiers. This was a "first batch" of casualties from American attack, and apparently this strike was foolishly orchestrated with Canadian soldiers seen as "expendables"...and naturally the Canadian government would have been in on such a maneuvre at some level, even if only strategically. When those coffins came into the country and the press were not allowed to publish news or photographs (of even the planes in the terminal) the families of the dead soldiers roared. They talked to anyone in the press who would listen and publicize them, they published on line, they talked to anyone they could and made the stories and images public--along with the outrage of "expendable" troops. They made the PM and the press wish they'd gone ahead and let the news come in.

Now we get press "coverage" of the funerals, more often than not--rarely anything like what was coming in in those earlier wars. GT's so right--if we don't see the reality of those images, we don't have any idea what is taking place. I also think that our not being aware of what's happening to soldiers and civilians in theatre is having a massive effect on the soldiers who return home after their tour is completed. I hear of so many committing suicides and murders now and I can't prove it but I know it has something to do with our profound ignorance because of the imposed silence about what they're living through.

While I can agree that we need to see what is happening, and have a concrete feel for the deaths to American soldiers - along with the Iraqi/Afghan casualties, I think this is one area where a compromise can be met. If the families sign a waiver, let the photogs snap away. If they would prefer their privacy, then they've earned that.

IMHO, the difference in the photogs of today vs. those of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, is the media today is a 24/7 bombardment of information. If it was my brother/sister/son/daughter/mother/father killed in action, the last thing in the world I would want to see is a picture or video of them being carried off the plane in a coffin.

Lift the outright ban, let the families of the fallen decide.

i like your compromise hoosierman. a soldier's choice to join in the military should not be used to publicize someone's else's opinion on the war--pro or con. i think a waiver would make a good compromise. i will admit my own bias of veteran's since i worked with them in the past and want to continue to work with the veteran population.

sorry,i disagree. i don't really see why the families should have to sign a waver. it's not as if they are opening up the coffins and snapping pix of the corpse.

this is about knowing, seeing the price of war. you say that if it was your loved one you wouldn't want their coffin to be seen, but let me ask you this: is it better that they be faceless, nameless, that their sacrifice was erased? that all they worked for be whitewashed so more would die needlessly for a war that should have never been? that they be made accomplices in our government keeping the truth of war from us? they gave their lives because they believed in this country, and now our government simply sweeps them under the carpet as if they were nothing. as if they were nothing but an inconvenience. that they would treat soldiers so cavalierly-- i find that utterly insulting.

and while i always love to see you post and the fantastic pov you bring to the lounge, i completely disagree with you on the idea that our media is a 24/7 bombardment of the war. when was the last time you saw a dead body? when was the last time you saw a soldier just after a bomb or injury? the war has been utterly sanitized. if there is war coverage it is a meta-conversation. it's talking about talking about the war. talking about if obama is going to end the war is not talking about the war. talking about conditions in one of the provences in iraq is not talking about the war. how many casualties we have is about the war. how many civilians died is about the war, people going over or coming back is about the war. real conditions on the ground is about the war. anything else is just pundits talking. as shakes said: sound and fury signifying NOTHING.

i will make you a challenge: watch the evening news. count every time they talk about the war. i will bet in a week you will be luck to get two mentions of the actual war as specified above.

look back at vietnam, or korea. what are the most indelible images? the ones from the battlefield, the carnage, the brutality. the pictures of people with guns to their heads. the dismembered bodies, villiages strewn with bodies. what is the most identifiable image we have of this war? abu ghraib. a scrubbed space far away from battle. you may ask why people should have to see the violence of war, my question is, why should our soldiers be the only ones who have to face what they are being asked to do in our name? why should they be the only ones to pay the price? to have nightmares?

yeah i think obama is not that different from bush in some rather disgusting ways:

abc news :Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit



and speaking of american censorship: Media Watchdog Urges Obama To Stop Detention Of Journalists By US

i still don't see how overturning the ban would change leadership or the public's view on war. if we were able to see images prior, then it doesn't seem like it influenced a person's decision to enter a war or the concept of the outcome of war. i don't think that contributes to your theory. i mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there will be bloodshed and dead bodies as a result of war.

i wouldn't anticipate the ban being overturned because michelle obama has expressed an interest in servicing military families. while, i can see your point of view gt, i don't think so many people would feel lifting the ban would be in support of the soldiers.

support of the soldiers is not as important as the dropping of government censorship.

if you do not understand the difference pictures make, then think of abu ghraib. there were rumors of abuse before that, after the photos were released (and there are worse ones out there) the public was galvanized. the difference is public opinion. the difference is an abstraction as opposed to the details of the reality.

i find it astounding, utterly astounding that people would think government censorship in this-- or any other affair is acceptable. it just boggles my mind. does this country stand for nothing?

i find it even more astounding that after the secrecy we've had the last 8 years, that our new president who came into office talking all this rah-de-rah about openness and transparency and he is doing nothing differently.

the link below-- about extrodinary rendition is simply the censorship of the coffins taken to it's logical conclusion-- that the government doesn't need to to share ANYTHING with the populace it governs. that even the legistative or judical branches cannot be trusted. this is not just dangerous and scary and this is fully something obama had ultimately had a say in. yet he took the same stance as bush-- that to even discuss any part the case could reveal state secrets. an absurd assertion, considering much of it is already public knowledge.

very, very disappointing. what is it that they say?

" absolute power......

gt, i found this article about the revisit to the coffin ban.

thank you, star! have i told you how wonderful you are?

that was a good article, but i don't really see the respect angle-- this is the first war we've waged where the photos were not allowed? have we really become so squeamish about war? look at the photo with that accompanied that story. was it in anyway disrespectful? is there any way it could be disrespectful? there's not. what we are talking about here is understanding scale. the scale of the deaths, in censoring these photos that scale remains abstract.




ETA: have you seen the footage of obama comforting the homeless woman in indiana? watch the white haired woman to the left, she mouths "i love you barak!" slays me.

drive-by posting, but

I could have sworn my American history prof said that the tide of public opinion against the Vietnam War turned in large part (if not the major part) due to pic after pic after pic of the coffins and body bags coming back home. I haven't got time to look it up now, so I could be misremembering, but I doubt it. Pics cause visceral reactions that text and abstract knowledge can't. The point about media hypersaturation is interesting though since we certainly are bombarded with images of violence and gore, but even so, seems to me that real pics of real flag-draped coffins would bring the true cost of war home on a massive scale to ordinary Americans who don't have loved ones over there themselves.

I mean, ok, even accepting the point about respect for families (but like GT I'm not clear on how photos of anon flag-draped coffins = disrespect), the ban simultaneously goes hand in glove with the shift in te past couple of decades towards sanitizing how the public hears about and literally sees this war. Language ("friendly fire", "collateral damage") and erasure of visuals distances, abstracts, and in a way, absolves (of the responsibility for educating oneself about how ineptly the war and "rebuilding" were prosecuted and the consequent cost in American lives. (not to mention the mental health of the ones who survive, and their people back home who have to cope with it - sorry Star, I know you far know more about this than I do but I just, the damage that Bush and the rest of his buddies in their towers have done to ordinary people who trusted them, gah). Distances ordinary Fox-watching AMericans I mean, not anybody here, because Busties actually think about things instead of just ingesting, regardless of our disagreements.

2x post

if my memory serves it was a combination of "teach-ins" to educate the public and photos.

aw, thanks gt! that's why i appreciate you 'cause you are willing to have a decent discussion about politics. i feel bad that i didn't know about the coffin pics ban. so, i needed to have a discussion to come to some clarity about the situation. the article i found through yahoo was great. i like what John Ellsworth, president of Military Families United who lost a son in Iraq in 2004, said about the survivors' decision regarding whether the coffins should be photographed.

"We don't necessarily think it should be banned. I think they could modify it to give a little latitude to the families," Ellsworth said several weeks ago. "Some people want to celebrate the lives of their fallen, and share their fallen hero with the American people, while others want to hold them a little closer to the vest and keep it private. We should respect that. It shouldn't be up to the government to hide these images to the public," he said. "But at the same time, I don't know that we can allow the press to overstep the bounds of good taste in some of these instances."

I didn't put the connection between the Bush's administration to hide the truth about this current war and the outcome of war with the respect of the fallen soldiers. If that sentence makes sense. John Kerry is an excellent advocate for veterans, being a veteran himself. I felt good knowing Kerry is trying to get the ban lifted. The veterans I worked with felt Kerry was extremely responsive to them.