"Buy Blue Buy Blue Buy Blue Buy Blue"

Blue voters now urged to buy blue

By Jennifer Skalka
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 14, 2004

For despondent Democrats there's a new treatment, if not a cure, for their lingering Election Day blues. Think retail therapy.

A Web site called Choose the Blue is offering shopping advice this holiday season, providing information about which companies' employees give to Democrats and which prefer Republicans.

Costco workers gave more to Democrats, for example, while Wal-Mart's preferred Republicans, according to campaign finance records. Donna Karan's people lean left. Fruit of the Loom's give to the right.

For Ann and Bill Duvall, the site's creators, Nov. 3 brought great disappointment--and a call to action.

"We woke up that morning just really devastated and depressed, and in some ways I'm grateful that we came up with this idea because that's where we've been able to put our energy," Ann Duvall, 56, said.

So Choose the Blue is self-help meets activism meets consumerism. Its goal is to shift vast amounts of wealth to people who support the Democrats' cause.

Using information from the Federal Election Commission Web site and the Center for Responsive Politics site, www.opensecrets.org, the Duvalls give their fellow Democrats a gift that could keep on giving.

"If each American who voted for John Kerry spends $100 in 2005 on a blue company instead of a red company, we can move $5 billion away from Republican companies and add $5 billion to the income of companies who donate to Democrats," they say on the site.

In the few weeks since the Duvalls launched the site, it has gained growing notice in the blogosphere. Blogs with names like Angryfinger point to it for inspiration. The Duvalls have heard that their effort was mentioned on Air America, the liberal radio station.

Within days of the election, the Duvalls asked 10 of their friends to review their Web site and tell them what worked and what didn't. Whether the friends spread the word or bloggers stumbled upon the unpublicized Choose the Blue site is unclear. But shortly thereafter the Duvalls, who split their time between Silicon Valley and Idaho, started getting e-mails from strangers thanking them for their work.

At its peak, the site received more than 300,000 hits in one day, said Ann Duvall, a mother of three and grandmother of four. Typically between 100,000 and 200,000 sets of eyes peruse it daily.

"This is not a boycott," said Bill Duvall, a software creator who was involved in the transmission of the first e-mail message 35 years ago. "... It's just that we believe it's possible to direct some of your spending so we can begin to at least even the playing field."

Choose the Blue breaks down its information into categories such as automotive, consumer electronics, retail shopping and fashion, and sports. The site's tallies also include gifts from companies to political action committees. The figures for the companies and their employees show the total percentages and dollar amounts given to Republican and Democratic candidates or causes.

Choose the Blue is joined in cyberland by Buy Blue, a site with a similar mission. Its mantra is: "In today's America there's a more powerful act than voting blue, and that's buying blue." It also urges people to have a "blue Christmas" and says: "Find out which businesses have been naughty and which have been nice. Shop accordingly!"

Though experts applaud the initiative taken by creators of these sites, they aren't sure their strategy is sound. After all, Republicans too can take advantage of the information they're providing.

"The question that remains then is which side does a better job of spreading the word to those who are most likely to act on it," said Eszter Hargittai, an assistant professor of sociology at Northwestern University and a faculty fellow in the Institute for Policy Research.

Richard Feinberg of Purdue University said most people don't make their shopping decisions based on personal ideology. They look for the best bargains or the most convenient stores.

"The handful of people that it might influence are already boycotting or not spending money on businesses that they think go against their political grain," said Feinberg, director of the school's Center for Customer Driven Quality. "It's not going to change a neutral person."

Although innovative and purposeful, Choose the Blue illustrates something perhaps unintended about some of the people who voted for Sens. Kerry and John Edwards. As exhausting and frustrating as the loss was for them, they're not done fighting.

Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a Washington, D.C., non-profit, said Choose the Blue is ultimately a sign of that discontent. Gans said the Democrats' future success, however, would not depend on the power of smaller movements. He said the party must re-evaluate its purpose, and with temperatures still high after a close election, raising money won't be its main challenge.

"I think the important thing is for the Democrats to define who they are and to develop a grass-roots organization that isn't dependent on other groups," Gans said.

Still, the power and reach of the blogosphere--the vast universe of Web logs viewed by countless people--is evident in the growing popularity of the Duvalls' site. Already, the couple has been threatened with legal action by one company, which the Duvalls declined to name, that was unhappy with its mention on the site.

Bill Duvall, 59, said the blogosphere promotes the very essence of democracy by giving people a voice who wouldn't normally have one. It provided him and his wife--who are now semiretired--with a prime outlet for their post-election political expression.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

"3am or 4am or 5am"

Lately, the strangest thing has been happening with my alarm clock. Okay, it's not really an alarm clock per se. It's actually an old cell phone with an alarm clock capability. I know, how truely pathetic, or certainly odd, that I use an old cell phone as my alarm clock instead of just getting a "real" alarm clock. Well, I have issues (Ha!). I looked for a long time for a real alarm clock I could live with. You see, I hate those digital ones because the light from the LED displays keeps me awake. And, almost anything that isn't digital tends to tick. That ticking drives me crazy, no rest. I eventually found this beautiful crystal clock in a thrift store for a meager amount of cash and bought it before I realized it wasn't an alarm clock at all. For awhile, I was using the alarm clock in my microwave but since that is all the way in the kitchen, I feared not really hearing it. Although, the truth is, I almost always wake up before the alarm clock goes off. Of course, that doesn't mean I want to get up. Also, my "actual" cell phone actualy doesn't have an alarm feature. Life is way too complicated, or I just make it so. So, the strange thing that's been happening lately (no, it isn't everything I've already mentioned) is that the alarm has been going off at 6am, which is when it's set for, but not the "real" 6am. See, quite a few times lately I've been woken by the alarm and the cell phone clock reads 6am while the alarm is sounding but, then, I hit STOP and the clock reads 3am or 4am or 5am. Is that not odd? How could the cell phone's regular clock be correct but the alarm clock be off? Yes, I suppose I should get a "real" alarm clock and be done with it. Maybe I should get one of those fold-up travel clocks that are LED but the screen isn't lighted. Of course, ideally, it would be better if I didn't have to go somewhere else to work. You know, work at home and get up at my leisure. Ah dreams! Oh shit, my boss is giving me the evil eye. Back to "real" work.

"Sources Who've Said It Better Than I"

Last evening, I was out with my friend Charlotte and I was talking about my recent postings on this site regarding homosexuality and the Bible. I was telling her how I often take on subjects both here and in school (grad school) that on the outset are very interesting but once I begin doing the work, turn out to be extremely time consuming. Unfortunately, time is something I have in short supply these days. So, I've decided to give you some resources that I have found in my research who pretty much have this issue covered. However, it's true that they do not cover it in the way I set out to do. Meaning, the issue is covered in taking apart the typical scriptures in the Bible that have been used (abusively) against the community in suppot of the Fundamentalist Christian's view that homosexuality is somehow ungodly. If you are truely interested in this subject and want to be able to talk about it effectively, then I would urge you to look at these sources. As you know, if you've been keeping up with my own exploration in this, I had proposed to look at it through Christ's own words and actions. This, as far as I know, has not been done previously. I think this is an area I'd like to look at more closely down the road but right now I'm way too swamped with thesis work and the daily grind.

Homosexuality and the Bible debunked:

1. The Truth(my title) by Miss Poppy Dixon
2. Meaning and Consequences from The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry
3. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak. Alamo Square Press ISBN#0-9624751-9-X

"Tryptophan Blues"

Ah, Thanksgiving. Usually, I feel fairly relaxed after the four-day weekend. However, when two of those days are spent long-distance driving in a car that hurts your back just after an hour into the drive, then your left with just the minimal two day weekend to relax and that is never enough. My Thanksgiving began with two inches of snow plopped upon my car and the doors were frozen shut! I've never had to deal with that before. The last time I had a car, I had a garage to put it in. I'm beginning to wonder how I'm going to deal with this new issue this winter. Any ideas? I guess I'll need one of those key-chain de-icers and an electric starter. Gods, I hate this climate!

Down in the right-wing conservative Christian Republican South, where I spent turkey day, the living is very slow like a so-cal beach town. Okay, probably not quite like that but maybe like a Faulkner novel. Yeah, that's actually pretty close. Anyway, we had sixty or so folks and a spread of food like you've never seen, even on a Vegas buffet! Three turkeys, two hams, and entire crock-pots filled with just one side dish like mashed potatoes, greens, beans, mac and cheese, dumplings, gravy, and corn. The sweet potato caserole was good enough to have for dessert but as far as southerners are concerned it's just a side dish. The sweets table, yes table, had so many pies and cakes that some weren't even touched. And, of course, there were drinks everywhere. An ice bucket in every corner with cokes (we call every kind of soda coke whether it is or not) and pitchers of sweetend ice-tea.

The festivities took place way out in the hills of Tennessee in a wee little town called Pleasant Shade. Kids ran about everywhere but, thankfully, had two rooms sequestered off for themselves upstairs. The adults were basically broken up into two groups. Most of the older women stayed together and chatted (gossiped) about anything and everything/one. While the guys crowded around the TV watching the TN vs. KY game. And what a game it was! TN came back to win in the final 20 seconds. The guys about brought the roof down with their hollerin.

It seems to me that if we close up shop for two days, plus the weekend, every Thanksgiving that we might as well close up for the week. I don't know about you but my work ethic had already gone on vacation last Monday morning. Now, I'm just counting down the days until the Xmas break. 2 weeks away! I'm doing it right this year. One week in Florida and one in California. How will I ever come back?

"WWJD"

While I’ve been researching this topic, I’ve come across a few very good resources for anyone wanting to understand the complex issue of the Bible’s view on homosexuality. I say the Bible’s view because it very clearly differs from the many sects of Christians. I’ve also had to consider how I could proceed with this research without revisiting the same ground that has been previously covered by scholars better qualified than I. What most scholars have done in order to dispel the unfair interpretations of Biblical texts to attack homosexuals is visit each commonly used text and apply the historical-critical approach to discover the original meaning and intention of the scripture. I would say this method is fairly effective if you are a BIble scholar but that it misses if you aren’t. What I’d like to do is to take a close look at the words of Christ. After all, isn’t his life’s example the very basis of Christianity? I will look at what he said, what he taught, and how he lived his life (according to the scriptures). I don’t believe homosexuality ever comes up in his teaching but, more importantly, what did he teach about how Christians are to treat other people (ie, non-Christians)? What did he teach about how Christians are to behave in the world? Who is eligible to be a Christian? Who were Christ’s friends and associates? I believe if there are to be any lasting answers to this issue, they must be found through Christ’s words and not through other Biblical texts. To the true Christian, it doesn’t matter what is written in the old testament except as an historical record, because when Christ died for sin, he symbolically wiped the slate clean for all and created a new way to salvation that was not to be based upon laws. I believe Christ realized that as long as man (humankind) was involved in the picture, the picture would always be subject to corruption. I believe Christ also knew that not all laws applied to all equally. They never do. Whether one believes in Christ as the Son of God, or simply as an enlightened teacher, I think that when his life is looked at closely it’ll reveal a commonsensical approach to human behavior and interaction that respects the differences and celebrates the relations. I also realize this journey may take awhile. I may not be able to write a sequential number of posts on just this topic but I hope to present as much as I can, periodically, as I come across it. Bare with me.

"Literal vs. Historical-Critical Interpretation"

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the texts of the Bible. The literal and the historical-critical. The literal approach attempts to interpret the texts just as they are without taking into account the various translations, or interpretations, that have shaped Biblical ideology throughout the centuries. This is the approach of the fundamentalist. The idea is that the text can be interpreted at any time throughout the ages because of the inerrancy and relevatory nature of the scriptures. Therefore, according to this method, it doesn't matter that the texts have been reinterpreted and translated because the essential meaning, or the intended, is retained. What is most interesting about this approach is that there isn't a seminary, theological school, or other academic institution that offers degrees in theology which endorses this approach because it is logically unsound. In no other aspect of contemporary society would one accept the surface meaning of a word from any language without looking at the various aspects that go into the creation and evolution of the word. This contradiction brings one to the other approach, and, consequently, the one used in all institutions of higher learning, which is the historical-critical approah. Under this method, one first looks at the original understanding of a word or phrase as it applies to its original use and the period in which it was used. Then, one must trace the evolution of the word, if, in fact, it is still in use in the contemporary period for which it is being applied. If it is, then one must find attributable evidence to show that the word carries the same connotations that it had in its inception. However, if the word has evolved, or gone out of use, then one either must trace the reasons that led to its evolvement to a new understanding (definition), or discern why the archaic nature of the word led to its disuse in contemporary language. The ultimate answers under both scenarios will lead the interpreter to a broader understanding of how the word, or phrase, in question can be applied to contemporary society.

It's true that the historical-critical approach takes much more work to decipher what a word, or phrase, means. I tend to believe that the literal approach was created with the intention of bringing Biblical interpretation to the layman in a way that made it accessible and not so daunting. Unfortunately, the literal approach is based on an unstable thesis because the supposed inerrancy of the Bible cannot be maintained after so many interpretations from previous interpretations. There is a type of poetic art called the mistranslation. This form of poetry can be very funny, or, at times, better than the original but the poem "mistranslated" is in no way related to the original text. This process works best with poems written in a language unknown to the translator who, then, attempts to formulate words in their own language based on how the foreign words sound when sounded out. Of course, any real translation of the poem under these circumstances would be pure folly. How can one translate what they don't understand? The art is in discovering what the poet can create. However, I would argue that there is no art in misinterpreting the Bible based on ignorance of the texts and then teaching the misinterpretation as "the word of God."

"The Truth about Homosexuality and the Bible"

I’ve about had it with the Christian Right singling out the GLBT community and basing their religious propaganda on misinterpretations of Biblical texts. I’m going to spend some time on this blog researching what the Bible actually has to state about homosexuality, if anything. I, like many people in the GLBT community (from here on out “the community” will be understood as the GLBT community), was raised in a Judeo-Christian family and taught to believe in the Word of God. However, I quickly discovered that under contemporary interpretations, I had no place in my own familial religious tradition. It was then that I began to look at other religions the world over, including non-Christian religions, and found that not every religion had such a dim view of people in the community. Although, what was more fascinating was the similarity between many of the monotheistic traditions and that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. All of these monotheistic traditions had some sort of process in order to reach their godhead, whether it be through sacrifice, ritual, faith, behavior, and/or knowledge. However, I’m always drawn back to the Judeo-Christian because I find it to be the most disturbing. Why are there so many sects of Christians? How can they justify using differing interpretations of the Bible? What is the difference between the various interpretations? Is it logical to base an interpretation on previously translated and interpreted text? And, why were so many texts left out of the Bible? Who made the ultimate decision on what texts would make up the Bible? There are a lot of questions here and surely more will arise along the way to the answers. Unfortunately, I cannot cover them all and, at this time, need to focus on the question of what bases, if any, does the Christian Right have for their assertions that to be gay is somehow ungodly, sinful, or an abomination? I feel I’ll have to touch on the issue of choice, in that, some people still believe that people in the community have chosen to be what they are and could easily change if only they would choose to do so. This is a ridiculous notion. No one chooses to be gay. It was never our choice. It’s part of what we are, our psyche, and our soul. It’s amazing how intolerant the Christian-Right is of people that are different from them. Where does all their hypocrisy and hatred stem from? They will say the Bible. I will say “look again.”

This research will be explored in three parts. The first part will look at how the Bible has been and is interpreted. The second part will explore passages in the Bible that have been attributed as sanctions against homosexuality. And in the third, I’ll try to reconcile the interpretations, Biblical texts, and the contemporary stance on homosexuality. Please check back next week for Biblical Interpretations 101.

"A letter of hope and a letter of grief"

HOPE:

Friday, November 5th, 2004
17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by
Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.

Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:

1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.

2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.

4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)

5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.

6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes!

7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.

8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.

9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.

10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't.

11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!

12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.

13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.

14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.

15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.

16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!!

17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.

Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country  -- it doesn't even need a president!'"

But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

GRIEF:

The Costs of War
by VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS
[from the November 22, 2004 issue]

Almost a year ago, Tom Engelhardt, the editor of tomdispatch.com, began a correspondence with Teri Wills Allison, a mother from Texas whose son is in the military in Iraq. Out of that grew an invitation to Allison to write about how the situation personally affected her as a parent. The resulting essay, published in mid-October at tomdispatch.com, brought a flood of e-mail, selections from which Engelhardt also published at the site. "One thing struck me," Engelhardt said in introducing the letters. "Amid all the pundits opining and journalists reporting on the state of the nation, we almost never hear the voices of Americans who, like Teri Allison, have to deal with the fallout from the mess this Administration has created." Engelhardt said he was also struck by the offers of help directed to Allison and some of the people she wrote about. In their generosity of spirit, he wrote, the responses "offer a kind of hope and renewal all their own." With the permission of all those involved, and with thanks to tomdispatch.com, a project of The Nation Institute, we offer Allison's letter and a sampling of the responses.   --The Editors

TERI WILLS ALLISON The Nation

Teri Wills Allison, a massage therapist and a member of Military Families Speak Out, lives near Austin, Texas.

I am not a pacifist. I am a mother. By nature, the two are incompatible, for even a cottontail rabbit will fight to protect her young. Violent action may well be necessary in defense of one's family or home (and that definition of home can easily be extended to community and beyond); but violence, no matter how warranted, always takes a heavy toll. And violence taken to the extreme--war--exacts the most extreme costs. A just war there may be, but there is no such thing as a good war. And the burdens of an unjust war are insufferable.

I know something about the costs of an unjust war, for my son, Nick--an infantryman in the US Army--is fighting one in Iraq. I don't speak for my son. I couldn't even if I wanted to, for all I hear through the Mom Filter is: "I'm fine, Mom, don't worry, I'm fine, everything is fine, fine, fine, we're fine, just fine." But I can tell you what some of the costs are as I live and breathe them.

First, the minor stuff: my constant feelings of dread and despair; the sweeping rage that alternates with petrifying fear; the torrents of tears that accompany a maddening sense of helplessness and vulnerability. My son is involved in a deadly situation that should never have been. I feel like a mother lion in a cage, my grown cub in danger, and all I can do is throw myself furiously against the bars...impotent to protect him. My tolerance for bullshit is zero, and I've snapped off more heads in the last several months than in all my forty-eight years combined.

For the first time in my life, and with great amazement and sorrow, I feel what can only be described as hatred. It took me a long time to admit it, but there it is. I loathe the hubris, the callousness and the lies of those in the Bush Administration who led us into this war. Truth be told, I even loathe the fallible and very human purveyors of those lies. I feel no satisfaction in this admission, only sadness and recognition. And hope that--given time--I can do better. I never wanted to hate anyone.

Xanax helps a bit. At least it holds the debilitating panic attacks somewhat at bay, so I can fake it through one more day. A friend in the same situation relies on a six-pack of beer every night; another has drifted into a la-la land of denial. Nice.

Then there is the wedge that's been driven between part of my extended family and me. They don't see this war as one based on lies. They've become evangelical believers in a false faith, swallowing Bush's fear-mongering, his chickenhawk posturing and strutting, and cheering his "bring 'em on" attitude as a sign of strength and resoluteness. Perhaps life is just easier that way. These are the same people who have known my son since he was a baby, who have held him and loved him and played with him, who have bought him birthday presents and taken him fishing. I don't know them anymore.

But enough of my whining. My son is alive and in one piece, unlike the 1,102 dead and 7,782 severely wounded American soldiers; which equals 8,884 blood-soaked uniforms, and doesn't even count the estimated 20,000 troops--not publicly reported by the Defense Department--medevacked out of Iraq for "non-combat related injuries." Every death, every injury, burns like a knife in my gut, for these are all America's sons and daughters. And I know I'm not immune to that knock on my door either.

And what of the Iraqi people? How many casualties have they suffered? How many tens of thousands of dead and wounded? How many Iraqi mothers have wept, weep now, for their lost children? I fear we will never know, for though the Pentagon has begun--almost gleefully--counting Iraqi insurgent deaths, there is little chance of getting an accurate verification of civilian casualties. You know, "collateral damage."

Yes, my son is alive and, as far as I know, well. I wish I could say the same for some of his friends.

One young man who was involved in heavy fighting during the invasion is now so debilitated by post-traumatic stress disorder that he routinely has flashbacks in which he smells burning flesh; he can't close his eyes without seeing people's heads squashed like frogs in the middle of the road, or dead and dying women and children, burned, bleeding and dismembered. Sometimes he hears the sounds of battle raging around him, and he has been hospitalized twice for suicidal tendencies. When he was home on leave, this 27-year-old man would crawl into his mother's room at night and sob in her lap for hours. Instead of getting treatment for PTSD, he has just received a "less than honorable" discharge from the Army. The rest of his unit redeploys to Iraq in February.

Another friend of Nick's was horrifically wounded when his Humvee stopped on an IED [improvised explosive device]. He didn't even have time to instinctively raise his arm and protect his face. Shrapnel ripped through his right eye, obliterating it to gooey shreds, and penetrated his brain. He has been in a coma since March. His mother spends every day with him in the hospital; his wife is devastated and their 112-year-old daughter doesn't know her daddy. But my son's friend is a fighter and so is making steady, incremental progress toward consciousness. He has a long hard struggle ahead of him, one that he need never have faced--and his family has had to fight every step of the way to get him the treatment he needs. So much for supporting the troops.

I go visit him every week, and it breaks my heart to see the burned faces, the missing limbs, the limps, the vacant stares one encounters in an acute-care military hospital. In front of the hospital there is a cannon, and every afternoon they blast that sucker off. You should see all the poor guys hit the pavement. Though many requests have been made to discontinue the practice for the sake of the returning wounded, the general in charge refuses. Boom.

Then there is Nick's 24-year-old Kurdish friend, the college-educated son of teachers, multilingual and highly intelligent. He works as a translator for the US Army for $600 a month and lives on base, where he is relatively safe. (Translators for private contractors, also living on base, make $7,200 a month.) He wants to travel to the States to continue his education, but no visas are now being issued from Iraq. Once the Army is through with him, will they just send him back into the streets, a virtual dead man for having worked with the Americans? My son places a high premium on loyalty to family and friends, and he has been raised to walk his talk. This must be a harsh and embittering lesson on just how unprincipled the rest of the world can be. My heart aches for his Iraqi friend as well as for him.

A year ago in January, when Nick left for Iraq, I granted myself permission to be stark-raving mad for the length of his deployment. By god, I've done a good job of it, without apology or excuse. And I dare say there are at least 139,999 other moms who have done the same--though taking troop rotations into consideration to maintain that magical number of 140,000 in the sand could put the number of crazed military moms as high as 300,000, maybe more. Right now, you might want to be careful about cutting in line in front of a middle-aged woman.

I know there are military moms who view the war in Iraq through different ideological lenses than mine. Sometimes I envy them. God, how much easier it must be to believe one's son or daughter is fighting for a just and noble cause! But no matter how hard I scrutinize the invasion and occupation of Iraq, all I see are lies, corruption and greed fueled by a powerful addiction to oil. Real soldiers get blown to tatters in their "Hummers," so that well-heeled American suburbanites can play in theirs.

For my family and me, the costs of this war are real and not abstract. By day, I fight my demons of dreaded possibility, beat them back into the shadows, into the dark recesses of my mind. Every night, they hiss and whisper a vile prognosis of gloom and desolation. I order the voices into silence, but too often they laugh at and mock my commands.

I wonder if George Bush ever hears these voices.

And I wonder, too...just how much are we willing to pay for a gallon of gas?