The Evolution. Please Share Your Story . . .©

I am immersing myself in a bubble.  At times I am floating and at other times, pop!  All that I thought was perfect appears far less than that.

Politics, puns, pontificating, professing, or pretending to know what I cannot imagine, are not my chosen path in this moment.  Writing words of wonderment is beyond me for now.  I am wrestling with life decisions.  I have decided to make a huge change, to consider a life transition.  I am certain that I need to at minimum, explore this idea.  For the last two months, I have done much research, made many telephone calls, pursued practical avenues, and now the time has come.

I have wanted to live in Southern Florida since the age of eleven.  At that ripe-old-age, I traveled to Miami Beach. I spent the summer living with my grandparents. I loved it.  Some may muse my present lusting is that of a child. It reflects a hope to return to a carefree life.  It is not.  I know if I move now, as an adult, the experience will differ.  My grandparents will not protect or play with me; they will not cover my expenses.

I will be on my own, with a little loving support from friends and family.  I trust that one cannot re-capture youth; nor would I ever want to.  I know not of others; however, I do know for me, who I am in this moment brings me more happiness than I ever imaged.

Some theorize those wishing to escape their current circumstances make a move such as this.  Ah, if only that were the case.  I love my life!  I love my community!  I love the people, the places; I disdain the climate.

For me, Southern California is cold, brown, and gloomy.  We have sun, but it comes late in the day.  We have heat, though never much.  We have no clouds.  The skies are vacant and clear or there is a marine layer.  Thus, I want to leave.  As a very close friend said, “You gave it a shot.”  I have been here for decades!  It is time to transition, though fear invades my every thought, or at least many of them.

Am I doing the “right” thing?  Will I have regrets and if I do what then?  I may have remorse for consciously choosing to give up all the beauty I created.  I have two Birchwood lined skylights!  I put skylights in my present home thinking that would help; however, I cannot escape what is outside or how it affects me within.

There are those that invest in real estate.  They buy simply to sell.  They sell to make money.  They enter a house merely to exit again, in the not too distant future.  I am not one of these.

Some move to buy better; money is no object.  That is not my situation.

People move to a better neighbor, more fashionable and chic.  Their travels do not take them far; they go up the street, or a town or two away.  Individuals are able to easily assess the properties that they are interested in.  A few hours here, then there, and decisions are made.

For me, these luxuries are fleeting.  I need to view from afar, to speculate, to cogitate, and ultimately fly.  Even then, I wonder; will I truly know?  The comfort that comes with being able to live in a community for a time, to cast money to the wind in rent, to uproot, to gather all one’s belongings and store them for a time is not mine.  I think, what of the babies?

Several people have what they call “pets”; they are independent and can be cared for by anyone.  Many muse the anxiety that these creatures experience is not lasting.  Possibly I have “too” strong a background in psychology or I have read “too much” on the brain patterns of what some think are “pets.”  Nevertheless. When I read of and saw the magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] of mammals as they view photographs of those that care for them, my heart leaped.  I am more certain than ever that my babies are important to me and I am to them.  My travels need to consider their well-being.

Thus, I ask, can you relate?  Do you have similar stories?  Please share your stories. Tell me, what was your situation?  Have you ever altered your life intentionally, knowing that all was well and yet, you needed to change?  How did you go about this?  How did your story evolve? What did you learn from it and eventually, what did you conclude?

Atrios Offers An American Patriot and Bushit Protector

I believe in goodness.  I believe in listening acutely, observing, and attending to issues with love.  I prefer to communicate completely with the hope of creating reciprocal reverence.

I do not believe in evil.  However, our President professes there is evil everywhere.  I think those that see evil are reflecting upon their own mirror image.  This is my posture of peace.

I proclaim “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”  I digress; I wax philosophical.

As much as I prefer to listen, to know what others profess, so that I may consider their beliefs, and assess them accurately; there are those that do not want to hear from a man that is deaf to the words and wisdom of others.  I understand.


Photograph Caption . . .

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a “Bullshit Protector” flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Associated Press Photo/Douglas C. Pizac

The original source and article Bush says anti-war protests threaten to weaken the United States,

I offer a link to Atrios.  He offers the original sharing, a discussion of An American Patriot

The Cost of War and Gas; The Climate of Aggression ©

Today I heard a story that I wish I could say surprised me; however, it did not.  The event occurred on Friday, August 19, 2005.  In Alabama, an angry customer killed a gas station owner.  The driver of a Sports Utility Vehicle, possibly a Jeep, was attempting to “steal” $52 worth of fuel.  The owner of the station tried to stop him; he grabbed hold of a vehicle.  Sadly, the driver continued on his trek, dragging the body across a car park and onto a highway.  Husain “Tony” Caddi, 54 years-of-age, fell from the vehicle and was run over by the vehicle’s rear wheel. Why did this happen? Some claim, the cost of gas is the reason.

An industry group spokesman reported that in 2004, an average of one in every 1,100 gasoline fill-ups was a gas theft. Customers drove off without paying for their purchase. Station owners are very concerned.  Proprietors only reap a one-cent profit on each gallon of gas they sell. A vendor must sell an extra 3,000 gallons to compensate for every $30 stolen.  Money is tight for all of us, consumers and retailers alike.

As the price of petroleum rises, gasoline thefts increase.  In 2004, merchants nationwide suffered a loss of $237 million. According to the National Association of Convenience Stores, this is more than twice the $112 million loss in 2003. Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the NACS stated, “As the price of gas climbs, people’s values decline.”

I theorize.  The cost of gas does not correlate to the decline in values; when we engage in war, that is our code of ethics.  I invite you to differ, to discuss, and to deliberate.

I believe that when we accept and approve of aggression, we see it, expect it, and create it everywhere we go.  Today, more so than ever, it seems violent behavior and unilateral attacks are considered “acceptable.”

There are those, such as our President, that say, “War is the last option.”  Yet, I have always believed and maintained, if you think it an option at all, if you believe there is ever a reason for retaliation or revenge, ultimately, engaging in it will be your choice.  You will settle the score.

We can always select, what we think is a possibility, and we do.

Consider the words of our great President; George W. Bush, “war is my absolute last option.”  Contemplate his choices and his intentional actions.  Baby Bush chose war!  He spoke of diplomacy, belatedly.  However, his intention was clearly stated for the start.  On September 11, 2001 at 1:04 PM, only hours after the planes struck World Trade Center, George W. Bush said, “Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”  Cowardly acts?  Is vengeance not the path of a coward, one that is not strong enough to communicate?

There are those that say you cannot talk to terrorist.  While I strongly disagree, I still surmise, killing is not the only alternative.  War is more than a mere homicide. Murdering in mass, for me, is never correct or just.  George W. Bush forgets his history; he does not recall violence begets violence.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

The compassionate Christian conservative fails to remember his commandments, “Thou shalt not kill.”  Our Commander-and-Chief is considered our leader; we follow in his footsteps.  If he accepts aggression, if he believes there is reason to attack, if he concludes vengeance is justice, why would we do differently?

• Update . . . Additionally we might consider the comments of Pat Robertson.  Mr. Robertson is the host of Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club.  This “esteemed” fellow is the founder of the Christian Coalition of America.  In the spirit of Christianity and the commandment, this evangelist called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Today, this is America.  The climate is cold; aggression is the course.  We are considered a “democratic” nation, our Constitution espouses peace and freedom.  Yet, our actions demonstrate that we do not believe “all men are created equal.”

You might want to read a broader perspective on the Pat Robertson rant.  Please visit,  Fangs come out from right wing clerics…as usual, at MF Blog.

Please also assess the financial, physical, and practical cost of our wars against terrorism. 
Travel to . . .

Operation Truth
National Priorities Project
Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of War, Patricia Foulkrod
Economic Costs of War
Bill Moyers on the Costs of War
Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11 By William Hamilton, Washington Post

Regret Reactivity to John G. Roberts Record ©

I admittedly apologize for my own reactivity.  Earlier in the week, I began writing a missive on Judge John G. Roberts.; the topic was to be, “comparable worth.”  I was inflamed by his positions on women.  However, I was distracted; life took precedence, other issues entered my consciousness, and I delayed in completing my composition.

My head and heart were filled with disdain for the candidate during those days and therefore; I reacted to a report in a less than thoughtful manner.  Instead of continuing my missive on Roberts and women, I wrote of Roberts, the voice of Reagan.  Upon reflection, I realize my words were more reactive than reflective.  My original mission influenced my feelings.  In retrospect, I acknowledge a need to be true; I need to write of what really concerns me and why, and I need to voice my apology for my previous posture.

I will start with my regret and realization and then turn to what is accurate, the deplorable reality of John G. Roberts and his record.  I will write of Roberts and women, Roberts and the Bush administration, Roberts and the law, Roberts the environment, and Roberts on “us,” we the people.

Earlier, I wrote of Roberts being the voice of Ronald Reagan, being the social director for the President, and while he was, with thanks to a dear friend, Mitchell, I realize that this was necessary. Ronald Reagan needed a voice and direction.  John G. Roberts did add a sense of respectability and decorum to the office of the actor-President, one that might have easily been lacking if Reagan was left to fend for himself.

Ronald Reagan was a performer, first and foremost; this helped him to get elected.  Fundraising, flitting from social event to social event was the expertise of this former President.  Mr. Reagan was a celebrity, a star, and clearly not a guiding light.  His mannerisms might have been thought unpolished were they not refined by a man of John Roberts training.  Possibly, were it not for Mr. Roberts, a man of sophistication, the White House could have become “Access Holly-weird” during the Reagan years.

For those that missed the earlier epistle . . . John G. Roberts, the Voice of Ronald Reagan ©

Upon reflection, I am willing to be wrong and to express my regret for reacting to Roberts record as social director.  I needed to address what was truly my concern and not generalize.  However, as I read of Roberts’ doings in reference to etiquette, it became one more thing that gnawed at me.  Now, I am choosing to share some of the background in hopes that you, dear reader might understand why my disregard for the man overwhelmed me.

Initially, I was scripting my response to a news report on Judge Roberts; the topic was “comparable worth.” I was doing research.  I was seeking further information.  The more I found the more contempt I felt. The words Roberts wrote to describe the policy rang in my ears.  The terms were “radical and pernicious.”

In the 1980s, the idea of comparable worth was brought to Congress.  The intent was to equalize wages.  Typically, men were working in positions that paid well.  They were truck-drivers or factory workers; they often did hard labor and were rewarded well for this.  Women, on the other hand, worked in laundries; they served as hotel maids, or did office work.  These positions were thought to be less physically strenuous and therefore, did not reap the same financial rewards.

It was also thought by many that women were meant to work in the home.  If they were out in the workforce, soon, they would “catch” a man”, marry, have babies, and ultimately, stay home.  They would care for their husband’s, raise the children, and that would be their reward.  The profession of homemaker and mother was considered a natural progression and not one that required financial attention.  People presupposed women in the workplace were merely supplementing their income; a man was taking care of their truer needs.

However, in many incidents, this was not the case. Awareness grew as the roles of women expanded.  Women became more educated, demands on them increased. Disparity in wages became an overriding issue.  Congress thought to address this.  For it was obvious, what was once thought to be truth, was no longer.

Many professed shrinking the wage gap would be wise.  Roberts rejected the idea; he stated the idea is “radical and pernicious.”  He went on to question the logic of those in support.  He admonished three Republican Congresswomen who spoke highly of the Bill.  Roberts “sarcastically” compared their positions to that of “Marxist rhetoric!”

National Public Radio’s, Market Place Money offered a comment by Marsha Greenberger, co-President National Women’s Law Center.  Ms. Greenberger stated “His [Roberts] description of what the problems were that women were facing completely eliminated the whole notion of sex discrimination as having any role to play in the lower pay that women received.”

However, Ed Whalen, of the President Conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center spoke in defense of the nominee.  Whalen said ??Roberts had no objection to workplace equality; he simply disagreed with the idea that that judges and bureaucrats should enforce it.’  Whalen continued, “There is nothing that suggests any criticism of the equal pay statute.”  Whalen said, “Indeed, [it is] precisely quite the opposite.”  According to Mr. Whalen, “He [Judge Roberts] explains why equal pay statutes makes sense and why comparable work is such a radical departure from those.”

Yet, as I research, I have reason to differ with Mr. Whalen.  It seems from my reading that John Roberts does not think women equal or worthy of comparable wages.  This is why, when I wrote the Roberts review a day ago, I was not in a place to endorse any actions of this questionable candidate.

It seems from my analysis John G. Roberts thinks women must know their place or at least allow the states to determine what their place is.  As a White house lawyer Roberts wrote many a memorandum stating, that the idea of comparable worth is, “highly objectionable” and probably unconstitutional. “Probably unconstitutional?”  I wonder if that is a code phrase for I personally object.

Roberts raised objections to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.  He proclaimed the Amendment would “override the prerogatives of the states and vest the federal judiciary with broader powers in this area.”  Again, the attorney turns to legalize and these may be valid points.  However, it is this next statement that I find most revealing.

In a 1985 memo on an award program to honor women who changed fields, John G. Roberts said: “Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide.”  Roberts later married a lawyer, Jane Sullivan Roberts, and therefore, many believe he has grown.  His earlier statements were made twenty years prior.  Yet, for me, thus far, there is no evidence of that he has changed.

The only evidence the public has is the record revealed.

The record shows John Roberts is skeptical when speaking of what he calls, a “so-called” right to privacy.”

While serving as a deputy, to solicitor general Ken Starr, Roberts wrote, what is said to be a superfluous footnote in a brief.  The topic of the brief was family planning funding; the footnote was on Roe v. Wade, a separate issue, yet one Roberts felt a strong need to address.  In the writing, the jurist claimed this case was “wrongly decided and should be overturned.” When asked of the purpose for this annotation, Roberts claimed the addition was a reflection of “administration policy.”  During his appellate court confirmation hearings, the nominee claimed he is mindful; Roe is “settled law.”  However, John G. Roberts has oft-stated his enthusiasm for revisiting this issue.

As a Supreme Court justice, Roberts could be the deciding vote in an abortion rights case.  He could have the power to overturn this decision.  When a man feels compelled to add a postscript to a brief that does not discuss abortion, I think we have reason to suspect he will be an activist judge.

On civil rights and civil liberties, Roberts has a disarming record.

As a member of a three-judge panel on the Washington DC federal court of appeals, Roberts was among those that granted the Bush administration full power to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.  He chose to ignore the provisions of the Geneva Convention.  He denied the principle of man’s humanity to his fellow man.  Roberts preferred being a puppet to the President.  Considering the two have a long-standing relationship this concerns me.

Repeatedly, John G. Roberts comes down on the side of law enforcement.  Roberts thought taking a twelve-year old child into custody, handcuffing her, and removing her from the subway, merely because she was eating French fries, was an “appropriate” action.

In several cases involving car stops and searches, Roberts ruled in favor of the police.  In one incident, the judge decided the U.S. Park Police had the authority to search the trunk of a car during a routine traffic stop.  They had no cause other than their own suspicions; they believed that the vehicle was stolen.  Thankfully, the majority ruled against Judge Roberts.  The other judges decided there were not adequate grounds for this search.  However, there is reason for concern.  In this case, Roberts was over-ruled; will he be in others.

The Fourth Amendment is often in question.  Cases of unreasonable search and seizure come before the Supreme Court regularly.  If the Court becomes more conservative, more rigid, more of an activist body, as it will be with the addition of Judge Roberts, we cannot be certain that our civil rights and liberties will be retained.

Judge John Roberts does not recognize the rights of endangered species.  Mr. Roberts questioned whether the Endangered Species Act applied in a California dispute.  A developer wanted to destroy the habitat of rare toads.  These creatures are found only in the state of California.  Therefore, Mr. Roberts questioned whether the toads were protected.  He argued the Constitution’s commerce clause might not apply when only one state is involved.  While Roberts did not endorse striking down the species act, he questioned the validity in this case.  According to Roberts if only one state is affected, do we need to apply the law?

Oh my.  A judge believes that we can abstain from law if it only applies to one case, one state, or one individual.  Yes, let us deny rights to man, woman, or beast, no matter what the law.  I fear if Roberts is approved, we will all become endangered species; laws be damned.  I fear that, just as he knew what was right and correct for President Reagan, he will believe he knows what is right and correct for us all, regardless of law.

If you prefer to read periodical references directly, please read . . .

Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights, 1982-86 Memos Detail Skepticism, By Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker,Washinton Post

Judge Roberts’s Rules of Law and Order, By Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal

Reagan Files Paint Court Nominee as a Watchdog By David G. Savage, Richard Simon and Henry Weinstein, of the Los Angeles Times.

Nominee’s Memos Critical of Gender-Equality Efforts, By David G. Savage, of the Los Angeles Times.

Files Detail Roberts’s Reagan Years, By Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings, of the Wall Street Journal.

John G. Roberts Dossier Washinton Post

Roberts’ decisions tend to favor police and president, By Gina Holland, Associated Press

John G. Roberts, the Voice of Ronald Reagan ©

Abc_roberts_judge_050719_tWeeks ago, it was thought, John G. Roberts Jr. did not wield much power while serving as a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration. His official title was special assistant to the attorney general, William French Smith.  Surely, all his work was done on behalf of his superiors.  He, as a subordinate had little authority.  However, since early, this week, when the Reagan Library released some 5,400 pages of Roberts wrings, we discover that the earlier notion was in error. John G. Roberts Jr. was actually quite an influential force.  Roberts served as a judge, not merely a legal advisor while working with the Reagan administration.

Roberts adjudicated who could see President Ronald Reagan.  He decided when the President was available, where he would appear, and under what circumstances.  Roberts mission was to protect the President from his friends.  Roberts worked to ensure that the actor-President would not promote commercial ventures.  Roberts’ role was to save the President from himself.  There was an accepted fear the Commander-and-Chief word harm himself if he spoke spontaneously; who knew what his words might cause.

There are those that say these newly released pages do not provide insight into “who” the man behind the robes might be.  However, I disagree.  I think Roberts reveals much in his directives. His writings expose his personal belief in a caste system.  Roberts writing show that he thinks it vital to designate roles; people have societal stations. He offers snobbery and arrogance.  He sees generous gestures as dubious.

In 1983, the famous and highly favored President received a request from his longtime friend, performer Jimmy Stewart.  Stewart was often identified as “everyman.”  He chose roles that people could relate to.  It was said that James Maitland Stewart was beloved for his average guy persona.  It was said; Stewart did not put on airs.  However, where John Roberts was concerned, it may have been better if he had.

In a written correspondence, Mr. Stewart invited his chum, Ronny Reagan to serve on the advisory board for his son’s prep school.  Reagan did not receive and respond to the request directly, it went through channels.  Roberts penned his advised response.  In a curtly worded memorandum, the attorney said, the president “should not accept Stewart’s invitation.” He stated it would be “demeaning to the [President’s] office, using it as a huckster’s ploy.”  John Roberts did not consider taking the position might be viewed as a benevolent gesture.  He only thought it suspicious.  Reagan did not accept the offer.

On another occasion, Nancy and Ron were invited to an elegant social affair, a dinner. Affluent Republicans from Dallas were hosting the event; it would be held in conjunction with a ceremonial ribbon cutting.  Roberts advised against attendance; he thought the entire gala undignified.  The dinner, though separate, was connected in spirit, to the grand opening of a shopping mall.  Roberts, thought malls the setting for common folk; Presidents could not be seen in, or associated with shopping center owners.  That would be below him.

In 1985, Jerry Weintraub, chief executive of United Artists entertained a notion; he was hoping to have well known actor-director Sylvester Stallone personally present fellow and former actor, Ronald Reagan with the boxing gloves and robe worn in the newly released motion picture film “Rocky IV.” Later, the gifts would be placed in the nations’ most prestigious museum, the Smithsonian Institution.

However, Roberts thought this unwise.  Just as in earlier years, Roberts showed himself an elitist snob.  The film industry he thought to be merely a commercial venture; that this industry gave his hero a start mattered not.  In a communication addressed to his superior, White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts wrote, the president should decline the offer. It “is a rather transparent publicity stunt to promote the film.”

When, in 1984, a publicist for pop-star Michael Jackson proposed Reagan publicly thank the musician for giving concert tickets to needy youngsters, Roberts raise objections, again. “I hate to sound like one of Mr. Jackson’s records, constantly repeating the same refrain, but I recommend we do not approve this letter.”  Promoting a star in any manner was loathsome to a man such as Roberts.  That Jackson man might have done a noble act was unthinkable. Even if he had, a dignified man such as Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America need not acknowledge it.

John G. Roberts cared not whether President Reagan thought, he might want to attend an event, sponsor a cause, or help a friend; Roberts thought himself the better judge of what was right.

Ronald Reagan had advocated for Americans to support Nicaraguan expatriates.  A group of corporate executives did.  These entrepreneurs asked the President to speak to their group in 1985, and likely, he would have if left to his own devices.

However, the “judge” stopped this from happening.  Roberts wrote his warning; he stated “I recommend stopping any White House involvement in this effort,” Roberts advised the president should not participate in private fundraising.  Raising capital was for the unabashed.  It was a shameless and brazen venture, certainly not worthy of a President.

Roberts did not only express disdain for acts of public promotion; he scorned the rights of women professionally.  This topic will be addressed in a separate study.  As a prelude, please read Nominee’s Memos Critical of Gender-Equality Efforts, by David G. Savage, of the Los Angeles Times.  You might also peruse, As Reagan lawyer, Roberts disparaged efforts to combat discrimination against women, by David Esposo, of The Associated Press.

John G. Roberts’ did not merely advise the President on his social calendar.  Roberts monitored Reagan’s speech.

In 1984, Ronny was set to speak.  He was prepared to conclude his monologue with the words, “the greatest nation God ever created.”  Roberts rejected the phrase, not on legal grounds, instead on religious “rights.”  Legal advisor Roberts offered, these words would be “ill-advised and, particularly in the light of the focus on the religion and politics issue, a likely candidate for the ‘Reaganism of the Week.’ “Roberts reeled with authority, “According to Genesis, God creates things like the heavens and the earth, and the birds and fishes, but not nations.”

John G. Roberts was a Reagan man; he watched his back, front, and supported his ideology.  For me, these Reagan files say much of the man, his morals, and personal beliefs.  Roberts, I think, said it all in his letter of resignation.  The jurist wrote to his hero Ronald Regan, “My years in your service will always be very special to me. The inspiration you have given me will burn brightly in my heart long after I have left the lights of the White House behind.”

If the Senate wants to know if Judge John G. Roberts is an ideologue, after reviewing his writings during the Reagan years, they can know with certainty, he is.  His moral commitment and personal opinions are reflected loudly in these writings.  Clearly, Roberts concludes, there is a “right” way, and a wrong one.  There is a ruling class and a group of commoners; those in one must never meet or mingle with the other.  I believe Roberts is as Roberts does, and that, for me, is frightening.

If you prefer to read periodical references directly, please read . . .

Nominee’s Memos Critical of Gender-Equality Efforts, By David G. Savage, of the Los Angeles Times.

Files Detail Roberts’s Reagan Years, By Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings, of the Wall Street Journal.

Reagan Files Paint Court Nominee as a Watchdog By David G. Savage, Richard Simon and Henry Weinstein, of the Los Angeles Times.

White House required prolific pen, By Michael Martinez and Vincent J. Schodolski, of The Chicago Tribune.

You might enjoy reading more.  Brad DeLong writes on, John Roberts’s Judicial Temperament

Bulimia. Wait! It is Not My Weight [Chapter Six]

copyright © 2005 Betsy L. Angert

She has to admit it to herself; there is no denying it, she is “bulimic.”  What does that word really mean?

She looks it up.  Merriam-Webster offers the etymology of the word “bulimia.”  The word bulimia comes the Greek word, “boulimia” meaning having “great hunger.” Apparently, according to the dictionary, a bulimic has an abnormal and constant craving for food.  That is interesting.  She does not “truly” crave food.  She is consuming ample quantities, quantities that are unimaginable.

The food she eats in a single day could feed at least eleven adults.  If she “craved food,” would it not follow that eating would satisfy the hunger?  It did not. For food was never the longing.  Food fills the space, the time, and the mind. It was only as a distraction from what she truly craves, a sense of connection, knowledge, and dare she admit it, the yearnings for a sense of wholeness.  These scare her.

The definition continues; bulimia is a serious eating disorder. “Disorder?”  What does that mean?  If “disorder” means there is a lack of “order,” a messy state of confusion, then she can agree with that.  However, interestingly enough, no one believes her confused.  Others do not see her as puzzled or perplexed.  People often state she has it all together.  At least, it seems so to them.  Yes, she knows what she wants and she asks for it.  She is well aware of her beliefs and opinions and offers these freely.  She is not baffled or bewildered; she seems so in control. Outwardly, she is, and inwardly she is not.

Yes, she does do as the dictionary declares; she compulsively overeats.  She controls this, sort of. She does buy the food, inhale the provisions, and this pattern never stops.  She chooses it.  She reads on.  The characterization continues. Self-induced vomiting, laxative, or diuretic abuse follows this gorging. She knows that she does nothing to physically bring on the vomiting.  Her habitual well-trained thoughts prompt this action.

Webster’s states, a bulimic will feel overwhelmed by guilt or depression and she does often feel beleaguered by the ways in which she spends her hours, days, and nights.  This cycle seems so out-of-control and that “reality” brings her down.  Consciously, she would wish to change it.  Intellectually she knows that engaging in these activities causes her such pain, greater pain than she ever felt before.  Yet, change is as all else, easier said then done.  How did this begin and why? She recalls the time and the place; yet, she does not fully understand why it all began, at least not yet.

Many say that she does as she does, or more correctly, bulimics do as they do, for few know of what she is doing, because they are concerned about their weight.  This is not about weight.  Her weight is not more easily maintained by being bulimic.  Consider nothing more than the volumes of food she eats.  Consider chemistry, physiology, physics, and know that what we consume, eliminated or not, leaves remnants.  All that we engage in leaves a trail; when bulimic, there is a trail of destruction.

She wants the destruction to end!  Therefore, she reads and researches.  She learns of muscle memory.  She learns of neurology and how behaviors become physical patterns etched into the brain.  She is experiencing these truths.  She surmises if she can stop for days, she can develop a new pattern, the old pattern.  She will be able to eat her food and digest it fully.  Not binging and purging will become her habit again.  It does not. She tries this many times and still . . .

She wants so much to quit and yet, after so many attempts, she believes that she cannot change.  She continues trying regularly.  There are days and days when she is successful.  She suppresses the urge to purge.  However, on those days, as on every other, food in her belly brings on a seemingly involuntary response.  She can control it for a time.  Nonetheless, ultimately, at some point, she does again flush out the fare, all that she can.

Experts say, she has a choice; this habit is self-inflicted; she thinks it is and it is not.  They say it is about food; she knows this is not true.  It never was!  They say she does it because she wants to feel in control.  She has never felt so very out-of-control in her life!  Some experts profess that bulimia and anorexia are acts of defiance, indifference, and deep depression and yet, she never felt any of these.  There are those that profess to know that bulimics and anorexics are suicidal; they wish to die and this is their chosen method.

While it is true she feels her body is dying slowly, death is not her desire; life is.

She wants to embrace it; she wants joy to fill her void!  Yet, she feels as though, she thinks, this will never happen.  She is not worthy!

She muses, if only she were a drinker.  According to Webster’s and other sources, bulimia “occurs chiefly in females.”  There is much debate about this and it may or may not be true.  However, she speculates.  What of men?  Do they not feel as she does? Do they frequently indulge in alcohol, binge drinking, because they experience as she does? This, however, is often done socially and considered acceptable.  If only she could do what is acceptable, proper, and appropriate.  She never has or does; She does not fit in once again.

Her motivation does not even match the dictionary definition of a bulimic. Nor the conventional wisdom and yet, she is a bulimic!

Please peruse Chapters One through Six, if you choose.

  • The Beginning. Bulimia and Becoming [Chapter One]
  • Bulimia. A Bit Becomes a Binge [Chapter Two]
  • Binges Build A Being, Separate From Self [Chapter Three]
  • Hiding the Food. Hiding The Feelings, Hiding Me [Chapter Four]
  • The Satiated Stomach. The Study Of Food [Chapter Five]
  • Bulimia. Wait! It is Not My Weight [Chapter Six]
    Or Similar Discussions . . .

  • When Will I Be Right? Is It Ever Okay To Be Me?
  • Weight. Balancing Fat with Feelings, Habits With Health
  • Kristol Cracks Under Pressure; States Sheehan is the Leader. ©

    Aug19_ok_bill3Rarely do I write merely to rant.  I work to comment, calmly, and yet, in this moment, I must rage against a political machine, the neo-conservative machine.  Tonight automaton Bill [William] Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, chairman, and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, was among the guests featured on the News Hour.  He spoke in his typical controlled and composed manner.  He attempted to be jovial and conversant.  However, when when the topic of Cindy Sheehan was posed his demeanor changed, instantly.

    When asked of the anti-war phenomenon Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant offered, what for me, is a truth.  He said, “Cindy Sheehan became a metaphor for America’s impatience, frustration, and ambivalence about the continuing American involvement.  However, “It’s much bigger than her.”

    Kristol rebuffed this assessment, stating, “I think it’s grotesque. I think the left has found a new weapon to oppose the president and the war, and that weapon is martyrdom, and they are using the death of a soldier in this case and the mother’s grief over that death to try to, obviously, rally support, as Mrs. Sheehan has made perfectly clear to get the troops out of Iraq.”

    All this was fine; I was enjoying the exchange.  I am very familiar with Bill Kristol and none of his comments were unexpected.

    It was his later statement that compelled me to write.  Kristol extolled, “She’s the leader of the antiwar movement now.”

    The look on his face as he made this claim could have killed.  Being a man that believes in bloodbaths, I feared where he might do. He was livid; his voice cracking, and his face flushed.

    Earlier, he made mention that Sheehan joined the antiwar pressure groups approximately a year ago.  Actually, his exact words were “Mrs. Sheehan has been active in antiwar activities for a year. She’s a member of an antiwar group. She was on Nightline eight months ago arguing against the war in Iraq.”  I wonder; how does this make her a leader?

    Mr. Kristol. I acknowledge that you are a well-educated man, a [supposed] scholar, a graduate of Harvard University, and a man who has achieved much.  Your pursuit and receipt of a doctorate degree is impressive.  You have attained more eminence than most, and this is inspiring.  Yet, when you conclude as you did I wonder. Do you really believe the antiwar movement began only a year ago or that Cindy Sheehan is its leader?

    As a person that has been protesting these Middle Eastern wars since before the first bomb fell, I beg to differ.  There are millions of us that have been against the mayhem for many years.  Cindy Sheehan is not our guide; we are not following her.  We are supporting her, the soldiers, and those whose lives we honor.  Those of us that want peace revere humanity.  We wish you and your President did as well!

    • Mr. Kristol has published numerous articles and essays on topics including constitutional law, political philosophy, and public policy.  He has co-edited several books.  William Kristol composed The Neoconservative Imagination, with Christopher DeMuth.  This book was published in 1995.  He has also co-authored, Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary with E. J. Dionne, Jr., 2001, The Future is Now: American Confronts the New Genetics with Eric Cohen, 2002. Bill Kristol is well known for co-authoring, the best-selling book The War Over Iraq with Lawrence Kaplan.

    Kristol is renowned among the “right.”  He regularly appears on Fox News Channel and the neo-conservatives consider him an eloquent and leading political analysts.  He serves on the boards of the Manhattan Institute, the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, and the Shalem Foundation.

    Vigils For Cindy. Viewing the Volumes of Support, Hearing the Voices ©

    35101475_e22345749bThis post will not be filled with my own words; it will be the sharing of thoughts, those of others.  Last evening, on August 17, 2005, organized a nation-wide vigil.  The event was meant to honor Cindy and Casey Sheehan.  People were acknowledging the lives of each, a mother and her fallen son. She is grieving and he is physically gone from this Earth.  He lost his life fighting for his country; he was an American soldier.

    People attending the vigils were standing in support of the living, and eulogizing the physical passing of those slain in a questionable war.  Many persons gathered.  They mourned the loss of limbs, the loss of sight, and the physical, emotional, mental, and  spiritual toll war can take.

    Crowds came to these ceremonies and each person was doing as Cindy does. They were protesting the Iraq war and American war policies.  People came in droves requesting an end to the killing; they want an exit strategy, now!  They want to be heard by the President of the United States.  Whether King George II chooses to hear their plea, well, that is another story.  His choice is his own; nonetheless, many throughout the nation chose to speak.

    Words were few, visuals were plenty.  I offer these in the form of a slide show.  Please journey within.  View the Cindy Coalition in peaceful action.

    Below, I am also offering some of the many thoughts and feelings of those that participated. If you would like to read more of these, please travel to

    While attending this observance people were asked, “What was the best moment” for you.  They reflected and expressed what they thought the most meaningful experience of their evening.

    Please share your own thoughts, feelings, and experience.  I invite you to comment so that others might understand you, why you think as you do, practice as you believe is best, and are engaging as you are.

    “Our candlelight vigil at Camp Casey was beautiful. There were hundreds of people here and we are hearing that hundreds of people were involved in vigils around the country. We at Camp Casey are so amazed and gratified that there were almost 1700 vigils around the country.” -Cindy Sheehan, Crawford, Texas

    “Melanie House (whose husband was killed in Iraq) organized our vigil.  She spoke briefly about her grief and about her hope that other wives and families will be spared the disaster that has come to her.  She is very brave to be speaking out and I am very moved by her courage.” – Delia R., Simi Valley, California

    “At the end of the period of silence our host read an editorial from this Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer by Celeste and Dante Zapata about the loss of their son and brother, Sherwood Baker. It was a moving moment and certainly encapsulated the essence of our ??not about politics, all about peace’ theme.” – Lisa L., Harleysville, Pennsylvania

    “The most moving moment was when one of the military men in attendance read the names of the Michigan military deaths and included personal comments about each of the soldiers mentioned.” – Ann L., Howell, Michigan

    “I met a woman with photos of family members serving in the military pinned to her shirt.  ??This is my brother and his son, both serving in this picture.  The other is my sister’s son, who’s going back for a third time to Iraq.'” – Northfield People for Peace and Goodwill, Northfield, Minnesota

    “Well, more and more people kept showing up, and that was the best part.  To know that you are not alone, and that there are others in your own community who are so supportive of Cindy Sheehan, and finding a new way.” – Kate M., Scappoose, Oregon

    “The best moment was probably the half hour after the vigil ended with the tolling of the old church bell in the steeple. A few people left, but most stayed, talking in small groups, not wanting to give up the feelings of friendship, common purpose and hope they found there.” – – Caroline A., Kent, Ohio

    “At the conclusion of the vigil, the coordinator introduced herself and asked for a minute of silence to remember all of our fallen soldiers. It was a dignified, respectful gathering.” – Elizabeth S., Westfield, New Jersey

    “Two or three Vietnam veterans happened upon our vigil and join in with love, tears and peace in their hearts. They were very grateful.  A mom whose son is leaving in 5 weeks for Iraq was there and was comforted by all the love and connections. A young woman put a photo of here brother in Iraq on our small altar.” – Katherine S., Lake Worth, Florida

    “Being a new resident of a conservative Florida city I was concerned that the turnout might be miniscule; tears came to my eyes when I arrived and saw a significant number of participants with candles and signs lining the street!” – Leah F., Lakeland, Florida

    Cindy’s Coalition Broadens; The Bush Brigade is Dissolving ©


    They buried their son on Monday August 15, 2005; they mourned for a day more.  Then, the parents of fallen soldier, Marine Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder II, spoke out.  They meet with the press, on Tuesday, August 16. Through the media, Paul Schroeder and his wife Rosemary Palmer pleaded with the President.  They said, Please “send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.”

    Ms. Palmer spoke tearfully.  Irritably she stated, Mr. President “We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out.”  The soldier’s father expressed his belief; his son and other Marines are “being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.”  Mr. Schroeder continued, “Our comments are not just those of grieving parents.  They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief.

    Anger is an honest emotion when someone’s family has been violated.” His wife added accusingly the idea of “staying the course is” is rigid and not realistic.  The mother said the “war has gone bad.”  America’s young are dying.  She offered “Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out – he can’t just let it continue.” Nevertheless, the President does.

    When asked of the Schroeder-Palmer remarks, the office of our Commander-and-Chief said he declines to comment.  The White House reminded the press and the public that the President addressed this issue last week.  Allen Abney, administration spokesman offered, Baby Bush stands by his earlier statements.  He will do as Rosemary Palmer declared he could not, he will carry on the war effort just as he has.

    For the Commander-and-Chief, the Schroeder’s be damned.  Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen soldier Casey Sheehan be cursed, all those that support a change in strategy, according to the President, know nothing.  Yet, these know nothings are growing in numbers.  They are building a broad coalition; the Bush alliance is disbanding.

    Since August 7, 2005, Mrs. Sheehan has been holding vigil.  She is waiting for the President to speak with her, not as he did in June 2004 when she was one of many, merely the “Mom” of a fallen soldier.  She wants a genuine meeting, a give and take; she is not interested in obligatory gestures.  She stands strong in protest, just outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas.  Support for Cindy Sheehan is growing.

    [Tonight, candlelight vigils are being held throughout the country for Cindy and Casey Sheehan.]

    In the recent media meet with Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer, the couple spoke of Mrs. Sheehan.  They stated, “We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war.”  Sheehan, the Schroeder-Palmer family, and other military families are uniting.  They are joining the activists and the peaceniks.  As casualties are mount as American boys and girls come home in body bags, a new coalition gains ground.  This one asks for peace, demands action, and does not promote greater aggression.

    Families such as the Schroeder and the Sheehan’s want the President and the Pentagon to present an exit strategy, to propose a new plan. For these families and for others, it is clear, the current policy is flawed; it is not working.  Daily deaths in Iraq are evidence of this.

    The parents of young Edward, young Casey, and the parents, wives, sons, and daughters of other American soldiers believe, the battle was bad; though it was not as awful as victory. The President declared the war a “success” in May 2003.  However, since that date, more soldiers have been killed.  The slaughter increases each and every day.

    Currently, there is greater rebellion, greater strife, and less unity in Iraq.  The elections did not bring democracy as the President proclaimed; they brought division.  Americans are beginning to realize this.  They see the war on their televisions; they read of the rebellion in their newspapers, and, most importantly, as the bodies of their beautiful babies arrive home in flag draped coffins, they know that this war was not worth the effort. The toll is too high.

    Citizens in the United States are waking up.  They accept reports that the administration lied. The public now believes that we entered the war on false pretenses.  There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.  We the people of the United States were led to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Towers and that he was the enemy.  However, they learned.  He was not the man behind the attacks.  King George II knew this all along.  He lied.

    In recent months, polls show that US citizens wants out of this war. Nearly three-quarters of Americans think the number of casualties in Iraq is “unacceptable.”  Six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting. More than four in 10 believe the US presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most portentous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of this nation.  America is not safer.

    See The Washington Post Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War, by Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane

    Not only are citizens in this country rejecting the war and expressing a desire to leave, those in other nations are as well.  In other nations, the people spoke out sooner and leaders heeded the calls.

    After the bombings is Madrid on March 11, 2004, the people of Spain protested loudly.  Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took action.  The Spanish leader pulled troops out of Iraq in April 2004.

    On November 4, 2004, Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany made an announcement.  He too, declared withdraw.  All 300 Hungarian troops stationed in Iraq would exit by the end of March 2005.

    Poland announced several weeks earlier, it would start to reduce its 2,500-strong contingent in January 2005.  The Polish were considering a complete withdrawal by the end of year.

    On the same day that the Schroeder-Palmer family spoke of the need for an exit strategy, the main opposition party in Japan declared their own. The party leaders stated, should they win the upcoming election, they too will plan a pullout from Iraq.

    Italy has stated that they will withdraw from Iraq. The Italian government plans to begin removing troops in September 2005.  Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told Rai state television the pullout would take place “in agreement with our allies”.  Italian forces comprise the forth-largest foreign contingent in the US coalition.  They have 3,000 troops in this war-torn nation.

    There have long been rumors that the United Kingdom is considering an exit.  The majority of people in the UK have never supported the Iraq war.  Millions were protesting on the streets of London before Bush/Blair released the first bomb.

    In truth, the Broad Coalition that Bush spoke of never existed. Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies wrote of this in the Brookings Daily War Report, March 24, 2003.  In his exposé titled, The Coalition That Isn’t, Daalder, offered,

    Take the list coalition countries the White House is updating daily. Sure, there are some important allies aside from Britain?”notably Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Italy as well as number of “new” Europeans. Only three countries of these allies are actually contributing combat troops and capabilities (2,000 Australian troops, a Danish submarine and naval escort, and 200 Polish troops and refueling ship)?”all in all less than one percent of the total number of troops in the region. The rest of the list is a motley crew of supporters?”including such powerhouses as Afghanistan, Albania, Macedonia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.

    No, the big-bad-broad-coalition never was, and with time, the sham of it will no longer be.  Each day it becomes leaner, not meaner.  However, fortunately, the true coalition is building; it is growing behind parents such as Cindy Sheehan, Paul Schroeder, and his wife Rosemary Palmer.  May the coalition for peace be our guide and just as in the childhood rhyme, may the big “cheese” stand, alone.

    I refer you to an excellent resource.  The Global Policy Forum.

    Wikipedia, Multinational force in Iraq, is also a good source of information.

    US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005 offers an interesting story.

    Possibly the best resource is IRAQ INDEX, Tracking Reconstruction and Security, in Post-Saddam Iraq, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Booking Institute may be the best resource.  The following statistics are taken from this source.

    As of May 6 – June 15, 2005
    • US 150,000
    • United Kingdom 8,000
    • South Korea 3,600
    • Italy 3,000
    • Poland 1,700
    • Ukraine 1,650
    • Georgia 850
    • Romania 800
    • Japan 550
    • Denmark 530
    • Bulgaria 400
    • Australia 400
    • Remaining 17 coalition countries 1,520

    Update . . . You may wish to visit MaxSpeak. On Thursday, August 18, 2005, he wrote of another call for withdraws from Iraq.  Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold, made this request. Max muses; will this be the position of others in the 2008 election. Please read 08.

    McCain Claims, Bush Not Missing in Action ©

    Though I did not see or hear the dialogue, when I heard of it, I was struck.  Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War, admittedly, does not always agree with the President.  However, today, this compassionate conservative offered his support.

    In an interview aired on Fox News the Senator stated, “I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I have seen him grieve. And I’m sure he wouldn’t like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved. And that’s the job of the President of the United States. He fully appreciates the tragedy of the loss of these brave young Americans.”

    However, Cindy Sheehan does not believe that Mr. Bush cares.

    • If you have not before, Please listen to Cindy and hear her plea.  Look into her eyes; see her face, her tears, and her pain.  Again, I offer the link to an advertisement paid for by the Gold Star Families for Peace.  I think this a worthwhile viewing.  The singular spokesperson is Cindy Sheehan.  She speaks to the President and asks him to care as he has not in the past.

    Mrs. Sheehan said the June 2004 meeting lasted ten minutes.  Mrs. Sheehan was among a group of families meeting with Mr. Bush and Senator John McCain.  She said of the President, “He called me Mom.”  She states, that felt disrespectful.  It created a distance and for this deeply grieving mother, for this person, Cindy, it was a show of insincerity.

    Mrs. Sheehan offered she did not feel as though she was a unique person to this supposedly compassionate man.  Cindy Sheehan wanted to have an opportunity to ask questions and to state her genuine concerns. This was not possible in the time or space allotted. Sheehan asserts reports of her sentiment and her appreciation for the “the gift of happiness,” were distorted.

    Please refer to the original reference, as published in TheReporter.Com.

    Bush, Sheehan’s share moments By David Henson/Staff Writer

    Mrs. Sheehan believes the Reporter article misrepresented her and her feelings. It put forth an image that promoted the Bush war agenda.  She states that does not want her story to be used as propaganda.  The President needs no more proses.  He has plenty advancing his intention to kill.  She does not want her words to be among these.

    However, the Sheehan situation is, in some cases, advancing the President’s cause.  People are pouring into Crawford; many are coming to express their disapproval of the Sheehan family.

    Matt Drudge,  a man considered to be an “Internet gossip” is also gaining greater fame from the Sheehan story.  Drudge is claiming that this protesting mother has “Changed her story on Bush.”  Media Matters for America challenges his assertion.  They are “Tracking a lie through the conservative media” and reporting on Cindy Sheehan “changed her story on Bush”?

    There are so many liesThere are so many “lies,” “tall tales,” and “truths” in the wind.  Mrs. Sheehan is only asking for an audience with the President, asking him to address some of these issues.  Yet, her request for transparency and compassion are denied.

    Mr. McCain speaks of compassion, his own and the President’s.  Yet, he states in this Fox News interview he has no memory of Cindy Sheehan.  This fascinates me.  Was the meeting so meaningful that it was not memorable and if so, can we trust his recollections of the President?  I would be interested in hearing Cindy Sheehan speak of the meeting again and this time, I would hope she would mention her impressions and interactions with Arizona Senator John McCain.  These might be quite revealing.

    Transcript: Senator McCain on ‘FOX News Sunday’

    WALLACE: Let me switch, if I can, to another subject: Cindy Sheehan, I suspect you know who she is?

    MCCAIN: Sure.

    WALLACE: The woman whose son was killed in Iraq last year, who’s now camped outside the president’s ranch. It’s clear that she has joined with some left-wing anti-war groups and has even taped a commercial, which we’re going to show later, in which she accuses the president of lying.

    Question though: If you were the president, would you meet with her?

    MCCAIN: I don’t know if I would or not, Chris, because he did already meet with her once, as you know. And that, I think, probably was sufficient. But this thing has blossomed.

    Look, I’ve been with the president of the United States when he has met with the families of those brave young men and women who have sacrificed. I have seen his compassion. I have seen his love. I have seen his concern. So any charge of insensitivity or uncaring on the part of this president, is absolutely false. He cares and he grieves.

    WALLACE: Now, I know you were on that campaign trip in June of 2004. Were you in the meeting with him when he met with Cindy Sheehan?

    MCCAIN: I don’t — you know, I don’t remember her, because there was a number of families. We sort of met separately, but I did see him encounter and try to do his best to comfort these families, and I saw…

    WALLACE: So when she talks about callous, jovial, acting like he was at a party?

    MCCAIN: I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I have seen him grieve. And I’m sure he wouldn’t like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved. And that’s the job of the president of the United States. He fully appreciates the tragedy of the loss of these brave young Americans.”

    Does he?  Does Senator McCain?

    • Please read an excellent essay by Steve Soto, The Left Coaster.  He offers a comprehensive study of The Real Reason Why Cindy Sheehan Is A Threat To The GOP