So Iranians are signing up to be suicide bombers against Israel, America, and an infidel novelist. And the government, in the person of at least a couple officials, seems to be in on it.

The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: Train for suicide attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, for suicide attacks against Israelis or to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie.

[ . . . ]

[T]he presence of two key figures - a prominent Iranian lawmaker and a member of the country's elite Revolutionary Guards - lent the meeting more legitimacy and was a clear indication of at least tacit support from some within Iran's government.

That isn't surprising. The Bush administration has long maintained that the bulk of the Iraqi insurgency is being driven by foreign fighters (like Jordanian terrorist Ayman Al-Zawahri and that Tehran is abetting it.

But then we learn that the very same Iranian government wants to have a hand in training the Iraqi police force of the future.

"The Islamic Republic is ready to train Iraqi police and border guards and even equip them as well as help with the country's reconstruction," said Ali Asghar Ahmadi, Iran's deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

They can't be serious.

Popular as it is, especially in New England, to promote the legend of a first Thanksgiving, a great feast of harvest celebration and goodwill between the Pilgrim settlers and the native American Indians, the historical record says otherwise.

It wasn't until 1782 that a Thanksgiving holiday—an observance explicitly and deliberately religious in nature and in tone—was proclaimed by Congress. The date specified was Thursday, November 28, thus setting the tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving on a Thursday.

Following ratification of the United States Constitution, newly elected President George Washington issued a proclamation of his own, at the behest of a majority in Congress, and transmitted to the state Governors on October 3 the following request:

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be [ . . . ]

(Note of interest: As with all such documents of its time, Washington's proclamation was made by handwritten letter.)

President Abraham Lincoln affirmed the concept of a national day of thanksgiving in a 1963 proclamation, signed 74 years to the day after Washington's, setting the observance on the last Thursday of November. His intent, too, was decidedly religious.

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

(Note of interest: Lincoln's proclamation was apparently made in response, at least in part, to the persistent urging of Sarah Josepha Hale.)

In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed a shift in the timing of the Thanksgiving observance to the third Thursday of November as an attempt to prolong the Christmas shopping season. But the modern observance of a day of thanks on the fourth Thursday of November is the result of an act of Congress in 1941.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Making the fourth Thursday in November a legal holiday.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the fourth Thursday of November in each year after the year 1941 be known as Thanksgiving Day, and is hereby made a legal public holiday to all intents and purposes and in the same manner as the 1st day of January, the 22nd day of February, the 30th day of May, the 4th day of July, the first Monday of September, the 11th day of November, and Christmas Day are now made by law public holidays.

APPROVED, December 26, 1941.

For more information about the history of Thanksgiving observances, see the comprehensive historical timeline available from the Library of Congress.

Chances are you have seen this already. I first saw it at least a few years ago. It has become one of my Thanksgiving traditions, like listening to "Alice's Restaurant Massacree" after dinner.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

Martha Stewart will not be dining with us this Thanksgiving. I'm telling you in advance, so don't act surprised. Since Ms. Stewart won't be coming, I've made a few small changes:

Our sidewalk will not be lined with homemade, paper bag luminaries. After a trial run, it was decided that no matter how cleverly done, rows of flaming lunch sacks do not have the desired welcoming effect.

Once inside, our guests will note that the entry hall is not decorated with the swags of Indian corn and fall foliage I had planned to make. Instead, I've gotten the kids involved in the decorating by having them track in colorful autumn leaves from the front yard. The mud was their idea.

The dining table will not be covered with expensive linens, fancy china, or crystal goblets. If possible, we will use dishes that match and everyone will get a fork. Since this IS thanksgiving, we will refrain from using the plastic Peter Rabbit plate and the Santa napkins from last Christmas.

Our centerpiece will not be the tower of fresh fruit and flowers that I promised. Instead we will be displaying a hedgehog-like decoration hand-crafted from the finest construction paper. The artist assures me it is a turkey.

We will be dining fashionably late. The children will entertain you while you wait. I'm sure they will be happy to share every choice comment I have made regarding Thanksgiving, pilgrims, and the turkey hotline. Please remember that most of these comments were made at 5:00 a.m. upon discovering that the turkey was still hard enough to cut diamonds.

As accompaniment to the children's recital, I will play a recording of tribal drumming. If the children should mention that I don't own a recording of tribal drumming, or that tribal drumming sounds suspiciously like a frozen turkey in a clothes dryer, ignore them. They are lying.

We toyed with the idea of ringing a dainty silver bell to announce the start of our feast. In the end, we chose to keep our traditional method. We've also decided against a formal seating arrangement. When the smoke alarm sounds, please gather around the table and sit where you like.

In the spirit of harmony, we will ask the children to sit at a separate table. In a separate room. Next door.

Now, I know you have all seen pictures of one person carving a turkey in front of a crowd of appreciative onlookers. This will not be happening at our dinner. For safety reasons, the turkey will be carved in a private ceremony. I stress "private" meaning: Do not, under any circumstances, enter the kitchen to laugh at me. Do not send small, unsuspecting children to check on my progress. I have an electric knife. The turkey is unarmed. It stands to reason that I will eventually win. When I do, we will eat.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my young diners that "passing the rolls" is not a football play. Nor is it a request to bean your brother in the head with warm tasty bread. Oh, and one reminder for the adults: For the duration of the meal, and especially while in the presence of young diners, we will refer to the giblet gravy by its lesser-known name: Cheese Sauce. If a young diner questions you regarding the origins or type of Cheese Sauce, plead ignorance.

Before I forget, there is one last change. Instead of offering a choice between 12 different scrumptious desserts, we will be serving the traditional pumpkin pie, garnished with whipped cream and small fingerprints. You will still have a choice; take it or leave it.

Martha Stewart will not be dining with us this Thanksgiving. She probably won't come next year either. I am thankful.

In an incident evoking images of an adult spoon-feeding an elderly parent, President Bush on Saturday extricated a U.S. Secret Service agent who was being blocked by Chilean security guards from accompanying the President into a summit-related dinner in Santiago. Evidently the President's mild intervention did the trick:

[ . . . ]  Bush walked over to the agents, reached through the dispute and pulled his agent from the scrum.

If I were any terrorist in the world, I would be marvelling at the ineptitude of the President's protectors and hatching plans to exploit it. If I were the head of the Secret Service presidential detail, I would be extremely disturbed by that.

I don't know what's sadder: that the Hardee's fast food chain is introducing this new mega-burger or that there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who will actually eat it (right before filing a lawsuit against Hardee's for making them fat and giving them heart attacks).

For those keeping score at home, the whole shebang is reported to be 1,420 calories. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's published dietary guidelines, an adult woman needs about 1,600 to 2,200 calories daily, depending on activity level. Being in a sedentary job and exercising only occasionally (she says with her head hung in shame), if I ate this burger, I could have about a cup of oatmeal for the rest of the day.

Frequent readers know that I occasionally comment on things military. This is not only because the military is so prominently featured in the news of the day, but also because I know a number of people previously or currently serving in the United States armed forces. Not one of them, however, has been able to answer my more burning questions about why the military does things as they do. Among the stumpers, particular pertaining to rank and insignia:

• If a Major outranks a Lieutenant, why doesn't a Major General outrank a Lieutenant General?
• Why does the Navy have Vice Admirals but no Virtue Admirals?
• If a Lieutenant Colonel one step below a Colonel, why isn't a Sergeant Major one step below a Major?
• If a Warrant Officer is an officer, why is a Petty Officer enlisted?
• Why doesn't a Marine Lance Corporal outrank a Corporal when s/he has a way cooler sounding rank?
• Why is one a Second Lieutenant first and a First Lieutenant second?
• If a First Lieutenant outranks a Second Lieutenant, why doesn't a Chief Warrant Officer 2 outrank a Chief Warrant Officer 3?
• Why does a Navy Lieutenant outrank an Army Lieutenant?
• Why does a Navy Captain outrank an Army Captain?
• How can a Naval officer without a command position be called a Commander?
• If civilians consider gold more valuable than silver, why doesn't the military consider a gold insignia better than a silver insignia?
• If a General gets one more star than a Lieutenant General, why doesn't a Colonel get one more leaf than a Lieutenant Colonel?
• If officers outrank enlisted personnel, why are their insignia so much less interesting?
• Why is a General's star so much less impressive-looking than a Colonel's eagle?
• Was it Santa Claus who made Marine enlisted insignia red and green?
• Why does the earth rotate from east to west?
• What is the meaning of life?

Sorry, got a little off track there at the end.

Military personnel, feel free to answer any of these questions in the Comments section. If I receive no answers, I'll just accept that these mysteries are simply things we will never understand.

The Den Mother would be shirking her responsibilities if she were never to comment on the sorry state of manners in our society today, especially among teenagers and young adults whose jobs require them to interact with the public. So here goes, a partial list of my pet peeves of rudeness. I hope the kids are listening.

• "Hey." — This is not a greeting. Don't use it with customers or with anyone who has never seen you before you have shaved or applied your make-up. "Hello," "Good morning (afternoon, evening)" or even "Hi" work well, so use them. And please don't even think the ubiquitous "How ya doin'?" in my presence.
• "No problem" — There is no more inappropriate response to "Thank you," especially in the workplace. If you are a clerk, a waitress, or a telephone receptionist, for example, it is presumed that it will not be a problem for you to do your job and assist me. As a customer, I am extending you a courtesy by thanking you for doing what you're already getting paid to do. You should reciprocate with something better than a glib brush-off. The correct response is "You're welcome."
• "You guys" or "Y'all" — I hear this from restaurant staff with alarming frequency. It suggests not only a familiarity but a degree of equality with customers that does not exist. A person working in a service profession is at the service of the customer and should act accordingly. "You" is a plural pronoun in the English language and should require no clarification when clearly addressing a group. With a single-sex group, "Ladies" or "Gentlemen" is appropriate, even outside a formal setting. It might even elicit a humorous or self-deprecating response, such as, "Gentlemen? There are gentlemen here?"
  
  Incidentally, I have no problem with "y'all" in a casual setting among friends. I use it on occasion myself, which almost always confuses those around me because I have never lived in the south. But I digress. "You guys" drives me up the ever-loving wall in any situation because I have never been a guy and don't plan on becoming one any time soon. "All of you" is much better (or, for my southern readers, "All of y'all," though that strikes me as a bit redundant).
• Vocal non-responsiveness — Common among highway toll-takers and cash register clerks, this is the height of rudeness. When I approach a toll booth or a check-out counter and greet the person on the other side, I expect a simple "Hello" in return as an acknoweldgement of my presence. I do not want to have to ask, "How much?" because the clerk doesn't feel like telling me what I owe. And as I drive/walk away, it would be nice to hear "Thank you" or even (gasp) "Have a nice day."
• Telephone or co-worker conversations — If I am a paying customer at your place of employment, I deserve your undivided attention while you are assisting me. You reflect poorly on your employer by appearing to be more concerned with socializing than doing whatever it is they pay you to do. Besides, I don't want to hear about what your boyfriend gave you for your 4 1/2 month anniversary or how your college applications are coming along. So either get the hell of the phone or temporarily suspend your discussion with the employee standing next to you until you and I are finished.
  
  The non-workplace version of this is the personal cell phone call. Answer the phone if you must, then offer to call the party back. If you'd rather talk to him or her than spend time with me, I'm outta here.
• Gum-chewing — It isn't that I don't appreciate a good piece of gum. My personal favorite is Wrigley's Eclipse, spearmint flavor. Every so often I even regress to childhood and chomp on a wad of pink bubble gum. Precisely because I am a gum-chewer, I know how difficult it is to speak clearly with a cheekful. Besides, it's noisy and makes you look like a ho or whatever the male equivalent of a ho is. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can quickly spit it into the trash before I see you, either. Once you can see me, it stands to reason that I can also see you. So unless we're old friends hanging out, ditch the gum.
• Weak handshake or bone-crusher — Should it be necessary for us to shake hands, it would be nice if it were a pleasant experience for me. Nothing is more insulting than a half-hearted handshake, so if I'm the only one holding our hands together or preventing your arm from falling to your side, you should try a little harder. If, on the other hand, it feels as if you fear slipping overboard into the raging waters and my hand is your only lifeline, you need to ease up just a bit. It isn't nice to break a someone's fingers.
• Expressions of boredom — This seems to be an affliction endemic among part-time retail salespeole, and God, it annoys me. Why should I patronize a business whose service employees look like they not only don't want to be there, but they also don't want to do anything while the are? So please, don't slouch, lean against the wall or desk as if you'd fall if it weren't there, file your nails, or read a magazine. And for the love of Pete, smile.
• Faux friendship — I can assure you that I will not buy more clothes, more expensive jewelry, or a bigger car if you act as if we go way back. Such behavior creeps me out and makes me want to run, not walk, out of your establishment. I would also appreciate it if you would tone down the praise. "That is PERFECT on you!" delivered with the vocal consistency of corn syrup, makes me think you're lying.

I am painfully aware that use of these mannerisms and expressions is not confined to the under-25 population. Chances are their parents haven't taught them to behave otherwise, and those same parents have probably let their own manners lapse. I consider it an indication of the general lack of consideration about one's fellow man or woman that now pervades society.

Not that I ever claimed to be a football expert, but even I have been able to recognize over the years that Drew Bledsoe isn't a great quarterback. I formed that opinion during his years with the Patriots, and judging from last night's game, he has done nothing since joining the Bills to indicate I was wrong. He may be a good enough athlete, but I can't be the only person who watches him and wonders, Just how long will it take him to throw that ball?

They're not happy in Buffalo, that much is clear. The second-hand accounts I have heard from time to time on Boston sports radio paint a picture of a city ready to run Drew out of town, and not a minute too soon. So in the spirit of slowing down to gawk at the train wreck, I checked out the Buffalo News online. Jerry Sullivan's post-mortem commentary on New England's decisive win chronicled a plethora of Bills errors, omissions, and inadequacies. But this comment had me chuckling:

The high point of the night came moments before the opening kickoff, when the Patriots honored the World Series champion Red Sox. Johnny Damon came running out to a rousing ovation and, unlike the Buffalo defensive backs, he didn't fall down. Curt Schilling came out on crutches and seemed quicker than Drew Bledsoe.

Ouch. And to think that with hockey shut down and no baseball or basketball, Buffalo sports fans have nothing to distract them from their misery.

Just this afternoon, I predicted that Scott Peterson was going to be acquitted of the murders of his wife and son. Although I had made a habit of avoiding any coverage of the investigation or trial (the press is notoriously inept at reporting accurately on complex cases, and besides, the public never gets the same picture the jury sees) I thought the late replacement of two jurors suggested that the jury was sufficiently tainted that a conviction would be nearly impossible.

Proving once again that I do not have psychic abilities, the jury today convicted Peterson of first-degree murder in Laci Peterson's death and second-degree murder in the death of their baby, who at the time of Ms. Peterson's disappearance was yet unborn.

First-degree murder in California is a capital offense. I will await news of the sentencing before deciding whether to embark on a screed against the death penalty.

Did I mention that Yasser Arafat finally died yesterday?

A friend and I had an interesting discussion about Arafat over dinner last night, or rather it would have been a discussion if he hadn't cut it off, for reasons I don't know and he did not elucidate. Until that point, he had been asserting that Ariel Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Yasser Arafat. I had contended that Sharon, while not the greatest leader Israel has ever had, was not a terrorist by any established definition. To make my point, I stated that every recent cease-fire, truce, or peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis was broken by acts of Palestinian terrorism. He asked for an example.

It appeared to be my mention of the Oslo accords that prompted his desire to terminate the discussion. Whether he knew what I was going to say and didn't want to hear it, or simply didn't want to proceed down that road, I am not sure. I would have liked to continue.

In discussing the issue with others, I have pointed out that Ariel Sharon served in the Israeli Army fighting only those who attacked Israel or Israelis, while Arafat made a career of targeting civilians as retribution for the crime of the establishment of a Jewish state; that while the PLO and Arafat's Fatah terrorist movement want to kick all Jews out of Palestine, Sharon and his government aren't trying to kick all Arabs out of Israel; that the new United Nations-established Jewish state was attacked the day after it was proclaimed, by Arabs opposed to any form of a Jewish state in the region; that Israel has offered several times to cede control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to Palestine, even though they seized those lands during the 1967 war which was started when Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attempted a coordinated and unprovoked invasion of Israel; that Arafat has never acted to stop terrorist activity that has threatened Arab-Israeli peace agreements; that he had a habit of giving speeches in English talking about wanting peace but giving speeches in Arabic calling for death to all Jews; that... well, you get the idea.

A recent online article reflects how that steadfast beacon of freedom, China, sees Arafat. Surprisingly (she said sarcastically) there is no mention of the means used by Arafat during the 56-year existence of Israel to achieve his goal, nor is there mention of the goal itself—to claim all of Israel as a Palestinian state and expel all Jews. On the other side of the same coin, the internet is chock-full of web sites accusing Sharon of war crimes in 1982. This summary is typical:

The central argument of the case hinges upon Ariel Sharon's Command Responsibility as General of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which was in full control of Beirut when the massacres took place in the contiguous refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Although the killings of between 1000-2000 unarmed Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were carried out by Lebanese militia units affiliated directly or indirectly with the Israeli-backed Christian Lebanese Forces (the Phalange), the legal, military, and decision-making responsibility ultimately rests with Ariel Sharon under established and recognized principles of International Law.

That is the most reasonable reference to the incident I was able to find, akin to accusing George W. Bush of war crimes for abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Most of the others don't even go that far, relying instead on ad hominem attacks and vague suggestions of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy rather than bothering to mention any specific acts.

When you think about it, isn't that really Yasser Arafat's ultimate legacy? He devoted his life to hating Jews, acting on that hatred, and persuading others to join him for no other reason than that they hate Jews. And that, in a nutshell, is what ultimately can be said about Yasser.

The armistice that ended World War I was signed on November 11, 1918. In 1926, the U.S. Congress enacted a resolution declaring November 11 a legal holiday in honor of those who fought in the war. It was at first known as "Armistice Day" but was renamed in 1954 to "Veterans Day" in recognition of those who subsequently fought in World War II and in the Korean War.

In 1968, a federal law established observance of certain holidays on a Monday. The idea stuck for all but Veterans Day, which was dropped from the Monday holiday list in 1975. The Veterans Administration has gathered several federal documents pertaining to the holiday and its observance.

Many people think of veterans as crusty old men wearing American Legion hats. But an ever increasing number of war veterans are women, many of whom have served in combat despite an official policy against it, and young people, like the very newest veterans coming home from service in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

I won't wax poetic about the sacrifices of veterans and ask whether you've found a veteran to hug today. I think it's more appropriate to respect the veterans we all meet every day in our ordinary lives.

The headline on the main web site of the British Broadcasting Corporation caught my eye: "Stolen childhood." The article tells of a Chinese woman who, as a 3-year-old, was abducted and sold to another family. The story was not as bad as many I have heard; the girl was treated well and apparently was much loved by the couple who raised her as their own daughter. In much of today's human trade, the results are much worse, especially for women and children.

Modern slavery takes many forms, including bonded servitude, child labor, and forced prostitution. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, women and girls are disproportionately affected.

International Justice Mission is a bible-based Christian missionary organization fighting, among other things, forced prostitution and traditional slavery-for-labor. Some of their case reports are heartbreaking.

The American Anti-Slavery Group notes that slavery or part of a human trade exists today on every continent. Another group, Free the Slaves, documents slavery in today's America. The Palm Beach Post presented a special series last year about slavery's new form, scamming and trapping illegal migrant workers.

Those of us born into comfort here in the United States tend to think of slavery as something that ended when the Union won the Civil War. We owe it not only to ourselves but also to the rest of the world, which so often looks to us for help, to become aware that it still thrives worldwide today.

As I watched last night's evening news while waiting to give blood, I found myself feeling immensely relieved by the military incursion into Fallujah. I know such a fierce battle will not be quick and will result in many casualties and deaths on all sides. But if there is any way to ensure that all those who have died will not have done so for nothing, I believe we have to get—and stay—tough. The G.H.W. Bush administration stopped short in the first Gulf War and was roundly criticized for "not finishing the job", just as the G.W. Bush administration is being critized now for trying to finish it once and for all. The lesson, of course, is that no matter what you do, someone won't like it.

I used to consider myself anti-war. I couldn't imagine that there was ever an armed conflict that couldn't have been dealt with by less lethal means, if only the parties involved had been more creative; I remember reading about members of the Dutch resistance in World War II blocking the train tracks so Jews couldn't be transported to the death camps. But with age comes the realization that the ultimate success of such alternatives are only possible if there is good faith on both sides. The resistance in Holland, France, and elsewhere in Europe, won a few battles, saved some lives outright, and delayed the death of countless others, but the Holocaust at some level would have gone on forever until the Nazis were stopped militarily.

The war in Europe was obviously much more widespread and destructive than that in Iraq today, but it's worth making a couple comparisons. If we were on the eve of World War II today, you can bet the farm that people would be demanding we give diplomacy another chance and the United Nations Security Council would be passing more toothless resolutions sanctioning Hitler and Mussolini. The reasons against starting the war would be many, among them the uncertainty of victory, the absence of an imminent thread to the United States, the lack of a clear exit strategy, and the foolishness of going to war against the German/Italian axis when there wasn't even a proven connection between them and Japan, the country that actually attacked us, speaking of which, FDR obviously didn't do enough to prevent 12/7 and—have you heard the rumors?—may have actually known about it in advance because he was, after all, in bed with Japan and sharing military strategy with them just months before, and how can we successfully fight a war on two fronts anyway? Once into the war, the second-guessing would be deafening; hostilities were dragging on longer than we anticipated, military personnel were dying in staggering numbers, extended deployments were destroying troop morale, we clearly didn't have enough troops to get the job done, the civilian population in Europe was getting caught in the crossfire, and then there's that pesky lack of an exit strategy. After the defeat of the Nazis and fascists, we would be vilified for not doing enough to win the peace, for leaving Europe in ruins and its people in abject poverty, feeling they would have been better off under the iron fist of Hitler. The Marshall Plan would take two years to even be proposed, and then it would require the cooperation of nations so battle-scarred that they couldn't possibly be expected to effectively participate in their own rebuilding. And the coalition would be crumbling, with Stalin refusing to commit Soviet resources. A disaster, I tell you; we never should have gone to war in the first place.

One final observation. Today's so-called peace movement really isn't. It is merely an anti-U.S., anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, anti-military presence that cares nothing of those who suffer under the regimes of the American government's stated foes, because nothing they have done is ever as bad as our war. But as much as we might wish it to be so, the absence of war isn't necessarily peace. Ask those exterminated by Hitler, Stalin, and Amin, or those killed, maimed, tortured, and raped under the pre-war regime of Saddam Hussein.

A nearly 57-year-old woman in New York has given birth to twins after undergoing in-vitro fertilization. Her doctor said she ordinarily wouldn't recommend pregnancy for a woman of that age, but she made an exception in this case:

[North Hudson IVF director Jane] Miller said she agreed to oversee [Aleta] St. James' pregnancy because she was in such good health.

"There was no medical reason that would prevent a successful-term pregnancy with her through the use of donated eggs," Miller said.

To put this in perspective, Ms. St. James will be nearly 75 years old when her children graduate from high school, close to 79 when they're old enough to graduate from college. While she is in good health now, unpleasant things begin happening to people into their retirement years. Will she be able to sustain the rigors of raising two young children as she becomes a senior citizen? What about the increased chance she will fall ill or die before they are grown? When she decided to pursue the IVF process, was she thinking of the children or just herself?

There's a reason why the female reproductive system doesn't keep reproducing forever. It is nature's way of seeing to it that people aren't birthing and raising kids after they have the physical capabilities necessary to withstand the physical activity and mental stress necessary to do so. Younger people who are less healthy or disabled do, of course, raise families and do quite well. And I don't doubt that older parents are capable of the limitless love younger parents give their children. But at age 56, there is a lot going against you. Ms. St. James hasn't made this decision simply for herself. Two other lives now depend on the hope that their aging mother can somehow defy the passage of time.

Better stay away from the water too. The Associated Press is reporting today that Environmental Protection Agency tests of drinking water in airplanes found coliform bacteria in 1 out of 8 cases.

Coliform bacteria includes fecal coliform bacteria, which comes from feces as the name suggests. The best-known coliform bacterium is Escherichia coli, more commonly called E. coli.

Reportedly 12 airlines have agreed to further testing, but the article mentions no remedy. My suggestion: bring bottled water on your next flight.

To follow up on my recent post about the town that voted not to fund a pension for the widow and children of a fallen volunteer firefighter, it turns out there's more to the story than meets the eye. Worcester newspaper columnist Dianne Williamson today brought to light additional information ($ubscription required) that complicates the matter somewhat. Excerpt:

People in town were also aware that Claire McNamara has been paid close to $400,000 in state and federal survivor benefits. The town of Clinton, where she lives, has waived her property-tax bills for life, and the state has offered her children free tuition to any public college in Massachusetts.

After the firefighter’s death, a fund-raising account was established for his family and many people contributed, based partly on the idea that Ms. McNamara would receive no benefits from the town. And when the town later asked for the account balance while trying to determine what kind of pension the family needed, the family declined to reveal it, essentially saying it’s nobody’s business. Which would be true if not for the fact that the family was asking for help, and voters were trying to determine if the family’s need outweighed their own financial sacrifice.

She's right, of course. If the family isn't truly in need, why require the taxpayers to help?

For no particular reason, I have been thinking about the so-called "right to die" controversy. It's an intriguing name they've picked for themselves, supporters of things like euthanasia and assisted suicide. As if we won't die unless the law lets someone do us in.

They appeal to emotions. Usually it's, "Do you really want to suffer a long and painful death?" or, "Do you really want to be hooked up to machines keeping you alive long after your time?" or my personal favorite, in which the right to die becomes the duty to die, "Do you really want to become a burden to your family?" The implication, false of course, is that unless your doctor or someone else can legally kill you before your body gives out on its own, you will linger on and on, suffer terribly, and become in your final days a pain in the ass to your loved ones.

You never hear "right to die" activists talk about Hospice care, which is a compassionate approach to death and dying that focuses on comfort to the patient and her or his family while preserving the dignity of all.

Hospice emphasizes palliative rather than curative treatment; quality rather than quantity of life. The dying are comforted. Professional medical care is given, and sophisticated symptom relief provided. The patient and family are both included in the care plan and emotional, spiritual and practical support is given based on the patient?s wishes and family?s needs. [...]

Hospice affirms life and regards dying as a normal process. Hospice neither hastens nor postpones death. Hospice provides personalized services and a caring community so that patients and families can attain the necessary preparation for a death that is satisfactory to them.

Having had friends and family who died with the support of hospice care, I can attest that it is a truly positive experience with death and dying. I wonder how many people, given the alternative between having themselves killed and dying a natural and peaceful death, wouldn't choose it. Too bad it's ignored by the "right to die" crowd.

America's oldest subway is coming into the 21st century. Boston's MBTA is abandoning the old token system in favor of a debit-style fare card similar to that used by the Washington, DC, Metro system. The "T" fare card will be called the Charlie Card.

The new "Charlie Card" is designed to make commuting more convenient by automatically debiting the cost of the passenger's ride at the turnstile or fare box.

The article doesn't say so, but Bostonians and folk music fans will recognize the Charlie as the tragic figure in the Kingston Trio's famous song, "MTA" (the system's former name), which laments an unfortunate commuter who falls victim to a subway fare increase and can't get off the train because he doesn't have the extra nickel:

Charlie's wife goes down to the Scollay Square Station
every day at quarter past two,
And through the open window she hands Charlie a sandwich
as the train comes rumblin' through.

Of course, the song begs the question: why didn't Charlie's wife, instead of handing him a sandwich every day, just hand him the nickel? The world may never know...

Sorry to be a little late on this, but yesterday's Boston Herald reported on the perplexing case of voters in the town of Lancaster, Massachusetts, who narrowly rejected a proposal to provide death benefits to the widow of a volunteer firefighter killed in the line of duty.

"Our son lost his life serving a community and a large number of people in our community voted not to give benefits to his wife and children," Martin McNamara said of his namesake son. "I'm disappointed."

Firefighter McNamara, a 31-year-old volunteer on-call firefighter, died on November 29, 2003, in a house explosion. Because Lancaster's fire department is all-volunteer, the town is not required to pay death benefits to the families of fallen firefighters. The residents could have voted to do so anyway, had they approved a one-time override of the statutory cap on property tax increases. After one year, the tax rate would have returned to the limit prescribed by law.

There is still a chance that the measure may be approved if the as yet uncounted provisional ballots come in heavily in favor. In the meantime, an area radio station is asking its listeners to contribute to a trust fund for the McNamara children, the youngest of whom was born just days after her father's death. Those who wish to make a donation, however small, can send a check payable to:

McNamara Family Fund
c/o Leominster Credit Union
159 Mechanic St.
Clinton, MA 01510

If you have questions about the fund, call the bank at 978-368-8314.

It would be a safe bet that the Kerry and Edwards families are a bit down about the election. Unfortunately, that is the least of the Edwards family's problems now that Elizabeth Edwards, the former vice presidential candidate's wife, has been diagnosed with breast cancer. The importance of the campaign upon which Ms. Edwards is about to embark towers over the campaign just ended. The Den Mother wishes her success in her battle.

Just days after we in the United States went to the polls, as we do at regular intervals, to choose who will serve in government office for the next two, four, or six years, the Palestinian Liberation Organization evidently finds itself unprepared for a possible change in leadership as Yasser Arafat lies either dying or dead in France. Reports vary as to his current condition, but I wouldn't be surprised if news of Arafat's death, whenever it happens or happened, isn't delayed while other PLO leaders fight over who will take over for him. That's the way they used to do it in the old Soviet Union, where leaders' deaths weren't announced until after the inevitable power struggle yielded a successor. It takes time, after all, to decide who gets to be dictator next.

I did this nice commentary about the election and how much it sucked for Democrats and gay/lesbian people. Took me about 45 minutes, by the time I referenced other articles and added links. Then when it came time to post, blogger.com decided to wig out on me. I don't feel like recreating it. So...

The gist of it was that if you're a Democrat, you're bumming right about now, what with Kerry's defeat, loss of seats in both houses of Congress, and failure (so far) to pick up even one gubernatorial seat from the Republicans. If you're a far-far-far left Democrat, you're apoplectic, especially about Kerry. See Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos to see what I'm talking about.

Meanwhile, eleven states voted in favor of constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marrige. This is much more of a disaster for gays and lesbians than what the Dems are experiencing, but organizations like the Human Rights Campaign aren't in hysterics about it. They're simply vowing to fight on. The ultra-lefties could stand to follow their example.

Voting rights in the United States of America have evolved throughout our history. The U.S. Constitution reflects this evolution:

Amendment XIV — Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2 [excerpt]. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Amendment XV — Race no bar to vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XIX — Women's suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV — Poll tax barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI — Voting age set to 18 years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

In short, if you are a natural born or naturalized citizen, male or female, of any race, of any color, of any previous condition of servitude, at least age 18 or older, whether or not you pay taxes, you have the right to vote.

Have you heard the latest from the mouth of the once venerated Walter Cronkite? The former newsman, for years trusted by millions as one of the nation's leading information sources, has an Oliver Stone Moment on CNN's Saturday night telecast of Larry King Live (emphasis added):

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OSAMA BIN LADEN (through translator): Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?

CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...

KING: The warning.

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

Of course, Larry wasn't mentally sharp enough to pick up on the accusation, probably due to oxygen deprivation from all those heart attacks. But what is Walter's excuse? Dementia? Could be—the man doesn't even know what year it is:

CRONKITE: Who's to blame for it really is the intensity of this campaign. Plus the fact that we have a preface to this in the last campaign. What year was that now?

KING: 2000.

CRONKITE: 2000. Thank you very much.

This is the biggest televised embarrassment since the late Justice Thurgood Marshall dodged a question about his opinion of then-president George H.W. Bush by saying, "If you can't say something nice about a dead man, don't say anything." That may have been the last time Justice Marshall spoke to the media.

Perhaps there is a lesson there for Mr. Cronkite. Just zip the lip, Walter, and drive off into the sunset.