Crowds carried the bodies of two victims to the nearby Euphrates River and hung the corpses from one of two bridges that span the waterway. Hours later, the bodies were cut down, tossed onto a pile of tires and set afire.

The bodies were then dragged behind a donkey cart to Fallujah's municipal building and dumped there, only to be tied to the bumper of a car and dragged away to an unknown location.

End Closed-Door Policies Written by and for Big Oil. Dick Cheney’s energy task force that met with energy industry officials in closed meetings led to the administration’s energy policy – a virtual smorgasbord of benefits for the oil, gas, electricity, and nuclear power industries that threatens the environment and takes us backward by increasing our dependence on polluting sources of energy.

John Kerry made a speech announcing a plan to control gas prices. After hearing this, President Bush said, "That's crazy. Only Dick Cheney can control gas prices."

Patchwork Regulations Reduce Flexibility and Drive Up Price. There are more than 300 local and state fuel regulations in the U.S. These regulations result in a patchwork of gasoline zones across the country where only certain fuels can be sold, creating price disparities across the country. The large number of fuel types also limits flexibility in product distribution, particularly if a disruption occurs. Consumers pay for that lack of flexibility whenever there is a price spike.

Streamline Fuels to Reduce Costs and Increase Flexibility. Action must be taken to reduce the proliferation of boutique fuels. This is necessary if we are to increase the ability to provide an adequate supply of gasoline and other fuels in times of disruption or in tight markets, such as those we will see this summer. A Kerry Administration will work with States to develop rational fuel policies that ensure local air quality is protected while reducing market problems that result from the number of boutique fuels used around the country. Gasoline needs to be more fungible from region to region in order to prevent regional or localized price spikes and volatility. This will restore the market flexibility that is necessary to protect consumers.

Bush To Roll Back Pollution Rules

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2001

(CBS) - The Bush administration said Friday it would relax federal pollution rules for blending ethanol into gasoline for the Chicago and Milwaukee markets to avoid a spike in fuel prices during the summer driving season.

...

Environmentalists, still upset by the president's recent reversal of a campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants, aren't buying the assertion that the new gas formula won't pollute.

"This has a health impact, and I think the people who live in Wisconsin and Illinois who will be breathing this air that's less healthy now would think that this is a significant impact," said Deb Callahan of the League of Conservation Voters.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "there are so many references to God in the daily lives of this country" that the words in the pledge have no more religious meaning than the words on the coin. Maybe so. But remember that adding "In God We Trust" was also a political sop to opponents after Lincoln rejected their proposal to insert Jesus Christ into the preamble of the Constitution.

MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, Mr. Clarke, you would urge Congress, the intelligence committees, to declassify your sworn testimony before the congressional inquiry two years ago as well as your testimony before the September 11th Commission?

MR. CLARKE: Yes, and those documents I just referred to and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said. There weren't in those closed hearings where she testified before the 9-11 Commission. They want to know. So let's take her testimony before the 9-11 Commission and make it part of the package of what gets declassified along with the national security decision directive of September 4 and along with my memo of January 25.

In fact, Tim, let's go further. The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I've sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of it. [emphasis added]

Is electronic mail private? What about voice mail?

In most cases, no. If an electronic mail (e-mail) system is used at a company, the employer owns it and is allowed to review its contents. Messages sent within the company as well as those that are sent from your terminal to another company or from another company to you can be subject to monitoring by your employer. This includes web-based email accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail as well as instant messages. The same holds true for voice mail systems. In general, employees should not assume that these activities are not being monitored and are private. Several workplace privacy court cases have been decided in the employer’s favor.

Teaching journalists to do a good job is generally a good thing. However, if you're good at teaching journalism, you should do it someplace else. Doing it for the WJI means that you're giving skills to students who want to go out and lie to their readers. Go teach someplace where the students aren't self-selected for bullshit.
--"Captain Nemo"

I will say one more time that I think any discussion of the validity of the religion in question is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, as I understand it, is it unethical for a school to teach journalism with a particular religious emphasis?

On the contrary. The despicable nature of religion in general is the core of the problem here. If someone were running a school to teach scientific attitudes to journalists, that'd be great. The difference is that science encourages skeptical thinking, and religion suppresses it. People whose minds are in chains are not qualified to be reporters.
-- "Captain Nemo"

if you reject evolution, then you are ipso facto un-qualified to be a journalist at a mainstream newspaper. in rejecting evolution, you reject all modern science. if your "journalism school" espouses expressly anti-modernist pro-Theocratic tenets as its worldview, please remain unsurprised when non-millenialists and modernists (e.g. people who recognize that the earth is, like, round, and stuff) are freaked out.
-- Robert Green

A third-person action game, Mercenaries (its working title) seems to be an ultraviolent third-person explosion fest. Mercs can pick and choose sides, working for either the North Koreans, Chinese, Russian Mafia or United Nations.

Democrats teed up easy questions for him. Commissioner Timothy J. Roemer got Clarke, who served in four administrations, to say that there was "no higher" priority than terrorism under President Bill Clinton, but the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem."

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And then changed the (Clinton) strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

The thing about the Jasyon [sic] Blair story was that it didn't matter. Sure it was egg on face of the New York Times, but his fabrications were almost entirely harmless and trivial. Kelley's fabrications were frequently inflammatory pieces on inflammatory issues. And, while Blair's agenda was just preserving his career, Kelley possibly had a much larger one though I haven't read much analysis of his fabrications in that context.

When the Blair scandal came out there were endless ruminations about the poisonous impact of affirmative action on the newsroom, and many many people who declared solemnly that "of course" his race was a factor. People like the brothers Hack, Crazy Andy, etc...

What's their explanation for this guy, who got away with the journalistic equivalent of murder for years? We'll never know, because as a quick glance at their site shows - they don't care a bit.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Blair's ethical disaster will tarnish good, talented and honest minority journalists at the Times and other papers. Now, in an ideal world, this sort of scandal would just sully journalism in general -- certainly if Blair were white and middle-aged that would be the case. But because he's a young black man who got the job at the Times largely because he is a young black man it raises a question about the competency of other young minority journalists. Are the minority intern program's chosen few under undue pressure to perform and succeed -- with journalistic ethics on the back burner (or completely off the stove)? That's really the most insidious thing about affirmative action and diversity programs -- that the exceptions that are made in the hiring and promotion of minorities can come back to haunt the program when something goes wrong.

If Jayson Blair had come to the Times after working for ten years at a variety of newspapers then his race wouldn't even been raised by Kurtz -- or anyone else for that matter. He would have been just another cautionary tale of journalism gone wrong. But the fact is that the color of Blair's skin opened doors for him that would have been closed to white journalists.

Hopefully if Blair's story teaches newspapers one thing it will be that skin color, ethnicity or national origin isn't the most important thing when it comes to hiring a reporter -- professionalism is. For major papers like the Times, you're not going to find that in a student straight out of college, no matter how talented they are.

Of course, the point isn't that I think all journalists need to be secular. But, this is an organization dedicated to training journalists to push a particular conservative Christian agenda from within mainstream news organizations, and many of their people are covering religion and social issues in top organizations. Including that liberal NPR. From my first pass look at some of the kinds of stories these people crank out, it seems they're quite good at creating fairly innocuous pieces which aren't obviously slanted propaganda, but which inevitably do push the position and emphasize the things you would expect.

Theological Questions:
Q: Is there a theological litmus test at the World Journalism Institute?
A: There is no theological litmus test or template set for the students or the faculty. While the administration of WJI is Reformed and would look to historic Presbyterianism for its theological understanding, the faculty and students represent all the perspectives of historic, orthodox Christianity.
Q: Are students from all Christian denominations and traditions welcome at the World Journalism Institute?
A: Yes. All that is required on the statement of faith portion of the course/workshop application is a brief written profession of faith in Jesus Christ as one's lord and savior.

Political Question:
Q: Is there a political litmus test at the World Journalism Institute?
A: There is no political litmus test or template set for the students or the faculty. While the administration of WJI is conservative in its politics and would embrace smaller government, strong foreign defense and Biblical virtues in one's personal life, the faculty and students are not examined as to what their political philosophy is. There is, however, the expectation that all faculty will embrace a biblical view of personal and professional ethics.

Ms. Dammann did not testify. But at the news conference on Thursday, she said, "God called me into ordained ministry and I just can't believe that God would make a mistake."

In closing arguments Friday, her church counsel, the Rev. Robert C. Ward, asked jurors to adhere to church principles on inclusiveness and justice, not to the letter of church rules.

"We need to be careful about creating rules that exclude people," Ward said. "You are faced with a choice to make love practical, to make love plain, and to do what is right."

Dear Friends,

If you've ever taken my Pastor's Class, you know our commitment to being a church without "secrets." So today I'm writing to share with you some sad news that came to light last week that you need to hear from me firsthand and not through the rumor mill.

[Blank], our pastor to [blank group] and [blank group], has been involved in an ongoing emotional and physically inappropriate relationship with a woman from the San Francisco Bay area. Prior to that revelation, [Blank's] wife, [Mrs. Blank] had moved out over the previous weekend and informed him of her intention to file for divorce.

[Blank] has obviously been relieved from his pastoral duties here at [name of church]. He has expressed great sorrow for his choices and the pain that this has caused the body. We are in daily contact with [Blank] as we seek God's healing in this situation.

Please pray for [Blank], [Mrs. Blank], and their boys.

According to Rackspace's co-chairman, one-third of users approached via chat engage in conversation with a salesperson, and half of those take the discussion to the next level.

When asked a moment later about the incident by a reporter on the ski run, Kerry said sharply, "I don't fall down," the "son of a b*tch knocked me over."

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

KERRY: NO FOREIGN ENDORSEMENTS, PLEASE... Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: '...It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements'...

Simpson, whose verbal gaffes are also legendary, pulled another one Sunday visiting the White House, our sources say. The singer was introduced to Interior Secretary Gale Norton and gushed: "You've done a nice job decorating the White House."

Mainstream news organizations may "filter" the news, as President George W. Bush claimed late last year, but not to omit good stories from their Iraq coverage, but to broadcast more negative news about the president himself, according to a report released today by MediaChannel.org and Media Tenor.

The report reveals a strong negative cast to ABC, CBS and NBC news coverage of the president thus far in 2004. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, Bush's certain opponent for November, has received more positive coverage by the same three networks.

According to data compiled for MediaChannel.org by international media monitoring firm Media Tenor, network news broadcasts in January and February contained on average nearly three times more negative news statements about President Bush than about Senator John Kerry.

On Australia’s Lateline program, Paul Krugman speaks his mind:

There was actually a kind of revealing moment recently - Bush gave an interview, was more or less dragooned into an interview on Meet The Press and the interviewer said: "Well, what if you lose the election?" And he said: "I'm not going to lose the election."

And the interviewer said: "But what if you do lose?" He said: "I'm not going lose the election." The possibility that they just would not regard it as a legitimate thing if someone else were to take power.

Krugman looked almost as paranoid as he sounded. Here’s the actual exchange between George W. Bush and Meet the Press host Tim Russert:

Russert: Are you prepared to lose?

President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.

Russert: If you did, what would you do?

President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.

What did Krugman expect Bush to say? “I am fully prepared to lose, and if I do, I expect I’ll be sent into exile on the island of Elba”?

[T]he 1990's were a confusing decade. The certainties of the cold war were gone and new threats appeared. It fell to one man, John Kerry, the Human Nebula, to bring fog out of the darkness, opacity out of the confusion, bewilderment out of the void.

Kerry established himself early as the senator most likely to pierce through the superficial clarity and embrace the miasma. The gulf war had just ended. It was time to look back for lessons learned. "There are those trying to say somehow that Democrats should be admitting they were wrong" in opposing the gulf war resolution, Kerry noted in one Senate floor speech. But he added, "There is not a right or wrong here. There was a correctness in the president's judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing."

For you see, Kerry continued, "Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used."

In laying out the Kerry Doctrine — that in voting on a use-of-force resolution that is not a use-of-force resolution, the opposite of the correct answer is also the correct answer — Kerry was venturing off into the realm of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality that would mark so many of his major foreign policy statements.

Politics 101

As part of a nationwide team covering the presidential race for kid-oriented Scholastic News, 11-year-old Mitchel Hochberg of Northbrook queried John Kerry at an Evanston senior center this week.

Hochberg, a fifth-grader, noted that President Bush and Kerry have exchanged unusually aggressive barbs for so early in a presidential contest. Does that help Kerry or hurt him? Hochberg wondered.
Kerry responded by talking about prescription drugs.

"It was an interesting experience,'' Hochberg said after the event. But, he lamented, Kerry's response "wasn't a full answer.''

Welcome to the club, kid.

While all fingers in Spain are pointing at the Basque separatist movement ETA as the perpetrators of Thursday's atrocious train bombings that left some 186 dead and 600 wounded, the attacks carry all the markings of al-Qaida and its jihadi affiliates.

For starters the Brussels-based World Observatory of Terrorism, an independent think tank affiliated with the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, points to five major reasons that cast doubt on the involvement of ETA.

First, ETA generally warns Spanish authorities moments before launching their attacks in which civilians are likely to be harmed. This, obviously, was not the case on Thursday.

Second, ETA traditionally targets representatives of the government or the administration, such as policemen, the military, magistrates or even journalists who oppose them.

Third, ETA customarily selects "symbolic" targets, such as military barracks and administrative buildings. Although ETA's largest attack to date was in 1987 against a supermarket in Barcelona that killed 21 people, this was the exception rather than the norm.

Fourth, ETA always claims its attacks. Following any ETA bombing, ETA militants call in a claim to Spanish authorities. This failed to happen this time.

Fifth, ETA has never in the past carried out multiple attacks. According to some sources, at least 10 bombs were detonated almost simultaneously on Thursday.

Another reason why it does not appear to make sense that ETA would be behind these attacks is that the Basque separatist movement already suffers from a lack of popular sympathy. If proof of these murderous killings were to be tied to ETA, the group would stand to loose even more support, without which it would have a hard time sustaining itself politically. Even the Basque population would reject such thoughtless killings and would begin to distance themselves from the group. Of this, the ETA leadership is well aware.

(Campaign official David) Wade emphasized that Kerry was not calling Bush crooked.

"We are going to make it very clear that he's a Democrat who punches back," Wade said of Kerry.

He decried what he said he thinks is a politicizing of the judiciary.

"Eighteen years ago I was confirmed 98-0," Scalia said. "I was considered a good lawyer and an honest man. Those qualities carried the day. No more. Now it's impossible to get Miguel Estrada confirmed to the court of appeals," he said, referring to the recent defeat of a conservative Bush nominee, strongly opposed by liberals in the Senate, who withdrew. [emphasis added]

Scalia also criticized court rulings that legalize abortion and what he called "homosexual sodomy."

"(Patrick Henry College President) Mike Farris is trying to train young people to get on a very right-wing political agenda," said Nancy Keenan, the education policy director at People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, and a former Montana state superintendent of public education. The number of Patrick Henry interns in the White House "scares me to death," she said. "It tells us a little bit more about the White House than it does about the kids."

Draconian censorship was soon imposed, with correspondents advised that no dispatches would be allowed that made people at home feel unhappy. Equally rigorous censorship of letters home inspired one soldier to write his parents:

After leaving where we were before we left for here, not knowing we were coming here from there, we couldn't tell whether we had arrived here or not. Nevertheless, we now are here and not there. The weather here is just as it always is at this season. The people here are just like they look.

On this page a censor scribbled simply, "Amen."

A film about Osama arrived at the White House a few weeks ago, and President Bush has been raving about it ever since. He told cabinet members they should each get a copy and watch it for themselves. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao agreed it was one of the more important videos they had ever seen, too. First Lady Laura Bush even invited some friends, including the wife of the Afghan ambassador, for a White House private screening.

So what are all the raves about? A low-budget drama, "Osama," is the first movie to be made in post-Taliban Afghanistan, the story of a 12-year old girl who must disguise herself as a boy named Osama to support her family after her father and brother have died. Under Taliban rule, women and girls couldn't leave home unless escorted by a male relative.

You'd think the movie's distributor would be running with the endorsement, which became part of a recent speech by Mr. Bush in which he used "Osama" to justify foreign policy. But the endorsement is a "double-edged sword," says Danny Rosett, executive vice president of the distributor, MGM unit United Artists. Furthermore, Mr. Bush's use of "Osama" is even making some members of the American-Muslim and Afghan community uncomfortable.

...

On the one hand, notes Mr. Rosett, it's a "good thing" that the movie is acclaimed by both the right and left as worth seeing. On the other, "I don't think it should be used to justify foreign policy one way or the other." UA bought the U.S. distribution rights at last year's Cannes Film Festival. "We all realized it was a timely message without making a political statement one way or the other. We didn't see it as something the right would embrace," says Mr. Rosett. Despite the White House publicity, he doesn't expect box office to hit $1 million.

While Muslim groups generally praise the film, others are uneasy about the White House's active support. "I think it was unwise on the administration's part," says Nader Elmakawi, an outreach coordinator with the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a humanitarian group that promotes Islamic values. He adds that while the movie accurately depicts what life under the Taliban was like, the president's praise leaves unsaid just how violent and unstable Afghanistan remains in the wake of the war. Suraya Sadeed, founder of Help the Afghan Children Inc., says she has "mixed" feelings about Mr. Bush's embrace of the film, too. "It all depends on how we define 'liberation.' What bothers me at this point is that the people of Afghanistan still cannot make decisions for themselves. It's not a democracy."

WIFE MEETS PERFECT MATCH AFTER HUSBAND STRIKES OUT

DEAR ABBY: I am 34 and have three children. My husband, "Gene," and I have been married for 10 years. He is greedy, selfish, inconsiderate and rude. I don't know why I married him, nor why our marriage has lasted this long.

Gene put off getting me a birthday gift for as long as he could; then he bought me a bowling ball. It was the last straw. Not only do I not bowl - he had the holes drilled for his fingers and his name was on it.

The next day I went to the bowling alley determined to keep the ball and learn to bowl. It was there that I met "Franco." Franco is kind, considerate and loving - the polar opposite of Gene.

Franco and I began bowling together, and he bought me a glove in my size with my name on it. Shortly thereafter, our affair began. (I didn't mention that I was married.)

When Gene saw the bowling glove on our dresser, he became depressed because he realized that I'd met someone. I feel sorry for Gene, but the last time I saw Franco, he proposed.

I no longer love Gene. I want to divorce him and marry Franco. At the same time, I'm worried that Gene won't be able to move on with his life. I also think our kids would be devastated. What should I do? - STUCK IN A LOVE TRIANGLE

DEAR STUCK: You are not "stuck" in a love triangle. You deliberately put yourself into one by not being honest with Franco. Before you get in any deeper, put your house in order and tell your husband why you strayed. He may not realize how selfish, greedy, inconsiderate and rude you think he is. To save the marriage, he might be willing to change back to the man who bowled you over in the first place.

Next, apologize to Franco for not informing him of the fact that you are already married. He has a right to know the score - and after that, que sera sera.

It's Marge's 34th birthday and Homer carelessly gets her a bowling ball for a present, but it's really just for himself. Upset with Homer, for the first time in her life Marge actually goes bowling, but she really sucks at it. A man in the lane next to her approaches and introduces himself as Jacques and he invites her over for special bowling lessons. Marge seemingly falls in love with Jacques. Jacques and Marge are sort of on a date at a dinner, when Helen Lovejoy (the Reverend's gossipy wife, seen her for the first time) approaches threatening to tell everyone. Jacques convinces Helen that they are just doing a bowling lesson, when Helen leaves they continue and then Jacques invites Marge over to his place. Marge soon realizes that she is doing something bad and she stops her relationship.

Editors: We are offering substitute copy for the March 15 release of Dear Abby. We were informed that the original first letter was suspiciously close to a synopsis of a "Simpsons" episode. The enclosed copy contains a new first letter. The second and third items stay the same. - UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

In fact, it would take only modest injections of money to maintain that system's current benefit levels for at least the next 75 years. Other reports, however, appear to portray a system in deep financial trouble. For example, a 2002 Treasury study, described on Tuesday in The New York Times, claims that Social Security and Medicare are $44 trillion in the red. What's the truth?

Here's a hint: while even right-wing politicians insist in public that they want to save Social Security, the ideologues shaping their views are itching for an excuse to dismantle the system. So you have to read alarming reports generated by people who work at ideologically driven institutions — a list that now, alas, includes the U.S. Treasury — with great care.

First, two words — "and Medicare" — make a huge difference. According to the Treasury study, only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security. Second, the supposed shortfall in both programs comes mainly from projections about the distant future; 62 percent of the combined shortfall comes after 2077.

Today life expectancy at birth is 76, which is troublesome enough, but additional expectancy at 65 is 17 years -- and growing. For about 150 years the longest life expectancies have advanced about 2.5 years per decade. Most people start collecting Social Security at 62, so the year 2019 will be especially challenging, because more American babies were born in 1957 -- 4.3 million in a population of 172 million -- than in any other year in American history.

Today there are more than 100 million additional Americans, but there were fewer than 4 million newborns per year throughout the 1990s. In the 1950s the median age for women's first marriages was 20.3. By 2000 it was 25.1. This has meant a decline in fecundity, which affects the wager we have made on Social Security as an intergenerational compact -- children being able and willing to support the elderly.

On Jan. 31, 1940, a check, number 00-000-001, for $22.54 was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vt., making her the first recipient of recurring monthly Social Security payments. Then, in an act of dubious citizenship, she lived to 100, dying in January 1975, having received $22,000 in benefits. That did not matter because in 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 to 1. In 2030 there will be 2.2 to 1.

Birds hit with this single stone included the acknowledgment that both quotes came from one interview; that the two articles were about two different subjects (the Feb. 22 piece concerned Republicans disenchanted with President Bush); and the implicit presumption that there was nothing wrong with this efficient recycling.

I would have liked to have seen a less artful and more complete mea culpa. The subject of the correction was Mr. Meagher's political affiliation, but the larger issues were the propriety of using the same quote twice; using it in two different contexts; using it in two different versions (look at the phrases preceding "when I think about 500 people killed" ); and, most of all, not addressing the appropriateness of a single one of these points.

This was a correction written on the head of the pin. Readers have reason to expect The Times to be a little less defensive, a little more forthcoming, and a little more reflective.

1. How many goals are on a basketball court?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

2. How many players are allowed to play at one time on any
one team in a regulation game?
a. 2
b. 3
c. 4
d. 5

3. In what league to [sic] the Georgia Bulldogs compete?
a. ACC
b. Big Ten
c. SEC
d. Pac 10

4. What is the name of the coliseum where the Georgia
Bulldogs play?
a. Cameron Indoor Arena
b. Stegeman Coliseum
c. Carrier Dome
d. Pauley Pavilion

5. How many halves are in a college basketball game?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

6. How many quarters are in a high school basketball game?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

7. How many points does one field goal account for in a
Basketball Game?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

8. How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in
a Basketball Game?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

9. How many officials referee a college basketball game?
a. 2
b. 4
c. 6
d. 3

10. How many teams are in the NCAA Men's Basketball National
Championship Tournament?
a. 48
b. 64
c. 65
d. 32

11. What is the name of the exam which all high school
seniors in the State of Georgia must pass?
a. Eye Exam
b. How Do The Grits Taste Exam
c. Bug Control Exam
d. Georgia Exit Exam

12. What basic color are the uniforms the Georgia Bulldogs
wear in home games?
a. White
b. Red
c. Black
d. Silver

3. What basic color are the uniforms the Georgia Bulldogs
wear in away games?
a. Pink
b. Blue
c. Orange
d. Red

14. How many minutes are played in a college basketball
contest?
a. 20
b. 40
c. 60
d. 90

15. How many minutes are played in a high school basketball
game?
a. 15
b. 30
c. 32
d. 45

16. Diagram the 3-point line.

17. Diagram the half-court line.

18. How many fouls is a player allowed to have in one
Basketball game before fouling out in that game?
a. 3
b. 5
c. 7
d. 0

19. If you go on to become a huge coaching success, to whom
will you tribute [sic] the credit?
a. Mike Krzyzewski
b. Bobby Knight
c. John Wooden
d. Jim Harrick Jr.

20. In your opinion, who is the best Division I assistant
coach in the country?
a. Ron Jursa [sic]
b. John Pelphrey
c. Jim Harrick Jr.
d. Steve Wojciechowski

The most depressing news of the night is that Proposition 56 in California is apparently going down to a resounding defeat. The proposition would have decreased the majority required in the legislature to pass a budget from 66% to 55%. Democrats were pushing for the proposition because the Republicans' refusal to accede to any type of tax increase is one of the primary causes of California's massive fiscal crisis.

I am extremely disconcerted about the performance of proposition 56. It seems to me that its rejection was an indication that Southern California suburban voters are very susceptible to the irrational anti-tax arguments that Republicans like to throw around. The anger in California about these fiscal issues does not auger well for Bush's chances in the state because of his fiscal profligacy.

The state supreme court said the charity, incorporated separately from the church, was not a "religious employer" exempt from legislation mandating such coverage.

While affiliated with the Catholic Church, the charity's purpose is not to inculcate religious values, a majority of justices noted.

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the Scouts' lease of the 18-acre Camp Balboa in Balboa Park violates provisions in the U.S. and state constitutions governing the separation of church and state.

Jones said the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because the Scouts require members to profess a belief in God.