
	AGW Welcome		The Witness Magazine

All the News that's Print to Fit

By William E. Alberts

To an alarming degree, U.S. mainstream media's coverage of the Bush administration's run-up to and pre-emptive war against Iraq has been a "flop": instead of "independent" coverage and "a broad range of political viewpoints," we Americans have been subjected often to all the news that's print to fit.

A recent New York Times editorial on "America's Television Flop in Iraq" began with words that could apply to the United States: "If democracy is ever going to flourish in Iraq, one element will have to be lively, independent news media, professionally operated by Iraqis and featuring a broad range of political viewpoints" (Aug. 9, 2003). To an alarming degree, U.S. mainstream media's coverage of the Bush administration's run-up to and pre-emptive war against Iraq has been a "flop": instead of "independent" coverage and "a broad range of political viewpoints," we Americans have been subjected often to all the news that's print to fit.

A glaring example of "news" that's "print to fit" was President Bush's orchestrated March 6, 2003 news conference shortly before his administration launched its pre-emptive war. Typical of the controlled "give-and-take" was a question Bush "fielded" from a black woman reporter: "As the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?" (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003).

The reporter and her question allowed President Bush to kill two doves with one stone. It appeared to be no accident that a black reporter handed Bush the opportunity to rebut the powerful 38-member Congressional Black Caucus, which favored UN weapons inspectors continuing to verify the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and strongly opposed his administration's rush to pre-emptive war. Any appearance of "racial untidiness" was avoided by not having a white reporter invite the president to refute an influential black political organization's opposition to his administration's war plans. Thus was the one dove carefully held up to be slain by Bush's response: "We've tried diplomacy for 12 years. Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed, he's armed. And we live in a dangerous world (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003). The reporter appears to exemplify how America's historic white-controlled racial hierarchy of access and power uses accommodating black persons to give a subliminal message of equality while serving its vested interests -- a common hierarchical practice that I call "Black Gloves/White Hands." (The overwhelming opposition of black citizens to Bush's presidency, including the thousands of Florida voters disenfranchised during the Presidential election of 2000, also seems to be countered by the selection of appropriate black persons as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.)

The second dove was prayed away when President Bush responded to the reporter's question, "How is your faith guiding you?" "I appreciate that question a lot,"

Bush answered. "My faith sustains me. Because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength . . . I pray for peace. I pray for peace." Just two weeks later the Bush administration unleashed its long-planned pre-emptive war against Iraq -- with few in mainstream media asking to whom does President Bush pray. Instead, the dominant focus was the daily advance billing of "Showdown with Iraq." A media image was presented of Saddam Hussein waiting in the desert at high noon with weapons of mass destruction hidden in the sand, ready to take on the deadliest gun-fighting superpower in the West -- and that superpower's British sidekick to boot. Coming soon to your television screen: the "Mother" of all reality shows! The second dove was ignored and died a spiritual death on the "wings of prayer" -- with little forewarning or obituary appearing in the papers. Praying for peace or preying on Iraq?

Colin Powell's "compelling" UN briefing

Another example of all the news that's print to fit is seen in mainstream media's coverage of President Bush's words: "We've tried diplomacy for 12 years. Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed, he's armed. And we live in a dangerous world." Bush and key administration officials had been saying these words for some time through media seemingly lacking "independent" coverage and "a broad range of political viewpoints." He continually warned of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, "the final proof" of which "could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" (The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2002). The final proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction came in the form of Bush "dispatching" Secretary of State Colin Powell to present, in graphic and climactic form, the administration's case against Iraq's illegal weapons to the UN Security Council -- and to an accommodating media.

Secretary of State Powell's dramatic indictment of a weapons of mass destruction "armed" Iraq before the UN was not only reported but affirmed by many in mainstream media. "Powell's briefing was not only breathtaking in scope but utterly convincing," Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway wrote in a piece called, "A compelling case is made for action" (Feb. 7, 2003). "Powell has convinced me," was the title of syndicated columnist Mary McGrory's piece, "and I was as tough as France to convince," she wrote (The Boston Globe, Feb. 8, 2003). New York Times writer William Safire's column hailed Powell's "proof of Saddam's cover-up" as "'Irrefutable and Undeniable'" (Feb. 6, 2003). Boston Globe media writer Mark Jurkowitz's piece entitled "Powell's UN speech proves persuasive for commentators," began "Secretary of State Colin Powell's dramatic Feb. 5 presentation at the UN may not have convinced the French, Germans, or Russians of the need to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. But it seemed to work wonders on opinion makers and editorial shakers in the media universe." Jurkowitz's conclusion was based on two studies of the editorials in many of the nation's largest papers before and after Powell's speech: one survey found "those considered 'war skeptics' plummeted from 29 to 11" (Feb. 13, 2003).

Secretary of State Powell's performance at the UN seemed to "work wonders" on The Boston Globe. An editorial stated, "With evidence from satellite photographs and intercepts and information from defectors and detainees, the secretary of state made a

persuasive case that Saddam continues to conduct an elaborate concealment operation." The editorial asserted, "Sadly, inspectors and containment haven't worked to end his acquisition of poisons or his determination to develop nuclear weapons" (Feb. 6, 2003). Similarly, a New York Times editorial said that "Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have" (Feb. 6, 2003).

The most powerful case to date is that the only weapons of mass destruction found yet in Iraq are those unleashed by American and British military forces on a defenseless populace. This growing reality may become not only an indictment of "the level of credibility and straightforwardness shown by Powell" (Boston Globe editorial, Feb. 6, 2003) -- and the administration he represented before the UN -- but of a media lacking "independent" judgement and "a broad range of viewpoints."

Almost a year before Secretary of State Powell demonstrated "credibility and straightforwardness" before the UN and the world public, Boston Globe editorials had been reinforcing the Bush administration's case regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. An editorial called "Bush in Command" stated, "Bush was fittingly candid in saying that 'though all options are on the table,' the 'one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of

mass destruction.' In reality," the editorial continued, "Saddam already has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons" [italics added] (Mar. 15, 2002).

Three months later, another Boston Globe editorial made repeated and matter-of-fact references to "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," emphasized the threat he posed with them, warned that he "is closer than ever to developing nuclear weapons after nearly four years without UN weapons inspectors working in Iraq," and stated that "Bush is justified in authorizing covert action to topple Saddam" (June 19, 2002). A third Boston Globe editorial followed with, "Since Saddam has never lived up to the obligations he accepted in earlier UN resolutions, it would be na•ve to expect him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam," the editorial continued, "has always regarded those horrific weapons as indispensable to his power and ambitions" (Nov. 14, 2002).

Not until three months into the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, and seven weeks after major combat ended, did a guest opinion piece appear in The Boston Globe to challenge the "wonders" worked "on opinion makers and editorial shakers" by Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation. Thomas Powers wrote that "the evidence for a sweeping failure of American intelligence can already be found laid out most clearly in the speech delivered by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United States Security Council on Feb. 5." Powers effectively pointed out the obvious: "Many of Powell's claims involve big things that would be easy to check once America had free run of Iraq." He observed, "Saddam's deadly germs, his chemical weapons, and his secret program to build nuclear weapons seem to have vanished with the dictator himself" (June 15, 2003).

Mainstream media: No meaningful debate

The Bush administration was playing its pre-emptive war plans against Iraq to an accommodating media. All the while UN weapons inspectors were searching for and not finding "any smoking guns," weapons and other experts appeared on nightly pre-war newscasts, supporting the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was not disarming but hiding "the most dangerous weapons of our age" (The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2002).

On Feb. 5, 2003, CBS's "60 Minutes II" presented "The Case Against Saddam," which began with Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his UN presentation that morning, telling host Dan Rather, "I spent most of the last four days going over every sentence in my statement . . . What you see is the truth . . . I think I put forward a case today that said . . . there are many smoking guns."

Powell was followed by a clip of Saddam Hussein in a recent rare interview saying, "I tell you, as I have said on many occasions before, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq whatsoever. And we challenge those who say the opposite to give the simplest proof. These weapons are not aspirin pills that one can have in his pockets."

CBS commentator Bob Simon then introduced CBS News consultant and Johns Hopkins University professor of Middle Eastern Studies Fouad Ajami "to help us make sense of Saddam's answers." Ajami responded, "The charm of Saddam Hussein, if you will, in a very perverse way, is this attempt to seem like a reasonable man." But he is not: as Ajami then explained, "Saddam . . . gets this softball question: 'Do you have weapons of mass destruction?' He says, 'You can't hide them.' Well, in fact, we do know he can hide them."

CBS News Consultant Fouad Ajami's "own judgment is that the people of Iraq will not fight for Saddam Hussein." It is his "own guess that were we [italics added] to enter Baghdad, when the time comes to do so, it will be exactly a repeat of what happened in Kabul when the Americans came into Afghanistan and were greeted by kites and music and boom boxes, and people were glad to be rid of the Taliban" (Feb. 5, 2003). Unfortunately for Iraqi and U.S. citizens alike, Ajami appeared to be saying what he thought CBS and the Bush administration wanted to hear. There is no "music" to Americans' ears in Afghanistan or Iraq today -- rather a resurgent Taliban and entrenched Iraqi guerilla warfare. Bob Simon ended the program by saying, "The interview is vintage Saddam." It also was "vintage" news that's print to fit.

University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen wrote that "a recent study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted that 76 percent of the guests on network talk shows in late January and early February were current or former officials and that anti-war sources accounted for less than 1 percent. So," Jensen continued, "for the week before and after Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United Nations -- when a full and rich discussion about the war was crucial -- there was no meaningful debate on the main news shows of CBS, ABC, NBC or PBS" (The Progressive, May 2003).

The day after the war began, a three-week study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that pro-war civilian and military government officials appeared far more on U.S. television network newscasts than anti-war voices. According to the study, "Nearly two-thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and only 3 percent of U.S. sources" (Extra!, June 2003).

Mainstream media helped to create a national build-up and support for pre-emptive war against a defenseless, sanctions-beaten down people, whose national sovereignty then was easy to violate. The report of chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix did not appear to matter: that "recent inspections proved far-reaching and more effective than any previously in Iraq"; that "specialists with the UN's Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission found no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction despite leads from U.S. intelligence"; that "we certainly have not found any smoking guns"; and that "I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after 3 1/2 months" (The Boston Globe, Mar. 19, 2003).

An evidently unscrutinized President Bush could repeatedly accuse a media-demonized Saddam Hussein of the very deception he himself apparently was practicing: "I'm sick and tired of games and deceptions, and that is my view of timetables" (The New York Times, Jan. 15, 2003). "You know, how much time do we need to see clearly that he is not disarming . . . As I've said, this looks like a rerun of a bad movie, and I'm not interested in watching it" (The New York Times, Jan. 22, 2003). "No doubt he [Saddam Hussein] will play a last-minute game of deception. The game is over" (The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2003). "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world" (The New York Times, Mar. 17, 2003).

No "smoking guns"? Demonize Saddam!

President Bush's "moment of truth for the world" came. In spite of his administration's desperate search for "smoking guns" to justify its pre-emptive war, weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found in Iraq. An estimated 16,000 to 51,000 Iraqi lives have been lost and many more victims continue to suffer and die (The Guardian, Aug. 19, 2003). The deaths of American and British soldiers keep mounting. The contradiction between violating a people's sovereignty to impose democracy on them is seen in daily and intensifying guerilla warfare. A country that had no known connection with the atrocities of 9/11 and was no threat to our nation has become the rallying cry and gathering place for anti-American sentiment, recruitment and resistance -- brought on by a "Bring 'em on" mentality. The glaring violation of the human rights of some 680 foreign nationals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay is contrary to the very democracy we Americans profess and the Bush administration's so-called "war on terrorism" purports to protect. The widespread good will of Muslim people toward America after 9/11 vanished with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the "liberators" are now perceived as their number one enemy by many in the Arab world. "The moment of truth for the world" takes time! We Americans are not safer now than we were before our government began its "war on terrorism."

A third dove was killed when President Bush's "moment of truth for the world" stopped the UN weapons inspectors from continuing not to find "any smoking guns." Was the administration's concern that of finding Iraq's assumed weapons of mass destruction or seizing control of its massive oil reserves? The death of this third dove seems to call for a new commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil. And another: Thou shalt not use "the loving God behind all of life and all of history" (The New York Times, Jan. 29, 2003) to pursue global domination. An obituary for the dove appeared in a New York Times editorial called "The Legacy of Hans Blix," which concluded, "But if the allied search [for "terror weapons"] comes up empty, that will suggest that the inspectors were successful in containing a potential weapons threat. Mr. Blix and his team will deserve our congratulations" (June 30, 2003). If "the allied search comes up empty," what would that "suggest" about the Bush administration? What then would the administration "deserve" from us American people? The editorial "came up empty" here.

While editorials opposed a pre-emptive war, The New York Times still appears to be beating around the Bush administration. Another editorial criticized the White House for continuing to justify the President's use, in his State of the Union Address, of a knowingly false British intelligence claim that Iraq recently tried to obtain large quantities of uranium from Africa for its nuclear weapons program. The editorial appeared to provide a cushion for the administration in stating, "By clinging to that weak justification, the White House is only compounding its mistake. The honorable response at this point would be to concede the error and apologize to the American people" [all italics added] (July 15, 2003).

When the Bush administration's desperate search for Iraq's "threatening weapons of mass destruction" kept coming up empty, the emphasis continued shifting to "liberating" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That tune, like Iraq's illusive "dangerous weapons," also played well to an "embedded" media.

At this point. When the Bush administration's desperate search for Iraq's "threatening weapons of mass destruction" kept coming up empty, the emphasis continued shifting to "liberating" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That tune, like Iraq's illusive "dangerous weapons," also played well to an "embedded" media. Numerous front-page stories, editorials, and columns have detailed Saddam Hussein's "republic of fear": the imprisonments, beatings, torture chambers, executions and assassinations, mass graves, genocidal use of poison gas against his own people and against Iranian soldiers during the decisive battles of the 1981-88 Iraqi-Iranian war.

The constant demonizing of Saddam Hussein is readily seen in Boston Globe editorials: "Saddam's genocidal regime" (Mar. 25, 2002); "the people of Iraq, who have suffered unspeakable horrors under Saddam's police state" (Dec. 22, 2002); "the nightmare of Saddam's fascistic regime" (Dec. 28, 2002); "Saddam's blood-drenched regime" (Dec. 29, 2002); "Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship" (June 11, 2003); "after 35 years of the most vicious totalitarian dictatorship, all the political and civil institutions in a healthy society have been eradicated" (July 5, 2003).

The misinterpretation of reality resulting from demonizing a perceived threatening enemy is instructively seen in the following sentences in Boston Globe editorials. "[British Prime Minister Tony] Blair's lucid truth [italics added] is that . . . the world cannot allow such a mass murderer to threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction" (Sept. 29, 2002). "The surest way to unveil his weapons of mass destruction [italics added] is to make certain Blix brings knowledgeable Iraqi scientists and officials out of Iraq with their families so they can tell the truth without fear. The international community can then free Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny" (Dec. 6, 2002). "The particular means for liberating Iraqis [from "Saddam's police state"] will be less important in the long run [italics added] than the character of the government that comes after Saddam's fall" (June 19, 2002). "If U.S. action in coming months leads to Saddam Hussein's overthrow, there will be jubilation in Iraq [italics added] that the monster who murdered and tortured so many people and ruined the life of entire generations is finally gone" (Oct. 21, 2002). "Nothing could mean more to the reputation of America in the world [italics added] than for Bush to keep his promise to support a democratic future for Iraqis after the long nightmare of Saddam's regime" (Mar. 18, 2003).

Demonizing seems to have led Boston Globe editors to interpret rather than experience the reality of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people, and the United States as "liberators." How many times does one need to say how villainous an obvious violator of human rights is? One must ask why Globe editors have engaged in such extreme overkill.

Demonizing has the effect of dehumanizing one group and deifying another. License is given to self-glorification, arrogance, aggression, and denial -- all, of course, in the name of "liberation" or "democracy" or "God" or another self-justifying virtue or belief.

The self-glorification between the lines of news print to fit led a predominantly pro-administration media to present a sanitized war for our patriotic viewing, reading, and listening pleasure. The nightly "fireworks over Baghdad" coverage usually was about "precision" and "smart" bombs dropped on military targets. When they hit civilians and could not be denied, they were called "errant" bombs that made a "mistake." Few photographs appeared of the horrible wounds and deaths and destruction U.S. and British "shock and awe" bombs inflicted on the Iraqi people. The death toll of American troops continues to be counted daily by the Pentagon and media, but not the thousands of deaths of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. They remain invisible -- as if by not counting them, they don't count. What is made visible are humanitarian images, such as a large colored front-page photograph in The New York Times and The Boston Globe of "a marine [who] held a 4-year-old girl yesterday after her mother was killed by Iraqi cross-fire on the front line near Rifa, American officers said" (The New York Times, Mar. 30, 2003). Thus a media-reported sanitized pre-emptive war has allowed President Bush to even now refer to it as "one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history" (The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2003). Bush's denial of reality is a grave threat to our security and to our humanity as Americans.

Helping to make the Bush administration's war "most humane" was the media-driven feel-good story of "saving Private Jessica Lynch," who, if one had read foreign newspapers, was cared for and prevented from dying by Iraqi medical staff at a hospital -- from which Rambo-like American troops with video cameras were not needed to rescue her. The made-for-television rescue certainly pumped up patriotic fervor and diverted attention from no weapons of mass destruction being used against allied troops nor found in Iraq, which is why Private Lynch was supposedly there. If our troops really had been supported, they would not have been in Iraq in the first place!

U.S.-Iraqi history

All the news that's print to fit is especially seen in mainstream media's ability to revisit and reinterpret, or ignore their own and each other's reporting on Iraq's reality, which accommodated a predatory Bush administration policy wrapped in "America is a friend of the people of Iraq" (The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2002). Contrary to the constant demonizing of Saddam Hussein, the United States and the United Kingdom were his friends and allies throughout the time of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds and Iranians, which are now used by the Bush administration and media alike to justify the "regime change" in Iraq.

In a column called "What the U.S. President wants us to forget," Robert Fisk wrote in The Independent, "In 1988, as Saddam Hussein destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds . . . President Bush senior provided him with $500m in U.S. government subsidies to buy American farm products . . . We must forget [sic]," Fisk continued, "that the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious 'dual-use' material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons" (Oct. 9, 2002).

A front-page New York Times story reported that during the 1981-88 Iraqi-Iranian war, U.S. intelligence agencies provided Iraq with satellite photographs of the positions of Iranian forces, aware that Iraqi commanders would use chemical weapons in the decisive battles of the war. The story said, "The United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf" (Aug. 18, 2002).

"America is a friend of the people of Iraq." The children of Iraq and their families know better. A "long nightmare," savaging their "progress and prosperity," began in August of 1990 when the United States-controlled UN Security Council imposed complete economic sanctions against Iraq, supposedly in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. A United States-led coalition then took only 42 days to bomb Iraq into submission -- intentionally destroying and damaging the country's life-support systems to intensify the hardship imposed by the sanctions. On August 12, 1999, UNICEF reported on the devastation caused by the sanctions: "If the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had been continued through the 1990s, there would be half a million fewer deaths of children under the age of five in the country as a whole during the eight year period from 1991 to 1998."

On May 12, 1996, CBS's "60 Minutes" program reported on the atrocities committed by the sanctions: correspondent Leslie Stahl said to then-United States Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, "We have heard that a half million children have died," and asked, "Is this price worth it?" Albright, a Clinton administration appointee, replied, "We think the price is worth it" [italics added]. Albright added, "He [Saddam Hussein] is not going to invade another country."

For over twelve sanction-imposed years the death toll of Iraqi children and adults continued to mount -- until the United States and British military "liberated" the country, gained control of its oil and asked the UN to lift the sanctions on oil exports. The United States-controlled UN sanctions themselves have been a continuing, silent, insidious weapon of mass destruction.

Where are the mass graves of over 500,000 Iraqi children and their families who have died because of the sanctions? Their graves, like the deaths of Iraqi people caused

by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, remain invisible. An editorial in mainstream media that flirted with the brutal reality of the sanctions appeared in The New York Times after the allied invasion. Calling for "Lifting Sanctions in Iraq," it states, "As it happens, Washington had been the prime sponsor of those sanctions, and successive administrations twisted arms in the Security Council to get them approved, adjusted and enforced" (Apr. 19. 2003).

This is not assumed to be a thorough study of all the news that's print to fit. Certain columnists, editors and guest writers continue to scrutinize and challenge the Bush administration's claims and policies. But the study does reveal the dominant impression is of a media that sees and hears and speaks little evil about the administration's accumulating "wars on terrorism."

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," President Bush announced May 1^st, on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (The New York Times, May 2, 2003). But the struggle for a people's country there and democracy here are just beginning. This struggle is not about media-depicted "Saddam Hussein diehards" but about the very human conditions and sentiments that motivate people everywhere: oppression, human dignity and worth, patriotic love of country, empowering religious beliefs, the right of

self-determination. Understanding this struggle depends on a free press: a press guided by "principles -- basic to an unfettered flow of news and information both within and across national boundaries," as stated in the International Press Freedom Day charter (The Boston Globe, May 3, 2003).

A free press is needed for democracy to flourish rather than "flop" not only in Iraq but in America as well. Our freedom and security depend on a press that experiences rather than interprets other people's reality. Thus are reporting, programming, and editorializing factually based rather than predisposed. Such an "independent" press, providing "a broad range of political viewpoints," contributes to an informed and engaged citizenry. Here patriotism is nourished and tempered by truth so that accountability and justice may prevail.

Dr. William E. Alberts is hospital chaplain at the Boston Medical Center. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he received his Ph.D. from Boston University in the field of Psychology and Pastoral Counseling. His numerous essays and articles on racism, politics and religion have appeared in newspapers, magazines and journals, with research reports on mainstream print media's coverage of issues of race and racism published by the William Monroe Trotter Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and by Sage race relations abstracts, London, UK. Dr. Alberts' may be reached by email at william.alberts@bmc.org.

[Ed. Note: Some material from this article was originally presented in a sermon on July 27, 2003 at North Fortk Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in James Port, Long Island, N.Y.]