Nobody Reads my Blog

No one reads my blog much, but they do read my words. So far this year the Orlando Sentinel has printed 6 of my Letters to the Editor.



The Sentinel daily circulation is about 250,000. I figure at least 10% read the Op-Ed page, so that means that 25,000 people have read my epistles. If my Blog could get 150 ,000 hits in a span of a few months I could buy a cup of coffee with the ad revenue.

I sometimes cross post my Letters to the Editor here, but have not done so recently. So for those that missed my missives in print, here is a recap of this year’s published letters:

Published 10/13/06
I must confess to a certain Schadenfruede at the GOP’s predicament concerning the Foley affair. But that is overshadowed by my sadness at the further implications. Social conservatives won’t see this as one of their own with feet of clay, but proof that all gay men are depraved sexual predators. They, and the Mark Foley’s that court their support, don’t understand that living an honest, open, and yes, morally upright life as an out gay man, enjoying the full rights and privileges of society, is less likely to drive a person to climb into the bottom of a bottle while cruising teens in internet chat rooms.
Jeff Henderson

Published 10/4/06
I liked the sentiment in George Diaz’s recent column suggesting those on the political left and right tone down their insults and rhetoric. However, I was taken aback when Diaz made Bill O’Riley and Jon Stewart the right-left poster children for the problem.




O’Riley offers himself as a serious journalist delivering truth without spin, Stewart offers himself as a comedian delivering parody on politics and the media. I expect journalists to be measured, careful, truthful, and informative. I expect comedians to be funny and outrageous. Be that as it may, I offer a solution to at least part of the problem: The best way for those on the right to help stem the tide of outrageous comments from comedians on the left, is to stop providing such good material.

Jeff Henderson

Published 9/15/06
The Constitution is in pretty good shape just as it is. It does not need much in the way of change. But it may need some protection against those that do not understand what it is for, what it says or how it works. The constitution defines our nation’s basic system of government and guarantees the rights of its citizens. It is a masterpiece at defining effective but limited government vis-à-vis separation of powers, checks and balances and specific enumerated rights of the people listed in the bill of rights and later amendments.

But so many claiming to be true Americans want to tear apart the fabric of our fundamental freedoms by assaulting, even insulting, the Constitution. The president want to be free to ignore the 4th and 5th amendments, he and others want an amendment to deny the right of marriage for some, but not all citizens. (Why would we use the Constitution to ever deny a right?) Others want an amendment that would protect a symbol (the American Flag) at the expense of the right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How about a school prayer amendment? How about a 10 Commandments amendment? Never mind that several of the Commandments are about the practice of a religion, and therefore specifically prohibited as law by the 1st amendment. Come to think of it, it might be easier to just repeal that pesky 1st amendment. How about a right to life amendment? But be sure to carefully limit that one to stem cells and fetuses because too broad an amendment might cut into capital punishment or the 30,000 gun deaths per year and we wouldn’t want that.

Perhaps there is room for legitimate change. Term limits on Congress? A Balanced Budget amendment? Neither a slam dunk both but worthy of debate, unlike the proposals designed to actually undo the protections of our Constitution.

Jeff Henderson



Publshed 6/13/06
We have amended our Constitution twenty-seven times. Six of the amendments were changes on how our government functions. Two dealt with prohibition. One permitted income tax. The remaining eighteen were about establishing, expanding or clarifying the rights of citizens. Not one amendment exists for the purpose of denying any rights to a class of people or reserving a right for only some of the people. To put something like that in the Constitution is, well, unconstitutional. I am saddened that the President of the United States and the leadership of the Senate would think it proper to do so. But I am down right ashamed that they made the attempt, not to succeed, but to win the support of people who don’t know any better.

Jeff Henderson


Published May 2006
Arch conservative George Will’s op-ed piece on bilingual ballots was flawed.

First he said that Attorney General Gonzales needs a refresher course in the law. Will pointed out that the law requires a person to be proficient in English to become a citizen. Therefore if someone needs a bi-lingual ballot it is proof that the law on citizenship was ignored.

But it seems to me that George Will needs a lesson on demographics. Who does he think bi-lingual ballots are for? Non-citizens (either legal or illegal) cannot vote. Nearly all naturalized citizens are proficient in English, as the law requires. But millions of native-born citizens of this country speak Spanish as their first language and may not be proficient in English. As to the rule of law, no citizen needs English-language proficiency to vote. The voting rights act banned literacy requirements for voting in federal elections. So the use of bi-lingual ballots is indeed rooted in the law, not evidence of ignoring the law.

Will goes on to say that people not proficient in English cannot participate in the “nation’s political conversation.” Has George Will not heard of Spanish Language Newspapers, television, or radio, which is growing by leaps and bounds within this country? Of course he has, but I guess since he cannot understand what is being said in the Spanish language media, then in his mind there is no insight, intellect, or meaningful political conversation going on.

By the way, I speak, read and write only the English language. I think people living here should be proficient in English. I think the advantages of English fluency speak for themselves. But the last time I checked, it was still a free country. Americans are entitled to define the American way of life as they see fit, even when it is not the same as how I define it or George Will defines it.

Jeff Henderson

Published May 2006
In a recent my word column, Dr. Stan Sujka equated adoption by gay parents to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study where poor blacks infected with syphilis were unwittingly left untreated so that long-term results of the disease could be studied. This ugly episode in American medical science is of course abhorrent. Dr. Sujka thinks that because children may be unwittingly placed in gay homes either through foster care or adoption that it amounts to the same thing, an abhorrent experiment on children.

Where to begin? First, while syphilis is serious sexually transmitted disease that needs to be treated, being gay is a simply a human trait. It no more identifies a person’s moral character, parenting skills, or ability to love than being left-handed does. It is not something to be hidden, corrected, or ashamed of. The only influence a gay parent has over the adult sexuality of their children is in instilling a sense of healthy acceptance for the small number of their children who will grow up to be gay. Compare that with the influence homophobic, intolerant straight parents have on their children who turn out gay. Many children are homeless on the streets or in the foster care system because such parents threw them out. I can assure you that there is no chance, that any child of a gay parent will be cast out of the house for being straight.

So which is the more abhorrent experiment on children? The one that would leave them on the streets, in institutions or with a series of strangers for lack of stable, loving homes, or the one that might put a child in a stable, loving, church going, soccer mom/dad gay household?

Jeff Henderson

What Happened to the Future?

This year marked 25 years since the first Space Shuttle Flight.

Wow! While there will be a few more flights in the near future, the Shuttle Program is ending in 4 years. The three remaining shuttles will become museum pieces, and in its place, will be a bold, sophisticated, new technology taking us to the next level in space travel. Or not.

The shuttle replacement, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV, is a rocket and capsule system just like Apollo that last flew more than 30 years ago, and just like the Russian Soyuz system that has been operating for the last 30 years. No space plane, no runway landings, no big cargo bay, not a thing to inspire our faith in technology and innovation.

The CEV Above

The Old Apollo Capsule Below


The past that looks like the future: We used to have men on the moon, supersonic transport, space stations large enough to run in, and atomic powered merchant ships.

First man on the moon: 1969. Last Man on the Moon: 1972

Concorde SST - Retired 2003

SkyLab - Abandoned 1979. Interior 22 ft in diamter

NS Savannah - Civilian Nuclear Power Proved Impractical

Today, we have none of that. But I can take picture of a bear in the woods with my telephone. Progress! – What will they think of next?

In the Loop

Did you ever notice that those who complain about not being in the loop only want to be in the loop at their convenience?

The New American Fascism

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Before the Warren court, the fascists were largely in control of this country. Although American fascism was not and never has been defined in our country’s guiding documents, it was practiced and institutionalized in Jim Crow policies and laws like poll taxes. All designed to keep the ruling elite in power and to suppress, through oppression, the lesser masses. Every time the idea that freedom, fairness, and the rule of law applied equally to all was brought to bear, those in power were able to dismissed it.

But for most of the last 50 years, we have been embarked on a movement away from fascism; a great correction to better align the practice of our society to the ideals of the guiding documents. The fascists have never gone away, they have just been on the losing side for most of the last 50 years. Quite frankly, they are tired of it and think they have gathered enough power to move the country back their way. They are not about ‘running the country’ they are about ‘making a point’.

They have partially succeeded.

1. We have a sitting president who has openly endorsed amending the constitution, not to expand or guarantee rights, but to specifically deny rights to an entire class of Americans.

2. We have no shortage of elected officials thinking the same way.

3. There is a bill in the house and senate that would make it a crime to feed the hungry if they happened to be undocumented (It will never pass, because then the companies that employ these people will have to pay them enough for them to buy their own food, instead of getting it for free from soup kitchens).

4. The 1st, 4th, 5th & 9th amendments are under full assault, while the 2nd is sacrosanct.

5. No matter what the ideology, a government’s prime purpose is to protect citizens, property and infrastructure. All of that is now secondary to making ideological points.

6. Our President has the power to wiretap dangerous terrorists within the laws meant to provide checks and balances to protect our civil liberties. He has chosen quite deliberately to do so outside the law. Not because he could not accomplish his goals within the law, but to make a point and change the rules giving him more power.

7. The fascist base is not composed of great thinkers. They have been bought off with pandering rhetoric on God, Guns & Gays and bellicose nationalism. Meanwhile the power-fascists have been raping the base (and everyone else not in their club) with irresponsible fiscal policy.

8. Many business people do not like the idea of legal mandates covering responsibility to workers, the environment, fair competition, and corporate citizenship, They like the idea of corporate welfare. They are only too happy to see the power-fascists (who will give them what they want) running the show. What the power-fascists do on the social/civil liberties front is of no concern to the business people who help put and keep them in office.

How serious must the damage get before this new American Fascism runs its course? Soldiers will die, Miners will die, the glaciers will melt, the oceans will warm and produce more frequent and powerful hurricanes, the hungry will get hungrier, the humanitarians that fed them will be in jail, we will be isolated, the world will hate us, our economy will collapse under the weight of national and personal debt. We will all be very depressed about it all but won’t be able to get or afford the health care to get better.

The 50 years from 1950 to 2000 were incredible. We improved education, we improved access to health care, we lifted millions out of poverty, we made the environment cleaner, we made industry safer, we made transportation safer, we made products safer, we improved housing standards at every socio-economic level, we expanded rights to millions, we won the cold war without firing a nuke, we went to the moon, we lowered crime, we improved life expectancy, we addressed past injustices, we embraced fairness, we raised awareness of and fostered tolerance of those not like ourselves. We invested in our children, in science, in the arts. We set out to do the world some good – The Marshall Plan, the Peace Corp. We did all of this accumulating a debt of just under $6 trillion. That’s a high price to be sure, but it is nothing compared to the $3 trillion added to the debt in the last 5 years while attempting to undo the accomplishments of the last 50.

The fascists will tell you that our government’s forays into the problems of society and the world at large was wrong-headed, costly and that we are far worse off for having done it. But we did it even as we advanced the world’s most envied economy and freedoms in ways that could not even be contemplated in the first half of the 20th century. We did none of it by being conservative. I don’t see anyone pining for the good old days of Jim Crow, robber barons, world wars, depressions, air unfit to breathe, and cars unsafe at any speed. Leave the new American Fascists in power, and that is where we are headed.

Scotty & Me

You’ve had those dreams. The kind of nightmare where you are trying to run, but cant move. Trying to scream out but can only mouth the words and no sound comes out. No matter what you do or say, you are powerless to influence anything and all you can do is watch events unfold. The other day, I had such a dream, sort of. I was alone in the Whitehouse press room. It was just me and W-House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Oh boy! This is a great dream. I get to ask all of the questions! Scotty cannot escape my best journalistic probing. (Well in the dream, of course, I am a respected journalist). But, dreams never end like they start. It went something like this…

ME: On the Subject of Valerie Plame (PlameGate), who Leaked her identity?
SCOTTY: Puh-leaze, I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.

ME: Is this not a breach of national security?
SCOTTY: She was no longer a field operative and was not going to be in the future so there was no harm to our national security.

ME: But she was still covered by the statute. Doesn’t revealing her identity put the people she dealt with at risk, as well as put at risk our ability to conduct national security and diplomatic business with people in similar sensitive posts? Isn’t that why this information remains classified even after the end of a posting or program?
SCOTTY: As I have said over and over, no comment on an ongoing investigation.

ME: Has there been an assessment of the actual or potential damage to National Security as a result of leaking Plame’s identity?
SCOTTY: What damage? if you mean the distraction it has caused for senior administration officials who would be better at protecting Americans from terrorists if they did not have to deal with this trumped issue, then it is grave, very grave indeed.

ME: Well, didn’t they bring this distraction onto themselves by breaking the law for a petty vendetta?
SCOTTY: No comment on an ongoing investigation.


ME: On the Subject the electronic surveillance conducted without the over sight of the FISA court (FISAGate) who leaked the existence of the program?
SCOTTY: We don’t know. The NY Times irresponsibly betrayed America and emboldened the terrorists by making it public. We will get to the bottom of this egregious breach and punish the leaker. Our very lives depend on it.

ME: Given that the NY Times knew about the program for over a year and sat on it at the Administration’s request, wouldn’t national Security have been better served by either bringing the program into alignment with FISA or getting a specific authorization from congress to conduct the surveillance?
SCOTTY: Look, the President is trying to protect you from the terrorists. The press and the leaker don’t care about your safety.

ME: So you are saying that we are safer with illegally conducted surveillance as opposed to the same surveillance done within the law? With all due respect, would there not have been a leak or story if FISA had been respected?
SCOTTY: We respect all laws, unlike the person who leaked this program and the NY times who irresponsibly published it. Congress authorized this program as part of the resolution to use all force necessary. It’s black letter law.

ME: Most members of congress (including many Republicans), and most legal scholars disagree that the resolution for war authorized such surveillance outside the FISA statue. Your attorney General’s stated legal position is tortuous if not absurd. Isn’t this about an imperial presidency rather than national security?
SCOTTY: Congress gave us all of the necessary authorization. If congress or the courts now say otherwise, then we did not even need their authority for this President to protect the American People from the terrorists.

ME: Could you answer, just once, a legitimate question with a thoughtful, meaningful response rather than a talking point or non sequitur?
SCOTTY: This administration is responsive. To the threat of terrorism and to the American people who want to be protected from the terrorists. Why do you love terrorists and hate freedom?

Then the dream took an odd turn, as dreams are wont to do. I found myself in a courtroom, telling it to the judge.

“ …and then, you honor, after Scotty’s, er, Press Secretary McClellan’s last response, I started to feel nauseous. My lunch from the Whitehouse cafeteria started to come back on me. The next thing I knew I regurgitated my lunch of a Freedom Dip hoagie with Freedom Fries (with Hunts, not Heinz ketchup), and Ice Cream with Red, White and Blue Freedom Sprinkles.


I couldn’t help it, I projectile vomited all over him. He looked so stunned, standing there wearing all that Freedom in Red, White and Blue. (And a few other not so glorious colors) I remember thinking that Freedom never looked so good, but it smelled awful.”