IN CASE YOU FORGOT...As reported on Howard Stern---
Topic: Dittohead Dogma

New AIDS discovery met with fear but little shock

By Richard Perez-Pena And Marc Santora

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE


NEW YORK - As news spread of a rare and deadlier form of AIDS, communities already hard-hit by the disease reacted with fear and skepticism but little surprise, given that the sense of urgency about the disease had waned.

"They should have been doing more teaching about safe sex and the virus itself, the seriousness of it," said Albert Wright, 59, who is HIV-positive and lives at a treatment center in East New York, Brooklyn. "I'm afraid for the public. People probably have it and don't know that they have it."

City health officials announced Friday that they had detected a rare strain of HIV that is resistant to virtually all anti-retroviral drugs and appears to have led to the rapid onset of AIDS in a New York City man. That combination, the officials said, could signal a new, more menacing strain of the virus, and it set in motion an anxious search by city workers to find the man's sexual partners and have them tested.

Those who specialize in HIV treatment and prevention were particularly focused on news that the more virulent infection had appeared in a man who used methamphetamine during extended episodes of unprotected sex with multiple partners. It is a pattern experts have seen repeatedly in recent years.

Yesterday at the Big Cup, a popular coffee shop in Manhattan, the customers, most of them gay men, all talked about how the fear of AIDS had declined, especially among a younger generation that did not have the searing experience of watching friends die. Some said they feared that a new strain of the disease might have emerged, but none were surprised, given the prevailing attitude.

"People got so comfortable with the drugs that they have started becoming complacent," said Will Elosei, 37, from Jersey City. Now, he said: "I think people are going to be more paranoid about everything."

Among people who deal with HIV, the response was tinged with caution, with many saying it was too soon to say whether the single infection reported in New York was truly something new.

"We need better characterization of the virus in this man," said Dr. Marcus Conant, a professor at the medical school at the University of California, San Francisco. "What does it look like genetically?"

But he added: "All of us have been expecting for some time there would be the multidrug resistance. This virus has mutated around what we've thrown at it."

The prophet Howard Stern
Topic: Fourth Reich Blues
Heard about the "controversial" GODADDY commercial in the Super Bowl???!!!! Click HERE to see that so-called controversial commercial!!!

You cannot see a photo for this commercial on the Fox Sports site!!!

As Howard Stern gets ready to take the plunge on to satellite, everything he warned the industry about seems to be as visionary as Marshall McLuhan's prediction that television would make the world a global village, not to mention George Orwell's perspicacious observation that television would eventually be the preferred medium for fascist propaganda.

In the February 14th issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria states that much of the progress in Iraq over the past eight months can be traced to Bush's willingness to reverse himself.

While Mr Zakaria shows how President Bush has been forced to re-evaluate his foriegn policies, if no one has ever said it let me say it here now---fascism begins at home.

Even though Hitler began his "illustrious" career with the Anschlauss of Austria, it was his domestic policies of intolerance that left a mark on history...and the persecution of Howard Stern AND Janet Jackson...a nigger and a Jew...demonstrates the direction this cuntry is headed.

In the November/December issue of Mother Jones, Todd Gitlin pointed out---The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States singled out the press for special mention and protection not because the founders admired the press of their time--it was raucous and wildly unreliable--but because they well understood the self-aggrandizing tendencies of unbridled power. They shielded the press not because they believed publishers to be saints or savants, but because they knew it might take unshackled sinners to curb the grandest sinners of all. Had they imagined global carnage and global warming two centuries hence and more, they might well have thought, "In the face of such dangers, now we will be vindicated for caring so assiduously for the liberty of the press. Surely in times that retry men's souls, the watchdogs of the press will bark." Imagine their chagrin if they could see the press becoming that sagging branch of distraction, "the media."

Although Mr Gitlin was writing about the failure of the press to accurately report on the plans for "war" in Iraq, the media has failed miserably in regards to Stern and Jackson, as it allowed George the Second and the reich-wing fundamentalists to goosesteop all over the First Amendment!!! In juxtaposition to what has happened in Iraq, the Stern/Jackson problem seems insignificant, but when your rights are being routinely denied, you should be questioning the quality of "democracy" you are living in...and THIS is one of the primary functions of the press, or at least it used to be.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said--Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere--and as this country rolls back to the Dark Ages of McCarthyism and Lenny Bruce-like obscenity laws, you have to wonder how far will the Fourth Reichers go before there is a call for re-education camps???

Yeah, i realize it is fashionable to compare Bush and his cohorts to Nazi Germany, but i think they could be more aptly compared to the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union. While there are no gulags, yet, we can already see the tentacles of the New World Order touching our every day lives!!!

On Xanga, a blogging community that used to be a free forum for ideas, the blogmiesters are busy trying to enforce this new pseuber-morality of the Bush fundamentalists, and that is only one example of how the new "morality" is cutting into the lives of people who once were able to exercise their First Amendment priviliges. And privileges are what the Bill of Rights has now degenerated into.

The press has dropped the baton, but thanks to the internet, many bloggers have taken up the torch, but now the same fascistly restrictive mentality that has the press running scared is slowly poisoning this last bastion of freedom. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the LIBERAL Party is steadfastly becoming an un-American activity, but conservatives will also see the backlash of this neo-Victorian morality plaguing the country, because fascism tend to feed on itself, as George Orwell aptly displayed in Animal Farm.

Rush Limbaugh was hit with it when he criticized Donovan McNabb's popularity because of his race, and while you don't have to agree with him, it sets a precedent---opinion will soon be regulated by the FCC if said opinion can be found to be offensive.

Like Malcolm X, i LIKE knowing what the average Amerikkklan is thinking, but in their mad rush to prove themselves compassionate, the neo-cons will soon find themselves in the same boat as the alleged "liberals."

Just as the Bush fundamentalists believe that the poor will always be with us was a commandment rather than an ovservation, The Bill of Rights will soon be pared down to some version of All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Click here for a must see video

Let's say THREE-peat
Topic: Football
Yeah, i ralize that Phil Jackson has a patent on the word, but fuck him, these New England Patriots ain't no pampered Air Jordanasskissing Bulls, THIS is more America's team than any other team in the history of sports can claim to be!!!

With the exception of Corey Dillon and Mike Vrabel, New England is so devoid of superstars.Tom Brady, who many, including myself, thought should share the MVP with Deion Branch because he was playing with the death of his grandmother weighing down on his soul, would not be starting on any other team in the NFL!

As the bostonbrat.net shows---Opinions on the pro prospects for Tom Brady were mixed. Scouts had no quibble with his attitude. He was fearless, hard-working, and willing to learn. They also gave him high marks for his accuracy on passes to the flat and over the middle. It was Tom's body that had many concerned. He stood 6-4, but weighed only 205 pounds. He didn't run well and couldn't throw deep with much effectiveness. Most pegged him as a career back-up--someone who could fulfill a support role, but certainly not a player worthy of a high pick.

Most of the Patriots would be struggling for a starting job on any other NFL team, but under the auspices of Bill Belichick, they are all shining now, and everyone is now enviously looking on. Belichick and owner Robert Kraft exemplify something that is missing in corporate America today--FAITH in their workers, or at least their football team since i don't know how many jobs the Kraft corporation has outsourced.

In a country where a C student can be president but too many bright young men are forced to go to Jude Fawley University, the Patriots are a dynasty that working Americans can live with.

Unlike the Yankees, the Patriots are not a checkbook dynasty, and any free-agent with sense will be looking to play there next season to be part of that historic THREE-peat team, and for the first time in their history New England might be teeming with superstars!!!

The road to the THREE-peat is a lot harder in the NFL than it was for the Bulls...while the refs in the NBA would go out of their way to protect Michael Jordan--you used to get called for a foul if you looked at him wrong!!!

In the NFL there are a plethora of rules against the New England Patriots, and in addition to calling for the bookies, the refs enforce these rules with the fanaticism of an SS officer.

Am i saying that the refs are working in concert with the bookies???

Let's say that Ray Charles could have seen a certain pick that wasn't called, but instead they saw a costly New England penalty, and instead of the penalties offsetting, the Patriots were heavily penalized!!!

"> ALSO courtesy of THE MAXX!!!


Arbeit Macht Frie

We also got to see the first PC Super Bowl,with only godaddy.com daring to go against the dictates of our theocratic FCC!!! Listening to Howard Stern this morning i was appalled by the hoops godaddy.com had to go through to get this commercial on the air, and i was saddened that SIR Paul McCartney didn't have the chutzpah of John Lennon, who would probably have had a "wardrobe malfucntion" and would have mooned Amerikkka.

Posted by eminemsrevenge at 9:50 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 7 February 2005 1:26 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

Topic: Football
Courtesy of THE MAXX!!!

Now Playing: Lynn Samuels on Sirius
Topic: Three-card Monty

Post-Election Buzzkill: Why Iraq Is Still A Debacle

February 02, 2005 [ Printer-friendly version ]

Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention.

The media have made it sound like last Sunday was a combination of 1776, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Filipino "People Power," Tiananmen Square and Super Bowl Sunday -- all rolled into one.

It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving bombings and mortar blasts to cast ballots; multiethnic crowds singing and dancing outside polling places; election workers, undeterred by power outages, counting ballots by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional Islamic garb proudly holding up their purple ink-stained fingers -- literally giving the finger to butcher knife-wielding murderers.

It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war -- think Saddam's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" -- this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions.

But this Kodak moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it.

I'm sorry to kill the White House's buzz -- and the press corps' contact high -- but the triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment.

Forgive me for trotting out Santayana's shopworn dictum that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it but, for god's sake people, can't we even remember last week?

So amid all the talk of turning points, historic days and defining moments, let us steadfastly refuse to drink from the River Lethe that brought forgetfulness and oblivion to my ancient ancestors.

Let's not forget that for all the president's soaring rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, free elections were the administration's fallback position. More Plan D than guiding principle. We were initially going to install Ahmed Chalabi as our man in Baghdad, remember? Then that shifted to the abruptly foreshortened reign of "Bremer of Arabia." The White House only consented to holding open elections after Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent his followers into the streets to demand them -- and even then Bush refused to allow the elections until after our presidential campaign was done, just in case more suicide bombers than voters turned up at Iraqi polling places.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that despite the hoopla, this was a legitimate democratic election in name only. Actually, not even in name since most of the candidates on Sunday's ballot had less name recognition than your average candidate for dogcatcher. That's because they were too afraid to hold rallies or give speeches. Too terrorized to engage in debates. In fact, many were so anxious about being killed that they fought to keep their names from being made public. Some didn't even know their names had been placed on the ballot. On top of that, this vote was merely to elect a transitional national assembly that will then draft a new constitution that the people of Iraq will then vote to approve or reject, followed by yet another vote -- this time to elect a permanent national assembly.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that many Iraqi voters turned out to send a defiant message not just to the insurgents but to President Bush as well. Many of those purple fingers were raised in our direction. According to a poll taken by our own government, a jaw-dropping 92 percent of Iraqis view the U.S.-led forces in Iraq as "occupiers" while only 2 percent see them as "liberators."

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that the war in Iraq has made America far less safe than it was before the invasion. According to an exhaustive report released last month by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become a breeding ground for the next generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists. Foreign terrorists are now honing their deadly skills against U.S. troops -- skills they will eventually take with them to other countries, including ours. The report also warns that the war in Iraq has deepened solidarity among Muslims worldwide and increased anti-American feelings across the globe. Iraq has also drained tens of billions of dollars in resources that might otherwise have gone to really fighting the war on terror or increasing our preparedness for another terror attack here at home.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget the woeful lack of progress we've made in the reconstruction of Iraq. The people there still lack such basics as gas and kerosene. Indeed, Iraqis often wait in miles-long lines just to buy gas. The country is producing less electricity than before the war -- roughly half of current demand. There are food shortages, the cost of staple items such as rice and bread is soaring, and the number of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition has nearly doubled. According to UNICEF, nearly 1 in 10 Iraqi children is suffering the effects of chronic diarrhea caused by unsafe water -- a situation responsible for 70 percent of children's deaths in Iraq.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget the blistering new report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which finds that the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq before last June's transfer of sovereignty has been unable to account for nearly $9 billion, overseeing a reconstruction process "open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds."

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that we still don't have an exit strategy for Iraq. The closest the president has come is saying that we'll be able to bring our troops home when, as he put it on Sunday, "this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security" -- "eventually" being the operative word. Although the administration claims over 120,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, other estimates put the number closer to 14,000, with less than 5,000 of them ready for battle. And we keep losing those we've already trained: some 10,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen have quit or been dropped from the rolls in the last six months. Last summer, the White House predicted Iraqi forces would be fully trained by spring 2005; their latest estimate has moved that timetable to summer 2006.

And the election doesn't change that.

And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.

This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heart-warming as it was, doesn't change any of that.

This is from "Arianna Online"

WHY GW isn't the second coming of Hitler
Topic: Fourth Reich Blues


In "liberal" circles, the accusation that George W. Bush is the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler has become almost passe, but is it even remotely accurate?

If you have read William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, especially the footnotes, you would realize that the homoerotic adulation that the dittoheads of the GOP lavish upon George the Second is almost a mirror image of the Nazi party's apotheosis of the Austrian colonel, but how well does our beloved little retarded Reichskanzler stack up against the original fuehrer???

Well first, let's start with the obvious---

Hitler served honourably in the army when his country was at war. GW may or may not have served in the National Guard, in an attempt to dodge serving his country during a time of war.

Hitler was a charismatic and powerful speaker. Georgie-boy has the charisma of a snake, and the speaking ability that could only gain him fame as a member of the Howard Stern whack-pack if he wasn't born George and Barbara's little boy, and if he wasn't subsequently embraced by the 'christian' Reich, he may well have been one of those homeless dudes you people avoid like the plague.

Hitler had a majority supporting him. After two elections, George the second thinks his first victory a few months ago was some sort of landslide that gave him a mandate to inflict his will and that of the cash fundamentalists upon this country. Click HERE if you don't know what a landslide in a presidential election is!!!!

Hitler was sober as a youth, and we all know the stories about Herr Bush, but recently i have learnt that auld Adolf was doing some serious drugs as he got on in age.

This brings up a serious question---Is George Bush clean and sober as he smirks around the White House??? i have noticed that no one questioned his sobriety during the infamous pretzel incident!!!!

Being an avid fan of football, i can tell you that no one watches the Super Bowl alone, unless they have to, especially a guy.

You can reasonably argue that GW may not have the guy gene because he was a cheerleader, but even a bitchboy watching the Super Bowl would want company. Reporters from the alleged media should have questioned why does a man watch a football game alone when he has a Secret Service detail that would be more than willing to sit down and watch the game with him. The whole purpose of the Super Bowl is to watch the game and talk shit to your droogs.

Having gotten drunk on many an occasion, and having eaten my fair share of pretzels...the only way i could choke on a pretzel would be if i was stoned out of my bird, and since i'm not smart enough to be the POTUS, i should hope that the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could at least manage to chew a pretzel while watching football at the same time...this is not major multi-tasking, is it?

i am also aware of the recidivism of druggies, and while some may argue that he has Jezeus, he also has a track record of breaking 60% of the Ten Commandments, which to me is like a crackhead saying--I don't smoke crack no more, I just snort a little cocaine.

Drug abuse has a tendnecy of inducing paranoia and the auld folie de grandeur---Has anyone seen my WMDs lately?

Both men seemed to be driven by the clarion call of "Auslander Raus!"--"Out With Foreigners!"--and just as Hitler made the Japanese an exception to his Aryan philosophies, Herr Bush and company seem to have exempt the Saudis from their Deus vult jihad against Islam.

George Bush the Younger is also know for his loyalty to his friends, and those who were in Hitler's inner circle could have psalmed--What a friend we have in Adolf.

Too many people have forgotten some of the comments George the Second said while campaigning for the 2000 elections...Jews cannot go to heaven because they don't have JC as their personal lord & saviour..."If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier, just so long as I'm the dictator..... heh, heh (nervous laughter)"

Not into the nation-building thing, "It is [ now ]the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Yes, i realize it is fashionable to compare GW and the dittoheads to the Nazi movement, but Amerikkka is becoming more and more like the now dissolved Soviet Union!!!

The Russia of cold war memories was a Goliath of propaganda and ideal-driven imperialism, and it was brought to its knees by rock n' roll, blue jeans, and some dude named Osama bin Laden.

While many people are cruising on post-Clinton prosperity, many more are slowly awaking to the fact that a man who trades Sammy Sosa and runs an oil company that couldn't find a drop of crude probably cannot run a country much better.

So why the great devotion to George Bush???

First off, as a First World nation we are probably the dumbest fucks on the planet..."C" students with a sense of entitlement...which is why all the goodwill 'political capital' in the aftermath of 9/11 was squandered. There is also the Santayana principle--Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As we get daily reports that are more Vietnamesque than the war in southeast Asia, many are lulled by the limbaughistic tauntings that this is not another Vietnam, and surely it isn't. If you compare American casualties juxtaposed with the genesis of the Vietnam war, you will see that American casualties are closer to Viet Cong numbers, but all the devout Fourth Reichers will simply dismiss this as unpatriotic rhetoric.

The right to bear arms is virtually God-given, if you're white, just as the rite to free speech, if you're a cuntservative!!!

It's amazing that what Malcolm X said a little over forty years ago is probably more true today---

I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Honkies that just got off the boat, they're already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet.

Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn't need any legislation; you wouldn't need any amendments to the Constitution; you wouldn't be faced with civil-rights filibustering in Washington, D.C., right now. They don't have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an American.

No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And to think, some people believed we averted the Y2K problem!!!


[ An almost completely unrelated aside---the photo from the top of this post was from my brother's Xanga site...in an act of total synchronicity, i discovered THAT fact when i did a google-search for the picture!!! ]

Now Playing: Lynn Samuels
Topic: Dittohead Dogma
Third Columnist Implicated with Payola Charges

By E&P Staff

Published: January 27, 2005 11:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Michael McManus, whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote an administration marriage initiative, according to an article posted yesterday by Salon.com, the online magazine.

Senior writer Eric Boehlert wrote that Salon had confirmed that McManus "championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed."

This report emerged one day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, after revelations surrounding commentators Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher.

According to Salon, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, had responded to the latest report by announcing that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. "I needed to draw this bright line," Horn told Salon. "The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."

McManus could not be reached for comment.

Horn told Salon that McManus was paid approximately $10,000 for his work as a subcontractor to the Lewin Group, which was hired by HHS to implement the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative. McManus provided training during two-day conferences in Chattanooga, Tenn., and also made presentations at HHS-sponsored conferences.

Horn said he first learned about the payment on Thursday.

"In the wake of the Gallagher story," Boehlert wrote, "he asked his staff to review all outside contracts and determine if there were any other columnists being paid by HHS. They informed him about McManus. Horn says the review for similar contracts continues."

Horn said HHS was not paying Gallagher and McManus to write about Bush administration initiatives but for their expertise as marriage advocates. "We live in a complicated world and people wear many different hats," he told Salon. "People who have expertise might also be writing columns. The line has become increasingly blurred between who's a member of the media and who is not. Thirty years ago if you were a columnist, then you were a full-time employee of a newspaper. Columnists today are different."

In 1996, McManus co-founded Marriage Savers, which, among other things, asks clergy not to conduct marriage ceremonies unless the couple has had lengthy counseling first.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
[ This story was reported on Lynn Samuels. ]

So the dittoheads keep telling us George the Second IS NOT Hitler reincarnated...but WHAT do you call a government paid press???

Topic: Fourth Reich Blues
US women get closer to combat
Some say move imperils units, violates law
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Army for the first time is placing women in support units at the front lines of combat because of a shortage of skilled male soldiers available for duty in Iraq and is considering a repeal of the decade-old rule that prohibits women from being deployed alongside combat forces, according to Pentagon officials and military documents.

The Army's Third Infantry Division has added scores of female soldiers to newly created ''forward support companies" that provide maintenance, food service, and other support services to infantry, armor, and Special Forces units that commonly engage in combat.

Army officials acknowledge that the changes will increasingly place women, who make up about 15 percent of the armed forces, in combat situations, but believe they are following federal law, which prohibits female soldiers from serving in units that engage in direct combat.

The Army maintains that it has not changed the overall Pentagon policy regarding women in combat, which limits women to serving on surface ships and in attack aircraft. But internal Army documents indicate the service is ignoring a 1994 regulation barring women from serving alongside units that conduct offensive operations.

The change made by the Third Infantry Division was prompted by a shortage of trained troops caused by the unexpected length of the Iraq war and has set off a quiet, but highly charged debate within the Army over the role of women in the military. As a practical matter, the guerrilla tactics used against US troops during the occupation have also blurred the traditional lines between combat and support functions and is expected to prompt a wholesale review of the definition of ground ''combat" within the Bush administration.

''After this operation is over the question of how they define combat has got to be raised," said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who heads the Women in the Military Project at the nonpartisan Women's Research & Education Institute in Washington.

US law prohibits women from serving in combat units, and the Army insists it is following the law. At issue is a separate Army rule that also bars women from front-line support units.

Opponents to putting women in ground combat fear their presence on the front lines -- even in a support role -- will harm the cohesion and effectiveness of fighting units, a view Republican and Democratic administrations have held for decades.

''The issue remains unresolved," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, who contends that the military is ''implementing illicit plans to force female soldiers into land combat units for the first time in our history." She asserts that the Army is circumventing regulations through ''subterfuge" by labeling the female soldiers as being ''attached" to the new units as opposed to ''assigned" to them.

Others military specialists, however, contend that the US experience in Iraq provides a powerful new argument for permitting women, who make up about 10 percent of the force there, to take on more combat roles because they have been shown to be as capable as men in handling the rigors of combat.

The Third Infantry Division is the first to attach support units to combat forces, but those changes will be expanded to other units as part of the Army's effort to make its forces more mobile and flexible. Most of the division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., has arrived in Iraq since Christmas to start a second tour there, and all its deployed units are scheduled to be in the country by the end of the month.

The Army, as required by law, has notified Congress of the division's changes.

''The whole structure of our Army changed," said Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman. ''The Third ID is the first unit to deploy with the reconfiguration, so this will be the first time where this is in question."

Women soldiers have found themselves in the line of fire more often in Iraq and Afghanistan than in any previous wars. Since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, about 30 women have been killed, most of them in hostile action, according to official statistics. In one attack, Army Private Teresa Broadwell, 20, was awarded a Bronze Star for returning fire when her military police unit was attacked in Karbala in October.

Army documents show that the strain the war has placed on personnel is a factor in women serving in units previously for male soldiers only.

A confidential Army brief given to commanders last summer declared that there are ''insufficient male soldiers [with the needed skills] in the inventory to fill forward support companies." The paper, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, said that continuing to exclude women from support units that deploy jointly with combat troops would create ''a long-term challenge," contending that the pool of male recruits may be ''too small to sustain [the] force."

The Army could not immediately quantify how many women are serving in the forward support companies in Iraq. A company generally has 60 to 200 soldiers.

Late last year, Army Colonel Robert H. Woods Jr., a senior personnel official, suggested in a brief that the next step may be to either ''rewrite" or ''eliminate" the regulation that prohibits what the Army calls the ''collocation" of women with combat units.

Military specialists disagree about the implications. Opponents like Donnelly contend that it could be just the beginning of placing women in broader combat roles, a move she asserts has not been taken for good reason.

''If it stands, the same would apply to other units," she said. ''It will be an incremental change that is unjustified and very harmful to those land combat units," including weakening their fighting ability and creating romantic liaisons that would harm unit cohesion.

She is lobbying members of Congress and Pentagon officials to have women in the forward support companies reassigned.

''We have push-button wars and the battlefield is different, but there are certain things about combat that haven't changed," Donnelly said. ''Female soldiers are at a physical disadvantage."

The changes are being made out of ''expediency," she added, and if more male soldiers are needed, then the Army should recruit them.

Some of the division's soldiers also want women removed from the support companies.

''We are trained to engage in direct ground combat on land, and the collocation of gender-mixed forward support companies with us would seriously distract from the mission and possibly cost lives," a Third Infantry Division soldier who asked not to be identified wrote in a letter this month to Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

The soldier said that when the division participated in the initial Iraq invasion, six female medics attached to his all-male battalion were romantically involved with male soldiers and one female medic became pregnant. ''It became an enormous distraction for the company commanders who had to constantly separate the pairs and deal with the pregnancy," the eight-year veteran told Hunter. The letter did not identify the soldier's battalion.

Still, proponents of giving women more opportunities in the military say research suggests Iraq has been a positive experience for women and the military.

''The general take is that they are doing very, very well," said Manning of The Women's Research & Education Institute.

''They are able to bond with men or pick up and shoot an automatic weapon when that is necessary. They have no problem living hard in the field," Manning said. ''All those old excuses for why women can't be in combat are falling by the wayside."

The Army, for its part, is closely watching the Third Infantry Division deployment. According to the December briefing by Woods, the Army will ''incorporate lessons learned from Third ID into future decisions on policy affecting assignment and utilization of women soldiers."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.



? Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Topic: All My Children

Just found out that Ruth Warrick died, even though it happened nine days ago!!!

You would think that the pogromiesters at ABC/Disney would have notified the faithful viewers of one of their longest running show of that fact, but maybe they're too busy with coronations and pretending to be a news channel for that!!!