In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.

We worked all weekend, filled the trash bin to the max three times (Mike and I used the tractor and a railroad tie to compact it twice). Bonnie called and told Christy about the houses we liked on the net. One was written off, too close to town and too little level property, Bonnie said it dropped off precipitously on three sides... a plus in my book but a serious drawback in Christy's... I have to concede that it would be a little rough on Autumn too. it said there were 10 acres with it but the net didn't say that 5 were straight down and the other five were across the street. Oh well... she talked about two other houses that were drop-dead-gorgeous (Christy's words), (Bonnie's actual words were to-die-for.)

[As for evolution]...cutting out the sections [on the subject] is preferable if the portions are not thick enough to cause damage to the spine of the book as it is opened and closed in normal use. When the sections needing correction are too thick, paste the pages together being careful not to smear portions of the book not intended for correction.

R.E. Martin, American creationist, in "Reviewing and Correcting Encyclopaedias" (1983: 205-7), instructing followers to censor books that don't follow creation dogma

Bush modified his earlier announcement to "I would fire anyone who leaked information if a crime were committed." I am beginning to understand what's going on... it has been a slow process but I guess that since people want to believe the president they disregard facts and reality and they don't even realize it. Bush can say any damn thing he wants to say and a significant portion of the American population will believe it... Bush and/or the people that pull the strings are incredibly well versed on psychology and they understand fully that Politics is Popularity and Popularity is Advertizing, and Advertizing is Show Biz. People believe what they want to believe and the facts be damned.

I fella I just met said he found my page looking up Leo Straus, the prophet of neo-conservatives, he said "I thought it was about time I learned what a Neocon really was. Scarey. But now I can understand the outright lies. What I can't understand is all those people that buy into it."

I told him; Yeah... It's scary all right, but it's been scary for a long time, try not to obsess about it like I do... Neo-Cons are a fact of life, they aren't evil people, most of them, Hell, I'm related to a bunch of them... they mean well and they are convinced that what they want for America and the World is the 'Right' thing.

Sadly, there is no room in their Eden for the poor, uneducated, sickly, mentally infirm, weak, cowardly, intellectual, free thinker, disobedient disrespectful, ... in other words, the other people on the planet who make up 95% of the population who are not wealthy, white and fanatical are really annoying and need to be put in their place.

When you believe that you and your peers are in possession of a fundamental precept of reality and that you have been ordained by God or by birth to impose this reality on the world you are capable and even enthusiastic about doing whatever it takes to reach your goal. The people running this country are intent on world domination, the only thing we have to stand in their way is the realization that they are clueless. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of their arrogance and ineptitude, they are going to lose, and they are going to lose because they can't comprehend people who are willing to die for their country, they truly can not fathom the passion that people have to be fight for their freedom. You can almost hear Rumsfeld and Cheney whine "We beat those people, we beat them almost back to the Stone Age and they won't roll over and play dead, what is the matter with them, why do they keep on fighting,,, aren't they smart enough to know we won!" Wars are started by ideologues and fought by the unconnected. Conquering a smaller, unprotected virtually defenseless country is simple if you have an overwhelming Army. Keeping it under your control is another story.

They are almost all 'Chicken hawks' they used their wealth and privilege to hide out during the Korean and Vietnam War, they used their wealth and privilege to gain power and influence. They convinced themselves that they were right and that anyone who opposed them was either stupid or their enemy. They have no qualms about sending other men's children to war and they care even less about the people our children are killing.

The real war is between the people that want it all and the people who have it all... the apathetic plugger that just want to get home, put their feet up and watch American Idol are the victims and they don't even know it....

Calie had a nosebleed last night.. the second one of the day... the problem was that it didn't stop... I got her to Kaiser about quarter to ten and we were there till midnight... Calie is very susceptible to nosebleeds so we are used to dealing with them but this was a duzie.

We are cleaning like crazy, to get ready to sell this place, We are taking a ride up to Washington to meet with a realty agent... we'll be gone for five or six days... Grandma is coming over to take care of Cindy and watch Mike... the Air-conditioning repair guy is on his way over to fix the damn thing again...

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded.

I read this in McDonalds while Autumn and I had breakfast...it was such a fundamental revelation that I almost fell out of my chair.

After seeing this it occurred to me that once upon a time, back about 1900 or so there was about a 3 year period when I was the resident expert on 911 and Area Code Splits people consulted with me on all the intricacies of routing traffic... by the time I retired in 1996 the technology had left me in the dust and all that information and expertise was useless... At least I had a moment in the sun but damn, that cartoon hit home... funny...

We are getting ready to drive up north... Christy has been teaching and is not even packed yet

Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half.

We made it to Ione, Wa. and drove around and looked at some of the houses and got a picture in our minds of the area

No one was surprised when it was revealed that Karl Rove was one of the leakers to Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

As a patriot and a trusted aide to President Bush, it was his job. You can't have an informed public unless you have high government officials to protect the president and do havoc to his enemies.

What people still don't understand is that leaks are used by the government to get across the message that it makes no mistakes.

First I have a cup of coffee. Then I go through the mail. Leaks never come on White House letterhead. That would be too obvious, and it would also be turned over to a grand jury. The leak, if it arrives in an envelope, is usually a message made from letters cut out of magazines such Penthouse, Newsweek or the National Review.

If there's nothing in the mail, I start reading my e-mails. Leakers prefer e-mails because it saves on postage and is the fastest way of getting the leak in the papers.

"May I speak to Karl Rove? I'm a friend of Robert Novak's. . . . Oh, he's in a meeting with the president? . . . What am I calling about? . . . Let me give you a hint -- drip, drip, drip. Do you get it? . . . I promise you I will keep it under deep cover. . . . All right, deep, deep secret cover. . . . No, it has nothing to do with liberals having a bad attitude about 9/11. . . . I did that story already.

"Does he have anything new that he didn't leak to Novak or Cooper? . . . Anyone in the CIA who is married to an ambassador who just came back from Africa, and didn't find any uranium there? I know it's farfetched, but people are interested in any reason for what the hell we are doing in Iraq.

"Well, when he's finished, he can call me back on my cell phone. I'll take anything he leaks that is destructive to Democrats against the war, Senator Kerry, Howard Dean and any others Rove decides are the usual anti-Bush suspects.

"Operator, I am a friend of Robert Novak's. Is there anyone in Dick Cheney's office or on his staff who has anything he wants to leak today? . . . No, you won't offend Novak. He has so many leaks to handle as it is and he said he didn't mind if I made this call.

"The vice president isn't in town? Then let me speak to a high government official who could leak a story to me. I'll take anything. . . .

"Hello, I was put through to you because I understand you are a high government official who prefers to remain nameless. I am a friend of Robert Novak's, and he told me that you are an unimpeachable source in the same class as Deep Throat. You don't have to leak any new information. Just tell me if my facts are right or wrong, in case I'm called in front of a special prosecutor. Promise me you will waive your right to remain silent and I can say you were my source. . . . Well, don't get so upset. I get waivers from all my sources. Otherwise, I could be in jail right now."

A Jar of Red Herrings

It is getting hard to keep track of all the issues stirred up by the leaking of a C.I.A. operative's name to a conservative columnist two years ago. Our colleague Judith Miller has been in jail for nearly two weeks for refusing to identify her confidential sources to a grand jury investigating that leak. Her position - that reporters cannot do their jobs if they cannot guarantee some sources anonymity - is very clear, as is her willingness to accept the legal consequences of her principled stand. But the case itself is complicated, and it's been made more so by a raft of distracting issues.

Let's talk about a few of those issues:

Protection for sources Not all confidential sources are Deep Throat, or heroic corporate whistle-blowers. Sometimes they are government officials who are hoping to spread information that will embarrass their political opponents or promote a particular agenda. In the leak case, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine has said that Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, was the one who told him that a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson IV, who had written an Op-Ed article that upset the Bush administration, was married to someone who worked for the C.I.A. Mr. Cooper said he'd also discussed the matter with Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. Bob Novak, the columnist who actually identified Mr. Wilson's wife - by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - has said only that his sources were in the government.

Ms. Miller never wrote an article mentioning Ms. Wilson, and she has obviously not identified the person she talked to about the matter. But the hard truth is that no reporter can choose the circumstances for upholding a principle. It doesn't matter whether we think a source is a good person or has good motivations. A reporter promises confidentiality, and the paper backs up the journalist because otherwise the public will not learn what it needs to know. It's up to the reporter and editor to determine whether information given under a promise of confidentiality is reliable. But reporters cannot apply ideology when protecting their sources, any more than civil liberties lawyers can defend the First Amendment rights of only the people they agree with.

The waivers The prosecutor produced what he claimed were waivers of confidentiality signed by White House officials, and his supporters have asked how Ms. Miller or any other journalists could remain silent if the presumed sources say they are free to talk. In fact, these documents were extracted by coercion, so they are meaningless. Employees who are told they are required to sign waivers to keep their jobs are not sincerely freeing reporters from promises to keep their identities secret. Mr. Cooper said he had gotten a "specific waiver" of confidentiality from Mr. Rove. Ms. Miller says she has not received any such thing from her sources.

In a situation like this, it's not possible for politicians, prosecutors, judges or other journalists to parse a confidentiality agreement from the outside. The reporter, and the editors who are the writer's immediate supervisors, are the only ones who truly understand the nuances of the case. More broadly, it is up to the source, not the reporter, to speak out. If Mr. Rove or any other officials involved were really concerned about getting out the truth, all they would need to do would be to stand up in public and tell it.

Joseph Wilson's report This is one of the biggest red herrings in this case - that administration officials were simply attempting to wave reporters off an erroneous story about this report.

In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times that described how he had been sent by the C.I.A. to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. He said he had found no evidence to support the claim of a uranium purchase, or even a serious attempt to negotiate one, and that he had reported this to Washington. That is entirely accurate. Mr. Rove knew it when he spoke to Mr. Cooper, and he tried to give the impression that Mr. Wilson was an unreliable person who had been sent to Niger only because of his wife's influence. In fact, Mr. Wilson had excellent credentials for the mission, and the entire Niger story had already been pretty thoroughly debunked by the time Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rove spoke.

What really bothered Mr. Rove was Mr. Wilson's view that the administration had deliberately twisted the intelligence on Iraq and that Mr. Bush had misled Americans about the need for war. We don't know whether top officials heard about Mr. Wilson's findings and ignored them, or whether the findings never reached the upper levels - at the time, dissenting views on Iraq were not getting much of an airing in the administration. There's a lot we don't know about this case. But these things are clear:

• Journalists should not tailor their principles to the politics of the moment.

• Coerced waivers of confidentiality are meaningless.

• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.