Very few ex-cons get sentenced to house arrest in a $16 million, 153-acre estate or receive a standing ovation when they return to work. But then again, very few convicted criminals manage to convince the public that their crimes were worth applauding.

Home decorating maven Martha Stewart appears to be the exception to this rule. Despite having served a five-month prison sentence for her conviction of obstructing justice and lying to the government about an insider-trading stock scandal, the 63-year-old Stewart has reappeared on the nation’s television screens looking better than ever and poised to restart her march towards winning the hearts and emptying the pocketbooks of millions of Americans.

Which raises the question: When it comes to celebrity trials, why do we even bother? After all, whenever there’s a celebrity crime—and truth be known, there are enough of them these days—the end result invariably seems not to be punishment but simply be more wealth, adulation and fawning media coverage for the convicted celebrity than ever before. Not to mention the fattening of someone’s bottom line.

We sure have our priorities right in this country of ours. According to my daily habit, I flipped on the TV after an early lunch at about 11:45 this morning, E.S.T. Thought I’d check on the latest developments in Iraq, Lebanon, and Capitol Hill. I started with CNN, then flipped over to Fox, then MSNBC.

None of three had anything to say about international or domestic affairs. All were maintaining a breathless vigil outside a courtroom in Santa Maria, California, because Michael Jackson, whose name is somehow still preceded by the adjective “superstar,” had decided to stop at a hospital en route to his trial for child molestation. It seems the single-gloved wonder was suffering back pains that had required emergency treatment; unfortunately, he didn’t have permission from the court to show up late.

Wow, what a tangled web you weave!  George H.W. Bush "took over" the CIA under Gerald Ford!  I actually think Ford appointed him, he was CIA director only briefly (less than a year, if I recall), and at that point, there was no consideration of the former one-term Congressman as a vice presidential candidate.  In fact, he only became vice president under Reagan due to Reagan's (misguided) belief in compromise after the 1980 nomination fight.

  And to tie Prescott Bush into it, along with the various 1950s CIA coups, really strains credulity.  Guys, that all happened almost 50 years ago!  Yes, a few folks tried to call John Kennedy a Fascist because his father was pro-Hitler, but that didn't stick, and neither will your charges.

  Bush won, he's president.  Get over it.  You'll have another chance in four years.  In the meantime, stop wasting other people's time and money on court challenges to the election results.  I hope Ohio disbars your lawyers.

Randolph R. Resor
Merchantville, NJ

Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org -- which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message -- is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

With a network of more than 3 million “online activists,” the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq. During the recent bloody months, none of MoveOn’s action alerts have addressed what Americans can do to help get the U.S. military out of that country. Likewise, the MoveOn.org website has continued to bypass the issue -- even after Rep. Lynn Woolsey and two dozen cosponsors in the House of Representatives introduced a resolution in late January calling for swift removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

That resolution would seem to be a natural peg for the kind of kinetic activism that established MoveOn’s reputation. A movement serious about ending U.S. military activities in Iraq could use the resolution as a way to cut through political tap dances and pressure members of Congress to take a stand. Down the road, generating grassroots support for a get-out-of-Iraq

Hi Free Press:

Thank you so much for continuing to fight for fair elections.  

I have one suggestion to make.  I have been a computer programmer for 30 years.  Believe me - voting machines are a much simpler application than ATMs.  

So, if companies like Diebold who make both types of machines say that it is too difficult to produce paper receipts and an audit log we should be able to easily debunk this nonsense. That is, we should do is keep reminding the public that ATMs produce these audit trails and that Diebold and others' claims are nonsense.  

People can easily understand this when using the ATM analogy.

Helen W Slater