spacer
• March 2, 2005 | 5:57 p.m. ET

Why no one should be a cell phone driver (Ron Reagan)

You're driving down the highway, hands on the wheel, eyes on the road, when you're suddenly confronted by another driver behaving strangely.

It's not that they're driving recklessly exactly—they seem more... oblivious. You pull alongside and, sure enough, they're talking on a cell phone.

Sound familiar? Of course it does.

According to the National Traffic Safety Administration, 8 percent of U.S. drivers now use their phones behind the wheel.

At the same time, new studies indicate that chatty drivers are about as safe as drunks. That adds up to 1.2 million accidents waiting to happen. Given that, it seems obvious... there ought to be a law.

“Whoa!” You say. “Hang on.  These phones are mobile for a reason—  this is what they're designed for.”

That's right, and your car was designed to plough into the back of my car when you're busy checking your messages.

“Ron, Ron, Ron, what you fail to appreciate is that I've got one of these fancy, hands-free rigs with the headset. So, no problem, got it covered.”

Well, here's a news flash, it's not your hands we're worried about; it's the part of you that's supposed to be paying attention. Look around once in a while. Notice how, often as not, the only things separating you from oncoming traffic are a couple of painted lines. They're doing 60; you're doing 60. Do the math! Think your headset will survive a 120 mile per hour collision? How about your head?

Besides, those headsets, the ones that lead others to believe you're having an animated conversation with an imaginary friend? They make you look like a crazy person.
“Ok, ok, you say, most people probably shouldn't phone and drive at the same time. But me, I'm responsible. I can handle it.”

That's right, you're special. You're the kind of person who can knock back tequila shooters all night and still be perfectly safe on the road.

And my dog can play the entire B-side of abbey road on the kazoo.

Last line of defense: “Hey, I'm an important, busy, 24/7 executive type; I get a lot of business done in the car.”

Well, you keep telling yourself that as you sail through your windshield.

Here's the good news: Where your going, you'll have plenty of time to make calls. The downside? The reception's lousy down there... and those roaming charges!

E-mail RReagan@MSNBC.com

• March 2, 2005 | 5:44 p.m. ET

Female bloggers featured on the show:

WindsofChange.Net
LaShawnBarber.Com
Are you a female blogger? Do you have a favorite female blogger? Send us a link at Connected@MSNBC.com.

5:31 p.m. ET

Homegrown terror: The husband and mother of a federal judge were executed in the basement of the family home, forced to lie on the floor while they were shot multiple times in the head, according to law enforcement sources. Click here to read more on this story.

Your e-mails on the discussion on 'Connected' so far:

Why aren't these white supremist groups called what they— terrorists. Or are only brown skin Islamists terrorists? —Sheila

The recent murder of the federal judge's family in Chicago amply illustrates what happens when religious zealots are encouraged to take the law into their own hands by the extremist attitudes they perceive in our current leaders. —Peter McLaughlin, Niagara Falls, N.Y.

I think that individuals who are members of homegrown hate groups should be taken from their homes and labled enemy combatonts and stripped of thier civil rights just like al Qaeda members or suspects.  They are just as much of a threat and I do not understant why DHS, FBI and CIA are not doing more to combat these individuals.   —Lee, Va.

It's not surprising that the internet, arguably the most free speech freindly zone we have left in this country, is abused by these terrorist organizations. I hope they do not become a pretext for censoring more positive and fruitful discussions. —Beth, San Francisco

If this was a "hit", and it was ordered from prison, doesn't this just go to show that prisoners have far to many liberties? —Anonymous

I have never understood why for the past 30 years while women's clincs have been being bombed and doctors and workers of these clinics killed and/or maimed we have not called these anti-choice zealots "terrorists".  Were it any other group besides women being attacked I'm certain it would have been classifed as terrorism and the law would treat it as such. —Marilyn Fitterman, Past Pres. of the National Organization for Women of New York State (NOW-NYS)

• March 2, 2005 | 1:00 p.m. ET

A two-week old pancake on eBay (Monica Crowley)

spacerHigh technology has brought us CAT scans, stealth bombers, the Mars Rover, and… eBay.  The very low-tech way of shopping at garage sales and flea markets has enjoyed a high-tech makeover, thanks to the Internet and the geniuses over at eBay.

Ebay is the online auction house that offers up everything from lawnmowers and light bulbs, to knock-off handbags being passed off for the real thing.  If you want a car mat with a picture of a German Shepard on it, just go to eBay.  If you want a mug with the Three Stooges on it, just go to eBay. 

If you want a two-week-old pancake… just go to eBay??

Yes, some clever entrepreneur has decided to sell a pancake he made— partly to poke fun at some of the wacky stuff being peddled on eBay, and partly to get his own blog going on the wacky folks actually bidding on the thing.

The item location is listed  as “The Pan in My Kitchen.”  And here's how the seller describes it:

"That's right…it's a pancake…I made it myself….And before ya knew it, we had one of these newfangled eBay accounts, online and all…you know that there Intranet that Mr. Al Gore invented.  So here it is…My pancake is…kinda tan in color…I reckon it measures about 6 inches one way and about 5 the other…guess it ain't quite round….Anyways, if you're lookin' for Mystery…Guess what's in my pancake?  Visions of the Virgin Mary…Gaze real hard at my pancake!  Fancy advertising space…plenty of room on my pancake!  Gotta million dollars you need to blow…buy my pancake!"

The seller is even willing to ship the thing worldwide, but it'll cost you!

Now, I understand that one man's junk is another man's treasure.  And as my grandma always says, “There's a lid for every pot!” 

Who knows?  Maybe there is a big demand out there for two-week-old pancakes.  After all, bidding has already reached $75!  

I want to meet this high bidder. Because if he's got $75 to blow on an eBay pancake, then maybe I can get him to spring for that eBay-listed lawnmower that caught my eye!

MCrowley@MSNBC.com

• March 2, 2005 | 12:38 p.m. ET

Butting out

It was last call for smokers in Rhode Island early Tuesday morning. Finally, the air's beginning to clear!

Rhode island has just become the seventh and most recent state in the Union, to say “No smoking allowed” almost anywhere.

The new ban was 20 years in the making. It applies to smoking in all of Rhode Island's bars, restaurants and indoor workplaces.

There are a few exemptions: Bars with 10 or fewer employees, and private social organizations, like the “Veterans of Foreign Wars”  or “Knights of Columbus,”  have until October first 2006 to comply. The state's two gambling centers “Lincoln Park” and “Newport Grand” are permanently exempt.

New Jersey could be next.  New York City has smoke free bars  now— so smokers are flocking west. And now, the “American Cancer Society”  is making the Garden State  the butt of a joke,  calling it “The ashtray of the Northeast.”

Your e-mails on the smoking ban:

I am a smoker, 26 years of age.  I think smoking should not just be banned in public but abolished completely. —Joey Langstoangsto

My State has the No Smoking Law for a long time and I love it. At first the smokers hated it, but in time everyone seems to like it. Us non-smokers have had a hundred years dealing with smokers and finally we have rights. It's finally our turn instead of smokers smoking all over me.  —Deb, Buffalo, N.Y.

I am a smoker. I feel, knowing the side effects it is my right. Segregate me within an establishment so be it. Restaurants schools places of that ilk, fine. But a bar should at east have the option of creating an area for smokers. Like it or not it is my right to smoke, as is it yours to not be exposed to second hand smoke.  —Joshua M. Casper

Government has the right to ban smoking in "public" buildings, those that are funded by taxpayers. But not in a private business. Only the owner has that right. This is just another in a long line of issues where government exercises its Power, not its Right, to use force against its citizens, in violation of the first principle of a moral government. Hey, maybe we could just nationalize everything, have your money sent to the Feds and then they can send us what they will "allow" us to have. It's disgusting. —James King, St. Charles, Ill.
12 p.m. ET

Social Security:  Wait till next year?

There is nothing wrong with Social Security that can't be fixed by the Government paying back the 1.6 Trillion dollars it has dipped into the fund for other things. — Alice C. Hill, Escondido, CA

Bush claimed he wanted open honest discussion about the issue of social security reform, but rather than have these discussions he tried to cram his preconceived plan down our throats, like he has done with the rest of his agenda. Americans just can't swallow any more.  — Robert Schwegler, Absecon, NJ

I have two thoughts about social security reform: (1) You get only what you pay in. I am tired of people who never worked a day in their life get a SS check. (2) The government cannot even balance its own books, why should we as a country let them manage our money?
The government is giving MY MONEY to somebody else. If I wanted that, I would give it away myself instead of letting the government do it for me! — Tim Piazzi, Plymouth, MI

Why is it that the first solution (personal accounts) on the table to solve Social Security from the president involves borrowing lots of money.....why can't we discuss solutions that does not require borrowing first. — Joel, Franklin, MA

Dear Ron, I am 72 and I am terrified for my 53 yr old daughter if Bush gets what he wants. I don't know how I could have made it without my soc. sec. I don't even like to think about! please do what you can to keep these people from doing this to people who are not as fortunate as they are.  — Hilda, Miami

Regardless of how it looks on paper, I still find it hard to believe that the average or below average person will be able to effectively manage a "private account". I also haven't heard that aspect of Mr. Bush's plan addressed by anyone. — Donna, Boston

• March 1, 2005 | 6:01 p.m. ET

A school for beer!?! (Ron Reagan)

For the students at Nova Scotia Community College in Canada, education has just gotten a lot more interesting. Yes, in the frozen north country, they're putting the fun back in learning. It's not just readin', writin' and 'rithmatic anymore. Now the curriculum will include swillin', guzzlin' and, presumably, hurlin' on your shoes.

It's called the Labatt Beer Institute and you'll be astonished to learn that it's being funded with a $1 million grant from Labatt Breweries who are no doubt motivated by a deep concern for declining educational standards.

Says Nova Scotia premier John Hamm,"What I would have thought, in my day, is that there was very little about beer that the students didn't know."

Oh, Mr. Hamm, you're so wrong. This area of study is as rich as the creamy head on a Guinness Stout. Scholars at the beer institute will delve into the arcana of beer history, which should lead them back to the ancient, inebriated empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia. They'll learn the proper method of pouring.

Just a hint: It doesn't involve hanging upside down from the dormitory roof or the word "shotgun."

And, of course, students will learn to properly match beer to food, a major area of confusion. I know I'm often at a loss: Should it be lager or ale, when I'm about to scarf down a bag of cheese doodle?

Chris Mosher, course instructor and general manager of the institute, agrees there's much to learn. "In Belgium," he says, "they have a very unique ritual where every glass is hand washed." We have rituals here in the states too—  like sucking brewskis through a rubber hose and falling asleep face down in the snow.

Mosher also adds that he has a high level of job satisfaction. I'll bet he does. His classes will no doubt be packed, provided students can remember where they're being held. But it remains to be seen whether this is an academic field worth ploughing... or just an excuse to get ploughed.

E-mail RReagan@MSNBC.com.

• March 1, 2005 | 5:48 p.m. ET

End of a TV era (Monica Crowley)

spacer“NYPD Blue,” hit the airwaves in September of 1993 amid a blur of boycotts over bare butts. Considered network television's first R-rated series— with its liberal use of profanity and partial nudity, dozens of ABC affiliates were refusing to air it.

But the buzz brought viewers— and they liked what they saw.

It became a commercial and critical success— earning 82 Emmy nominations during its run.
“Blue” was a long way from what was called “controversial”  in TV's early days.

In the 50s, “I Love Lucy” caused a stir when Lucille Ball became pregnant in real life. 
Network executives were initially afraid to write her pregnancy into the show for fear of offending viewers.

In the 60s: “The Dick Van Dyke Show” was considered a trailblazer for its realistic portrayal of relationships, although the married Petries slept in separate beds. “All in the Family” shattered several TV taboos in the seventies— tackling issues like racism,  homosexuality, women's liberation and rape.

And in 1973, the “All in the Family” spin-off, “Maude” made headlines when its lead character had an abortion—weeks after the supreme court's roe versus wade decision.

Then along came the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction.

Now, television execs say they are afraid to push the decency envelope.  Today, word is that those laws may apply to cable. Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens says he will push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.

What do you think?

Your e-mails

Concerning moral decency standards in this country, people need to keep in mind that cultural values are reflected in popular culture, and the messages we send future generations have important implications. —Kyle Becker, Iowa City, Iowa

When I worked in broadcast, I, too, used the argument that you can "just change the channel".  I've come to recognize, though, that that's a lot like saying that you can just get up and go home after you've been mugged. —Curt Brown, Manassas, Va.

What WILL I do at 10:00pm on Tuesdays?  What a great show and outstanding cast...I've watched for years.  I taped it in case someone called and interrupted me.  I'll miss Blue and especially Dennis Franz, who in my opinion, is a great actor.  I hope their will be a spin-off with Sipowitz in the future.  Incidentally, the later years had less nudity and profanity, but it still had great story lines. —Joan Califano, Bradenton, Fla.

It would be very interesting to watch conservative women's reaction if their favorit soaps were cancelled for their sex, nudity, and language.  This trash is on daily while small children are pushed in swings to keep them quite.  Older kids tune every chance they get when home from school. I do not improve of any censership but if so, lets start with the trash soaps. —Shari Norwood

The quality of television doesn't bother me nearly as much as the commercials.  We can be watching a family appropriate show, however, the commercials are for NYPD Blue or for CSI: Miami, or for some violent movie, etc.  Also, why does ABC show a Disney movie, and then while the credits are showing on the right hand of the screen, some violent show's commercial is on the left?  I can turn off the T.V. if I don't approve of the show, but to turn off Monster's Inc. during a commercial or the credits because of an inappropriate clip seems ridiculous to me.  I wish the networks would think about who is watching during the entire 2 hour period, not just the show itself. —Jennette

• March 1, 2005 | 5:26 p.m. ET

Blog links

HughHewitt.com: Christian Bloggers Conference
Leanleft.com: Supreme Court decision on juvenile death penalty
On TV, censorship

outoffocus.typepad.com
buzzmachine.com
milkriver.blogspot.com
Hollywood Reporter
• March 1, 2005 | 5:17 p.m. ET

On justices abolishing death penalty for juveniles

What happened to the rights of the victim? Their rights - thier voices are silenced forever. And if you make the decision— at whatever age you might be-why should you be entitled to rehabilitation? The families of the murdered, raped, sexually abused have to live with what has been done to their families, for the rest of thier lives. In the case of Malvo, we the taxpayers, should be expected to pay for him to live out his days in prison with the luxuries of television, EATING, or anything else! He WAS old enough to make a decision of right and wrong. You might not be able to drink, vote, etc at age 18 but that is totally different. —Nadia

I have a hard time believing that any person not afforded the full rights as a citizen should be afforded the full punishment as a citizen. —Steven, Newport News, Va

Why are the republicans always against abortion and always for the death penalty.  Killing is killing and I believe the Lord and Jesus Christ are against killing. —Ralph, Altamonte Springs, Fla.

If you think that teenagers are responsible enough to take credit for their actions when they commit murder, then they should also be responsible enough to have the right to vote.  You cannot have one without the other. —Kate Jacobs, Hamilton, N.J.

It is so barbaric to have a death penalty for anyone, no matter what their age, that I can hardly congratulate the Supreme court  for their decision. It should not even have come up.  Our whole system of juvenile justice has gone awry.  Around 1900, the experts came to the conclusion that children and teenagers did not have the mental or emotional equipment to think like an adult, and our system of juvenile justice was put into place.  In recent years we have been going backwards, so I'm glad that people are beginning to realize again that kids have to be treated differently.  The more people have been thumping bibles in recent years, the more primitive we have been getting as a society.  If the bible thumpers followed the ten commandments instead of shoving them in everyone's faces, the world would be a better place. —Carole D.

I not only support the death penalty for all 16 and 17 year olds, I suggest that all those convicted of violent murders be sentenced to die the same way their victims were murdered!  —Allen S.

It least it's a start. I can't believe that this country still debates this question. So now it's considered cruel and unusual punishment and unconstitutional to put a juvenile to death. No kidding. Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual punsihment and unconstitutional to put anyone to death? I do believe severe punishment should be given to all who commit murder but murder is still murder.  Killing someone is illegal no matter WHO does the killing! —JP

While I generally agree that minors (<18 yr.) have not psycho-socially developed to adult level. I feel strongly that exception criteria should be developed or considered to account for offenders who do not fit the "child's mind" profile and repeat minor offenders. —Jon S.

The Supreme Court is to be congratulated! The US now joins other "civilized" countries; Iran, Pakistan, The Congo, in not executing juveniles. Juveniles can't sign a contract, marry, join the armed services without parental permission, vote, own property, etc. Why would anyone think it is all right to execute them no matter how heinous the crime? We have a long way to go before our society approaches "perfection," this is a good first step. —AGTaylor

I deeply resent the fact that we the taxpayers are forced to support the lives of convicted murderers... it's not a revenge thing... we should be using the money spent to warehouse their worthless lives on the people in this country who can use assistance to better their lives—Suzanne and Andi

• March 1, 2005 | 12:53 p.m. ET

On Torture, Donald Rumsfeld lawsuit

I am a very proud American. Why, because we are better than our enemies. We have the moral high ground. What we do is for the greater good. This country does not torture. Only criminals within the govt. would do such a thing. They must be removed and punished. —Ed Gamble, Irvine, Calif.

Has anyone considered the fact that the moment we engage in tourture we become what we are fighting against.  It is a very slippery slope.  It has been shown that torture is not an effective means of gathering information and may in the long run harm our honorable troops. —Mike, Madison, Wis.

While I fully believe in protecting the lives of Americans, it seems hypocritical to me for Americans to believe that "all men are created equal" and none should bear "cruel and unusual punishment" ONLY if one was lucky enough to be born in the United States. But hey, that's me. —Lauren, Tex.

I thought in a state of war, prisoners of war are detained until the war is over. I do not see why it would be ridiculous to detain until the war on terrorism is declared over. If the ACLU is appealing to the Geneva Convention, which really does not apply to the current war, then surely the GC is not against detention until the war is declared over. Who will declare it over? I say, tough! —Toots

For too long the American government has said one thing, while meaning another.  I applaud the ACLU and others for filling this lawsuit.  If we want to win the war on terror (and I think we all want victory) we need to be more sensitive in everything we do.  Torturing these individuals does not help us, it aids the enemy.  Why would we engage in the same practices that we condemn other nations for using?  By saying that Saddam Hussein tortured his people, so therefore it is ok for us to use torture, is simply a bad argument.

—Tim Kelly, Rapid City, S.D.

12:20 p.m. ET

The Ten Commandments on public display? Now, it's up to the Supreme Court. But what about the religion double-standard in this country?

Here are some of your e-mails on the subject:

We are fighting around the world and trying to remove religion from the stronghold it has on government. Yet we are blurring the lines in our on front yards. I am not against religion but against what people do in the name of it. There in lies the problem. —Bobby, Fla.

If it is okay to put the Ten Commandments in public places then it would have to be okay to display verses from the Koran for Muslim Americans. —Blue Gal in a Red State

Our laws are meant to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.  Even if only one person in the entire country feels excluded by the public display of the Ten Commandments, the display becomes inappropriate.  In reality, there are many people who do not identify with the commandments.  If individuals want to wear them on their shirts or display them on their homes, great.  But not the institutions that are funded by our taxes.   —John T. Compton

You say you support public displays of the Ten Commandments, and one wound assume you're a conservative Christian correct? But at the same time you like many others support the death penalty! Doesn't this go directly against what the Christian religion, and the Ten Commandments teach? "Thou Shall Not Kill" You can't twist that for your convince, it's straight to the point. —Jimmy

As a Muslim, I'm going to have to disagree with the Reverend when he said that Muslims dont accept the 10 commandments.  We accept the Torah and the Bible as the words of God, meaning that we would accept the 10 Commandments as well.  Its 10 laws do not conflict whatsoever with our beliefs, in fact its principles attribute to the foundations of Islam:
honoring human life, respecting parents, and ensuring justice for all. —Aman Ali, Columbus, Ohio

On a recent trip to our nation's capital, our school attended a senate hearing.   During our tour we were informed of some of the architectural features.  One being the wall sculptures surrounding the top of the room.  The faces of our worlds lawmakers were carved and placed at the top of the room.  The only face that was carved facing forward was that of Moses.  Moses was placed facing the podium where are nation's laws are decided.   We were informed that the placing of his sculpture was deliberate, due to the fact that he was considered the ultimate law maker.  How do you then decide that the 10 Commandments does not have it's place in the world and specifically our US History? —Dawn, Pa.

• February 28, 2005 | 5:58 p.m. ET

On "Don't ask, Don't tell" in the military

A government study says the Defense Department has spent almost $200 million—recruiting and training  replacements for nearly 9,500 servicemen and women  discharged under  “Don't ask, Don't tell.”

Signed into law in 1993, “Don't ask, Don't tell” allows gays and lesbians to serve  as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not openly disclose their sexual orientation.

Of those discharged, 757 had specialized assignments.  322 spoke foreign languages including Arabic, Farsi, Korean and Mandarin, skills clearly critical in the war on terror.

But recruitment is down.  The army began this fiscal year with just 18.4 percent of its annual target for active-duty recruits. 

Those recruiting shortfalls, along with the millions spent to replace discharged gay soldiers, has Massachusetts Rep. Marty Meehan concerned. He's proposing legislation to repeal the 12-year-old policy, saying,  “Now we have the numbers to prove that the policy itself is undermining our military readiness.”

Your e-mails

When I was a young man, I too had the "hatriotic" beliefs of those who are afraid of hays.  I have been married for 18 yrs. and have a 5y ear-old daughter, I try to teach her the tolerance that our parents rallied against. Can't we all just grow a brain? —Chuck Johnson, Ashtabula Ohio

Gays should not be discriminated against if they want to serve in the armed forces.  The female commentator interviewed this morning no doubt has not served in the military.  I have as an Army Engineer Officer.  The ‘gender neutral' framing of the issue is a dead (sic) herring.  Her reasoning is based on a law that is biblical and is in essence religious warfare on gays.  Send her and her children to the Middle Wast where they can learn about real bigotry from the mullahs.—Jeff, Los Angeles, Calif.

The Clinton policy of “Don't ask, don't tell” hurt more gay servicemen and women than it helped. The policy was an open door to a witch hunt. I proudly served my country, and took no extreme measures to hide my homosexuality. Homosexuals are now, and always will be a part of our military force, even if we have to “check the wrong box” and have to serve in silence. The fact is that gay men and women have served, are serving, and will continue to serve this country with pride, but in silence. —David S., Winston Salem, N.C.

I served in the Marine Corps for 8 years.  I'm openly gay and I never hid it from anyone.  I never flaunted it either.  Homosexuals have just as right to fight for this country as anyone else.  —Shawn Holliday, San Diego, Calif.

What a horrible woman defending a terrible policy of the U.S. Military.   I am a straight male and not at all frightened by having gay men serving our country in uniform. Aren't we done with gay bashing in the 21st century yet??? —Len Brown, Dripping Springs, Tex.

If you ever are in the military, then you can state your thoughts on homosexuals coming in, but I served 2 tours in Iraq, and I would never have wanted those guys in the areas  and small confined spaces we had to live in.  —James Regan, San Clemente Calif.

I have been on active duty for the Air Force for nearly three years.  I, along with many others serve honorably being gay.  I am not open at work.  I feel it is a personal issue and not a concern of the military, this is the way it should be viewed.  As for the argument it breaks down “unit cohension,” I don't feel this is so.  They fear that gay servicemembers would prey upon the straight ones, come on now, get real. Sexual harassment straight, gay, or whatever it is, is wrong, and punishable.  Women can serve with men and visa versa.  They are attracted to one another, just like a homosexual would be to their same sex.  If advances are given and are unwelcome, it is wrong period.  See my point?  Hold everyone to the same standard. I have been in combat and women serve along side with us, and do so  even with the above conditions.  Gays can do the same!  —John, Charleston, SC

Almost every source acknowledges the U.S. military is the most awesome force that has ever fought on this planet but can't seem to handle gays trying to serve their country. Heaven forbid another nation builds a military consisting solely of gays.  Apparently our military would fold in the face of such an army.  Gays want to risk their lives defending my freedom????  How DARE they! — Steven, Glendale, CA

As a bi-sexual female in the military I DO NOT think we should eliminate the “Don't ask Don't tell” policy.  Society isn't ready for gay marriages, as proven in several states that voted against it, so what makes you think the military is ready to add an open policy on gays?  Letting gays come out openly in the military at this time of heightened stress on all military members would be creating a whole new and uncalled for level of stress on us all, gay and straight alike.   The military isn't ready for such drastic change right now, someday we will be but right now NO.  —Jo

I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a joke.  I served in the Marine Corps and was a victim of the “witch hunts” in the late 1980's.  I barely got out with the skin of my teeth.  It's not the homosexuals that have a problem, it's the heterosexuals that have the problem.  I would have made the Marine Corps a career had it not been for the “witch hunts.”  Some heterosexuals blow things way out of proportion.  There is no need for special accommodations because as members of the armed forces, we all serve the same purpose and that is to protect the freedom of all people. —Anonymous

E-mails are still pouring in. Write us! Connected@MSNBC.com. Watch 'Connected' and join our live blog weekdays, 12 noon and 5 p.m. ET,

5:33 p.m. ET: Blog reads today

Politics, Oscars

Joe Biden or Hillary for 2008? http://ovaloffice2008.blogspot.com/
Robin Williams funny Oscar speech was censored. Learn more from Talkleft.com
LaShawnBarber.com: Triumph of ignorance and vulgarity
MidEast blogs

Egyptian blog ring
Beirut2bayside.blogspot.com
Bahraini blogger arrested? bahraniat.blogspot.com
Free the Iranian bloggers
• February 28, 2005 | 5:20 p.m. ET 

Winds of change (Monica Crowley)

spacerToday's announcement from Lebanon's prime minister  brought cheers from the estimated 25,000 thousand people gathered in Beirut. The crowd had been protesting the Lebanese government and its alleged ties to Syria.

The developments in Lebanon are the latest in a string of events in the Mideast— prompting some to wonder whether significant change is underway.

This change of power could be seen as the latest gust in the winds of change that seem to be blowing through the region.

A democratic changing of the guard was a signature theme in the president's recent inaugural speech. One catylst for change may have been the recent democratic election in Iraq, with it's higher than expected  voter turnout.

Those Iraqi elections followed the democratic vote in Afghanistan.

This weekend in Egypt, president Hosni Mubarak said he is abandoning his plans to extend his term in office through an uncontested referendum.

Giving in to mounting pressure from the Egyptian political elite, Mubarek announced that the Egyptian constitution would be changed to allow for a multiple-candidate election for president.

And just two weeks ago, Saudi Arabia held its first ever municipal election for seven city council seats in Riyadh.

And with this weekend's capture and handover of Saddam Hussein's half brother— there are signs even Syria may be  feeling the pressure.

• February 28, 2005 | 12:49 p.m. ET 

Dullness of the Oscar broadcast

Sorry I missed the "Oscars", but I didn't want to miss the annual "Golden Plungers" show of the National Association of  Plumbers on another channel... I will assume that the requisite Bush-bashing was part of the "Pat My Own Back" festivities by the Elitist  Hollyweird Limo Liberals. Ho Hum.  —Walt Myers, Millville, N.J.

I personally hope and predict that this year the Oscars will have the lowest ratings ever or at least in a long time!  The idea that "The Passion of the Christ" is not even nominated for anything shows how out of touch Hollywood really is with the American public.  Most Americans describe themselves of being some type of Christian and "The Passion of the Christ" was obviously well loved by most who saw it. It's obviously all about Hollywood politics.  They not only hate Christianity but they think most Americans do as well because they rarely leave the world of make-believe that exists of Sunset Boulevard.  If there was a "middle finger button" on my keyboard I would push it for Hollywood. —Tim Bergstrom

12:37 p.m. ET

On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military

It is not the gays who have the problem with being in the military.  It is the straight guys.  So why are we telling the gays they have to pay for the problem of straight guys.  That is sorta like telling the victim of a crime they have to go to jail for the offender.  The straight guys need to fix themselves. —Nancy

NO, NO NO! NO homosexuals in the military. PERIOD. Why? Because they would disrupt the harmony and discipline of the armed forces. Special facilities would have to be built for them, especially on ships. And recruits would be a prime target for homosexual drill instructors and company commanders. I cannot and do not cond.one homosexuals serving in the military. I pray it isn't changed. —Rosemary E. Lloyd, Elberon., N.J.

Why should it matter about sexual preference? Too many people are "scared" by homosexuality. There is no difference between gay and straight. They are both humans, and some want to defend their country. We aren't doing so well that we can turn away help! —Dave, Kalamazoo, Mich.

12:27 p.m. ET

On news from Iraq, Lebanon

There are no winds of change in Middle East— Bush is not promoting freedom— what you are seeing is resistance to being governed by a forced govt and forced US occupation— there is no Freedom in forcing Iraq to be governed the way Bush wants to govern them. —Toni J.

In WW2 the French rose up against the occupying Nazis, they were hailed as heros.  Now we see Iraqis rising up against the occupying forces and we call them insurgents, I guess its all a matter of perceptions. —Toni B., Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Why is it that Republicans want to attribute ANY sign of positive change in the Middle East to Bush's policies? The situation in Lebanon has occurred because of the assasination of the Lebanese Prime Minister by agents of Syria, Bush had nothing to do with it. If you are going to give Bush credit for what is happening in Lebanon, then you also have to give him credit for the bombing of 100 people in Iraq today! —Eric Olsen, Santa Clara Calif.

• February 28, 2005 | 10:34 a.m. ET 

Coming up at noon ET on 'Connected' (Tony Maciulis, Senior Producer)

There are some important stories to discuss today, but let's start with dessert. It's Monday, after all.

Apparently, Beyonce was the only person who wanted to sing last night at the Oscars. They hauled her out there three times. The first performance, in French, was lovely although not a comfortable genre for her. After that it was all downhill, as was the rest of the broadcast. There were very few highlights other than Renee Zellweger's dress, which provided fodder for hours at my house. I think she was hiding the entire Partridge Family in her train. As to the serious matter of the awards, I think the distribution was fair. Everyone is happy for Jamie Foxx and "Million Dollar Baby" was a powerful film. I was definitely pulling for Virginia Madsen, though. Her big scene in "Sideways" was one of the greatest moments on film.

Now to business: Today, on the show we will take up the issue of gays in the military. Congressman Marty Meehan from Massachusetts is proposing a bill to eliminate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," saying it has cost the Pentagon nearly $200 million dollars to recruit and train replacements for the men and women discharged for sexuality issues. Critics say that gays have been falsely led to believe it is okay for them to serve as long as they don't admit their sexuality, and that the military is wasting resources training these men and women who will ultimately have to leave if and when they are discovered. The question at the heart of the matter is whether or not gays should be legally permitted to serve. Around 30 other nations have already lifted bans on gays, if they ever had them in the first place. The U.K. is heading in that direction. Should the United States? We'll talk to an Arabic linguist dismissed from the army under the policy, as well as a military personnel expert who says there is no place for gays in the Armed Forces.

And this weekend insurgent attacks heated up again in Iraq. Meanwhile, Syria handed over Saddam Hussein's half brother to the United States. The relationship with Syria is becoming increasingly complicated. While publicly the nation is playing ball, trying to comply with U.S. wishes, we'll examine what may lie beneath that veneer. It seems like a question we've asked before, but is Syria a friend or a foe?

Share your thoughts on today's top stories on our Website.

Check out Tony's notes daily.

Send your thoughts to Connected@MSNBC.com