TV & Radio
Ban on gay blood donors challenged
By Robyn Grace
August 02, 2005
A TASMANIAN man has accused the Red Cross of discriminating against him because he is gay.
Michael Cain, of Launceston in northern Tasmania, today launched legal challenges with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission against a policy that prevents gay men from donating blood.
Mr Cain, 22, tried to donate blood in Launceston last October but was told the Australian Red Cross Blood Service did not accept donations from men who have had male-to-male sex in the previous 12 months.
The Red Cross nurse told him "you people" – referring to gay men – had a higher risk of blood contamination due to unsafe sex practices, Mr Cain said.
The policy, which the Red Cross deems in line with world standards, was discriminatory and unnecessary, he said.
"I know that I have safe sex ... It almost felt like I was being accused of being a dirty person," Mr Cain said.
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said the Red Cross donor screening process, introduced 20 years ago in response to the advent of AIDS, was outdated.
Gay and bisexual men were allowed to donate blood in Switzerland and Spain, he said.
"Now we know that AIDS is not simply a gay disease, it's a disease anyone can catch," Mr Croome said.
"It's really time for the Red Cross to change its policy and focus on whether donors have safe or unsafe sex rather than the gender of the person they have sex with."
The screening process did not question heterosexuals on their safe sex practices, but singled out gay and bisexual men as high risk, Mr Croome said.
The same men can, however, donate sperm and organs.
Mr Cain's legal challenges argue the Red Cross is discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation and lawful sexual activity.
The federal challenge also alleges the Therapeutic Goods Administration has contravened Australia's international human rights obligations by failing to ensure the Red Cross conforms to blood donation guidelines set by the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe guidelines said it was necessary to ask prospective male donors if they had sex with men, but they didn't say gay men should be banned from making donations, Mr Croome said.
A similar case in 1998 was taken to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission, which found the Red Cross was reasonable in its discrimination because it needed to ensure blood supplies were safe.
But Mr Croome said technology had since progressed so HIV could be detected more successfully.
"As every year goes on and the technology improves (the ban) seems even more irrational," he said.
"We can't afford to keep anyone shut out when blood supplies are so low. This ban will cost lives."
The Australian Red Cross Blood Service said the exclusion of gay men was based on a statistically higher incidence of some blood-borne diseases among gay men, and the existence of "window period" infections – infections which may be incubating in the body at the time of donation.
Pride 2005 - no going back
By Clayton Timko, special to 24 hours Vancouver
An eclectic mix of colourful costumes and floats welcomed more than 100,000 people to the 27th annual Vancouver Pride Parade.
The parade kicked off at Barclay Street and made its way down Denman and Pacific Avenues before ending at Sunset beach.
The theme for this year's parade was 'no turning back.'
"The theme is a little more political," said media director for the Vancouver Pride Society Steven Schelling. "We can all celebrate federal ruling on gay marriage."
The event brings together members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender community with their friends, allies and supporters in a unique celebration of their culture and spirit.
Jamie Jaegel came up to Vancouver from Seattle for the event and prefers Vancouver's pride parade to Seattle's.
"It's a lot more creative and I noticed a lot more decorations," said Jaegel. "This is a festival for everyone, not just limited to the gay community."
This year's parade included a gang of motorcyclists, firefighters shooting water into the crowd and spray-painted men and women.
Melanie McCready of Bowen Island didn't expect to see young children in the parade.
"I was surprised and thought it was cute that there was a day camp in the parade," said McCready.
South Asian gays, lesbians come out for parade
Last updated Aug 1 2005 08:52 AM PDT
A South Asian gay and lesbian group came out for the first time to Vancouver's gay pride parade Sunday.
Organizers say "Tree-cone" is the first homosexual South Asian group in the city that actively includes lesbian women.
Fatima Jaffer says in the past these groups have been aimed mainly at gay men and the AIDS movement.
She says Tree-cone's focus is on culture, which is why their first parade displayed a Bollywood float.
Marchers were to wear colourful saris and Punjabi suits, and dance to popular Bollywood film music.
Jaffer says the message is that people don't have to shed their ethnicity when they choose to come out.
"Being in the march gives us an exposure and enables people who are not able to march with us that that is possible, that we can embrace ourselves as South Asian and be gay and lesbian."
Jaffer says many South Asians feel they must shed their roots because much of Indian culture takes a hard line on homosexuality.
She says many Indians in Vancouver who are gay hide it– and although some have signed up on Jaffer's confidential email list– she doubted many of them will join the parade.
"They're worried about their friends and family finding out that they're queer, and actively flaunting their sexually and unashamedly marching," she says.
Jaffer is hoping those who do march are shown support by the general South Asian population, most whom live in Surrey.
Jaffer says that community is known to be ultra-conservative by Indian groups across North America.
The challenge of the transgendered: Judeo-Christian values, part XIX
Dennis Prager (archive)
August 2, 2005 - Town Hall
From a Judeo-Christian values perspective, each part of GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) liberation has problems -- because Judeo-Christian values affirm the heterosexual ideal. But the last part of GLBT is actually the most troubling.
Most people do not understand why the transgendered threaten Judeo-Christian values. The cultural Left does, which is why "transgendered" is always included.
Transgendered is not the same as transsexual. In theory, Judeo-Christian values have no problem with a transsexual -- someone who has undergone a sex change -- if that person then behaves in ways associated with his or her new sex.
On the other hand, a transgendered individual is a person of one sex who dresses (or otherwise behaves) as a member of the other sex -- actions that directly conflict with core Judeo-Christian values.
It is remarkable that activists on behalf of gay and lesbian acceptance always include the transgendered. What, after all, do the transgendered, who are usually heterosexual men, have to do with gays and lesbians?
The answer is that activists understand that their primary goal -- equating same-sex sexual behavior with man-woman sex -- can only be accomplished if other Judeo-Christian and Western sexual norms are also rejected.
That is why the very word "sex," when referring to male or female, has been changed to "gender." And society at large has accepted this linguistic change as if it were insignificant. The change on application forms, for example, from "Sex: M or F" to "Gender: M or F" has gone unnoticed. But it is a huge change. In the sexual activists' world, "sex" is fixed and objective; "gender" is fluid and subjective.
Thus, a man's genitalia and secondary male sexual characteristics notwithstanding, if he feels like expressing the woman in him, he should not only be allowed but encouraged to dress in public like a woman. Society should have no more say on whether a man should be allowed to wear a dress in public than what color tie a man should wear in public. That is why the Democrats in California passed a law that forbids employers from firing a man who cross-dresses at work.
Now, why is this important, not to mention opposed by Judeo-Christian values?
One of the major values of the Old Testament, the primary source of Judeo-Christian values, is the notion of a divinely ordained order based on separation. What God has created distinct, man shall not tamper with.
As examples, good is separate from evil (attempts to blur their differences are known as moral relativism and are anathema to Judeo-Christian values); life is separate from death (in part a reaction to ancient Egypt, which blurred the distinction between life and death); God is separate from nature (see part XVI); humans are separate from animals (see part XV); and man is separate from woman. Blurring any of these distinctions is tampering with the order of the world as created by God and leads to chaos. So important is the notion of separation that the very word for "holy" in biblical Hebrew (kadosh) means "separate," "distinct."
This helps to explain one of the least known and most enigmatic laws of the Torah, the ban on wearing linen and wool together in the same piece of clothing (sha'atnez). Linen represents plant life, and wool represents animal life. The two are distinct realms in God's creation.
And that is why the Torah bans men from wearing women's clothing.
"God created the human being, male and female He created them" is how Genesis describes the creation of man and woman. Blurring that distinction is playing God, and doing so in a highly destructive manner.
If a man gets a sexual thrill out of wearing women's undergarments in the privacy of his bedroom, that is not society's concern. It may be his religion's concern, and, religious or not, it may be his female partner's concern (one wonders how many women married to cross dressing men are pleased by the sight of their man in a bra and panties). But it is not society's concern, which is why anyone who cares about protecting the right to privacy should have been horrified by the American news media's reporting about the private cross-dressing habits of a nationally known sportscaster.
However, when a man does this in public, he has publicly blurred the man-woman distinction, and society has the right -- and the duty, if it cares about Judeo-Christian values or simply cares about not confusing children as to sexual identity -- to say this violates a norm that society does not wish violated.
The war waged by cultural radicals at universities, in state legislatures and in courtrooms against the very distinction between male and female is one of their most significant attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian foundations of American and Western culture. And they know it. That's why fighting to blur gender distinctions is so important to them.
Now the rest of society needs to understand why not allowing that to happen is so important.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
An Interview with Banana Yoshimoto - Bookslut
Banana Yoshimoto, née Yoshimoto Mahoko, was born on July 24, 1964 in Tokyo. She is the author of numerous best-selling books, and the daughter of Yoshimoto Takaaki, an influential Japanese philosopher. But if you were Japanese or living in Japan, you already would have known this.
“Bananamania,” as the press likes to call it, first swept Japan in 1988 when Yoshimoto’s debut novella, Kitchen, first came into print. Since then Yoshimoto has written nearly a dozen books, and Kitchen--a quirky story about a transsexual mother, her offbeat son, and a young girl who loves kitchens--has gone into more than 60 printings. While online shrines are routinely constructed for Yoshimoto in Japan, she remains somewhat of a mystery overseas, which is why this interviewer feels compelled to exhaustively describe Yoshimoto and her work before delving into the actual interview.
Perhaps what’s most striking about Yoshimoto’s work is her close proximity to the reader. She writes curious and inviting stories, the kind that make you pause and wonder about the author. “Does she brush her teeth before or after breakfast? Does she even eat breakfast?”
Yoshimoto’s characters deal with youthful troubles and urban existentialism--two themes that have been beaten many times but never seem to die. Yet unlike Bret Easton Ellis, and all the other urban writers with their detached, bird’s-eye perspectives, Yoshimoto writes gritty stories with warmth and dogged innocence.
In spite of the fact that her father’s work was the bible for Japan’s radical youth movement in the '60s, and that she routinely rubs elbows with the likes of Pedro Almodovar and the Dalai Lama, Yoshimoto’s prose is wholly devoid of the privilege and pretense that sometimes surrounds her. She takes pleasure in the small things--be it the crack of a floorboard or the smell of kimchee.
Given the humane nature of Yoshimoto’s work and the fact that she renamed herself Banana, it is not surprising that food is a recurring theme in many of her stories. Were it not for this nation’s shockingly small appetite for foreign books, Americans, too, would succumb to Bananamania. I wish I could say that I sat down with Yoshimoto and discussed love, loss and human frailty over shabu-shabu and sashimi, but in truth, this interview was conducted via e-mail with the help of a Japanese translator. As a result, it reads less like a casual conversation and more like a nosy inquiry. Enjoy.
You clearly like to write about food. Is it appetite or the taste of food that interests you so much?
Oh, I am more interested in the taste of food, and in the feelings that people have when they are making a dish. I like to ask myself what tastes or environments will trigger a particular thought or memory.
It is said that the nicer the restaurant, the smaller the portions. Do you think the same could be said for modern prose?
Quality is always more important than quantity. This is true for everything. Even if you write only one line in your life, if it stays in someone’s mind forever, it is satisfactory.
And since we’re on the subject, what do you think of the food portions in America? And of American food in general?
America’s food portions are too much. Japanese like to eat a variety of different foods in smaller portions.
Now that I’ve worn out the food metaphor, let us move on to meatier topics (sorry, I couldn’t resist). You approach difficult subjects, such as death, adultery and sexuality, in a decidedly casual and accessible manner. Do you ever write with a specific audience in mind?
I have in mind sensitive, somewhat adolescent people who are stuck between reality and fantasy. Young, rebellious people like to read my books, but I guess what I really like is to encourage adults who still have playful, adolescent minds.
Like the characters in your stories, you seem to have led a beautiful but crazy life; do you find a lot of yourself in the characters you write? Are there any characters that you particularly relate to?
Not really. My life is sober and simple these days, so no one in my stories resembles me. Mostly I write about people who live remote and distant lives.
I read that you really liked the film The Brown Bunny. This was a very controversial film, at least for the American public. What drew you to this film?
The acting of Chloë Sevigny was wonderful.
In many of your stories, the characters experience strange dreams or are haunted by premonitions. Do you yourself have a rich dream world?
Yes, I do. I have many rich dreams. I go to sleep for dreams, they are the seeds of my work. When I do not know what to write, sometimes I find my next story in a dream. I should probably never wake up, that way I would have more stories to write.
Your settings are always quite stunning and vivid. Do you do any research or preparation before writing?
Rather than concrete research or preparation, I try to think in the abstract. such as the feeling of air in certain places, humidity, winds and so on.
You have traveled all over the world, and yet your stories are always set in Japan. Why is that?
Because I can only connect with other places as a traveler.
What was it like to be a teenager in Tokyo during the '80s? Have you ever imagined living elsewhere?
I do not have wonderful memories. Everybody in Tokyo seemed to be in a hurry at that time. I often had the thought that I should leave and study abroad.
We share a love for Truman Capote. He once wrote, “There are certain shades of limelight that really wreck a girl’s complexion.” Having lived in a large city for a good portion of your life, would you agree?
Yes, I would. For me though, large cities are really a part of who I am, so I’ve grown used to the unflattering aspects. I can swim in a large place without much difficulty.
Your prose is very rhythmic; do you ever listen to music while writing?
In fact, I do not listen to music while writing. I feel my own rhythm would go out of tune if I listened to music.
You dedicated Lizard to the late Kurt Cobain and you wrote about Sonic Youth in Kitchen. What is it about grunge rock that inspires you so? And what musicians are you listening to these days?
They were companions for me at that blind point in my life, when I was groping for something. Nowadays my favorite band is Britain’s Prefab Sprout. In the U.S., I love the Eels.
I heard that you are attending hula school. How did that come about?
While I was researching a short story, I gradually fell in love with the hula (dancing).
You don’t write a lot about motherhood, but clearly it is a big part of your life. How has it changed you? Has it affected your writing in a noticeable manner?
In essays I write about my son, but not as much in stories. The change for me is that I tend to think I want to live longer. Before, I was just in a hurry to live.
In Hardboiled & Hard Luck, you wrote, “You have to live a hardboiled life. No matter what happens, keep going around with your nose in the air.” Do you think you’ve lived your life this way?
No, not at all. I just live lazily and slowly. I just want to live as myself.
You are one of the most (if not the most) popular female novelist in Japan. What, if any, challenges have you faced as a popular female writer in Japan?
Everybody seems to be interested in the number of books I sold and how much money I earned, rather than the content of my work. This makes me rather unhappy.
You’re somewhat of an enigma over here--have you spent much time in America?
Recently, I went to Naples. In the past I visited New York where I met Paul Auster. He was a spectacular person.
Are there any places, customs or words that particularly appeal to you?
I really liked Naples. There were alligators and the nature was so beautiful. Sanibel Island is one of my favorite places.
In America, writing professors who are trying to be hip will often assign a Banana Yoshimoto story, and as a result, you have become quite popular with young and aspiring writers. Do you have any advice for this miserable lot?
That is very, very delightful. I would say to them, “just write and write.” Without any fancy theories or logic. Express yourself with your words, not others. This is all I can say. Thank you very much.
銀の森へ メゾン・ド・ヒミコ 沢木耕太郎 (朝日 2005/08/01夕刊芸能面)
社説：男女雇用均等 『間接差別』禁止をぜひ (中日／東京 2005/08/02朝刊)
Ireland next for gay unions?
Monday 1 August, 2005 13:27
Ireland is continuing to move towards legal recognition for lesbian and gay couples, with senior government officials admitting the change will be coming soon.
The mainly Catholic country will draw up proposals for laws recognising same-sex couples in the coming months, speculation suggests.
This was confirmed by the country’s Minister for Justice last night, who made one of the most concrete statements in favour of new laws yet to be heard by the country’s lesbian and gay communities.
Michael McDowell said the question of new rights for same-sex couples would be one “of ‘how’, not ‘if’”.
The government will now start discussions on a scheme thought to be similar to the UK’s Civil Partnership Act.
It is unlikely to opt for full gay marriage, despite recent success in fellow Catholic country Spain.
There, the government passed full gay marriage laws earlier this year.
Only the Netherlands and Belgium also offer gay marriage, while Canada has approved laws bringing marriage to its lesbian and gay citizens.
Ireland’s government had previously been accused of stalling the debate on Civil Partnerships, after a parliamentary debate was postponed.
Irish government slammed for "disgraceful" attack on Civil Partnerships
European countries block gay Iran deportations
Monday 1 August, 2005 13:38
Two European countries have blocked the deportation of gay asylum seekers from Iran, following the hanging of two gay teenagers last month.
The Netherlands and Sweden have halted the returning of gay asylum seekers to the country, which has been criticised internationally for the killings.
Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18 were publicly executed for having sex with each other.
After an international outcry began to swell, the government also announced the boys were accused of raping a 13 year-old boy, although human rights campaigners have questioned these claims.
According to some protestors, Iran is now hunting other boys named by the two executed, in a bid to “stamp out” homosexuality in the country.
The Dutch government said it would investigate the situation in Iran while the block was in force.
It had been facing increasing pressure from influential lesbian and gay campaigners COC in recent days, as it emerged some asylum seekers were due to be returned to Iran despite fearing they would also be killed.
Sweden has also instigated a halt, due to its opposition to the death penalty for minors.
The UK government is yet to respond to calls to protect lesbian and gay asylum seekers from deportation to homophobic states.
Civil rights groups want assurances that lesbian and gay people from Iran will not be deported.
Roe's Army Reloads
They've been dreading this moment for decades. How the pro-choice movement is readying for Roberts—and navigating a critical political crossroads.
By Debra Rosenberg
Aug. 8, 2005 issue - The day before George W. Bush tapped John Roberts for the Supreme Court, a group of abortion-rights activists gathered around the conference table at NARAL Pro-Choice America. Panicked by the departure of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor—the court's key swing vote on abortion—they pored over lists of potential replacements, sharing alarming facts about each one. "Most of us were against all of them," recalls NARAL president Nancy Keenan. The next night, as news about Roberts leaked out, NARAL issued a statement opposing him even before he appeared in the East Room. Now, two weeks into the fight, defeating the affable judge looks like no easy task. On a conference call with Keenan last Friday, one activist from Minnesota cut to the chase: "People are wondering, are we going to be able to stop this guy? Is there going to be a filibuster?" Keenan, a fly-fishing enthusiast, didn't answer directly. "We have waded into the water," she said. "We have cast the line."
Pro-choice activists like Keenan aren't shying away from the struggle—however uncertain their prospects. The Roberts fight is shaping up as a moment of truth for a movement that's struggled to find its footing in recent years. After losing the '04 election, some Democrats began pointing out that although the majority of voters say they're pro-choice—51 percent in a July CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll—the party wasn't connecting with them. Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Democratic think tank Third Way—run by the same strategists who moved the party to the center on the gun issue—is crafting new message and policy ideas to help Democrats appeal to Red State voters on abortion. And the pro-choice groups themselves have begun tinkering with their approach, even considering whether to abandon the framework of "choice" itself. "We've gotten a little far away from talking with people very much from the heart," admits Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood. The Roberts hearings could give the movement a chance to publicly test the new strategy.
This is the battle pro-choicers have been dreading for years. They've long warned that a single retirement from the high court could be enough to topple Roe v. Wade. Though it will take the loss of at least one more pro-Roe justice to overrule the decision outright, pro-choicers want to pin down exactly where Roberts stands. Last week Democrats signaled that abortion—or at least the general topic of "privacy"—will be a major issue at Roberts's confirmation hearings, now set to begin Sept. 6. Though several pro-choice senators hinted that a failure to support Roe could be a deal breaker for Roberts, activists weren't sure whether enough lawmakers would stand firm. "The Democrats don't have a lot of starch in their spines," says former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt. "We're going to be pushing a big boulder up a hill."
The past dozen years have been a political roller coaster for the choice groups. First they grew complacent with a sympathetic Bill Clinton in the White House. Then they got bogged down opposing popular measures like parental-notification laws and bans on so-called partial-birth abortion. Technology provided more sophisticated images of a growing fetus. Meanwhile, the pro-life movement got an unwitting boost from Clinton, who decreed abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," says Emory University legal historian David Garrow. "Once the pro-choice movement sent the message that abortion was undesirable, we were on a slippery slope headed downhill."
Democrats recently began realizing they were caught in the slide. Democratic Party chair Howard Dean met with members of Democrats for Life last month. Later the same day he told the party's national finance board that he didn't want to change the Democrats' fundamental position, but he did want to "reframe" it. "He said he wanted to take 'abortion' out of the political lexicon," recalls former DNC head Steve Grossman, who attended the meeting. Dean's already taken action: in April, he let pro-life Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan use DNC headquarters to announce his bill to cut abortions by 95 percent over 10 years.
Strategists at Third Way are taking a more cautious approach. For months, they've been quietly drafting a plan to help Democrats better connect with voters on abortion. The think tank—whose co-chairs include seven moderate Democratic senators—has been consulting with a wide range of advisers including pro-life advocates, religious leaders and former staffers of pro-choice groups. After issuing a series of memos and a major poll on the issue this fall, Third Way will roll out a new strategy to help Democrats broaden their support without sacrificing the party's core values.
In one forthcoming issue brief obtained by NEWSWEEK, Third Way divides voters into abortion "polars"—those at each extreme, who believe it should be always le-gal or always illegal—and abortion "grays," those who believe abortion should be mostly legal or mostly illegal. Surprisingly, Third Way found that Democrats were losing among abortion grays, even though more of them leaned pro-choice. "We've now gotten locked in a frame and policies for 30 years that speak to the polars but don't speak to the grays," says Third Way president Jon Cowan.
The pro-choice groups themselves have also been heatedly debating what to do. This spring, activists in New York and Seattle invited Berkeley linguist George Lakoff to speak about how to reframe the abortion issue. "They found that choice wasn't playing very well," says Lakoff, who's become an unofficial guru to beleaguered Democrats. He told the groups it was no wonder: "choice" came from a "consumerist" vocabulary, while "life" came from a moral one. In one of his more controversial suggestions, he advised the activists to reclaim the "life" issue by blaming Republicans for high U.S. infant-mortality rates and mercury pollution that can cause birth defects. "Basically what I'm saying is that conservatives are killing babies," he says. Lakoff advised focusing on reducing unwanted pregnancies and suggested that the groups talk about "personal freedom," a phrase intended to evoke unpopular government intrusion into matters like the Terri Schiavo case.
As a former Montana legislator, Keenan says she didn't need Lakoff to tell her how to relate to Red Staters. But in May, NARAL pollster Celinda Lake released a PowerPoint presentation that declared "the culture of freedom and responsibility frame soundly beats culture of life." In a national poll and focus groups, Lake tested a "prevention first" agenda that sought to reduce unwanted pregnancies through better birth control and access to the morning-after pill. The broader approach, she wrote, "will help combat the widespread view that pro-choice groups are extreme and militant."
The new frame around abortion has plenty of skeptics. "I think they look desperate," says Connie Mackey of the pro-life Family Research Council. Even many pro-choicers aren't completely sold. "I don't agree that we can never say the word 'abortion'," says former NARAL president Kate Michelman. "I also don't agree that 'choice' is a negative word." Others like Planned Parenthood's Pearl point out they've been talking about prevention all along.
In the coming months, Democrats and choice advocates will get a chance to test the new approach in the battle over Roberts. Rather than attacking him squarely on Roe, they plan to raise broader questions about his support for a right to privacy and personal freedom. Pro-choicers worry that even if Roberts doesn't overturn Roe itself, he could uphold abortion restrictions in several upcoming cases. One to be heard in November deals with whether a New Hampshire parental-notification law must offer an emergency health exception. A case on whether a federal late-term-abortion ban needs a health exception could also reach the court next term. "There's going to be an avalanche of new statutes passed by states to see how far the new Supreme Court will go," says Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Though the odds may be bleak, pro-choice warriors feel they have to take a stand on Roberts—even if he might not be the most conservative nominee to come their way in the next few years. "This is the swing vote. This is the one that shifts the court to the right," says NARAL's Keenan. "How hard do you fight? You fight." Now, pro-choicers hope, banding together against Roberts may be just what they need to get back in the fight.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
特集ＷＯＲＬＤ：参院自民の「青木パワー」に言いたい 中村敦夫氏／岩井奉信氏 (毎日 2005/08/01夕刊)