DemocracyMeansYou

State of Denial 2005

2005-02-02T22:09:00.000-05:00

War on terror, freedom, Iraq, social security, liberty, courage, respect, dreams, blah, blah, blah.

As usual, what Bush says sounds great. If he actually did the things he said so grandiosely I wouldn’t have half the problems with him that I do. He has fantastic speechwriters and he’s improved at public speaking tremendously. In fact, he has some of the best speechwriters in history.

But it doesn’t change at all the fact that he was lying through his teeth the entire time. At every opportunity, symbolism, patriotism, emotionalism, and generalizations were waved like post-9/11 flags and yellow ribbons. A woman from Iraq whose father was assassinated. Parents of dead soldiers. It’s even better scripted and presented than the most masterful propaganda of Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl.

But actions speak louder than words for those who are listening. Just as with the SOTU addresses of the past four years, words don’t feed the hungry, don’t provide armor for the troops, don’t actually give the $15 million to AIDS treatment in Africa, don’t decrease the debt, don’t improve or provide for education, and on and on.

Sickly sweet tributes to the troops, tugging at the heartstrings of America, telling us that “we are in Iraq to create a democratic society,” as if that’s why we were there in the first place. His speechwriters seem to have left out the “grave and gathering threat,” with a “smoking gun that might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” In fact, with everything, it’s a matter of fact as convenience, and when inconvenient, deny the facts. Or better, ignore them completely.

"On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns — after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces — at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally." -- George Orwell, 1984

I have never in my 38 years seen or heard more Orwellian speech, behavior, and scripting than I have with this administration. It’s terrifying to me. And millions of others. And the 50 million who voted for Bush keep tossing the facts of recent—or distant—history into the memory hole. Eurasia is an ally.

As one of the best things John Kerry managed to say, "four words: more of the same."

It has proven true, already. Not that I expected otherwise.

Elections In Iraq (and Columbus)

2005-01-29T11:13:00.000-05:00

First let’s deal with the bullshitters: No, “we” do not want elections and democracy to fail in Iraq. Let’s not be idiots here, shall we?

Regardless of anyone’s position on the war on Iraq, the only people who actually want democracy to fail there are either far-left morons or far-right morons. The far-lefties, like some of the more obnoxious A.N.S.W.E.R. people I know and the like want democracy to fail in Iraq to prove the Bushies and American imperialism wrong. The far-righties don’t officially want democracy to fail, but if you look at their idea of democracy… exactly.

That said, elections in Iraq are both a stepping stone and a sham all in one. We can look the behavior of the Bushies regarding the elections in the United States to predict the basics of what will happen in Iraq. Here, “elections are imperfect,” and anyone questioning the process or the outcome is called an adherent to the “X-files wing of the Democratic party.” No reform will be allowed, no need for it will be acknowledged, and the electoral winners talk loudly and religiously about cooperation but continue to steamroll any opposition, and beat critics as violently as possible with olive branches, just as they’ve been doing all along.

There, the Bush administration and its cons will declare victory regardless of the facts on the ground, just like they’ve done from the start. They will “be positive” by endlessly repeating the looped fact that elections are happening and therefore democracy is a success (and “hard work”), ignoring the cost in American (1400+ lives, 20,000 injuries) blood, Iraqi blood (at least 25,000, possibly over 100,000 killed, probably a million wounded), future damage to Iraqis (Depleted Uranium is again being used and left in Iraq for future generations of birth defects and cancer) international law, and history.

Just as Mission Accomplished was declared by Bush trotting around in his Air Force Drag, Election Accomplished will be a rhetorical and marketing achievement, but mean very little to either winning the hearts and minds, or even just winning the war.

Pre-Apocalyptic DC

2005-01-24T08:26:00.000-05:00

For those of you who didn't get to the inauguration, you missed a glimpse of what might be coming.

It was amazing how effectively DC was shut down and controlled for the inauguration. Literally, about 100 square blocks were closed to traffic. Which means that in some sections, streets were totally abandoned, except for dark-tinted SUVs from the FBI, cop cars, and believe it or not, busses blocking off entire streets.

Helicopters flew overhead like constantly spying mosquitos, and there wasn't a square foot without a cop or two, at least. I kept saying "post-apocalyptic" until someone suggested my sense of history was off, and corrected me with "pre-apocalyptic."

Now I know what it will look like in DC when the next attack happens and we're under martial law. Only the cops will be much less friendly.

Not that I blame anyone; this was definitely a high-profile target for terror. It's still a real threat. But it' s still unnerving in the context of the increasingly-controlled-and-controlling, secretive, and vindictive Bush administration to witness DC being as controlled as Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

But honestly, that doesn't disturb me as much as the sheer in-your-face arrogance and hubris, the sheer cost of this thing, with no respect for either real conservative values of thrift, no respect for the hundreds of thousands dead in the tsunami, and no respect for the District of Columbia, who the Bushies screwed to the tune of 12 million dollars for the cost of security, as we mentioned previously on the blog.

And the mink... oy. And the gaggles of born-again school trips. And the angry young brown suit Republicans.

...And of course, the fact that all this security is largely necessary because of international policies like Bush's over the years.

Believe me, there is no going back to pre-9/11, and there's going to be no slowing down until we get responsible and progressive candidates in office who don't alienate and provoke the rest of the world.

Sure, it's a dangerous world. Neither I nor you are so stupid as to fall into the sterotypical but incorrect "why can't we all get along" image of liberals that so many knee-jerk jerk Republicans have of us. That's stupid.

It's a jungle out there. But only idiots tease the animals.

Why is DMY offline? Homeland Security?

2005-01-23T12:20:00.000-05:00

Nope. Just my own stupidity, sorry. It would be much more exciting if I were on some sort of watch list and were interfered with, but I don't flatter myself. Who knows, maybe I should.

Regardless, we messed up with the domain registration. For stupid reasons, it's registered through another company than our more than fantastic hosting company, Hostasaurus.com, and we hadn't updated the notification email ... so we missed it when they told us it was about to expire. That simple. And now it's changed.

Regardless, it will co$t us a pretty penny to get it out of lockdown by ICANN before it goes on the market again. (Which, by the way, we've already done, so don't worry about DMY getting hijacked by some rabid right wing schmucks. It's still run by us rabid left wing schmucks.)

Let it be a lesson to the rest of us on the left who have this tendency to not be so organized: Get with the program.

Little Known Fact About MLK (and you)

2005-01-17T13:09:00.000-05:00

There will be so much said about it by far more articulate people than I that I'm going to keep this short for a change.

Here's a true story about Martin Luther King, Jr. that I heard today.

I met a man today who's father went to seminary with MLK. His father was selected to march next to King because he was blonde, blue eyed, southern, and very, very white. this can be seen in some of the documentaries of the Chicago marches.

While marching shoulder to shoulder with King in Chicago, Scott's father heard him muttering over and over again, “This is crazy. What were we thinking? We're going to get killed. We should all just go home and live.”

He was scared shitless. Yet he had the courage to do what needed to be done. I think that's about the most inspiring story I've ever heard about the man. But not for the usual reasons. Not because MLK was such a great man that he could overcome his fear, buck up his courage and march... but because it means that he was not one whit different than the rest of us, scared, unsure, questioning, and doing the best he could despite all odds against him.

It means to me that ANY of us can do it, and I suspect King would agree with me. We all have the courage. But we don't think we do because we're scared.

Well, he was fucking scared, too.

So we no longer have an excuse.

Happy Martin Luther King day.

May we all rise to his very human greatness, and act on our courage despite our fears.

Sticking it to DC

2005-01-12T16:28:00.000-05:00

Today's embarrassing political chicanery? The Bush-led congress is refusing to foot the bill for the inauguration this year--unlike every other inauguration in history (that I'm aware of).

Why? Because Washington DC votes Democratic.

The Bush administration is telling DC to take the 12 million shortfall out of their HOMELAND SECURITY budget. Nice, eh?

So, let's get the priorities straight:

1) Lavish payoffs and celebrations for your friends
2) Screw everyone else

Got it? Great. Now you can be a Bush Republican!

Bravery, Sour Grapes, Sore Cheaters, and Elephant Turds

2005-01-06T17:53:00.000-05:00

Two thumbs up to Barbara Boxer!

Barbara Boxer was courageous enough to stand with the Democratic Ohio representatives to challenge the electoral votes in Ohio this time around. Make sure to call her to say “thank you for having the courage to uphold real democracy.”

Her number is

(909) 888-8525 phone

(909) 888-8613 fax

Here’s her statement:

http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=230450

As all objective viewers of the 2004 election know, whether Americans or unofficial international observers reading the papers abroad, there were tens of thousands of incidents of so-called “irregularities” in voting, especially in the battleground states of Ohio and Florida.

No other democratic country, whether in “old Europe” or Israel or more recently democratized countries in South America would ever stand for the kind of elephant crap that happened in the 2000, 2002, or 2004 elections.

No other democratic country would even dream of allowing privatized secret software for computerized voting machines that have no paper trail.

Ohio’s Secretary of State Blackman did everything he could to marginalize Democratic voters, starting with the “80-lb paper” shenanigans (only voter registrations on 80-lb paper would be accepted, meaning registrations that were submitted after newspapers published voter registration forms, and the like would be ignored), continuing with the intentional lack of voting machines in heavily Democratic leaning districts, allowing bogus Republican “challenges” at polls, doing everything possible to interfere with voters either voting or having their votes counted… the list could take up the whole Internet.

It’s clear to everyone who wants to see it that there was interference with a clear, clean electoral process, and it was mostly—hell, almost entirely—carried out by Republicans.

Now that Boxer has had the courage to do what no senator did in 2000, the bad apples and sore cheaters in the GOP are calling it “grandstanding,” “sour grapes,” “sore losing.” Heh. Tom DeLay even called it “President Bush’s historic reelection,” and called Democrats who were questioning the fairness of the election followers of the “X-Files wing” of the Democratic party.

What a hero, eh?

Unfortunately, I can’t yet find his speech on the House floor today about it. Trust me, it was shameful, exclusionary, accusatory, and full of lies and misrepresentations. He, and they, consistently talk about integrity, rights, trust, all that highfalutin stuff, but will not acknowledge the concerns of millions of Americans about the sanctity of their votes. Nice.

So basically, the leadership of the GOP is going to pretend that everything was normal, the elections were fair and balanced, and that this is simply a political stunt by Democrats to take away Bush’s power and question his legitimacy. Of course, they should know, because that’s their standard operating procedure, but actually, they’re wrong.

This is about democracy here at home. Who the hell are we to talk about democracy in the world when 50 million Americans believe that there was something dreadfully wrong with the process here? And GOP leaders do everything in their power to sideline election reform, from insisting on NO PAPER TRAIL for, and NO FREE ACCESS TO THE CODE of electronic voting machines, not even acknowledging that electronic or not electronic voting machines were unevenly distributed in critical states like Florida and Ohio, and on and on and on.

Who screams the loudest about reform and fair play? The GOP leadership. Who does everything they can to avoid it? Same folks.

I do have some compassion for regular folks who don’t know who to believe, who don’t know where to find information, don’t know who to trust, or what have you. It’s inexcusable, but I have compassion for them.

But I can’t believe that the GOP leadership is fooled into believing their own lies and paranoia. It’s purposeful. It’s intentional. It’s a strategy. Don’t fall for it. And don’t let anyone get away with repeating it.

Ethics is NOT a family value, apparently

2005-01-04T18:05:00.000-05:00

Wow. So the GOP leadership has decided to can some of the most heinous ethics committee rule proposals. The changes would have allowed, specifically, Tom DeLay, who’s been slapped on the hand with serious ethics violations THREE times this year, to continue being the House Majority Leader despite ethics violations or convictions.

The stated reason? Because they don’t want to give the Democrats ammunition against them.

I’ll say that again because it really creates a context for the GOP leadership’s behavior. The primary reason was to prevent the Democrats from using it as ammunition against the Republican leadership and the Republican members of the ethics committee.

If something sounds vaguely wrong to you about that, it’s most likely this: The problem wasn’t that it’s unethical to change ethics rules to allow unethical people to continue positions of legislative leadership (legislative means LAW-MAKING, by the way, not law-breaking, and you might expect law makers to have some respect for the law) , but the problem was that being unethical—in the ethics committee, no less—gave unwanted ammunition to their opponents.

Wow. I’m floored. I shouldn’t be, but it’s just sooooo flagrant and ironic.

And the flagrant irony doesn’t even end there…

There’s a pattern here.

Take a good, close look at the last 30 years’ history of American politics. Over the last four it’s even worse. The Republican party has consistently showed a knack for the nastiest, dirtiest political tricks in history. Hell, Karl Rove even used to teach classes to young brown shirt Republicans on Nixon-style dirty tricks. Do some reading on Rove. He learned it from Nixon and Lee Atwater, and others—in addition to apparently having lots of hatred left over from having been an angry, pudgy, socially retarded teen.

The ostensible reason the GOP leadership gave for the rule changes in the ethics committee in the first place was that they were afraid of Democratic usage of ethics investigations for political purposes. Hm. Remember a guy named Clinton? I do, and I hope your memory’s not so short that you don’t. If that was ANYTHING other than a political witch hunt, then Tom DeLay’s ass cheeks are made of green cheese—from France.

Adversaries of Karl Rove—especially in Texas, where he set up shop for years—have wound up on the wrong side of ethics investigations for piddling technicalities or rumors so many times that it might as well be the punch line for a kid’s knock-knock joke. It’s standard operating procedure for him. There’s even a law enforcement guy in Texas who pretty much does full time investigations of ethics violations. All—or nearly all—on Democrats, apparently. Now, sure politicians are a crooked breed, but who can possibly believe that Democrats are so much worse in Texas that investigators only have time to investigate Dems. Right…

As I said, the alleged reason for the rules changes was to avoid misuse of the process for political attacks. Remember the International Criminal Court? The official reason Republicans (especially) hate—or fear—it is that they believe it would be misused to prosecute Americans for political reasons. Of course, America has done many things over they years to provide decades of legitimate investigation by a criminal court, whether you start in Iran during the 1950s, Chile in the 1970s, or a whole host of other examples. Which makes the unofficial reason that Republicans don’t believe in accountability—especially for other Republicans like Kissinger and pals.

So-called conservatives complain that if they don’t use dirty tricks, that liberals will. So it’s self-defense. Bullies (and politicians) have used that one on playgrounds throughout eternity. I think on the ground level, it’s become a type of paranoia that so-called conservatives believe that so-called family and American values are under attack, and that everyone is out to get them, get their money, get their kids, churches, jobs, what have you. I believe it’s sincere. I believe everyday people are truly afraid of these things. But I also believe that at the upper levels of right-wing politics, this fear is created, fostered, and nurtured by people like Karl Rove because it rallies the people who feel threatened to action, and creates a smokescreen for further, intentional blurring of the limits of ethical political behavior.

At about the same moment, President Bush pleaded for a reduction in partisanship on the hill, and expressed his hopes that Dems and Republicans could work together for the benefit of the American people.

The energy bills, campaign finance reform, Medicare prescription reform, and pretty much all other bills passed through congress these last four years have been created in closed Republican committees, which means there was NO Democratic input, and forced through congress using sheer numbers and strong-arm tactics. Thousand page bills were released hours before a forced vote, not allowing time for congress members to even thoroughly investigate what they were told to vote on by GOP leadership.

Check the congressional and senate record for hundreds of instances of these and other totally and completely anti-democracy and exclusionary tactics. One of the ethics violations DeLay was chided for was misusing House rules to keep open a vote on the Medicare bill for hours (rather than the standard minutes), and bribing then threatening a Republican congressman to change his vote.

And all the while, Republican leadership and attack dogs are screaming about obstructionist Democrats. It’s perfect. And people believe it because they either don’t have time to check out the facts, or don’t want to.

Yes, Republicans are afraid that Democrats will use ethics committees for political gain—because that is what Republicans in particular have done, increasing at a terrifying rate, for years. They are afraid that someone will use their own weapons against them, whether in international circles through the ICC, or here at home, with ethics committees and investigations.

All this and so much more comes from the self-declared defenders of Decency™, Ethics™, the American Soul™, and so-called Family Values™.

Bush and Friends Wish You A Cynical New Year

2004-12-31T08:17:00.001-05:00

In honor of the new year and the dead, Mr. Bush had the temerity to use the largest international tragedy in history as a springboard for a political assault on the United Nations.

This week, a high-level assistant at the UN accused the Bush-run US of being, more or less, "stingy" for donating only $35 million, to start with, for tsunami-related relief.

I gotta say, Bush had it coming.

While I know very well that US disaster aid is far more than money--we always send food, water, medical aid, etc., etc., etc.--the important point here is that the Bushies once again do the minimum possible until they're caught, then they try to make up for it.

Whether it's (missing) armor for humvess, (missing) troops to do the job right, (missing) civil rights, or (missing) international aid, this is a bunch of hyperpolitical, primarily self-centered, arrogant elites who don't seem to give a damn about anything but their agenda. If it requires following the law, or decency, or even just appearing decent, in order to achieve their agenda, they will. Otherwise, forget it.

Regardless, the far more important issue as far as I'm concerned is the under-reported agenda behind creating a so-called "coalition" to lead the world in responding to the tsunami tragedy.

The Bushies are "creating" a "coalition" of the US, Australia, Japan, and India to "help the tsunami victims."

Now, with the vastly-experienced United Nations available with already-existing organizing experts and structures, why do you suppose the Bushies want to create their own coalition, if not to continue their agenda of sidelining the UN at every opportunity (unless they need the UN's imprinteur).

Not only that, but Bush took a moment to once again don his "courageous wartime leadership" hat by saying, and I kid you not, "We will prevail over this destruction."

Neocons of all stripes (all one of them, that is) believe that the UN is Satan's gift to the world. They see it as ineffectual, but more importantly, in their way when they want to do something like, say, depose Saddam Hussein or encourage Ariel Sharon to bulldoze houses and people with impunity.

So, disgustingly, the Bushies are quite cynically using the biggest disaster in the history of the world (so it's been called, with over 120,000 dead so far) as a political tool to sideline the UN and slap the face of Kofi Anan and the rest of the world who dares to disagree with their narrow agenda.

Any effective leader, whether in business, politics, or war, will tell you that it's best in an emergency to use the existing structure, improve it if necessary, and get done what needs to get done.

But effective humanitarian aid is not the first priority of these people. It's political power, and punishing those who oppose them.

Happy New Year.

Social Security Is NOT An Investment

2004-12-28T22:05:00.000-05:00

Anybody else sick of hearing the, well, lies, and whining about Social Security from Bush and the other maxicons?

Here are the major, and as usual, misleading, parroting points, followed by some actual truths about Social Security:

“Too many people get out more than they pay into it.”

“People should save for their own retirement.”

“Social Security is broken and unsustainable. It will collapse if we don’t fix it.”

“Do you trust your government to invest your money more than you trust yourself?”

This is all another “partial-birth abortion,” folks. It’s another “marriage penalty.” It’s another “WMD.” It’s a lie.

FOR THE RECORD: SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. IT IS AN INSURANCE POLICY.

Social Security is NOT an investment.

Social Security is NOT a retirement fund.

Social Security is NOT a handout.

Social Security is NOT inefficient.

Social Security is NOT going bust.

Yes, SSI is an insurance policy. That’s what the “I” is for in SSI. And insurance works on the principal--or it’s supposed to, until it gets into the greediest hands--that individuals are more secure when they pool their risk. I pay $200 a month for health insurance (up 70% since Bush took office: I paid $130 in 2000), and I use about $100 a month worth. But I know that God forbid, if something catastrophic happened, I’d have it to fall back on, so I’m not outraged at the people who are paying $300 a month and using $600 a month worth of medical care. It’s the nature of insurance. Some use it more if they need it. That’s why it’s called “insurance.”

Insurance, as I understand it, started with shippers who wanted to pool their risk. Most of the cargo arrived safely, but some of it was hijacked, or just disappeared into the ocean in a storm or the like. Carriers realized that if they pooled their risk, each paying into a fund, that there was financial safety in numbers. It was a financial community of sorts. If one shipper lost his shorts, he wouldn’t wind up in the poor house. And it was in all their interests to participate because no matter how careful you are, you can never avoid all the pitfalls of the sea, whether storms, pirates, or Moby Dick.

But the point of a business, even more so a corporation, is to maximize return and minimize risk and loss. And insurers got greedy.

So companies started to try to exclude people who need insurance (the elderly, the sick, the injured), either by outright excluding them or by making their rates prohibitively expensive. Just look to your own life and what you’ve seen for proof. Some insurers also try to maximize profit by being as difficult as possible about paying. (Many companies don’t).

It’s easier to make money if you limit the pool of insured to those who won’t actually use the insurance. Or make it outrageously expensive for those who have the unmitigated gall to have an accident. Or a robbery. Or a health crisis. It’s downright irresponsible of them to actually NEED insurance, don’t you think?

The ideal customer is, of course, someone who pays every month (a little late so they can get charged the late fee) but never uses the insurance.

For the record: Men pay less for health insurance when they are younger because men tend to avoid going to the doctor. But men pay more for it when they’re older because their health is usually worse—because they didn’t use their health benefits when they were younger.

Certainly, insurers need good actuaries who will crunch out appropriate premiums for the risk. But insurers (and apparently the general public) has forgotten that the point of insurance is to pool the risk so that no one goes under. That means as part of the insurance business, you have to pay out, and some will get paid more than others. Period. Get over it.

Seeing that we are all insured against poverty in our injury, tragedy, or old age is crucial. That we all participate in it is equally crucial to the nature of insurance.

Maybe the cons are right. It is an investment.

But as usual, they’re totally wrong. Because (and I’ll spell this out for anyone who’s heart is ten sizes too small, which keeps the blood flowing to the brain) it’s not an investment in your retirement.

It’s an investment in society.

Keeping people, possibly me, possibly people I know, and definitely living, breathing people from the desperation of utter poverty? That’s something I can get behind. (As could Jesus).

That’s the major misrepresentation. Now that we understand what Social Security IS, let’s take a look at what else it’s not.

Social Security is NOT inefficient.

Social Security has a 1% operating cost. That’s more efficient than ANY private insurance company. (Medicare has a 2.5% operating cost. Compare that with 7-15% or more for any private health care company.)

Sure, it’s in part because Social Security doesn’t need to pay rent, taxes, or sky-high CEO salaries. It doesn’t need to show a profit. And that’s exactly why it’s necessary. It’s Social SECURITY, not, say, the fantastic name for privatization I heard on Air America the other day: RISK-BASED RETIREMENT.

Social Security is an insurance policy we all pay into so that we and everyone else in the country has a floor to fall on.

Social Security is NOT a retirement fund.

What? That’s right, folks, Social Security is NOT a retirement fund. Social Security is there for, say, a child who loses his parents and has no other means of support. It’s there for the mentally ill. It’s there for the too-injured to work (and contrary to popular con opinion, it’s not abused anywhere near as much as they insist. Anyone trying to get on SSI has to be motivated enough to go through at least two, possibly three challenges, medical examinations, and wait months to years for a resolution—all for a maximum of perhaps 60% of your regular salary.)

Social Security is NOT a handout.

Again, it’s a common insurance policy we all pay into. If you have an accident, you damn well want your insurance company to pay up. Unless you own the insurance company.

The irony here is that when it comes to insurance policies, the cons are always looking to the government to bail them out and pay their way for irresponsible business decisions, or finding ways to avoid paying their fair share, but screaming about anyone else getting lifesaving help. Airline executives look to the government to both relieve them of and then pay their pensions after declaring bankruptcy. Neil Bush and friends plundered the Savings and Loans, knowing that the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan INSURANCE Corporation) would bail them out. Wal-Mart underpays employees and includes information about public assistance in its employee handbook. Numerous big companies demand huge tax and legal concessions to open a store in a community—the concessions are often more than the jobs and infrastructure the company provides to the community. The list goes on and on. Think about it and you can add a hundred of your own examples without even batting an eye.

Social Security is NOT going bust.

Unless the cons make it go bust, which they’re doing everything in their power to do.

Social Security, if left alone, would be solvent. But due in part to the huge payoffs (also known as tax cuts) it’s now more in danger than ever. Even conservative politicians admit Social Security is solvent. Bush himself has been quoting problems SEVENTY years out. How the hell can anyone know what’s going to happen seventy years from now. That’s not planning. That’s using whatever number you can find to try to make what you say sound like the truth.

Let’s remember who raided the Social Security coffers. And believe me, it wasn’t for the “trifecta” Bush is so self-congratulatorily clever about mentioning all the time. (More or less “I won’t touch the Social Security funds except in times of recession, war, or national emergency,” a talking point apparently stolen from Al Gore in the 2000 election.)

If the Bush tax cuts were repealed, Social Security would be solvent for many years. If the base income from which Social Security contributions are taken were raised from all income up to $80K to all income up to $120K, the problem would be solved for eternity. And ironically, the Bushies have been talking about doing that, too. (Ya see, this here’s not officily a tax inrcreas. It’s jus uppin the conribushun level). More BS from the BS experts at the Bush White House.

The fact is that Neocons don’t believe in Social Security. Or labor law. Or anything that gets in the way of making money for business owners, corporate board members, the investor class, and the rest. That’s the real point of these Social Security “reforms.” To get the money into the stock market so investors can make money off it. And the investors making money off it won’t be you and me. We’re at the bottom of this pyramid scheme. Don’t let them fool you.

Social Security is a needed social insurance policy for an advanced society that has dreams of liberty and justice for all. A country that wants all to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Insurance is a protection for your hopes, dreams, and family. Ask any insurance agent—or insurance company owner, for that matter.

Ukraine, Rove, and the Dirtiest Tricks Around

2004-12-27T23:56:00.000-05:00

Again, it looks like we have another lesson to learn from Ukraine.

And, apparently, Ukraine has learned a lesson from us.

Victor Yushenko has won the election, after being granted a revote by the Supreme Court. No surprise to anyone. And Yanikovich is threatening to go to the same Supreme Court that he dissed last time around, challenging the election on bizarre bases.

He’s suddenly concerned with the voting plight of millions of the disabled, complaining that they were disenfranchised by the election reforms, that—and correct me if I’m wrong here—that he demanded be enacted.

I think he’s been talking to Karl Rove.

It’s classic “conservative” strategy, whether you’re talking Ukraine, Russia, Texas, or the whole damn United States. And Karl Rove has been doing it for 30 years.

Cheat. Deny it. Question the integrity of the person or body judging you. Question the legitimacy of the process. Then if you lose, use the same things to challenge the outcome of events. Cry bloody murder about law and order, then break the law as much as possible without getting caught.

Sure, most politicians and political parties do it. It’s politics. But no one has done it to the degree that the current Republican party, led by Karl Rove, is achieving.

If you haven’t read it, there’s a fantastic in-depth history of Karl Rove’s chicanery from the New Yorker article a few years ago. It starts from his dirty tricks in the early 70s to win by any means possible the leadership of the College Republicans organization. His history since then has been various reenactments of the same ruthlessness and misusage of rules to achieve exactly the opposite of what they were intended to do that he engaged in there.

Read it and understand what’s happening. Here’s a link to a most-likely unauthorized reprinting of the New Yorker article. (If for some reason it’s been removed, you can just do a Google search with “Karl Rove New Yorker” and get someone’s posting of it.)

http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

And when you’re done, read “Bush’s Brain.” Or see the movie. It’s the scariest thing you’ve read ever.

Whether Yanikovich studied Rove or not, the tactics are the same. We need to learn from the Orange Opposition (Yuschenko) in Ukraine. We need to be out on the streets screaming until we get real Democracy.

And we need to watch very carefully what Rove and the Republicans learn from it, too.

It's NOT about Rumsfeld

2004-12-21T11:42:00.000-05:00

Even though it is.

Even though I want to see that bastard go as much as anyone, and even though he' s been largely responsible for the chaos and failures in Iraq, this is really a trial on Bush and his administration. And those around it and guiding it.

At any time, co-presidents Bush or Rove, or others could have demanded the Humvee armor, could have demanded changes in the Iraq strategy.

And that's why it's about Bush and his administration.

Bush let it happen. Bush didn't have the vision. Bush didn't control Rumsfeld. Bush asked him to return. Bush told the world he was happy that Rumsfeld stayed on.

Just put that on top of the Bernie Kerrick example of poor judgement (this guy was supposed to be responsible for HOMELAND SECURITY, after all), and Gonzalez, the nominee for Attorney General who thought of the Geneva Convention as "quaint." And it tells you a tremendous amount about the judgement of the president.

And that is what this is about.

It's what we need to keep it focused on.

Absolutely, take down Rumsfeld. The man is a menace. Prevent the confirmation of Gonzalez. And all the while, keep the hot spotlight right where it belongs. On the man at the top. (Not just Rove, but Bush, too).

BREAKING DIEBOLD UPDATE!: CLINT CURTIS 'STUNS' JUDICIARY COMM HEARINGS IN OHIO WITH 'JAW DROPPING' SWORN TESTIMONY!

2004-12-15T11:23:00.000-05:00

PUBLICLY NAMES FEENEY IN FRONT OF COMMITTEE AS ASKING HIM TO DEVELOP 'VOTE-RIGGING' SOFTWARE!

Testimony Described as 'Show Stopper'!
'Stunner', 'Jaws Dropped'!
Audible 'Gasps' heard in chamber room!

*** FROM BRAD BLOG! PLEASE CREDIT! ***

The BRAD BLOG has just received an exclusive first-hand account of Clint Curtis' sworn testimony (as reported earlier) to the Judiciary Committee Democrats holding hearings this morning in Columbus, Ohio on Election 2004 Voting Irregularities.

The software programmer, whose sworn affidavit was first reported by The BRAD BLOG, named Republican U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney (a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee!) as having asked him to create "vote-rigging" software in a meeting at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) prior to the 2000 elections!

Feeney was, at the time of the alleged meeting, a Florida legislator and later became Speaker of the Florida House. He was also the running mate to Jeb Bush in his failed 1994 bid for Florida Governor.

Curtis was the only witness to be sworn in at today's hearings.

Here is the exclusive account as we've just received it by a very reliable BRAD BLOG source inside the committee hearings!

The following account may sound melodramatic but it is highly accurate.

None of these are quotes and represent my best recollection.

At apprx 1p, after a witness had finished, cliff arnebeck -- who had given a presentation some time before -- interjected and asked to call one more witness. He was given permission to do so. He said he was calling clint curtis.

Some of the audience literally gasped while others applauded. They clearly knew who he was.

Curtis stood at the front of room with arnebeck seated behind him. Curtis was about five to ten feet from the members of congress. At the front of the room, he placed his hand on a bible and was sworn. To my knowledge, he was the only witness sworn.

Arnebeck began a direct examination of curtis with basic questions, name, residence....

Then got to his qualifications.

Then, he asked curtis something like whether voting machines could be hacked. He said yes. Arnebeck asked him on what he based that opinion. He said because I wrote a program that could do it. Arnebeck asked when that happened. Curtis said feeney had asked him to design such a program at yang enterprises.

Jaws dropped. Tubbs jones and waters looked shocked.

Tubbs jones, waters and nadler asked questions. Waters asked him to repeat who asked him to do it. Congressman feeney, he said. Nadler asked him some questions, as did tubbs jones and a state senator.

Curtis was asked what he would conclude if there was such a substantial deviation btwn exit polls and actual results. He said he would conclude the election had been hacked. Gasps. Could have heard a pin drop.

In the end, curtis was very very convincing to everyone in attendance. He was a show stopper, a stunner. It was a really amazing moment.

MORE....

As we've previously reported since breaking our original exclusive story on the Curtis affidavit [PDF] last week (Key articles are linked in a box in our right sidebar) Curtis last week met privately with staffers on the Judiciary Committee as well as Senate staffers.

Wired Magazine revealed today in their article on Curtis that it was staffers in Sen. Bill Nelson's office with whom Curtis met last week in D.C.

Nelson oversees NASA in the Senate. Curtis had charged in his affidavit that an employee, Hai Lin Nee (a/k/a Henry Nee) with whom Curtis worked at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) had inserted "wiretapping routines" into programs that YEI had been contracted to create for NASA, among other companies (including the Florida Dept. of Transportation).

Nee was charged with shipping chips used in Hellfire anti-tank missiles to the Peoples Republic of China in March of this year, and has since plead guilty to one of those counts (more on Nee soon!)

At the time of the alleged October 2000 meeting at YEI when Curtis claims that Feeney asked him to create a "vote-rigging software prototype", Feeney was a member of the Florida Legislature, a corporate attorney for YEI, as well as being a registered lobbyist for the company.

Feeney was said to have been, at the time, the only registered lobbyist known to have been serving concurrently as a legislator in the 160 member Florida statehouse.

Shortly thereafter, Feeney became Speaker of the Florida Legislature.

In 2002 Feeney won a U.S. Congress seat in the newly created 24th Florida congressional district.

Feeney was the running mate to Jeb Bush during his first failed bid for Governor in 1994.

As we noted earlier, Wired Magazine article quotes YEI Attorneys as saying that Curtis was a "disgruntled employee", but does not note that the Attorney who made the statement is both a campaign contributor to Feeney, and, as well, is Feeney's former law partner in Florida.

As well, there seems to be little to indicate that Curtis was "disgruntled" with YEI or vice versa. He submitted his resignation in December of 2000 and stayed on, at YEI's request for an additional six weeks afterwards until a replacment could be found.

It has been reported YEI threw a "farewell party" for Curtis, and email correspondce that The BRAD BLOG has seen would indicate that employees -- including Nee -- missed Curtis a great deal in the months after he finally left the company.

...CONTINUING TO DEVELOP!...

UPDATE: Video of portions of Curtis' testimony now available online!

In Case You Missed It...

2004-12-15T04:26:00.000-05:00

(This from co-conspirator John Lawler:)

...The Ohio Election Fraud Scandal has finally made it to the MSM
(mainstream media). …. They couldn’t completely ignore the story, although they’ve tried… Bits and pieces have been reported over the last month, including the fact that the Greens and Libertarians have asked for a recount and it is underway. Problems with that are popping up already (including allegations of tampering). Also, an official lawsuit has been filed with the Ohio Supreme Court. The suit requests that the current "results" be nullified. On this the media has taken some notice, but if you read the CNN link below, you’ll feel the condescension. Meanwhile, John Kerry has officially joined in the effort, though in such a low-key manner that few alarms have sounded. This may be by design, or it may reflect the fact that overturning this debacle will be extremely difficult given that the Ohio Supreme Court is run by Republicans. Still, the story of questionable election 2004 is breaking…

Rep. John Conyers and a few righteous members of Congress are now investigating. Unfortunately the Republicans obviously won’t support Democrat Conyers, regardless of the facts. Now, Conyers is asking for one million emails demanding that the House Judiciary Committee hold full hearings on the 2004 Election. If you can take the time to blast out an
email it might be worth it. Takes about 2 minutes. One or two sentences is all that’s needed.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/contact.html

Most folks know Bush lies, and most folks know he cheated his way through business and politics, but even then many people are afraid to believe that the Republican Party would cheat to win an election (FL 2000 not withstanding). But remember whom we are dealing with here. And remind yourself that Bush was consistently below 50% in all polls prior to the election AND he was losing big in the exit polls… until something just happened and he won.

Remember, power corrupts: Enron cheated, Nixon ’72 cheated, Kennedy ’60 almost definitely cheated, Ollie North cheated, Worldcom cheated, Ted Kennedy lied about Chappaquiddick, Bernard Kerik appears to have been involved in all kinds of monkey business… Yushenko was poisoned, Neil Bush cheated, Schwarzenegger groped, Clinton lied, Saddam Hussein won 99% of the vote, etc. etc. etc.

Here’s a quick list of links to get you up to speed:

One of the best sites reporting just about everything, including a synopsis
for those not aware of the extent of the mess:
http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/

This link encapsulates a lot of the outrageousness of what happened:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/985

And this one outlines what’s in the lawsuit:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/14/151628/87

And this lays out a few facts to make one highly suspicious about the
integrity of voting in general:
http://www.solarbus.org/stealyourelection/articles/20things.html

And here’s the CNN Version of what’s going on:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/ohio.electoralcollege.ap/index.html

All I want for Christmas is a real democracy.

Happy Holidays!!

Speaking of Yuschenko...

2004-12-11T19:24:00.000-05:00

It seems that they discovered he actually WAS poisoned. Not such a surprise but wow. That is soooo medieval!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1400141,00.html

Of course, the nice kicker here is that it was apparenly DIOXIN, a byproduct of lots of industrial processes. For fun, put "DIOXIN" into google...

Maybe they got it from some Bush supporters in exchange for loosening environmental standards?

Oops, I didn't do it again

2004-12-11T12:19:00.000-05:00

Sorry to have been absent this week, folks! Been ridiculously busy with the rest of the site and store. I'm so ashamed!

Well, not really, but I do feel guilty like all nice Jewish boys should...

Back to normal posting schedule this week.

To Hell with Hillary: Yushchenko for President in 2008.

2004-12-01T23:38:00.000-05:00

Now there’s a leader in an electoral crisis. Could you imagine? What if Kerry and Edwards had come out and said “This is a fraudulent election, and Americans should demand a revote in Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico” (at least). “Get out in the streets and don’t go home until they give in.”

That’s leadership.

But no, Kerry wanted to spare America the heartache of Democracy. So does Bush and the gang, I suppose, but at least they’re more blatant about their hatred of the Democratic process.

I actually did expect more from Kerry and Edwards. I really did. With 17,000 lawyers at the ready, you think they could have used a few of them.

I say, Yushchenko for President in 2008--on the Democratic ticket.

Advice from the "Winners"

2004-12-01T16:08:00.000-05:00

I can’t tell you how many emails we get from righteous righties who tell me things like this:

From “TOM”:

When are you people going to realize that you didn't lose the election? America won! And this site will help us win by an even larger number next time. Why? Because MOST of America showed by their votes on Nov. 2 that they are tired of this kind of hate and anger. The leading reason to vote for George Bush was morals. Something I am sorry to say a lot of liberals don't know anything about. So keep it up and please, find a way to put everyone on your e-mail list. It will pay off for us in 2008.

Thanks and God Bless.

I RESPOND:

You know, I just realized. I can't be mad at you. I think you just clarified something for me. If you think our site is about hatred and anger, it means you can't tell the difference between humour, analysis, strong opinion, hatred, and anger. No wonder you folks are so messed up!

TOM:

And as usual, as is the case with most liberals, you aren't listening and refuse to listen to any opinion that is contrary to your own. But that's ok. As I said in our last communiqué, because you can't accept the change going in the United States and the reasons for it, you will continue on your present course of operation and it will show in 2008. By the way, spend some time in the history books of our country and the world over the last one hundred years and watch a repeat.

ME:

Tom,

And as usual, as is the case with most self-described conservatives, you aren't listening and refuse to listen to any opinion that is contrary to your own. But that's ok.

By the way, spend some time in the history books of our country and the world over the last one hundred years and watch.

God Bless

Ian

TOM:

Once again, speaking of not listening, good bye.

Tom

-----

Regardless, these jackals seem to think they “won” by a landslide and seem to forget both that at least 49 million people think they’re dead wrong, and that the GOP won using as much intimidation, vote rigging, and shenanigans as possible.

Yes, America won, Tom. She got four more years of ignorance and true believers who buy into it.

I think the best lesson we can learn from the history that "Tom" so kindly refers us to is that the more conservative groups will resort to whatever means they can to stay in power, including lying, stealing elections, fear-mongering, unecessary wars for profit and power, misleading the public, and more lying. And did I mention bald faced lying?

Open Letter to John Kerry

2004-11-29T09:08:00.000-05:00

This from my friend John Lawler (of Bushocchio fame) to the Kerry folks:

Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043
202-712-3001 (fax)

Dear John Kerry,

I realize you have important reasons to stay at arm’s length from all of the “conspiracy theories” about the election being stolen. But you and I both know something smells mighty foul out there…

As Greg Palast has clearly explained*, an entire class of people have been disenfranchised and sent to the back of Ohio’s voting bus. This is a provable systematic violation of the Voting Rights Act. If you want to win in 2004 or win in 2008 you could do far worse than fighting against massive racial discrimination.

In the process you could open Pandora’s electronic voting box. Go ahead, let those demons out. If America really knew how corrupt and inaccurate the current system is they’d be outraged. Heaven knows the news media won’t fully expose this disaster on it’s own.

You once said about the Bush-Cheney machine, “these guys are the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." You were right. And you must be the one to expose this truth and more. Do the right thing and you will see reward. America has so much to gain, and frankly you don’t have that much to lose... The millions of hard working lefties that toiled for you this year will not be there in 2008 unless you are here for democracy NOW.

You told us you operate from your mother’s dying advice “integrity, integrity, integrity.” America asks you now to please act from the highest rectitude. You know this is injustice. Integrity demands that you do not let this stand.

Sincerely,

John Lawler

* http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0

Democracy Lessons from Ukraine

2004-11-28T10:46:00.000-05:00

Seems to me we should be learning a whole lot of lessons from the Ukraine.

After their fraudulent election, there were hundreds of thousands out in the streets, calling for a general strike, refusing to go home, refusing to capitulate. And so far, they look like they might win.

On the other hand, we've sat here, gotten depressed instead of angry, wouldn't dream of a general strike, and are whining about how unfair it all is.

Maybe things are just not quite bad enough here. In the Ukraine, it's pretty clear. Either they're going to go back the the old USSR model of repression like is happening in Russia, or they're going to move forward towards Europe. They know the stakes.

Those of us who know the stakes here can't give in.

Don't be nice.

Don't try to smooth things over.

Don't comprimise.

Don't accept the "results." They were rigged. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Recount, sure. But I want a REVOTE. We should be demanding a revote in Ohio and Florida, without the obviously flawed electronic voting machines and partisan Secretaries of State.

No, Democrats Should NOT Try To Be More Like Republicans

2004-11-22T06:17:00.000-05:00

After a loss, or two, or three, some Democrats (like the pathetic Democratic Leadership Council) start crying about how we need to be more like the Republicans to win elections.

Seems to me we’ve been down this road before. It didn’t work in 2000. It didn’t work in 2002. And it didn’t work in 2004.

It’s not going to work in 2006 or 2008 or 2028, either.

These so-called Democrats are not your friends.

And you need to get rid of them.

Friends don’t tell friends to act like someone else. Friends believe in friends for who they are. So, fellow Democrats, liberals, Greens, what have you, don’t listen to bad advice. We can’t win elections by trying to be more like our opponents.

The shortsighted clowns at the DLC think that because Clinton pulled some of that off, then we as Democrats need to follow his lead and be more centrist. It’s a lie. Clinton pulled it off because he was Clinton, and he believed in what he was doing. He was being himself, following his own true nature.

All electoral fraud aside, the problem with Kerry was that he wasn’t being himself, and Rove and the gang nailed him for it. They saw his weaknesses of not seeming true to himself and pounced. Let’s not play make-believe: Kerry worked to get the swing voters by trying to play to the center, and everybody knew it. And it alienated both those of us who voted for him anyway, and those who might have been persuaded to follow him if he’s seemed a more solid leader.

It’s time to stop playing to the center and start playing to ourselves. If we talk truth, it will show. If we try to please everyone, it’ll also show, and when was the last time you admired an ass-kisser?

We as liberals and Democrats need to truly come from and speak to our base. We need to invite and argue for others to join us. We need to articulate our beliefs clearly, honestly, and the policies to go with it. And most importantly, our collective vision.

As a Democrat, I have no apologies for my beliefs. Here’s a short list. You should make your own.

I believe in responsible and accountable government.
I believe in truly equal rights for all.
I believe abortion is a woman’s choice and is between her, her doctor, God, and her mate, if possible.
I believe abortions should be minimized primarily through education, access to contraceptives, morning-after pills, RU-486, and adoption where appropriate. I do not believe that limiting education, contraception, or access to abortion procedures will be effective. It hasn’t reduced abortions under Bush; they’ve increased. They decreased under Clinton.
I believe in government-sponsored health care for everyone, a single-payer plan like Canada has, with options to purchase more extensive coverage if you want. You won’t find a working-or-middle-class Canadian—or European—who’d trade their coverage for ours, ever.
I believe in a progressive tax, with minimal deductions, or possibly a flat tax if it is truly a flat tax on all. I do not believe in no taxes or just sales taxes.
I believe corporations must pay taxes, and must stop getting government welfare. Corporations that create offshore headquarters to avoid taxes must pay huge tariffs on their products or services in the states.
I believe the status of a corporation as a person must be changed and that corporations do have a responsibility to the community. After all, companies and corporations are a part of the community and must begin acting as such.
I believe in a government that helps to lift up its most needy, or help them with money and services if need be. Programs should be fully funded, but must have fiscal and effectiveness accountability.
Faith-based programs should have faith-based funding. Period.
I believe in the clear separation of church and state. I believe it protects religion, ethics, morality, and government, more than it handicaps any of them.
I believe in Civil Unions for both straight and gay couples, and marriages to be officiated by religious institutions. (Whom, I believe, need to allow them).

And so on…

I’m not ashamed of any of this. You shouldn’t be either. And neither must the Democratic Party be. If there is anything we should strive to learn from our opponents, it is to speak to our bases, no matter how it sounds. The kind of hateful, fear-mongering, selfish tripe that’s considered acceptable today, is, believe it or not, speaking to the base. The base of selfishness and fear.

We must speak to our base. The base of hope. Of cooperation. Of sensibility. Accountabilty. Individual AND community responsibility. Live and let live whenever possible. True compassion (as contrasted to so-called “compassionate conservatism”). Far-sighted vision.

Our base is people who believe in a future that is inclusive, responsible, and peaceful. And those people who believe that the means is as important as the ends. Our true believers are those who truly believe that generosity leads to generosity. That violence leads to violence and respect leads to respect.

That is the message of liberalism. Let us not ever lose sight of it, and not ever be ashamed to say it aloud, to demand it of our leaders, and demand that our parties embody it. It’s up to us.

We must be the ones demanding it from the DLC, the DNC, and ourselves.

Let the bloodbath in the Democratic Party begin with me.

I like that. I’m going to put that on a button…

New Report Shows Democrats Responsible for 9/11

2004-11-17T14:38:00.000-05:00

“If they had just held us accountable, 9/11 could have been prevented.”

A just-released report by a special Presidential commission shows that Democrats are actually to blame for the security failures of 9/11.

“Immediately after the 2000 election, the Democrat party had a chance to hold us accountable and keep us focused on Homeland Security. Instead, they spent all their time opposing lifesaving tax cuts, contesting crucial reductions in unnecessary government spending like police, roads, and schools, and obstructing the appointment of federal judges who will interpret the Constitution the right way,” said a clearly upset Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House.

The report unmistakably shows that top Democrat party leaders like Tom Daschle were too busy obstructing the Democratic process and challenging the President’s clear electoral mandate for reform to put pressure on the administration to follow Clinton operatives’ advice about Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats. For example, while Condoleeza Rice was busy, working hard to define intelligence reports as “historic,” and our President was engaged in the tough, thankless task of clearing brush in the underserved town of Crawford, Texas, Daschle and uber-liberal Ted Kennedy, whose car has killed more people than my gun, were busy finding ways to both take credit for tax reform and derail it whenever possible. Upcoming Presidential candidate and war criminal John Kerry was engrossed in nearly yogic flip-flopping contortions over defense spending and gay marriage, and voting to award Congressional Medals of Honor to convicted child molesters, while his co-conspirator John Edwards was suing hardworking, job-providing companies like Wal-Mart and skimming off pork to buy the votes of the God-fearing Republican voters of North Carolina.

Hastert continued, “Had the Democrats done their job of keeping us in line and on the ball, we would have paid attention to the—duh—obvious threat coming our way. But they were so busy with their radical liberal homosexual loving agenda that they couldn’t be bothered to make sure WE were doing our jobs. That’s what accountability and individual responsibility is all about, by gum! I mean, oh my God, look at the deficit! If they had been watching us, we would have had to at least look fiscally conservative. But they were too busy with their own America-hating Clintonesque agenda to keep us from running this country into a financial, moral, and security ditch like a drunken frat boy.”

A published version of the report, titled, “Why Democrats Are to Blame for Everything Including the Fall From Grace in Eden,” will be available to the public within days. It will be $120.00 for the general public, or free with a donation to the Republican Party.

On the non-bipartisan panel are Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Scooter Libby, Elizabeth Dole, and Ken Lay.

Powell Resigns: Is he also just trying to sell books?

2004-11-15T15:52:00.000-05:00

It’s about time, Mr. Powell. But it’s too bad you’re still falling on grenades for your boss.

It’s really a shame that he didn’t have the courage of his General’s rank to do the right thing before the election… and before the war, before the 1200 American boys and girls who died in Iraq, and the several thousand more who died from their wounds upon coming home. Not to mention the up to 20,000 injured, or the possibly up to 100,000 Iraqi dead and hundreds of thousands injured.

Colin Powell has been one of the great disappointments for moderates--and even more left-leaning liberals--everywhere. We all expected that he would actually bring a voice of moderation to the radical neoconservative policies of this administration.

But unfortunately, he turned out to be too much of a foot soldier to actually do the right thing. We’ve even heard him and Condi called “Uncle Tom & Aunt Jemimah.” Harry Belafonte even called Powell m a “house nigger.” And I haven’t found many to disagree.

The unfortunate thing about the replacements of Powell, Ashcroft, Spencer Abraham, and Rod Paige--just as with Trent Lott--is that they will be replaced with people who probably seem more personable and flexible but, like Bush himself, are actually wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Watch and see. I won’t say I told you so.

Actually, yes I will.

Everyone Should Care, Republican or Democrat, Horse or Goat

2004-11-13T08:08:00.000-05:00

It would be easy for Republicans to stand back and call our demands for recounts, black box software, and electoral reform sore losing.

But if you ever hear that, call them a commie pinko. Because every American should care whether the votes were counted properly, whether the machines were accurate, or worse, rigged, and whether we have an electoral system as pathetic as say, Afghanistan, or if we are an example of how a democracy should run.

It's not a partisan issue. Ask anyone whether they think there should be paper trails on voting machines. I'll lay $20 on 95% of them saying "hell yes." That alone should do it.

If your Republican friends really believe they won the election, they should be happy to protect America by supporting investigations of voting systems that were declared unsafe for democracy. Anything less makes them hypocrites. And don't be afraid to say it.

If you are truly "conservative," then you want to conserve our Constitution and the protections it affords. At base, it's the right to vote and to have that vote counted.

If not, you must believe you are above the law.

And that makes you a criminal, remember?

Demand Recounts NOW

2004-11-11T16:33:00.000-05:00

As you all know by now, the election is questionable. Now is the time to start demanding recounts loudly and incessantly.

Don't have much time today, so I'm just going to post a little note that my co-conspirator John sent me...

So now I’m a conspiracy theorist… But if you’ve been following the post
election buzz online, you know that it’s not completely crazy to think
something might be amiss in Election 2004. Given the Republican track record
of late, it ain’t too much of a stretch to think they might not have played
fairly…

In case you missed it, Kieth Olberman has been reporting on MSNBC about all
of this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
Olberman’s post from November 9 is especially good. Meanwhile some members
of congress are pushing for an investigation. MoveOn.org is now pushing for
that too, and they ask you to send an email showing your support of that
effort (http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/).

I hope you'll take the time for that.

The greens are now trying to demand an Ohio recount (Candidate David Cobb
has standing to do so), but they need money as recount requesters have to
foot the bill from the state. You can donate to that cause here:

http://web.greens.org/c/cobb/supporters.cgi?function=donate

I did.

Who knows where all of this will lead… but if you read the article below, by
Ohio Professor Bob Fitrakis, you’ll probably at least agree that there’s
some stinky business going on in Ohio…

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983

And Fitrakis’ more recent post continues that smelly theme…

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985

Also, I add this http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Enjoy your day. It’s a great country.

“Bipartisanship” and “Cooperation”

2004-11-09T13:46:00.000-05:00

Bush says that he will reach out and hopes that Democratic leaders will join him. It’s clear to me that after four years of ramming legislation through the throat of Congress with little-to-no consultation with the party that won the popular vote in 2000, and a standard modus operandi of actually excluding the Democratic party, it’s up to the Bushies to prove that they are doing more than talking.

Democratic leaders should definitely NOT cooperate with the hard-right agenda of the Bush administration, and should, yes, OBSTRUCT, and filibuster all attempts to push anything through. It will require discipline and some balls. Which unfortunately, seem pretty rare in the Dems these days.

We, the people, need to turn up the heat on our leadership to NOT cooperate unless the means is fair and inclusive. Do NOT bend over. See where it got Daschle?

Fences are for property lines, not for sitting.

Religious Wrong and “Moral Values”

2004-11-09T09:13:00.000-05:00

Religious Wrong and “Moral Values”

I have said this hundreds of times, and will say it until I’m red, white, and blue in the face. The religious right is a bunch of hypocrites. Period. Now, of course YOU know that, but the problem is that THEY don’t know it.

It seems that the only thing “moral values” means to the born-again crowd is being against abortion and against those nasty, dirty homos.

At least that’s what it looks like to everyone outside of their little fold.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the bible, the original five books or the New Testament, it’s very clear that there are far more important issues in the bible than homosexuality. Abortion, I can sympathize with their assessment that it’s crucial, from their perspective it’s murder. I get that. But to vote for a candidate who is supposedly against abortion, but is also against environmental stewardship (regardless of what he says), against peacemaking, against sharing with the poor, against economic structures that help the poor improve their lot, and so much more… is sheer hypocrisy. And absolutely counter to the teachings of Jesus.

I’ve had conversations with both friends and adversaries about this and all I can conclude is that the born-again community is stark denial of anything that doesn’t fit with the world they want to see. You can see it in so many tracts written by obviously one-sided, right-leaning Christians who want to believe in both Bush and the other scripture-quoting righties. Like all of us, they see what they want to see. (See: http://www.bible.com/answers/awar.html for more of this, with no questioning at all of themselves or possibility of another valid opinion. It’s called pontificating, by the way. It’s what I like to do here, but I don’t pretend to be objective.)

For the record, here is the section of the New Testament that’s called the “Beatitudes,” or the Sermon on the Mount.

The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

(from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02371a.htm)

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Beatitudes/beatitudes.htm

Basically, the New Testament is full of love for thine enemy. But you will always find “devout” Christians quoting the “Old” testament when rationalizing war, even though Jesus was clear about his ministries being a new and correct interpretation of it.

But it’s just not convenient enough, apparently.

So, dear readers, go forth and multiply your knowledge of what Jesus really had to say, and remind people that they’re full of shit when they talk about the Republican party being the party of “moral values.” Cuz it’s not. It’s the party of anti-abortion and anti-gay. Or, really, the party of convenient religiousity when it’

Karl Rove On Wisdom, Humility, and Other Bullshit

2004-11-08T10:21:00.000-05:00

To hear Karl Rove talking about wisdom, patience, and humility is like listening to Ron Jeremy talk about abstinence. Don’t be ridiculous.

(Showing a video of Jan, 2004 of Rove heading to church)
MR. RUSSERT: You're heading over to the national cathedral for a prayer service with our new president. What are you gonna pray for?

MR. ROVE: Wisdom and patience. Humility. That's important, I think, for people who come here to realize that we are here for only a time and we have an obligation of service and we need to keep things in perspective.

MR. RUSSERT: Wisdom, patience, and humility, the watchwords for the second term?

MR. ROVE: Yes. Those that the Gods destroy they first make prideful. So, absolutely.

Sunday on Meet the Press, Karl Rove, looking affable and kind, put out about as much disinformation in a few minutes as is possible for one human being to do. For a transcript of the interview, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6430019/

First, let’s recall that Eva Braun said during the storming of Berlin, “It’s hard to believe this is happening; it almost makes one question one’s faith in God.” Of course, the difference is that I think she was being sincere.

Q: How can you tell Karl Rove is lying?
A: He’s awake

During the interview, Karl Rove masterfully blamed everything from the “coarseness of society” to the deficit, to so-called “activist judges” to the fact that Bush “had not succeeded in being a uniter...” on the “Democrat” party.

Democrat party. This is a ploy by the Republic party to avoid painting the Democratic party as the party that is Democratic. By changing English usage, as they often do, the spinners at the GOP say “Democrat Party” for a few very important reasons.

As I said, the phrase “Democratic Party” insinuates that one party is “democratic” while the other is not. I think part of the reason they can’t stand this is that it’s actually truer than the GOPers would like to believe. But by changing it to purposely not include “Democratic,” there is now by insinuation a sense that the Republic party is now the more “democratic” party. Scary, eh?

By changing the English usage to “Democrat Party,” because it’s not the correct usage, it leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth to say or hear it. I believe this is by design, not accident. If every time one hears the name of the Democratic Party it sounds just a little “off,” because it’s misnamed, the very idea of the Democratic Party sounds distasteful and a little “off” as well. There’s a clear advantage to having one’s adversary make people feel a little uncomfortable on the mention of their name. It affects the public. Truly. Really, are the Democrats being painted as “they who cannot be named?”

Don’t underestimate the power of sound. “Democrat Party” can be spit out, whereas “Democratic Party” is much softer sounding. I kid you not.

These guys, especially Rove, are scary smart, and are masters of spin and psychological manipulation. Every thing they do is for a reason. Don’t doubt it. Remember “partial-birth abortion?” “The marriage penalty?” Remember how effective those were? Pay attention.

You’ll notice I used “Republic” party to make a point. I think we should use it regularly. For more on the importance of naming, see http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=152

DEMOCRATIC FILLIBUSTER OF JUDGES
At every opportunity, the mouthpieces of the Republic party talk about how Democrats “filibustered the President’s judicial appointees.” More misinformation. More Bush-appointed judges were approved in the last four years than under Clinton. But if they say it, it’s true.

MR. ROVE: The president said during the campaign that in virtually every speech that he gave that he would continue to nominate men and women to the bench who are well-qualified and who would strictly interpret the law, who knew the difference between personal agendas and personal views on the one hand and the strict interpretation of the law.

He believes that he ought to pick people who will impartially apply--interpret and apply the law, not people who have a political agenda or a personal agenda that they want to pursue on the court.

Absolutely untrue, misrepresenting, and manipulative. See our earlier writing on this, http://democracymeansyou.blogspot.com/2004/10/judging-conservative-judges.html

PROTECTING THE WEAK AND VULNERABLE
If you look, whenever Rove (or any Republic spokesman) mentions the “weak and vulnerable,” it’s about fetuses, not the poor or weak. Interesting, yes?

THE LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT
According to the Rove and the Republicans, most economic woes, healthcare costs, business costs, etc., are due to either taxation or litigation. They rarely acknowledge either the usefulness of litigation, or address the overuse of litigation by both themselves when convenient, or the corporate community as a regular way of doing business and intimidating competitors.

The truth is that health care is skyrocketing as much from litigation as it is from prescription drug gouging. And this year, the Republic party gave a huge boon to the pharmaceutical companies by disallowing negotiation of drug prices by Medicare.

The true focus on “litigation” and “trial lawyers” is an attempt to reduce the financial base of the Democratic party. The Democratic party receives a huge amount of donations from trial lawyers; the huge base of donations the Republic party gets from corporations (who are the ones that trial lawyers sue for negligence most of the time) is offset by a huge base of donations to the Democratic party from trial lawyers. Rove and gang know that by limiting litigation winnings, they can limit the donations to the DNC.

Don’t fall for it. Just remember “Erin Brockovich.” These are the lawsuits the Republic party is trying to limit. Nice, eh?

SOCIAL SECURITY
Just about everything Rove implies about Social Security is misrepresentative. Of course, would you expect any less? http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=204

CHANGING THE TONE IN WASHINGTON
(Being a divider, not a uniter)
To hear Rove or any Republic operative tell it, this is entirely the fault of the Dems. Rove was, as usual, blaming the Democrats, this time with an anecdote apparently about Tom Daschle, implying that the President was trying to make unity but Daschle was two faced.

MR. ROVE: Well, it's part of the process. Look, I'll tell you. It's been an interesting experience for those of us who came up from Texas. I remember well after 9/11 sitting with the president and a leader of the Democratic Party talking about the economic stimulus package. The president said, "Look, our economy's been hit hard on 9/11. We need to do something to jump start our economy. You know, my advisors at the Council of Economic Advisors tell me the number one thing we can do to jump start the economy is A." And this Democrat leader said, "Well, Mr. President, I can't get the votes for A, but I can get the votes for B." And the president said--listened to him and several days later laid out his package and included as one of the principle elements of it B. And that Democrat leader immediately went out and criticized it. And, you know, I was angry at the time. I remember the president saying, "Look, that's the way the town works. Let it go."

Democrats—and others—need to fight this misinformation tooth and nail, and come out loudly with the truth in ways that are just as concise and catchy. We need to call the liars to the carpet in public. Over and over and over.

NOT a Mandate

2004-11-06T18:47:00.000-05:00

Sorry, kids, but Bush does NOT have a mandate.

In addition to widely-suspected vote fraud that's being investigated by numerous progressive organizations, (www.blackboxvoting.org and others... please donate to them), it's important to remember that Bush "won" by the slimmest margin for a sitting president since 1916.

That's right. NO INCUMBENT PRESIDENT HAS WON A SLIMMER "VICTORY" IN NEARLY 80 YEARS.

That's not a fucking mandate.

Don't let anyone tell you it is.

And, as Al Franken said, don't forget that while the so-called "red states" LOOKS like a large area, a whole helluva lot of it is desert.

So Bush's constituents are mostly, say, salamanders.

Remember that.

Bush Will Blunder Arafat's Death, As Well

2004-11-06T13:31:00.000-05:00

I have absolute faith in Bush to mess up the Mideast peace process again now that Arafat is dying. I predict that Bush will not honor any elected offical unless approved by Israel.

The entire time Bush has been in office, he has done not one thing useful for the peace process. He has sidelined the Palestinians, he has not held Israel accountable, he has exacerbated all the situations there by invading Iraq, and, as they say, much, much more.

It's a tremendous opportunity with the right people behind it. Unfortunately, both Bush and Sharon will stonewall anything that doesn't abide by their preferences, leading to more armed rebellion.

From the Neocon (and therefore Bush's) perspective, this will open up the can of the Middle East for a remaking of it in their image. Their plan has always been to (forceably) create "Democracy" in at least one Middle East country and watch as the "love for freedom" travels from one country to another like a virus of love.

However, like the candy and flowers that were supposed to greet American soliders in Iraq, this is guaranteed to turn ugly. Not because Democracy is not infectious, but because arrogance is not.

I believe the Bushies and the Neocons will jump at this opportunity and try to strongarm their image of a new PA, supporting Israel in heavy-handed tactics, and leaving even more people radicalized.

Gay Marriage and Elections and Name-Calling and the Future

2004-11-04T11:41:00.000-05:00

On some level, this election hinged on Bush's people calling Kerry a fag-lover, and afterwards, Kerry losing a popularity contest on the playground.

First, let me get it out of the way: that's pathetic. What a bunch of homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, scared people we have in this country. And a bunch of them showed up specifically for this election, just cuz of the word "gay." (And "abortion," but that's another article.)

Now that I've said that, I think it was "our" own fault. While Gay Marriage shouldn't be an issue in 2004 in any first-world country, it is. And we know it. And while activists were pushing for gay marriage, Karl Rove was sitting with his gay porn mags, whacking off smugly, knowing that fundies would come to the polls in droves to "love thy neighbor" but "hate the sin" by voting against Kerry and therefore, homos.

I said this back when Gavin Newsom started giving out marriage licenses in San Francisco the year before the election, and I've said it since. We should be concentrating on Civil Unions, the legal rights associated with marriage, and seperating them from the religious elements of the contract that are embedded in our laws. I belive with all my heart that the fundies and homophobes wouldn't have been anywhere near as hateful and scared to come to the polls had the focus been on Civil Unions rather than the word "marriage."

There could be no "Defense of Civil Unions Act."

Sure, ideally everyone should be able to get married. But the more important things in the short run are the legal foundations and winning elections. (Although this lost election may not be all bad... tune in later for why).

In that vein, we are working on a new site, www.civilunionsnow.org (or com or net) which will be a place for STRAIGHT AND GAY couples to work together to get civil unions enacted.

We are encouraging STRAIGHT couples to demand the right to get civil unions seperate from the religious institutions of marriage that are embedded in law, and do what they want with their churches, synagogues, mosqes or what have you. But the premise is that Civil Unions should be there for everyone, are not just a "gay thing," and with straight couples demanding them for themselves, the process should go faster.

Tune in here or at www.civilunionsnow.org for more as it happens.

Demand the Diebold Code!

2004-11-03T15:09:00.000-05:00

I demand the Diebold code. I want proof that the no-paper-record voting machines were not rigged in Florida. I don't for one second have a "faith-based" relationship with a major GOP contributor.

So far, Diebold has refused all requests for access to the code to ensure its integrity.

Demand from your Representatives and Senators that an investigative group be given access to the code. Republicans should jump at the opportunity to prove that Bush was elected fairly, even though I doubt it with all my heart.

Death to Terry: Three in a Row

2004-11-03T11:27:00.001-05:00

Or his career, anyway.

Terry McAuliffe needs to go. I couldn't stand him before, and now he needs a new job. He has now officially lost two Presidential elections in a row and increasing numbers of seats in three Senate and House elections.

He is clearly as incompetent as possible. I want his head.

The Children Will Have to Be Spanked

2004-11-03T07:23:00.000-05:00

If appearances aren't too decieving it seems that many of the young 'uns will need to have their bottoms beaten badly. Apparently, alot of the mythic cavalry of the "youth vote" stayed home or went home early, playing Xbox instead of playing Democracy.

Could it be that the eight hour lines at the polling places were too much for their little attention spans? Quite possibly.

But if that's the case, the real fault is the Secretaries of State, who must be punished drastically. My early take is that the under-availability and underpreparedness for the high voter turnout was engineered with exactly short attention spans in mind. "If we can't convert them, let's bore them," would be a good distillation.

The Secretaries of State will have to be taken to task and to the carpet in order for elections to be fair and free. An eight hour wait is acceptable in maybe Afghanistan, but not here. My bet is that the "Conservative" noise machine will be making fun of short-attention spans, talking about how "in some countries, an eight-hour wait is standard," rather than looking at why it happened and changing it.

No one should have to wait more than an hour.

Karl Rove is brilliant.

Something Stinks Here... I Don't Trust Karl Rove

2004-11-03T02:45:00.000-05:00

I have no evidence and can't put my finger on it, but something smells here. This election is too close, with too much of the electorate not approving of Bush, not feeling secure, not approving of Iraq, and so on, but the Republicans are supposedly "winning" in the raw votes in so many swing states, this with the largest get-out-the-vote efforts in history.

I have personally seen to many people out there, too many people getting out the vote for this to happen.

I don't know what it is, but Karl Rove is up to something. Either there are fake ballots, rigged machines, or something I haven't imagined. There's a scam going on and it will show up eventually.

Don't forget that Ohio has a hostile Secretary of State who has done whatever he can to disenfranchise Democratic voters, and there have been HUGE lines for up to TEN hours especially in Democratic strongholds. Was there a plan to do whatever they could to interfere? I think yes.

But there's another piece missing. I just hope it shows up soon.

If you have any ideas, post them here or email me.

Close Enough for a Recount in Ohio

2004-11-03T02:20:00.000-05:00

Take the lawyers, guns, and money to Ohio and force a recount. There are the 140,000 or so provisional ballots, the 100,000 or so remaining votes, and a Secretary of State who needs to have the Buckeye kicked out of him.

I can't believe it's even this close. With 54% of the American population believing that the country is less secure than before we invaded Iraq, I can't believe that so many of those voters cast a vote for Bush.

It's a testament to Karl Rove's genius for divisiveness, legal wrangling, and misrepresentation.

We Democrats need to step up and keep and improve the organization that we developed for this race and take it into 2006.

Kerry, Don't You DARE Concede Until the Provisional Ballots Are Counted

2004-11-03T01:35:00.000-05:00

Or I will personally kick you in the head.

Don't you dare wimp out like Al Gore. Ohio is ours if you count the provisional ballots. Don't surrender or I'll eat your children.

All I Really Need to Know About Voting for Bush I Learned in High School.

2004-11-02T06:48:00.000-05:00

Take everything you can get your hands on.

Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.

The ends justify the means, as long as we’re winning. And the meaner the means, the better.

Humiliate those who are different than you.

Let underclassmen clean up your messes. Pay them if you have to but twist their arms into it if possible.

Sports are more important than books. Books are for fags, anyway, and you can always hire a black woman to read to you.

When you hurt someone, convince them it’s their fault.

Jack Daniels is the answer to many of life’s problems. Or maybe Jesus. Whatever.

Take lots of vacation—you never know when people are going to want you to actually do something.

If in doubt, lie. If you’re caught, lie about lying. Do it boldly.

Likability and popularity is more important than intelligence, education, morals, the truth, or pretty much anything. Except money. And Poppy’s friends.

If you can bully your way out of something, all the better.

If you make a mistake, play it cool and pretend it never happened. No matter what.

Fuck the seed in the little cup, fuck wonder, fuck education, fuck the kids, fuck taxes, fuck government, and go fuck yourself. Especially Pat Leahey.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere:
The Golden Rule (Them with the gold makes the rules) and conditional love, lying, and basic sales.

Keep this close to your heart and carry it into your campaigns. You will succeed through chicanery, trickery, sheer nastiness, and arrogance.

Apologies and appreication to Robert Fulghum, Author of “All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten”

All I Really Need to Know About Voting for Kerry I Learned in Kindergarten.

2004-11-02T06:47:00.000-05:00

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to tell when people are honest or not, whether mom would want us to hang out with them, and whom to vote for I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the tax bracket, but there in the playground at school. These are the things I learned:

Share the wealth, and lunch.

Make a level sandbox for everyone to play in.

Don't hit people, or bomb them.

Put things voter registrations back where you found them.

Invite people to play; don’t exclude them because they’re not like you

If you break it you bought it.

Don’t lie if you made a mistake… you’re better off telling the truth

Clean up your own mess, whether military, environmental, or economic.

Don't take countries or resources that aren't yours.

Heinz ketchup is good for you.

Live a balanced life - windsurf some and think some and bike and hunt and tell corny jokes every day some.

Get a $150 haircut every afternoon.

Be courageous. If you make a mistake, come back home and correct it.

When you go out into the world, watch out for terrorists and stick together.

Friends are important. Don’t get rid of them just because they don’t agree with you.

God is good to have faith in but he won’t do your homework.

Be nice to people, don’t call them names, especially when the name aren’t true.

Goldfish and hamsters and Vietnamese and even Iraqis - they all can die.

So can Americans.

Have respect for life: bombs and bullets kill people, not countries.

And then remember the book My Pet Goat and the most important word you learned about George W. Bush - the biggest word of all - INCOMPETENT.

Everything you need to know to vote for Kerry is in there somewhere:
The Golden Rule and respect and honestey and basic ethical behavior, how to deal with liars, and more.

Take this with you on the road to the Presidency and show America what it can be once again.

Apologies to Robert Fulghum, Author of “All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten”

Q: Why is voting for Nader like whacking off?

2004-11-01T08:30:00.000-05:00

A: Because it feels good to only you, doesn’t achieve anything, and makes a mess.

Please forward this to everyone you know.

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/masturbators4nader

If you know someone who’s planning to vote for Nader, remind them that this election is not just about Bush and Cheney, it’s about all the people surrounding them as well. Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and all the scaries from the religious right like Ashcroft, Jerry Falwell, and the rest.

This will almost definitely be at least as close an election as 2000. Remind them that the 2000 election was lost by just 537 votes. 537. You alone know that many people. So do they. Make sure they realize that their vote could mean the difference between another four years of Bush and no chance for improvement, or four years under Kerry with at least a chance for change. Kerry can be influenced by the left; Bush can not.

Remind them that Renquist has thyroid cancer, and likely between two and four Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by this President.

Remind them that Bush has appointed over 100 extremely conservative Federal Judges during his Presidency, who decide the vast majority of all criminal cases in the country. Legal precedents are being set by these judges as we speak, interpretations of law from drug sentencing to medical malpractice, to rape, molestation, divorce, and custody battles.

Remind them of the damage to the environment under Bush. The damage to unions. The damage to worker’s rights. Civil rights. Social services. Foreign policy. Our international standing. Abortion rights. Voting rights. Remind them about touch-screen voting and Diebold.

Remind them that the world is nervously watching to see what Americans will do. The world does not understand how America could have elected Bush in the first place, and how Americans could possibly reelect Bush again.

Remind them of the estimated twenty-to-one-hundred thousand Iraqis who have died because of Bush. Or the 1,000 Americans killed or 8,000 injured.

Remind them of the 225 billion dollars spent on the war instead of America.

Remind them that all they care about is at stake, and that they and Nader can more effectively fight for those things, including third-party participation, with Kerry in office rather than Bush.

We believe Nader—and they—could make third party participation more a reality by leveraging Instant Runoff Voting in Democratically-controlled state legislatures… that will actually put it in place and show that it works.

See http://www.democracymeansyou.com/nader for more on that.

Remind them that pragmatism is more important than pride and idealism. That’s how the Republicans managed a coup in 2000. Pragmatism and party discipline.

Remind them that France almost got LePen in 2002 because the left was fragmented and he won the largest share of all the fragments. The left then coalesced and got rid of him, but only because of solidarity. We need everyone.

If they think the country will get bad enough for a “revolution,” tell them to think again, and think of Germany in the 1930s. Hitler also got into power in part because of a fragmented left. Is it really worth the death and destruction to make a point?

Tell them to hold their noses and vote for Kerry, and that you will, in exchange, volunteer to help on an issue important to them after the election. Follow through.

This is about the future of not just the United States, but the world. The future depends on them. And you.

Osama Votes Bush for Halloween

2004-10-31T13:14:00.000-05:00

Amazing to me that anyone could interpret Osama’s sudden appearance just days before the election as anything other than a twisted kind of endorsement for Bush.

Of course, Bush is likely to use it as proof that the world is a dangerous place and we need “steady leadership in times of change,” but let’s not forget that if Bush hadn’t outsourced the hunt for bin Laden to the local Afghani warlords instead of using the top US Special Forces units that were there and ready to go in to Tora Bora to capture Osama, we might not be seeing this video three years later to begin with.

But then again, maybe that’s why Karl Rove has publicly said that the one mention that Bush made of the videotape October 30 will be the only time he mentions it during the rest of the campaign. Who knows.

But unlike the moronic “OSAMA VOTES KERRY” stickers and stenciled graffiti I see here and there, based in a fear-mongering Republican marketing idea that Kerry would allow the country to be attacked before doing anything to prevent terror, this “endorsement” is basically a flip-flop of the Republicans’ scare tactics.

Osama is smart. That’s a given. History shows that Americans tend to vote conservatively when they’re scared. It’s well known by anyone who has the most cursory understanding of American politics. Bush has been using it for three years, and now Osama is using it, too, and both for the same reason: to get Bush reelected.

His message was twofold:

One, I believe he actually is speaking sincerely. He is talking to the American people with a clear summary about why Al Qaeda attacked America. America’s policy in the Middle East is to interfere and intervene on behalf of our access to oil. In all the oil-producing countries with which we have a relationship in the Middle East, we have supported oppressive regimes that promise “stability” and therefore access to oil, at the expense of the civil rights of their peoples.

It’s well known and documented that Osama’s beef is with the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the American support for it’s repressive regime. Not that Osama wants democracy, but he wants their religious and military oppression to end.

I personally believe that while there is truth in his representation of Israel vs. Palestine as a reason for his attacks, it’s primarily a convenient metaphor and means of getting support for his agenda from the Arab “street.”

Two, I believe he well knows that a “warning” from him will scare the bejesus out of the American electorate, especially those who are undecided.

And while I’m sure his preference is that voters will take him at his word and pressure the government to stop supporting regimes like the Saudi Royals’ (“Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe”) I’m sure he also knows his adversary well enough to know that Americans will most likely interpret that as a threat and hide behind Bush’s skirt.

So why would Osama want Bush? Simple. Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda.

Cleverly disguised as Al Qaeda’s enemy, the Bush administration has created a membership drive for bin Laden that no amount of bully-pulpiting could have ever gotten him. Bush is the poster boy for the recruitment posters outside each metaphorical Al Qaeda recruitment center. Only in this case, it’s not “exotic lands and military benefits while defending America he’s selling,” but the “Great Satan’s War On Islam and the Arab People.” And given the common-sense evidence of tens of thousands of dead Muslims at the hands of American troops and weapons, his work is already done. (Aside: No, it’s not Al-Jazeera’s fault that there are so many dead Muslims to show on Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera wouldn’t show them if they didn’t exist, now would they?)

So short of Americans doing what he wants (getting US foreign policy to change), Osama’s going to create whatever he has to do to get there. And one of the most effective tools is the Jihad, something that the CIA used to train Afghanis back in the 80s to undermine Russia’s occupation. Can anyone say “blowback?” I knew you could.

Bush’s arrogant presence, his polarizing policies, his Christian crusade (he even said “Crusade to describe the war in Afghanistan, remember?), is perfect fodder to create a Holy War between Muslims and Americans/American Christians. And through that, Osama hopes to get what he wants in the first place. The US to stop supporting the Saudi regime.

HOW TO STOP ELECTION SURPRESSION

2004-10-30T18:26:00.000-04:00

There have been numerous reports of Republican operatives challenging overtly Democratic voters throughout the country. If a Republican operative can target an obviously Democratic voter, the GOP dirty trickster will tell the pollworkers that they have witnessed the victim voting already, requiring the likely Democratic voter to instead fill out a provisional ballot, which the GOP lawyers can try to challenge later. It’s a dirty game but they are desperate and will do ANYTHING to win this election regardless of legality, or whether their behavior is ethical.

Here’s how to beat this game:

First, arm yourself with the Neighborhood Votewatch shirt stickers/pinables. On it is the Election Protection Hotline number, 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

Second, if you or someone near you is challenged like this,

MAKE A SCENE. DO NOT GO QUIETLY. THEY ARE RELYING ON QUIET COOPERATION WITH THEIR DIRTY TRICKS. THEY ARE DEPENDING ON THE VICTIM AND THE WITNESSES TO THE SURPRESSION DOING NOTHING.

LOUDLY but calmly state that you are registered to vote and have the right to vote in this polling place.

DEMAND to know where and when the accuser allegedly witnessed you or the victim voting.

DEMAND the accuser’s name and proof of identification.

WARN THEM you will have them arrested for Election Fraud for knowingly interfering with your (or the victim’s) Constitutionally-protected right to vote (because they know damn well that you didn’t vote earlier and that they are doing this fraudulently), and that you will also personally sue them in civil court for everything they have, and that you WILL win. (You will, by the way).

DEMAND proof that they are US Citizens, and that what business they have at the polling place.

DEMAND to know how many people the accuser has already accused, either here or at another polling place.

TELL everyone in the polling place what is happening, that your (or the victim’s) Constitutional right to vote is being infringed upon, that this is a tactic currently in wide use by Republican party operatives to suppress Democratic and minority votes, and that you will not tolerate it.

CALL the Election Protection hotline and the local police if necessary to get the accuser’s identification on legal record.

INSIST that the police arrest the accuser for Election Fraud, and that the accuser knowingly is perjuring him or herself to interfere with the Electoral Process.

They will either run away with their tail between their legs or they will end up going to jail and sued.

Have courage and conviction and you will win.

The Bold Vision of Losing 380 Tons of High Explosives in Iraq

2004-10-25T21:16:00.000-04:00

The administration’s bold plans in Iraq have kept the Massive Weapons of Destruction (MWDs) out of the dangerous hands of the International Atomic Energy Commission by making sure it stays with terrorists, where it belongs. Thank God. And to think I was worried!

And of course, no one knew until a month ago. Right, Condi.

What a bunch of completely incompetent morons, dontchathink? And all this in the context of the most recent round of spin from the Republicans about “George W. Bush’s BOLD vision in the Middle East,” and, by the way, how we might not really see results until ten or fifteen years from now but then it will remake the entire Middle East into a Democracy, by gum! Hm.

Let’s talk about the word “bold.”

There are a myriad of words to describe political style, including bold, strong, weak, nearsighted, farsighted, smart, stupid, thorough, broad-ranging, inclusive, secretive, pragmatic, or my personal favorite, wise, which is not one you hear bandied about to describe George W. Bush much, is it?

But they’ve glommed onto “bold” and I hear it repeated from every Tom, Dick, and Rush in the country, and those who follow them.

Now, lots of people are “bold” in their visions and behavior. And there’s more than one definition. Webster’s defines bold as:

1. Forward to meet danger; venturesome; daring; not timorous or shrinking from risk; brave; courageous. Throngs of knights and barons bold. - Milton.

2. Exhibiting or requiring spirit and contempt of danger; planned with courage; daring; vigorous.

3. In a bad sense, too forward; taking undue liberties; over assuming or confident; lacking proper modesty or restraint; rude; impudent. Thou art too wild, too rude and bold of voice. - Shakespeare

4. Somewhat overstepping usual bounds, or conventional rules, as in art, literature, etc.; taking liberties in composition or expression; as, the figures of an author are bold. The cathedral church is a very bold work. - Addison.

5. Standing prominently out to view; markedly conspicuous; striking the eye; in high relief.
Shadows in painting . . . make the figure bolder. - Dryden.

6. Steep; abrupt; prominent. Where the bold cape its warning forehead rears. -Trumbull

The Bushies are obviously trying to define an image of courage, strength, and decisiveness. Of a maverick, a daring Johnwaynesque hero who knows what’s right and doesn’t care who he offends. But let’s remember that there are lots of people history could describe as “bold,” and “bold” behavior doesn’t mean for a moment that it was wise, thoughtful, moral, or even effective in the least.

Here’s a short list of some other “bold” people with “bold” visions:

Ken Lay

Adolf Hitler

Emperor Hirohito (of WWII Japan)

Osama bin Laden

General Custer

Baby Face Nelson

Randolph Hearst

Charles Manson

… and many more.

Bush’s “vision” in this case is of remaking the Middle East in his own image, a Halliburtonized small-d democracy full of contracts, legislated cronyism, directed democracy, and lots of oil money.

But apparently, it’s so bold that it didn’t even consider such trivial irritations as the old adage “when throwing tantrums and lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction, keep an eye on other massive stockpiles of destructive weapons.” It was clear from the get-go that there was no plan for securing even the most obvious and immense weapons depots, just the oil wells; that’s not what a “bold” leader does—a leader leads, cleaning up is for the house boys and other coloreds. And, as Rummy says, “In a democracy, people are free to do what they want.” In this case, loot some of the most dangerous high explosives around, which are often used not only for shells, demolitions, bombs, and conventional missiles, but also to detonate nuclear warheads. Nice one.

Remember, he’s a “doer.” He does, the world watches, and the little people clean up afterwards.

Personally, I want a President who’s wise, who’s pragmatic, who’s creative and constructive, who’s a problem-solver, not a problem-maker, who’s responsible, and who has the humility to realize that “bold” and “daring” is best left to people like Bonnie and Clyde, not the leaders of the free world.

Beside which, can someone explain to me exactly where the intersection of “conservative” and “bold” is? It’s escaped me somehow.

Judging Conservative Judges

2004-10-24T11:16:00.000-04:00

If you’ve ever listened to a Republican mouthpiece talk about judicial appointments, you’ll hear something like I heard on the radio the other day:

“Republican-appointed Federal judges are more serious about their constitutional duties than Democratically-appointed Federal judges. The Republican appointees carefully follow the Constitution while the Democratic appointees are mostly activist judges.”

I wish I remembered who I was listening to but I’ve heard the arguments before no matter who’s talking. “Conservatives honor the Constitution, liberals tend to reinterpret it to meet their own political agenda.” What a crock.

I kept trying to call into the show, to say what I wish the “liberal” opposing guest didn’t: It’s truly interesting that while so-called liberals seem to understand that there is more than one way to interpret something, which by the way is called an opinion, so-called conservatives* seem to think that their opinions are simply fact. They either have no insight into the concept that they are just as human and fallible as everyone else, with opinions, biases, and interpretations, or they are purposefully using this fallacious argument as a political tool.

I tend to believe the latter, because I don’t think they’re that stupid.

The topic is a perfect microcosm of the entirety of current so-called conservative thought and publicity. In their minds, conservative opinion is true to the values they interpret to be the core values of America, while all other opinions are at worst heresy, or at best pie-in-the-sky idealistic liberal silliness.

Judicial appointments are a particularly important area to be aware of this game and to call it to the carpet early and often and in public. The remaking of the Federal judiciary changes the way laws are applied. Much the same way as anti-gun-control politicians keep saying “we don’t need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws,” and then don’t either enforce laws or create new ones, so-called conservative appointees on the bench will interpret the law in what they consider to be accurate. Which likely means harsher treatment of drug-and-violence defendants, and more lax treatment of business interests, more prisons, less school funding. More vouchers, less affirmative action. More what they consider “traditional values” applied to divorce and child support, less inclusive interpretations of family law (gay and lesbian), governmental interference (like zoning, environmental laws, punitive damages towards offenders), and, as they say in the sales world, “much, much more…”

*I say “so-called” because I don’t see these people as actually preserving or conserving anything; rather, I see them dismantling, reacting, and destroying Democracy, tolerance, and inclusiveness. I use the term for liberals because the word “liberal” is bandied about without actually meaning anything other than more or less an expletive.

CHENEY MAY FEIGN HEART ATTACK TO GAIN ELECTION EDGE

2004-10-18T01:15:00.000-04:00

This article can also be found at http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=168

Believe it or not, DMY has uncovered a Bush & Cheney strategy for Cheney to pull a “Bob Roberts,”* faking a heart attack to gain a sympathetic edge in this tight election if the polls do not drastically change by the last week in October, according to a confidential source close to the Oval Office—and DMY. In fact, our source says that Cheney will try to blame the faux heart attack on Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation in the last debate. Disgusting but true. And completely in character for these creeps.

Our source says they will tap John McCain for the VP spot, a sure shot to clinching the election. It’s unclear whether McCain knows about the plan or not. While it’s long been a rumor that Bush will dump Cheney and take on McCain, this is a backdoor way for them to do it without looking desperate for a new face on the ticket.

Is this the October surprise we’ve all been waiting for? It definitely could be. And saving it for the final week in October, with, I’m sure, some dramatic heroics on Cheney’s part about dropping out for the good of the country, and how vile Kerry is for driving him to a heart attack, will do a lot for they sympathy vote.

Though I shouldn’t be shocked, I am. Somehow I thought this sort of garbage was beyond even them—but it seems these guys will do ANYTHING to hold on to power. Don’t put it past them.

To counter this ploy we need to get the word out. Discuss this as a possible Bush-Cheney dirty trick—just like “whoops, there’s Osama!”—so that if it does actually happen, it won’t come as a surprise and people will at least be skeptical. And if it does happen, don’t fall into the sympathy trap. Call them to the carpet. And please: be careful to not sound like a conspiracy theorist when you do talk about it. But talk about it, forward this email, talk about it in chat rooms, on radio shows, and wherever else you can.

And all that while getting out and knocking on doors and phone calling for Kerry/Edwards.

It’s gonna be a tough two weeks but don’t give up!

Remember, you heard it here first.

--Donny Goldman for Ian Kleinfeld

*“Bob Roberts” is a 1990s film by Tim Robbins in which a far right wing presidential candidate feigns an assassination attempt in order to gain a sympathy vote, which he does.

CARRYING TAINTED FUEL DOWN A DANGEROUS ROAD IN UNARMORED VEHICLES WITH NO PROTECTION

2004-10-17T06:50:00.000-04:00

What a great metaphor for the entire Bush administration’s record. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

By now, we all know about the several soldiers in Iraq who refused what they called a “suicide mission,” who, after their fuel was refused at the first stop they made because it was tainted, were then ordered to take this same tainted fuel to a second location, over dangerous terrain, in unarmored vehicles, and with no accompaniment. Apparently, when they have traveled this dangerous road in the past, they have had military escorts, and even warplanes to travel with them. This time no such luck. So they refused.

Common sense is sometimes the most courageous path to take.

Like these soldiers, the American people should use their common sense: don’t vote for Bush. It’s a suicide mission.

Homeland security is pitiful: it’s well known that 95% of shipping containers are uninspected, as are the vast majority of aircraft cargo. The borders are porous. First responders don’t have the equipment they need. Public health is in no shape to respond to a massive attack. All these were forgone in favor of tax cuts.

Bush opposed the 9/11 commission, played hide-and-seek with the facts, and had his administration stonewall and filibuster during their testimonies. The 9/11 commission results have, though not damning, certainly shown that he at least dropped the ball on terror.

Over 3 million jobs were lost during the Bush administration; nearly a million were created by increasing the size of the government both in areas of “Homeland Security” and others, and about a million have returned in the private sector, which pay approximately $9,000 a year less than the jobs lost. Net loss? About 1 million jobs during the administration.

Health care costs have increased tremendously, insurance costs have skyrocketed, drug costs have skyrocketed, and the administration more or less forced through a Medicare “reform” bill that does very little for most people on Medicare but does a lot for large pharmaceutical companies.

The opium growing and trade has taken over most of Afghanistan again, and though there were seemingly uneventful elections for the first time in that country, warlords still control most of the areas outside of the capitol. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been regrouping there.

Iraq is a mess. Over 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives; 20,000 have been injured, almost 8,000 of those in combat. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, probably hundreds of thousands injured, and over $160 billion which could be spent to straighten out America has been sent there via huge multinational corporations that pay no taxes.

Rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners under internationally illegal conditions; hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, failure to recognize the systemic disregard for human rights that started from the top and trickled down to the individual soldiers. It’s the trickle down theory of torture.

“We are all Americans,” was the sentiment September 2001. Now it is “fuck America,” worldwide. Our popularity and influence, the trust of our allies, our international respect, has never been lower.

And all this with no accountability, no acknowledgement of responsibility, or even the one or two times that some accountability was acknowledged, no consequences. And his supporters making excuses for any mistake, no matter how egregious.

Tell me, what kind of job could YOU get that you wouldn’t be fired for making mistakes of this magnitude? I want that job, don’t you?

America: get some common sense. Don’t go on a suicide mission. Elect Kerry instead.

Patriot Games and Election Fraud

2004-10-16T11:50:00.000-04:00

More and more reports are coming in about voting problems, downright fraud, sign-stealing, and a whole host of election shenanigans. I think that a good number of these people actually believe they are doing this for the "good of the country." Amazing.

You can't get to truth by lying. You can't achieve thoughtful peace through reactive violence. And you cannot achieve Democracy by being a fascist, sorry guys.

But then again, Democracy is not what a lot of other folks who are actually in power, like Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell have in mind. Those are a different animal. These are people who believe that if you're rich and powerful, it's because you're a good person, and if you're not, you're a bad person, and it's God punishing you. These are people who see no problem with patronage, cronyism, and election fraud. They are just interested in power, and they need to be removed. Keep them in mind the next 17 days while you work your ass off.

THE THIS IS WHAT ITS COME TO DEPARTMENT:

We hear from Ohio that both sides are stealing signs, although the Republicans are videotaping their signs in case anyone steals them, and making police reports. Democrats can’t be bothered, probably because they just have a life and think it’s too petty to videotape and file a police report. Ixnay on the videotape, but it’s important to file a police report, petty as it seems. Most of the coverage I’ve heard about sign stealing is about BUSH-CHENEY signs being stolen. Police reports are evidence and can and should be taken to the local media to make sure they cover sign theft equally. HEAR THIS: Republicans are taking advantage of this by being organized and making it look like they’re being victimized by Democratic sign-stealers. (Good lord, this is so 6th-grade!) But it’s important that the coverage is balanced, so file reports and tell the media.

Also in Ohio, the Secretary of State, who originally tried to disenfranchise voters by invalidating voter registration forms not submitted on (good lord) 80-lb. official paper, is now suing to make sure that Ohioans can’t vote unless they vote at the polling station on their registration card. This is counter to Ohio’s long history of voters being allowed to vote anywhere in their county and counter to the Help America Vote Act. And the most audacious part is that they are doing this under the guise of election reform. Hello kids, can you say “hypocrite?” I knew you could.

Call (Republican) Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and tell him “how dare you” and demand that he work to INCLUDE rather than EXCLUDE voters. Tell him you will eat his children. His contact numbers are:

Ohio SOS General Telephone Number (Toll Free): 1-877-767-6446
Ohio SOS General Telephone Number (Local): 1-614- 466-2655

There have been reports in Oregon of Republican voter registration workers, who get paid for Republican signatures, tearing up Democratic registrations. The Oregon S.O.S. is investigating. Expect a lot more to come.

Again, it’s the Republicans and so-called “conservatives” who are trying to limit access to the ballot box, just as they have for 100 years. Whether by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes or literacy tests, playing computerized voting roll list games as they did in Florida in 2000, or whatever other dirty tricks they can pull, the GOP is the party of voter disenfranchisement and dirty tricks. And like schoolyard bullies, they blame others for their behavior, lie about others doing it, and go right back to the bullying the second the teacher turns around. Grow Up, GOP.

Mary Cheney, Chelsea Clinton, and Total Hypocrisy

2004-10-15T01:11:00.000-04:00

Let’s get one thing “straight” about Mary Cheney. She’s the adult daughter of the incumbent Vice President. She’s going to get in the spotlight from time to time, especially when her father’s a huge hypocrite.

Remember Chelsea-bashing back in the day? People said she was ugly, fat, spoiled, snobby, whatever… and those are the nicer ones. All that from the time pre-teen until, well, some of it still continues. John Derbyshire of the lovely National Review “wrote” a column in which suggested (by insinuation of course) that Hillary Clinton should be killed, and that he hated her just for being a Clinton.* It was partially satire, but the point is, far crueler and disrespectful things have been said about Chelsea in public and in droves than have ever even been thought about Mary Cheney by the most dogmatic of Democrats.

Fact is, Mary Cheney IS a lesbian. She’s already out of the closet. There’s not a thing nasty about reminding people of that fact. No one on this side of the fence is ashamed of it. And neither Kerry nor Edwards implied anything different. What Lynn Chaney hates is that she and Dick got outed to the nation as Texas-sized hypocrites.

I mean, really. Here’s a family who, starting with getting hawkish “I had more important things to do” Dick out of serving in the Viet Nam War, proceeding to work with the fantastically immoral and downright nasty Nixon administration, shilled for megacorporations while serving in the Senate, worked for them when he wasn’t in the Senate, contributed to policies of war and aggression that have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the last thirty years… the real question is “Do you believe unbridled greed, maliciousness, and ethical “Why isn’t Mary Cheney ashamed of her parents?”

When Dick Cheney is part of an administration that singularly targeted gays and lesbians to EXCLUDE them from a certain category of rights—in the Constitution—using both subltle and blatant homophobia as a way of pandering to the religious right and homophobic “conservatives,” then yes, repeating DICK CHENEY’S DAUGHTER IS A LESBIAN is a valid and effective way to point out the outright hypocrisy of Cheney and Bush.

Let’s be really, really honest here, folks. If Cheney/Bush hadn’t been screaming about “Defense of Marriage! One man, one woman! Constitutional amendment!,” this would have never come up. If they hadn’t been using homophobia as much as humanly possible to foment fear and hatred in their target audience, “If you don’t vote for us, Kerry will ruin your family by letting homos marry,” this would have never been brought up. I wonder how many gays got bashed, harassed, fired, or worse because of their legitimization of homophobia and the “lesser” status of gays and lesbians. And they have the audacity to act victimized.

My only criticism about Kerry’s comment last night was that he forgot to mention that Newt Gingrich’s sister is a lesbian as well. And that J. Edgar Hoover liked to wear dresses, and all of them are God’s children, too. But at least Candace Gingrich had the sense to be loudly outspoken against her brother’s policies and a progressive political activist.

I have as much sympathy for Mary Cheney (who’s apparently narrow-sighted enough to work in her father’s campaign) and the Cheney family as I do Rush Limbaugh and the hard time he got for his “little problem,” or as much as I have for Eva Braun when she said during the final storming of Berlin by the Allies when she said, “I can’t believe this is happening. It almost makes one question one’s faith in God.”

Bottom line? It is easier for George Bush to pass through the eye of a needle than for Dick Cheney to get to heaven.

* For the nasty Chelsea article, see http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Mr. President, You’re No Ronald Reagan

2004-10-14T10:10:00.000-04:00

Not that I was at all fond of Reagan, that charming asshole, but at least he behaved like he was over the Constitutinally-mandated minimum age of 35 in order to be President.

Jesus, could the differences between Kerry and Bush be more clear? In three for three, the choice is clearly between an actual adult who’s articulate, intellectually sound, strong, gentle, and poised (that’s Kerry, by the way), and Bush, who comes off as a petulant child trying to wear his daddy’s too-big suit.

Was anyone else creeped out by Bush’s completely inappropriate smiles? Obviously they coached him to smile every time he had an emotion, but it came off like something out of Helter Skelter. When he talked about abortion with a big grin? Oy. But better for us.

The word “schizophrenic” comes from the Greek “split mind,” and refers to this exact thing, the split between the mind and the emotions. Not that Bush is clinically schizophrenic, but it’s an interesting tidbit. I actually just think he’s a dry drunk: someone who’s stopped drinking, but isn’t, as they say, “in recovery.” Dry drunks are just as fucked up, manipulative, controlling, and angry as they were when they were drinking, but they’re just a bit more in control ‘cuz they’re not sloshed all the time. And in this last debate especially, Bush looked like he was holding onto control with every last ounce of willpower. And he wound up looking like a maniacal child. Which of course, is totally accurate.

I can’t believe people think the debates are more or less even. Even our UPS guy says, “if that’s the case, what show were you watching?” Maybe the Sopranos.

His answers about whether homosexuality is a choice were pathetic. Kerry’s were masterful. But I wish he’d also mentioned Newt Gingrich’s sister in addition to Dick Cheney’s daughter. Oh well. We’ll mention it here.

Another thing: anyone who’s seen live comedy knows how painful it is to watch a comic crash and burn on stage… you know, when they’re just NOT funny? That was Dubya last night. The only thing he said that was actually funny with a delivery that didn’t seem like it came from an ill-tempered teenager trying to show off in front of his girlfriend when he’s actually scared shitless was the self-deprecating jokes about how the women in his life tell him not to grimace. The rest, well, just seemed bizarre.

He tried to refer to the 60 Minutes debacle with the documents whose authenticity (but not content) is in question by saying something like “I don’t know if we should trust the mainstream medi --- oh never mind” but it fell flat. There were several others, but they all seemed really weak. Obviously I’m not saying that a President should have to be a comedian, but his weak delivery showed a great deal about his state of mind: out of context, disjointed, and frankly, kinda pitiful.

I’m feeling more and more hopeful about the election every day.

Opening Day

2004-10-13T17:52:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the new DMY semidaily blog. Here’s an inaugural mind-feast for you. Hope it’s not too long and onandon.

Today I finished a letter to a friend of mine, who responded to a letter I wrote to her about “why in God’s name are you voting for Bush?” (See: Christian, Compassionate, and Conservative, http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=91 my original letter.) She finally wrote back to me, and I still can’t make heads or tails of it. So I spent the last week going over this letter to try to make my point once again—and even just to clarify for myself. Her response to the original:

Dear Ian,

At long last, my response! I’ve thought about it a LOT over the past months, and it’ll be good to finally say my piece.

First, though, Happy New Year! I’m observing Yom Kippur for the first time this year, going to temple and fasting - the whole bit. I’m praying for the peace of Israel, though that means a little something different to me than it does to most.

Here’s a quote I’ve been saving for months: "All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." That’s from Orwell. I agree, mostly, which is why I’m not much of a political animal like my mom or, say, you.

Politics will not save us. The government will not fix the world’s problems. I look to a higher power than government for that job. This does not mean that who gets into office does not matter. It often matters a great deal. It is a matter for much and regular prayer, which I engage in. It’s just that I don’t really trust political engagement with the masses as it’s currently practiced in most of the world.

Swift Boat Veterans, forged documents, the Bush advisor who had to resign after being linked to the Swift Boat Veterans, blah blah blah. I hope you’re as sick of the drivel that passes for real political discourse as I am. I actually heard said the other day on a news show what I’ve long suspected: the anchor said, basically, "The president doesn’t really have that much control over the economy, but since that’s the perception of the general populace, how should each candidate position himself?"

It seems like terrible misdirection and misinformation to tout big economic plans as part of a campaign, and yet it also seems that it’s what candidates are forced to do because that’s what’s expected of them. Icky. I feel that it’s the case with lots of other issues, or ways of talking about the issues. So many people think Big Daddy President is going to fix everything.

No dice. However, the president still holds an important role. He is still able to do some powerful stuff, such as defend the unborn by encouraging and signing such legislation. That’s just one example, but it’s indicative of just how important who sits in the Oval Office is. Here’s my belief, and it’s kinda radical, so hold on to your desk chair: abortion has actually tainted the spiritual ground of America [and whatever other countries it’s freely practiced in] and blocks the blessings of God. And eventually will unleash the wrath of God. With that frame of mind, it becomes particularly important for the prosperity [and I don’t just mean financial] of our nation that our president fights against abortion.

Now, you may counter with the immorality of the war in Iraq. Look, I don’t have any easy or pat answers for this issue. Who likes war? Of course I don’t want people killing each other, young lives being snuffed out, but it goes on all over the world without my consent. And, since WWII, the idea of a "just war" has gained credence. Is this war one of them? I’m not sure. But to glibly ask, "What would Jesus do?" is to assume that he always had all the answers and acted on his own. No, it is quite clear from the Gospels that he got his assignments daily from his Father. Sometimes he loved on and blessed little children; sometimes he slammed religious leaders publicly. So the answer to the question, "What would Jesus do?" is that he would listen for, hear, and obey God. Is that what George Bush did? How can you or I definitively say no?

Sadly, what most happens in politics is that you and I and everybody else have our minds made up about which side or person is right, and from there we ignore the flaws of our candidate, gloat over and demonized the flaws of the other candidate, or both. It comes down to the opinion you hold about the person and/or party in general. You dislike Bush, so many of his actions [ex: Halliburton contracts] seem nefarious and self-serving. I disliked Clinton, so I assumed that the bombing of the factory in Sudan [I think that’s where it was] was a wag-the-dog maneuver to divert attention from the Monica scandal. And so forth.

I learned some things about myself from how I perceived our last president vs. how I perceive this one. I pray for Pres. Bush almost every day; I rarely prayed for Clinton, and usually when I did it was obliquely, as in, "Lord, please get him out of office!" That’s not right. I always believed the worst of Clinton and tend to believe the best about Bush. That’s not necessarily right, either. That’s what I see most people doing, though. In our busy lives, most of us don’t have time- or take the time- to really pay attention to the real issues or dig for the bigger picture, so we devolve to stereotypes and soundbytes. We lionize and demonize in equal turns because that’s easiest.

But it isn’t right, of course. I am trying to change that in myself and, with God’s help, I will succeed. So, that’s all I have to say. I’m glad I got a chance to say it, actually. It helps me think things through.

Love,

S____

It gave me some insight into how at least one person voting for Bush is thinking, and most likely, why other people are as well. S_______ may seem a little “radical” as she says, but believe me, she’s a wonderful, loving and accepting person, which is part of why I can’t understand her position Here’s my reponse:

Hi S_____,

Thanks for your reply, and before the election, to boot! I hope you're well and happy. I'm glad to get your response, and the understanding it gives me. Of course, we totally disagree here, but I appreciate your candor.

I will honor you with the same.

First, Jesus was political, as much as he was religious. Religion was the political power of the time. And he'd be the first to agree with Orwell. But he'd also be the last to abandon political means because of it.

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." Orwell, of course, was a socialist, fantastically political, and would no doubt oppose Bush and the current iteration of the GOP with every fiber (fibre, in his case) of his body, if he were American--or even alive today. He would also no doubt criticize you for mixing politics and religion to the extent that you were voting politically for someone who more than not, presents himself as a religious figure.

And frankly, Bush and Rove and the hard right have done everything they can--especially through the media--to make people as cynical as possible of politics--and turn to religion instead. Through a constant degrading of political perception, beyond what it's been in the past, they have successfully lowered the expectations of the political world to a point where they can peel off parts of the electorate with ultra-specific wedge issues and a faux religiosity.

If no one believes in the potential of political action and solutions anymore, the only answer is a religious one. That's the most cynical thing of all to do in a democracy, and fantastically cynical if one truly does believe in God. And they have managed to convince a large portion of the voting public that the only way to preserve any dignity and Godliness is to vote for the Republican candidates. Which is really ironic considering the actual current Republican agenda.

Of course, Clinton had his part in it, but their 10-year witch hunt on him was at least 80% of the result, not his 20% poor choices. If the intensity of investigation, mudslinging, and character assassination were done to nearly anyone, their life choices would look almost as poor--or worse, perhaps. (For one resource, see: The Hunting of the President http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/) There is much question as to Bush's fidelity, Bush's cocaine use, his business and political ethics and more. (Recall that Bush’s good buddy, Enron’s Ken Lay, donated the plane for Bush to travel on during the 2000 election.) But because Bush is Republican, the nastiest assassins aren't after him. After all, Nixon was the master of dirty tricks, and Rove was in fact his and Lee Atwater's understudy.

I personally do not believe Bush's public religiosity. In my eyes, he's a Pharisee, praying loudly and piously on street corners, embroidering the Ten Commandments on his clothes while evicting widows and giving money to the rich. Still, it's not my place to say whether he is sincere in it or not. Even if he is, I can’t imagine how one could fit his policies together with compassion, love, generosity, understanding, patience, tolerance, working for the poor, and peacemaking. (Remember “Blessed are the peacemakers” and all that?)

I do believe that Osama bin Laden is at least as sincere in his prayers to his idea of God as Bush is. So who's right? Constantine? Apparently.

I absolutely agree that Jesus was listening to God when he took the actions he did. I believe we need to do the same. I believe Bush is taking what he hears from God and finding a way to make it fit to what he hears from his base... the rich, those who Jesus condemned, if you recall. But I also believe that politically "conservative" Christians often contort themselves to rationalize why the actual words of Jesus shouldn't be followed, because they're unrealistic in this world, because they're anachronistic, because of whatever fits to avoid the reality of "if you have two coats and your neighbor has none..."; of "love thy neighbor as thyself"; of "turn the other cheek"; and "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven."

And devout Christians wonder why others often turn away from the church or religion, find it hypocritical, judgmental, unaccepting, unloving, or worse. It's because so many supposed serious followers of Christ conveniently forget the nuts and bolts teachings when confronted with day-to-day life, but shower down righteousness on others because of the "really important" things like homosexuality. Oy. It seems that so many are quick to remember the harshest condemnations of Genesis to Deuteronomy but are the first to forget the Beatitudes.

S_____, I agree that prayer is fantastically important. I do it numerous times daily. I believe in it. I encourage it. I have seen it work for me and for others. I believe it can help heal the world. But I don't go telling everyone to vote for me because I do it. And I don't expect my political representatives to be religious leaders. I'll save that for Iran and other theocracies. I much prefer that my public officials are held accountable by citizens. Religious beliefs belong in politics as a guide. Our beliefs, whatever they are, should guide us to organize and act both personally and politically. They should not be part of our political or legal system. One can have ethics without having religion. The law, and society, should be based on ethics. To impose religion is unethical, and frankly, sacrilegious.

I much more deeply respect the beliefs of someone like, say, our friend D______, who clearly has spirituality and acts in accord with it. I see Kerry as someone who is not public about his spirituality, but clearly has a spiritual and religious background. I am much more likely to trust someone who is not so in-your-face about it, especially when the in-your-face comes with such Saulian self-righteousness as it does with Bush.

Of course, perhaps Matthew is a more trustworthy source than I:

"And when you pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward."

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father in secret."

— Jesus, Matthew 6:5 - 6:6

I haven’t seen an American leader who prays more publicly and loudly than Bush. Except maybe his Attorney General.

There are also myriad references by Jesus and the apostles about “beware of false prophets.” I am extremely suspect of anyone who loudly proclaims his religiosity, piousness, or the rest. It’s too easy to fake and take advantage of. We are voting for a President of a Democratic Republic, not for a religious leader of a Theocracy. It’s about policy.

Even the Crawford, Texas paper, The Iconoclast, which supported him in 2000, denounced him and his (An excellent article, and an excellent laying out of the real Bush agenda as shown by actions, not promises):

http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

10 Nobel Laureates in Economics oppose Bush and endorse Kerry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/

I fear, S_____, that Karl Rove has succeeded in masterfully using wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, "God" in the pledge, and the like, getting people to support his candidate while numerous other issues which are at least as important are ignored.

The NY Times just reported about Catholic Bishops who are basically taking a public stance backing Bush because of the abortion and stem cell wedge, providing voter guides to churches, and completely ignoring issues like the death penalty, war, poverty, and other supposedly Christian values. I’d be surprised if a one of them publicly opposed Bush’s war in Iraq. Jesus would be apoplectic.

They also said that voting for Kerry would be considered a sin, and would require confession before receiving communion. (New York Times, 10/12/04, GROUP OF BISHOPS USING INFLUENCE…)

I would ask that you read this excellent article by one of our writers, William Miller, a Christian, and more knowledgeable than I in matters of Christ.

Jesus Rules. One Nation Under Jesus? Bring it on. http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=109

But you'll see that I do have an editorial comment at the end, and I believe with all my heart that the louder the public official is about his religion, the bigger a hypocrite he is as well.

As far as your "radical" notion of believing that abortion is more or less an insult to God and that it may bring down his wrath upon America, I don't find the basic foundation of it so radical. I believe that what we do affects the whole. I can see your sense of abortion destroying some of America's integrity, although I don't agree with you. I have never found abortion to be either as evil--or as prevalent--or as easy a decision for women to make--as it is painted to be by those who use it to manipulate public opinion towards conservatism using abortion as a lever. But just as importantly, I do not believe in a punitive God who is waiting for an excuse to pour down his wrath upon us.

I do, however, believe in wrathful and punitive people who use fear and division as tools to manipulate concerned people like yourself.

What I do find radical is your and others' apparent willingness to apparently ignore other, equally important issues that blatantly show the hypocrisy of the GOP and the Bush administration. Seriously, how can someone be against abortion and pro-death penalty? Anti-abortion and pro-war. Anti-abortion and pro-tax cuts for the wealthiest. Anti-abortion and pro-greed. Pro-hate: not by proaction but by implication and inaction. And frankly S_____, the Just War theory you mentioned was Just Used to make another excuse to make war. Just war theory or not, Iraq was not and is not a just war. And the Pope said so from the start, as did every other major religious leader from the Dalai Lama on down. Sadly, that stopped at Falwell and his ilk (all big Bush supporters), one of whom recently showed his own respect for Jesus by opposing abortion on one hand and saying this on the other:

----

Jimmy Swaggart: "I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

The remarks were met with applause from his congregation.

----

But I assure you that every one of the congregation will be both opposing abortion and voting for Bush because they feel they and he are righteous. I'd put $1000 on it.

S_____, I have so much respect and admiration for you and because of that I am almost speechless to hear your rationalizing of why Bush is a good choice. I think he and his have been fantastically successful dividers, not uniters, are masters of the wedge issue, and masters of selling something in order to put through an agenda that has little to do with their brochures.

Politicians are not here to lead us to God. We are here in part to lead them and ourselves to godly actions of lovingkindness and generosity wherever possible. I am suspect of any political leader who claims God, as they have proven over the years that those who claim God most follow him least. Gandhi and ML King Jr., while political, were not seeking political office. And they, and any others you most likely could name, are as far from Bush's policies as possible.

S_____, it pains me to see you believe wolves in sheep’s clothing like this, over issues they have chosen for that precise reason: to lure otherwise wise, compassionate, and intelligent voters to their side by focusing on emotional issues, cynically using religion and cherry-picked morality to distract from the details of their agenda (remember the details? God's and the devil are both, as I recall), and using fear as a foundation for it all.

I'm sure I can't convince you or anyone else to change their vote based on argument when there are deeply felt emotional reasons for your vote, but I at least hope I can get you to see the utter hypocrisy and cynicism of the people you're going to try to put in office, and I hope quite honestly that it will at least make you feel a bit ill about casting that vote before, during, and after. And I guarantee, if Bush gets elected, while you may feel better about abortion, the rest of this representative republic will deteriorate at a more rapid pace than ever. It's the details of defunding things like Head Start, or passing the Clear Skies Act that actually creates more pollution, or a Medicare bill that does nothing for consumers and everything for drug companies (one of the highest profit industries).

While Kerry is far from perfect, he is at least sensible and intellectually curious. While the Republicans have so distorted his record, positions, and actions that it sounds a little funny, he is also consistent. He is supportive of real family values like helping others and tolerance and getting people working, of funding education, providing health care rather than corporate care. He realizes the importance of working with others (remember the playground?), and having friends. And Edwards is similarly solid.

Kerry talks sense, which is why he is mocked. Bush talks imagery, which is why he has such an emotional response from people, and so seductive. As a poet, you should know that.

I would ask you, at base, to remember that a vote for Bush is also a vote for Cheney, a vote for Rumsfeld, a vote for Ashcroft, a vote for Wolfowitz, for Chalabi, and all those others they stand with, from the Saudis on down. These are not good or kind people. They would like you to think it’s about issues like abortion and religion. That's why they're talking about it so much and not the rest. It's not. Politics is of this world, and it's about money, power, and control. It's about whether large corporations have more influence than citizens. It's about whether public education is funded or Halliburton is funded. Whether drug companies are handed a giveaway or if drugs are made more easily available to give away. It's about whether we believe in public discourse or calling people unpatriotic for wanting to debate a war and policies.

It’s the details of policy, not the wedge issues. Vote for this world. Save this world, through strong compassion, tolerance, and kindness, not the politics of division and fear. In doing so, we bring ourselves closer to the world of God, and it closer to us.

With Love,

Ian