Election Postmortem

This is a good reminder of the reasons why we have to continue working and hoping. Running for office is very important at every level. Progressive causes have not been swept under the rug of White House spin, they are winning in many red states,

Asking people to look on the bright side of Election 2004 is, to quote Kristina Wilfore of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, "a little like asking Mrs. Lincoln how the show was." Progressives are reeling and grasping for bearings after a confusing and upsetting loss on Nov. 2. And why shouldn't they be? For millions, it was the first time they'd dared to hope in a long, long time.

But there are reasons to remain hopeful. Despite the high-profile electoral losses and the passage of 11 anti-gay measures, there were dozens of successes and encouraging trends for the progressive cause – most of which came at the local level. Poor Dr. King; he's always turned to when things look bleakest – and now is no different. The latest of his inspiring words making the rounds in post-election e-mails: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

This story is about focusing for a moment on some of the important successes from this past Tuesday. And "success" isn't simply code for "where Democrats won." Success, for the purposes of this article is defined by initiatives, candidates and trends that favor anti-war stances, a strong defense of the environment, sane drug policies, and a movement toward a just and tolerant America.

Down to business.

Conscience and Politics Can Play Nice Together

The seven Democratic senators who voted against the Iraq war all won re-election – and they did it by an average margin of nearly 30%.

Anti-war Democrat senators who won:

Barbara Boxer – California – 58%-38%
Daniel Inouye – Hawaii – 76%-21%
Barbara Mikulski – Maryland – 65%-34%
Patty Murray – Washington – 55%-43%
Russ Feingold – Wisconsin – 56%-44%
Ron Wyden – Oregon – 63%-32%
Pat Leahy – Vermont – 71%-25%

Zoom in and the point becomes even clearer. In Oregon, where Kerry, who voted for the war, won by a mere 4 percent, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden won by over 30 percent "despite" his vote against it. Wisconsin, which was too close to call on election night, didn't take very long to declare Russ Feingold, who voted against the war (ignoring warnings from his staff), the winner. He won by 11 percent. Writer John Stauber concludes, "The lesson is this: Russ Feingold proves that an anti-war, populist Democrat, a maverick campaigning to get big money out of politics, can win and win big."

These statistics should strike fear out of the Democrats the next time issues of war and peace are on the table. Maybe, just maybe, if they can persuade the Democratic establishment to disabuse itself of the mistaken belief that reelection comes to those who adopt the safest position, rather than to those who make a strong case for the values they hold most dear, it has a shot at being relevant in the 21st century.

Dean Dozen

Howard Dean supporters were devastated when their man was taken down after the press, doing a fine impersonation of a pack of wolves, disingenuously played and replayed "the scream" 633 times – before apologizing for it. Curiously you didn't hear the press dub themselves "flip-floppers."

But Dean didn't just drop out and angle for a cabinet position. He quickly threw his weight, and organizational structure, into a new group called Democracy for America (DFA) whose mission is to support progressive-minded candidates in primarily local elections "from city council or local school boards to U.S. Senate," and to ensure that every race is contested.

Every two weeks, a pool of 12 candidates was chosen from races around the nation, dubbed the "Dean Dozen," and given public support by the governor himself – though sometimes, the group's spokesperson Laura Gross conceded, "it was a baker's dozen, or two dozen; it depended."

On the premise that "Democrats can't be afraid to run in certain places like Montana and Georgia and Texas, just because they're so-called red states," DFA campaigned for candidates who would otherwise have been left to the wolves or who may never have run at all. "We never said we'd win all the races," Gross said, "but you've got to start somewhere and you can't be shy about running, and that's what we did."

Amazingly, in what were not cherry-picked races designed for a boastful post-election press release, 31 of the 102 of the Dean Dozen candidates were victorious. An amazing 15 of the 32 had never run for office before. Among the highlights:




The mayor of Republican-dominated Salt Lake City, Utah, is now a Democrat.
Openly gay candidate, Nicole LeFeveur, won a seat in the Idaho state legislature.
In heavily Republican Alabama, progressive Anita Kelly was elected as Circuit Court Judge.
In Florida, a first time, Dean-inspired candidate, Susan Clary, won as Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor.
Montana's governor is now a Democrat, Brian Schweitzer.
Heavily Republican New Hampshire elected Democrat John Lynch, kicking the incumbent and ethically challenged Gov. Benson out of office.
Arthur Anderson won the race for supervisor of elections in electorally-challenged Palm Beach County, Fla.
Suzanne Williams won a state senate seat in Colorado, giving the upper house a Democratic majority.
In North Carolina, openly gay Julia Boseman was one of several Democrats to defeat Republican incumbents to take back control of the State House.

According to Gross, "These are all types of people: male, female, black, white, Latino ... when people talk about rebuilding the Democratic party, that's the start of it. You have to start at the base of this organization, the grass roots level and build your way up. That's what the Christian Coalition did 30 or 40 years ago and hey, they're obviously pretty successful."

And DFA's activists? Gross said that "after the election, our people were more energized than ever. There were 450 meet-ups on Wednesday night. Our blog traffic is up 300 percent, our site traffic is up 300 percent. People don't want to have this 'woe is me attitude.' They want to get up and get active again."

Taking the Initiative

The received wisdom spewing from pundits and papers that the nation is overwhelmingly conservative and that the election constituted a "mandate" for the Bush agenda. But the reality is of course more complex than that. This view is buttressed by the number of progressive initiatives that managed to pass across the nation.

Residents of the "red" states of Florida and Nevada, for example, voted overwhelmingly in favor of something Bush refuses to even consider: raising the minimum wage. Despite "intense opposition from pro-business groups," not to mention Florida Gov.Jeb Bush in his neck of the woods, both states raised their minimum wage by a dollar to $6.15. In Nevada, 68 percent of voters went voted for it; in Florida, the number was 71 percent. Meghan Scott, the communications director for Floridians for All, the group that sponsored the Florida initiative, said, "Once people heard what Amendment 5 was and what it would do for Florida's working poor, people really got it."

On education, the story was similar. Bush passed, yet perenially underfunds, the much-mocked "No Child Left Behind" program. So, while voters in the "red" states of Arkansas, North Carolina, and Nevada supported their president, they also felt the need to support initiatives that strengthened their education systems beyond No Child's parameters. Whether it was the Nevada voters' majority decision to require lawmakers to fund K-12 before anything else, Arkansan's decision to use lottery revenue for education, or North Carolinians' decision to use money collected from fines for schools (they also chose to have a more equitable distribution of funds between schools), voters demanded that their tax dollars fund their public schools. Once again, a progressive value supported by "red" state majorities.

In California, voters supported a stem cell research initiative at which, on the federal level, Bush barely throws pennies. While California tends to be more liberal on social issues, it's difficult to overstate the importance of this measure. Due to its size, and thus the size of the measure's funding ($3 billion), California support for stem cell research effectively is U.S. support for stem cell funding. Call this a smart investment. Watch how California's state economy will be further diversified and enriched when the dividends from this potentially life-saving research start coming in. Speaking to the L.A. Times, Berkeley professor Bruce Cain noted that this initiative, "really highlights how California has become the capital of the 'second nation' and is going to the left when the rest of the country goes right ..."

But the "second nation" didn't stop there. Californians also passed a measure that goes against the prevailing wisdom of the Bush tax cuts. In order to expand mental health programs, those earning more than $1 million per year will see their income tax rise by an earth shattering 1 percent. The San Andreas Fault is expected to survive the hike.

In a similar move, Maine voters opposed a cap on property taxes. It's difficult to overstate the importance of this vote as well. Flying in the face of the think tanks, pundits and rhetoric of the right, citizens who vote to keep the door to further taxation open are citizens who understand the true meaning of family. Taxes are each American's contribution to the well-being of all Americans. If this isn't a victory for progressive values, it's difficult to say what is.

Going Green

The environment, according to (and thanks in big part to) the League of Conservation Voters, was a big winner. Of the LCV's 18 "Environmental Champions," all 18 won. Of the "Dirty Dozen," four went down in flames. In the eight congressional races into which significant LCV resources were invested, the LCV won seven of them. Sure, a candidate like Barack Obama was destined for victory, but others like Ken Salazar, who beat millionaire Pete Coors by just three percent, were surely given a boost by the LCV's effort to expose Coors' anti-environment agenda which, in addition to helping elect the greener candidate, may make others reluctant to embrace an anti-environment agenda. And indeed, LCV president Deb Callahan asserted, "LCV will now take this successful electoral blueprint and apply it in both elections and policy debates around the country. We will not rest until all three branches of our government are represented by pro-environment public servants."

Writing about drug policy initiatives that were on the ballot this November, Steve Wishnia notes that, "Even as 59 percent of (Montana's) voters were going for George W. Bush and two-thirds opting to ban gay marriage, Montanans were approving Initiative 148, which would allow medical marijuana use by patients with a doctor's recommendation, by a 62-38 percent margin." Basic initiatives (like decriminalization and/or medical use) also succeeded locally, in Oakland and, surprisingly, in Columbia, Miss. Bolder initiatives like full legalization or less restrictive medical use laws, were only narrowly defeated in Oregon and Alaska – an amazing trend in a nation weaned on DARE and the drug war.

The Ultimate Measure

Conventional wisdom holds that Americans voted against their best interests on Nov. 2. While focusing only on the broad stroke does lean toward that conclusion, a careful analysis reveals a more complex picture. Progressive issues and candidates won by big margins at a state and local level. On many of the issues that would positively effect the majority of Americans: minimum wage, the environment, taxes, and sane drug laws, for example, significant advances were made when put straight to the electorate. Sure, there is the daunting cultural divide with respect to gay civil rights and women's rights but it's certainly not the wholesale "values" difference we're led to believe.

Likewise, if voters' support for those who voted against the Iraq War teaches us anything about the ability to present a diverse electorate with an attractive progressive platform it's that progressive candidates must articulate the fact that all issues are reflective of our values and not simply questions of gays or abortion. Sure, they'll lose blocs of voters devoted to single issues, but those voters simply seeking to elect the candidate they can believe in will follow the candidate who firmly believes in their own position. And they'll do it every time.


Did we miss some examples of progressive victories on Nov.2? Send them in to yourstory@alternet.org,

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.

SojoNet: Faith, Politics, and Culture

A lot of talk about the faithful flocking to the polls to elect their prophet, George W. Bush. Here is a column from Sojourners, a Chriatian magazine, reflecting on reactions north of the border, and on U.S. foreign policy. It is worth a read. Among other things it says:

'So the fact that Bush has hitched his wagon to heaven itself throws us off. The idea of Bush as God's chosen leader of the "free world" strikes me as utterly silly (as I know it does many Americans). The international perception of Bush as a global bully ruling by divine right with a celestial array of Stealth bombers at the ready will have negative consequences for the U.S. and polarizing consequences for humanity. Moral superiority is dangerous foreign policy. God is not a Republican, a Democrat, or an American.

If many global citizens feel the U.S. thumbed its nose at them by re-electing Bush, they are increasingly thumbing their noses right back. Consider vehement anti-Bush protests in Europe, increasing victories for Latin American leaders running against U.S.-backed candidates, trade delegations from southern countries walking out on the U.S. and company at trade talks in Cancun, and Canadian politicians bad-mouthing Bush to popular acclaim. "

SojoNet: Faith, Politics, and Culture

new_map

new_map
Originally uploaded by midnightepiphanies.

O Canada, we plead to cede to thee

By HOWARD GENSLER

ADOPT US, O Canada!

As a blue-red split continues in the Divided States of America, we note that every blue state is contiguous to Canada or to a another blue state that is contiguous to Canada, except Hawaii - that's not contiguous to anything but a lot of blue water that's contiguous to Canada.

Therefore, we've got an idea. How about a sort of second American Revolution, Canada, in which you annex all the blue states, liberate us from King George, and thus become the world's sole superpower.

What Canada Gets:

* Higher education: All eight Ivy League universities, Stanford, U. Chicago and Northwestern all just lowered their admissions standards for the kids from Saskatchewan.

* Serious sports: Forget the Super Bowl. With the Eagles, Patriots, Steelers, Jets, Vikings and Packers, the Grey Cup is where it's at.

You get the Expos back as they're now in D.C. But who needs the Expos when you've got the Red Sox, Yankees, Twins, Mariners, Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Phillies and Pirates. The World Series is coming! The World Series is coming!

The Raptors are Canada's favorite basketball team? We don't think so.

What about Flyers-Maple Leafs? Flyers-Canadiens? Settle the strike and drop the puck.

* Warm-weather vacations: Sun yourselves whenever you want in Southern California or Hawaii at Canada's beautiful beaches.

* The cultural arts: Tourists will love Canada's museums including the Smithsonian, the Museum of Natural History and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Plus, in addition to Broadway, the Kennedy Center and top regional theater, we're throwing in our best orchestras - Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and L.A.

* The entertainment industry: You already love our movies and TV shows more than those red-staters and now when that rare production shoots in California or New York instead of Vancouver or Toronto, you still get credit for the jobs and the tax revenue.

* The automobile industry: Ohio can keep its Honda plant. GMs, Fords and Chryslers are made in Canada.

* The biotech industry: With many of the world's top biotech firms located in Massachusetts, New York, Washington and California (thanks to $6 billion in new stem cell research funding), it's likely that Canadian scientists will cure cancer and heart disease within the next 50 years.

* The computer industry: That's right, we keep Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Valley. "America" gets Dell.

* A burgeoning tourist industry: You've now got a lot more to sell than Toronto, the Cabot Trail and the glaciers in Banff. Even red-staters love to visit Atlantic City, the Liberty Bell, Maui, the Space needle and Disneyland (now Disney Canada).

* Fresher produce: Canada, the artichoke, garlic and strawberry capital of the world. And Canadian wines just got a whole lot tastier.

* Arnold Schwarzenegger: He can't be president but he'd make a swell Canadian premier.

What the Red-Staters get:

* Exactly what they want.

What Blue-Staters get:

* Canadian citizenship: And we don't even have to move.

* "O, Canada": A national anthem that's much easier to sing than "The Star Spangled Banner."

* Free flu shots. (Not to mention free health care.)

You don't like our "values," red-staters, you've got your wish - we're outta here.

But remember, the next time you want to see a Broadway show, visit wine country, Hawaii or the birthplace of liberty, don't just bring your Visa card, bring your visa.

You're in Canada now. And we're tightening our borders.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: O.K., Folks: Back to Work

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: O.K., Folks: Back to Work

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: No Surrender

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: No Surrender

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Why We Lost

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Why We Lost

From the Guardian in London

Bush will now celebrate by putting Falluja to the torch

The world is fated to four more years of brutal confrontation

Robin Cook
Friday November 5, 2004
The Guardian

If you imagine the rest of us have a problem living with George Bush for another four years, spare a thought for the 55 million Americans who voted against him. John Kerry is fated to be stuck with the label of a loser and is already being blamed for his lack of charisma, his absence of passion and his electoral misjudgment of being born on the eastern seaboard rather than the deep south. Yet in fairness to Kerry, more Americans backed him than supported Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, and some of them queued for two hours in their determination to vote for him. There may be more conservatives in America than ever before, but there are also more Democrats.

Unfortunately this does not add up to a case for a recount. The US does not run a proportional system and the winner takes all. In George Bush's case, he not only took the White House, but he also took a clean sweep of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and he will now have the opportunity to take a majority of the supreme court. All the checks and balances that the founding fathers constructed to restrain presidential power are broken instruments.

It is to be hoped that the obsession of President Bush with fitness will guarantee his health for the length of his renewed tenancy of the White House. Otherwise we get President Cheney. I met Dick Cheney immediately after he had been installed as vice-president in what was the most bizarre en counter of my time at the Foreign Office. He could not disguise his irritation that a European pinko had somehow wormed a way into his diary and for half an hour mostly confined himself to monosyllabic replies. By contrast, this week he was in full triumphalist flood, claiming Bush's election as the greatest "of any presidential candidate in history".
Advertiser links
Need a Car Loan? Bad Credit Specialists

Shopping for a new or used car? Our 60-second free...
instantcarloan.com
Auto Loans Fast, Nationwide Approval

Nationwide approvals for car loans. Bad credit, bankruptcy...
autospecialfinance.org
Fast Auto Loans for Bad Credit

Qualify for a bad credit car loan online in 30 seconds...
fundingway.com

Cheney himself may not go the distance if the rumours about Halliburton continue to lap closer to his desk, but while he is in post it is hard to see an administration so dripping in contacts with the oil industry taking serious action on global warming. This is a real problem for Tony Blair, who has identified climate change as a major priority for Britain's presidency of the G8 next year. The dilemma for Blair will be whether he uses the role to lever the Bush administration towards the consensus among the other seven, or cajoles the rest to accommodate the idiosyncratic Washington position. If he wants to signal a break from Bush, he will not get a clearer opportunity to do so.

The first sign as to whether the Bush second term will be more flexible will be what now happens to the neoconservatives. Will Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon No 2 who lobbied for the invasion of Iraq, be promoted to the front rank? Will John Bolton, the No 3 at the state department who has overseen the Bush campaign to torpedo the International Criminal Court, survive in any rank? Bolton has been responsible for much of the sabre-rattling towards Iran and responded to a question about whether he would support Europe's attempt to offer Iran incentives with the terse one-liner: "I don't do carrots."

What makes this web of reactionary ideologues a menace to the world is that they believe complex, historic problems have simple, instant, military solutions. And it is an article of faith with them that America must acquire full-spectrum dominance of military capabilities in order that it can impose such solutions unilaterally. They are the product of an era in which America has emerged as the sole hyperpower, and they regard allies not as proof of diplomatic strength but as evidence of military weakness.

They will now celebrate their election victory by putting Falluja to the torch. Wolfowitz was furious last spring when the outcry among both Sunnis and Shias obliged the marine corps to abandon its siege; this time he will insist on military victory in Falluja regardless of the political cost across Iraq from civilian casualties. The administration remained sensitive enough to the potential domestic cost of another major offensive in Iraq to delay it until after the presidential polling day, but it will not give a second thought to the adverse impact on public opinion in Britain of escalating civilian casualties.

The unpopularity at home and abroad of his ally's reliance on overwhelming firepower will make it even more essential for Blair to obtain something in return for his support. The first test will be whether it is possible for him to engage the Bush administration in a serious effort to secure peace for the troubled peoples of Israel and Palestine. There has been some imaginative speculation that Bush might be more courageous in putting pressure on the government of Israel now that he does not face re-election.

The problem with such hopes is that they rest on the theory that the Bush administration has been indulgent to Ariel Sharon for reasons of electoral calculation. This is to underestimate the extent to which Bush identifies with Sharon's conviction that terrorism requires a military and not a political solution, and the religious faith with which the southern born-again Christians, of which he is one, believe in the right of Israel to its biblical borders.

It is notable that all the comment this week from the Bush camp on prospects for the Middle East has built on the failing health of Yasser Arafat, as if he alone had been the obstacle to peace. But it is a delusion to imagine that a peace agreement can be established by the simple strategy of finding a more pliable successor to sign up to it. There will be no lasting peace or viable Palestine unless Israel withdraws from its settlements on the West Bank. Far from pressuring Sharon for such a concession, there is no evidence that Bush even supports dismantling the settlements, or that he could get agreement to it from the neoconservatives in his administration, who regard Likud as the nearest thing they have to a sister party.

The paradox may be beyond Bush, but the best way he could make progress in his war on terror would be by winning peace in the Middle East. When Osama bin Laden launched his attack on the twin towers he intended it as a demonstration of his malign belief that the only relationship acceptable between the west and Islam was one of violent confrontation. As George Soros has argued, the Bush administration walked into a trap by responding in a way that accepted the terms of the relationship set down by its enemy.

Now the world is fated to four more years of confrontation, which will widen rather than narrow the gulf between the west and the east. It is ironic, given that terrorism played such a central role in the election, but Osama bin Laden must be as gratified as Dick Cheney that George Bush is back.

r.cook@guardian.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

For a change, my own thoughts

We can only hope that, as I read in Saratogaspirit, our predicament will only spark a more lively and energized activism. Only at this late time of the day, though well before midnight, am I finding resources to even contemplate the future.

If nothing else we can conclude that the USA awoke today more Republican; not only Republican, but the nasty, barking kind of Republicanism that so repels the rest of the world. It was not always so. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In the early part of the twentieth century the Republican elite, in the words of Colin Kidd in the London Review of Books, were “the stereotypical Episcopalian financiers of the Northeast...with no quarrel with Darwinism or abortion and made uneasy by the party’s deference to trailer-park religiosity.” The present first family includes a recent example of this breed: George Herbert Walker Bush, also known as 41. As Kidd explains: “Conviction politics played little part in the career of the elder Bush, who had a reputation of being somewhat ‘center of center’.” He was known to uphold the principles of “high-minded northeastern Republicanism associated with the Bush dynasty.” Birth control was one of the causes that deserved their solid patrician support. Prescott, the dynasty’s senatorial grandfather, “was a member of Planned Parenthood, and George H. W. Bush was so enthusiastic in the dynastic cause during his early years in Congress that he earned the nickname “Rubbers.”

The big question that now should engage us is determining what the future holds for us progressives. For me progressivism means building a society that cares above all for solidarity among those that live in it, where the ambitions of the more gifted are systematically harnessed to needs of the less fortunate, beyond mushy expressions like “a thousand points of light” or “compassionate conservatism." In such a community security means not protective walls and self defence but a reliable network of services for all.

Does this sound old-fashioned? No wonder: it flows directly from “Fraternity, equality and liberty” of the enlightened revolution.Those words have never been bested.

Perspective: Political thuggery in vogue

Perspective: Political thuggery in vogue

The Diebold Variations

The Diebold Variations

From Sojourners, a Christian publication

HEARTS & MINDS

Religious "centrists" may decide the election
by Jim Wallis

Moderate Catholics and Evangelicals may help decide this election. They are what widely respected University of Akron researcher John Green calls "centrist" Catholic and Evangelical voters who comprise 19% of the electorate and are concentrated in some of the most important swing states.

I just finished a 15-city bus tour in those very states, trying to raise poverty as a "religious issue." After almost two weeks of grassroots dialogue with faith-based community leaders, civic officials, journalists, low-income families, and almost 40 audiences of Christian citizens in 12 days, I am convinced that the election may hang on what those "centrist" religious voters ultimately decide the most important "religious issues" are in this campaign.

Everywhere we went political conservatives said the only religious issues at stake in this election year are gay marriage and abortion. Right-wing Catholic bishops have successfully reduced broad Catholic social teaching - which also contains strong commitments against poverty, capital punishment, and unjust wars - down to just the two hot-button social issues. While those narrowed views are outside the mainstream of Catholic social teaching, the conservative bishops' views captured front-page coverage early in the campaign when they suggested that John Kerry be denied communion for his pro-choice stance. When a different and more prominent Catholic bishop's position was made clear and the Vatican itself spoke to counter such single-issue voting, the clarification was buried in the papers. The damage had been done to Kerry, seemingly with collusion between the conservative right-wing bishops and the Republican Party. These bishops don't point out that President George Bush defied church teachings by prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or that the Pope vigorously challenged him on his war policies when the two met at the Vatican. I heard more than one Catholic leader declare that "there is no consistent pro-life candidate running for president."

We also discovered that local newspaper ads and bumper stickers asserting that "God is Not a Republican or a Democrat" and challenging "single-issue voting" have sparked real debate at evangelical Christian colleges and churches throughout the Midwest battleground states. As John Green points out, most "centrist" evangelicals are conservative on abortion and family values but don't believe those are the only important moral issues. Compassion for the poor is a growing evangelical concern, as is good stewardship of the environment (especially among a younger generation of evangelicals), as are issues such as HIV/AIDS, and human rights violations and genocide in places such as Darfur in western Sudan.

Iraq is also an issue for many centrist evangelicals, as is America's conduct of the war on terrorism. A group of more than 200 theologians and ethicists from mostly conservative seminaries and Christian colleges has just issued a strong statement called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence." It asserts that our very affirmation of Christ is being challenged by a "theology of war emanating from the highest circles of American government," by the "language of righteous empire" being employed by those same political leaders, and by the claim of "divine appointment" for a nation and its president in a new war on terrorism that deals much too simplistically with the moral issues of good and evil, and "dangerously confuses the roles of God, church, and nation."

All this could have consequences for the election. If the "religious issues" are successfully narrowed to just abortion and gay marriage, President Bush will carry most of the centrist Evangelicals and Catholics. But if the religious issues are defined more broadly to include poverty, the environment, human rights, the war in Iraq, and the White House's too-easy "good versus evil" theology in the war on terrorism, John Kerry will get serious consideration by those same moderate Christian voters.

Kerry has been playing catch-up on the religion question to Republicans more comfortable with the language and a president who touts his evangelical faith. It may be too little too late, but the more Kerry invokes the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped his needy neighbor on the road, while accusing Republicans of "passing by on the other side," the clearer the contrasts on issues such as jobs, health care, and economic fairness will be. And when Kerry quotes the New Testament epistle of James, asserting that "faith without works is dead," he indicts Bush's "compassionate conservatism" that was gutted by tax cuts for the rich while leaving little for poor and working families.

Centrist Catholics outnumber conservative Catholics by 2 to 1. And Green points out that only one third of Evangelicals are solidly in the Religious Right camp. How the moderates in each group decide to vote could clearly decide the election. So what are the religious values in this election? If there are only two, Bush will win enough religious votes to win the election. But if enough of those Evangelical and Catholic centrists decide that their religious and ethical values apply to more than just abortion and gay marriage, Kerry has a real chance to win this election.

Fix the Electoral System

Fix the Electoral System

John Kerry for President

John Kerry for President

Received over the wire: Good questions!

Regardless of who wins Tuesday's presidential election, here are some questions I hope we can all agree are important to keep asking:

1. Our country faces numerous challenges - serious issues that were not well covered by the media this year. Instead of in-depth analysis, why did most campaign coverage reflect the spectacle of the horserace?

2. I understand the unspoken goal of the "war" on terror is to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being used in America in our lifetime. But, since 42,643 Americans died in traffic accidents in 2003, why isn't there a comparative emphasis on highway safety?

3. In the name of our own "security", we've killed tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan including women and children. How does this square with our values?

4. When we fail to show leadership to promote peace between Israel and Palestine or to stop genocide by Arab "terrorists" in Sudan, what message are we sending to the world?

5. The press are the people's representatives in places of power. How is it that we've allowed our President to refuse to hold regular press conferences? If the President works for us, then why do we not insist that he answer our questions?

6. How is it that our Presidential "debates" are structured so that neither candidate could ask a question of the other? What is lost when the "domestic policy debate" fails to include a question about either the nation's energy or environmental policy? What is lost when the mainstream press won't investigate evidence that the President may have worn a wire?

7. If the President is the humble servant of the people, is it ever appropriate for him to hold an aircraft carrier at sea overnight so that he can land a military jet on it for a photo-op/press conference? What message do we send to our children and people around the world when we glorify our military supremacy?

8. The integrity of our election system lies at the heart of our democracy. Why haven't the serious problems in our election system been fixed four years after the debacle in Florida? Whose responsibility is it to guarantee that our election systems operate outside the margin of error? When can we expect this?

9. We've turned a $236 billion surplus into a $414 billion deficit. We will need another $70 billion early next year to fund our ongoing military efforts. Are we spending our money on the right priorities? What might we have spent this money on, if not on these wars or this tax cut?

10. Could a $100 billion investment in international law enforcement effort help capture Osama bin-Laden and end this "war"?

11. If security is our goal, why have we under-funded programs to secure nuclear materials in Russia? Why aren't we screening freight shipped on passenger airlines for explosives? Why aren't we screening cargo at all of our ports?

12. Will war be the best way to disarm Iran and North Korea? Who will fight these wars? How will we pay for them? How many innocent people will die? Are we making adequate, pre-emptive, non-violent efforts today?

13. In 1995, the richest one percent of Americans owned 38 percent of our wealth. In 1996, the richest ten percent of the U.S. population owned 81.8 percent of the real estate and 81.2 percent of the stock. Should we be comfortable with these levels of wealth distribution?

14. Last week, volunteers counted 2,216 homeless people in and around Seattle. I walked by one person sleeping in a doorway in upscale Wallingford tonight. Are we doing enough to care for these vulnerable, often mentally ill, people?

15. Our nation has been defined in part by our struggle with slavery and this century's victories in the battle for civil rights for all Americans. Yet, the number one cause of death for African American males ages 15-44 is firearm homicide. More black men are in prison than enrolled in university. What message is sent when the President refuses to meet regularly with leaders of the African American community? How should we begin to address these issues?

16. In November 2003, Senator McCain called Bush's Energy bill the "Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 2003." In March 2004, two conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, were appalled when the Republicans held over a late night vote until Bush's Medicare Bill had enough votes to pass. The bill eliminated government influence on the prices Medicare pays to HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. Last week, Congress passed $148 billion in additional corporate tax breaks. How long will we remain silent as our tax dollars are handed off to wealthy minorities of corporate shareholders?

17. More than eighty percent of Congressional incumbents win easily and dramatically out-fundraise their challengers? Is gerrymandering polarizing congress, inhibiting compromise and adding to gridlock? Would providing (optional) public funding of campaigns be one way to address this?

Obviously, my list in incomplete - but it's all the time I had tonight. Please feel free to reply with additions.

----------------------------------------
Help spread the word about IDEAlog.us, please forward this e-mail to your friends.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: It's Not Just Al Qaqaa

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: It's Not Just Al Qaqaa

Remember why you thought that Dubya was bad for your health?

You may know in your mind why you think that Dubya should not be reelected; sometimes you have trouble remembering the whys and wherefores. Well, this very levelheaded and well written
article
in the latest New Yorker will put it all together for you, again.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

100 Facts and 1 Opinion
When people ask you why you are against Bush, these are the reasons.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Culture of Cover-Ups

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Culture of Cover-Ups

How bad can it get?

October 25, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST

For Bush, Bad News Is Bad News


By BOB HERBERT

Here's George W. Bush's problem. How does a president win re-election when all the news the voters are seeing is bad?

Polls show the president running even or slightly ahead of Senator John Kerry. But bad news is piling up like mounds of trash in a garbage strike, and that's never good for an incumbent.

The war in Iraq is a mind-numbing tragedy with no end in sight. Dozens of Iraqi army recruits were slaughtered Saturday in one of the deadliest attacks yet against the Iraqi security forces. Yesterday an American diplomat was killed in a mortar attack near the Baghdad airport.


The latest horrific video to come out of the war zone shows the kidnapped British-Iraqi aid worker, Margaret Hassan, trembling, weeping and begging for her life. "Please help me," she says. "This might be my last hours."

American troops have fought valiantly, but cracks in their resolve are beginning to show. "This is Vietnam," said Daniel Planalp, a 21-year-old Marine corporal from San Diego who was quoted in yesterday's New York Times. "I don't even know why we're over here fighting."

Here at home the stock market has tanked, in part because of record-high oil prices. The Dow Jones industrial average closed at its low for the year on Friday as world oil prices streaked ever higher. The cost of oil has jumped more than 75 percent in the past year. With the weather turning colder, the attention of homeowners - many of them voters - is being drawn to the price of home heating oil. What they're seeing is not pretty.

The Energy Department expects heating oil bills to increase nearly 30 percent this year, and that may be a conservative estimate. Thermostats across the country are heading down, down, down.

Republican campaign officials are worried about the dearth of good news. The flu vaccine shortage has led to price-gouging and long lines of sick and elderly patients, some of them on the verge of panic. Last week we learned that the index of leading economic indicators had moved lower in September, the fourth successive monthly decline, which could be an indication of a slowdown in economic growth.

The lead stories in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Friday were both about Iraq - and both were disheartening. The Times said senior American officials were assembling new information about the increasingly deadly Iraqi insurgency that showed "it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated."

The Post wrote that, according to a U.S.-financed poll, leaders of Iraq's religious parties are becoming the most popular politicians in the country, an extremely ominous development in the view of the Bush administration.

These are all stories with the potential to influence voters, and they are not being offset by other, more positive developments. The result has been high anxiety levels among Republican operatives.

"If you're asking me if there's a perfect storm of bad news occurring, the answer is no," said a G.O.P. campaign strategist, who asked not to be identified. "If you're asking if I'd like a little rosier scenario to be played out on the front pages and the nightly news, the answer of course would be yes."

Unable to counter the bad news with stories of major successes, the Bush campaign has turned almost exclusively to the so-called war against terror. The message in a nutshell: be very afraid.

A Bush campaign commercial released a few days ago shows wolves advancing menacingly toward the camera. A voice in the ad says, "Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

At the same time, the Republican Party is doing what it can in key states to block as many Democratic votes as possible. Party officials have mounted a huge organized effort to challenge - some would say intimidate - voters in states like Ohio and Florida, in a bid to offset the effects of huge voter registration drives and a potentially heavy turnout of voters opposed to Mr. Bush and his policies.

Election officials in Ohio said they'd never seen such a large drive mounted to challenge voters on Election Day.

Voter suppression is a reprehensible practice. It's a bullet aimed at the very heart of democracy. But the G.O.P. evidently considers it an essential strategy in an environment with so little positive news.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

Pirates & Emperors: Look at this!! Fun and games and music.

Pirates & Emperors

KATU 2 - Portland, Oregon

Are we moving in the direction of, under cover of "antiterrorism, the suppression of dissent? read this story and shudder! KATU 2 - Portland, Oregon

And in addition, we have received this eyewitness report:

Silenced by the President
By Trish Bowcock
Oct. 16, 2004


A few weeks before my father died, he woke me in the wee hours of the morning. He needed to talk. He was worried about Attorney General John Ashcroft and the destruction of American civil liberties. I comforted my father, believing he was delusional from medications. I was wrong.

I write this from my home in Jacksonville Oregon (population 2,226). President George W. Bush came here this week. The purpose of his visit was political. Southern Oregon has been deemed a "battle ground" area in the presidential race. John Kerry has made incredible inroads in this traditionally Republican stronghold. President Bush's
campaign stop was an attempt to staunch the slide.

Jacksonville is an old gold mining town. Our main street is only five blocks long, lined with restored storefronts. The sidewalks are narrow. We are a peaceful community. The prospect of an overnight presidential visit was exciting, even to me, a lifelong Democrat. My excitement turned to horror as I watched events unfold during President Bush's visit.

In the mid 1800s, when Indians invaded Jacksonville, citizens clambered upon the roof of the old library. It was the one building that would not catch fire when flaming arrows were shot. This week it was a different scene. Police armed with high powered rifles perched upon our rooftops as the presidential motorcade approached. Helicopters flew low, overhead. A cadre of motorcycle police zoomed into town. Black SUVs followed, sandwiching several black limousines carrying the president, his wife and their entourage as they sped to the local inn where they would eat and sleep.

The main street was lined with people gathered to witness the event. Many supported the president. Many did not. Some came because they were simply curious. There were men, women, young and old. The mood was somewhat festive. Supporters of John Kerry sported signs, as did supporters of George Bush. Individuals, exercising their rights of free speech began chanting. Onone side of the street, shouts of "four more years" echoed in the night air. On the other side of the street, chants of "three more weeks" responded. The chants were loud and apparently could be heard by President Bush. An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team
leapt to action.

It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the
streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, "where to go" fell upon deaf ears. Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old ma n fell and couldn't get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed "Protesters"
people were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President's ear-shot.

There the "Protesters" were held at bay. Anyone vocalizing anti-Bush or pro-Kerry setiments were prohibited from venturing forward. Loud anti-Bush chants were responded to by the commanding officer stating: "FORWARD," to which the entire line of armed police would move, lock-step, toward the "Protesters," forcing backward movement. Police officers circulated filming the crowd of "Protesters." Some were
people like me, quiet middle-aged women. Some sported anti-Bush signs, peace signs, or Kerry signs. A small group of youth, clad in black with kerchiefs wrapping their heads chanted slogans. A young woman in her underwear, sporting a peace sign sang a lyrical Kumbaya. Mixed among the "Protesters" were supporters of the President. One 19 year- old man shouted obscenities at anyone expressing dissatisfaction with the president, encouraging the police to "tazar" the "Stinking Protesters." Neither the "Protestors," nor the police harassed this vocal young man. Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers
monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.

The standoff with "Protesters" continued until the President finished his dinner and was secured in his hotel cottage for the night. Only then were the riot police ordered to "mount-up," leaping upon the sideboard of a huge SUV, pulling out of town, and allowing "free spech" to resume.

In small town American I witnessed true repre ssion and intimidation by law enforcement. I saw small children suffering from the effects of being fired upon by pepper bullets. I felt legitimate fear of expressing my political opinions: a brand new feeling. Newspaper accounts state the chaos started when a violent "Protester" shoved a police officer. No one I talked to witnessed this account.

It is reputed that President Bush and his staff will not allow any oposition activity to occur within his ear or eye sight. I can confirm, that in tiny Jacksonville, Oregon, this was true. Physically violent means were taken to protect the president from verbal insults. Freedom of speech was stolen.

My father was not paranoid as he lay dying. He was expressing great insight into the dangers of our current presidential administration and its willingness to repress personal freedoms. If I could talk to my father today, I would say, "I am sorry Daddy for doubting you." And, no matter what, I will continue to exercise my indivi dual right to freely express my opinions. Americans cannot take four more years.

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | The last post

Well, I had been apprised of this interference into the healthy voting habits of the American public in that heartland county of Clark in Ohio. The quick and dirty comment was that this looks like one of Karl Rove's dirtiest and most devious tricks. Let me put your minds at rest: it is not. And the outrage came iin the form of emails to the Guardian, tons of them, suspiciously quick, professional and scatological. But let the Guardian folks tell you the tale themselves. Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | The last post

Needlenose: Visualize Winning

Keep pushing, folks---Needlenose: Visualize Winning

Separation of Church and State is in danger. Read Paul Elysha of WAMC

Paul Elisha
October 19, 2004 - How America's Church-State Cabal Plots Last Rites for Democracy
The French may not have been America's allies, in George W. Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq but a Frenchman named Bonaparte has certainly been a closer counsel to our current President, than most of this country's wisest savants. To a questioning member of the nobility, in 1801, Napoleon wrote: "A nation must have a religion and that religion must be under the control of the government."
This observation was neither new nor naïve. It had been periodically raised and advanced by religious and political power-mongers, throughout the history of both venues. The founders of this nation, most of them ardent believers, knew and understood the danger such thinking posed for any experiment in democracy. When drafting a constitution for his own Virginia colony, even before it became a state, Jefferson wrote that it does no harm for anyone to say, there are twenty Gods or one God. An abiding fear of the possible unholy alliance between religion and government led Emerson, more than seventy years after we became a republic, to write that God builds his temple in the heart, on the ruins of churches and religions.
So how did we get to this place, in a time of supposed enlightenment beyond most of the barriers that centuries of ignorance have thrown up against us? How has this recognized bastion in the defense of individual freedom become the comfortable home of a dogma, that demands submission of its populace and is almost certain to accrue their eventual enslavement? How could we have allowed the imposition of such a scheme, by one of the most hypocritical leaders in our history? Throughout that history, we've successfully opposed puritanical zealots and pietistic bigots who've attempted to ensnare our national intellect within the narrow confines of fundamentalist dogma, trying to keep the ethos of this democracy from resembling what its founders projected. Now, in the guise of preservation, that ethos is about to be cynically subverted.
This President and his demonic accomplices argue, their only motives are for the defense and furtherance of life. Those who condemned most of medieval Europe and its chattel in the Americas to degradation, torture and death, for centuries, argued the same. They protested it, even as they strapped their victims to the rack or bound them to stakes for burning, promising that this was the only route to their eventual salvation. In truth, they played God with the imposition of life and death, its real purpose to acquire power and amass wealth, for a dynastic few and their coterie.
President Bush defends his withholding of foreign aid from nations who allow birth control practices, as merely the result of his belief in a pro-life measure. In effect he condemns thousands of innocent mothers and their already born children to death from malnutrition and starvation, as punishment for what his religion perceives as a crime. He does the same, here, with stem-cell research, withholding the hope of life, contained in protoplasm that his teaching holds more valuable, than the lives of those its utilization might help. It's been the exertion of this sort of fiendish triage on hapless populations, for centuries, that's made the purveyors of fundamentalist religions anathema, to those who understand its ultimate hypocrisy and deadly levying of power.
But beyond the overwhelming humanist arguments against the pernicious partnership of religion and government, is its contradiction of the very logic on which this democracy is balanced; the concept that a body of free yet responsible individuals can collectively decide on what's in the long-term best interest of most of its members, without - in the process - depriving any of them of their individual rights. To this day, the best description of the rationale of our democracy was contained in a ruling of the revered Justice Learned Hand who explained, that while each of us has the right to make a fist, the right to extend it ends with the tip of our neighbor's nose. The reach exercised by this President and his fundamentalist oligarchy, has now extended far beyond what any citizen's nose can or should reasonably tolerate.
But to this outrage, we can also now add duplicity. While the President simpers that his sanctimonious deceptions are merely the result of his personal conversations with the Almighty, a presumption that insults any connection the rest of us might have, his henchman in the Congress are conspiring to turn church leaders into power brokers, in the coming critical election. They've quietly attached a Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act to the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This allows churches and their leaders to legally endorse candidates and lend support to their campaigns, without losing their tax-exempt status. It's the ultimate step, in making the church and state true partners in governing the people of the United States. And they've done it by using an already passed Jobs act that's in the final conference stage, before signing by the President.
If the tip of your nose is beginning to smart, you'd best scream "STOP!" and quickly, to your congressperson and senator. But beyond this, you can ensure this important constitutional separation by separating its annihilators from power. That's clearly casting a pro-life vote for democracy.

Fear of Flying

Here is the explanation of the missing Bush 1972 National Guard recordsFear of Flying

Kerry endorsed by the New York Times

Kerry endorsed for President

It is scantly surprising that the New York Times should endorse John Kerry for President. But in this long editorial, the Old Lady of Times Square passionately and thoughtfully lays out all the good reasons to vote for John Kerry. The editorial focuses on President Bush's "disastrous tenure", lays out the reasons why it was so, and on the reasons why John Kerry would do better: because he has a strong moral core and a lively, wide-ranging intelligence. Amen.

It is not only about Iraq that we are being lied to!!!!

We are being told that we are heading towards a bright future, that freedom is "on the march", that the economy is strong, while we see that incomes are falling, prices are rising, terrorism does not take a break and WSJ.com - Polls In 10 Nations Show Views Of US Worsening
It is not only about Iraq that we are being lied to!!!!

The New York Times > Opinion > The War on Affordable Housing

The Republicans, elsewhere and here in Saratoga Springs, are unctuously talking about the need for "affordable housing". They are even using this adjectivation to get their most obnoxious and long cherished objectives (see Weibel/Gilbert Rd.) approved by the planning board. But their real intentions on affordable housing are to "let the market take care of it", and not let their projects be hampered by any need except their bottom line.
Read this Editorial from the New York Times (October 16th):

The War on Affordable Housing

Published: October 16, 2004

Ideologues in the Bush administration would like to dismantle Section 8, the most successful public-and-private housing partnership in the history of the United States. That's the only way to explain the destructive policies emanating from the Housing and Urban Development Department, which has been hammering at Section 8 all year. The conflicting signals and general aura of hostility have convinced housing authorities around the country that they need to defend themselves by avoiding new commitments and cutting back on their old ones.

Even worse, the developers who have counted on Section 8 money to build affordable housing for the poor, the elderly and the disabled now think that they can no longer trust this program. Republican lawmakers whose districts are being hurt have kept quiet in the name of party solidarity. But this posture of loyal complicity will be difficult to maintain as the housing crisis deepens, which it surely will if HUD continues along its current course.

A landmark program, Section 8 has produced affordable housing for needy Americans since the Nixon years. It works this way: instead of doing the construction itself, the government guarantees subsidies for rents in the private market. Families, most of them at or below the poverty level, pay 30 percent of their incomes toward rent, and Section 8 vouchers pay the rest. At the moment, the program covers about two million people, a majority of them elderly or in families with children. Developers building affordable housing have come to depend on Section 8 guarantees for financial backing.

Things are getting worse by the day, thanks to ideologues in the Bush administration who prefer a laissez-faire approach, regardless of the social costs. Unable to dismember the Section 8 program directly, HUD has chosen to destabilize it with a series of rule changes and budget maneuvers that are being felt from coast to coast. The current HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, has settled on a particularly destructive strategy involving misdirection and sleight of hand. He releases poorly explained policies that include hidden, but draconian, cuts. After an outcry from Congress, he retreats to lesser cuts that leave the program diminished, housing authorities confused and the general public mistakenly believing that the status quo has been regained.

The latest incident, laid out by The Times's David Chen, came after HUD released a vaguely worded and irrational proposal that involved reducing the value of housing vouchers for poor residents in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country. The proposed change was widely thought to have been rescinded after housing advocates and lawmakers raised a fuss. But a close look at the data shows that HUD still seems to be planning to enforce a part of the plan that would make it more difficult for large families to find larger apartments. The landlords have been quick to react. Faced with the prospect of Section 8 vouchers that pay less than fair-market rents, they have made it clear that they will simply refuse to deal with the program, especially in tight markets where they can pick and choose tenants. That will be a disaster for poor families with several children.

The insanity of this ideologically driven attack on Section 8 is underscored in a bipartisan book - written by two Republicans and two Democrats - just out from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. The authors include two former housing secretaries: Jack Kemp, a Republican, and Henry Cisneros, a Democrat. The authors argue convincingly that the country is sacrificing both families and neighborhoods by hacking away at the most successful housing program in history.

The book, "Opportunity and Progress," calls for restoring the sane bipartisan effort that produced the federal housing program in the first place. Most significantly, the authors urge Congress to insulate the housing program from partisan sniping by creating a national trust fund. Modeled on similar programs that work well at state and local levels, that national fund would be used to build, rehabilitate and preserve 1.5 million affordable apartments.

The proposal resembles one already pending in Congress, where a trust fund bill is bottled up in committee even though it has more than 200 sponsors. The bill, as originally introduced, would finance itself by redirecting a small portion of the profits from the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance fund.

This page is generally suspicious of dedicated funds, but, given the national housing crisis, it makes good sense to direct money earned from housing back into housing. The bill would certainly have wide support, if only the Republican leadership allowed it to be brought to the floor.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Working people unite!!!

Keep this in mind:

1) A U.S. federal judge just ordered that U.S. Airways can cut the pay and pension benefits of its union workers by 21%. This in fact is a lawless act violating a union contract on behalf of corporate bosses. As the cold comes and fuel costs are through the roof, U.S. Airways workers will see their incomes drop drastically while they must perform the same labor for the same hours, as will retirees on pension.

2) A platoon of U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq, functioning as workers in uniform and transporting fuel in resupply lines, have refused to carry out the orders of their officers and have been placed under arrest. A report in the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, MS, states, "A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson, Miss., and around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a 'suicide mission' to deliver fuel, the troops' relatives said Thursday." The soldiers were ordered to transport fuel in unprotected vehicles through an area of Iraq north of Baghdad where they knew they would be subject to the Iraqi resistance's attacks. One of the soldiers had e-mailed his mother earlier in the week asking what the penalty would be for physically assaulting his commander.

Working people in the United States are recognizing that the Bush administration has launched a war in Iraq solely to satisfy the needs of their corporate and banking backers to dominate and exploit the land, labor and resources of the people of the Middle East. It is not possible that the government which attacks workers rights at home can fight for the "liberation" of working people abroad. This is a profit first, people last government and it pursues the same policy all over the globe starting right here at home. The same government is willing to allow the super exploitation of undocumented workers one day, and the next day have them rounded up in INS/ICE sweeps if they dare to organize themselves into a union. The same government that takes billions from working people to spend on war and occupation tells those working people in that there is no money for human needs at home.

How does George Bush keep America.....safe?

This how he does it!!!!

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Poll reveals world anger at Bush

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Poll reveals world anger at Bush

Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group Advertisers

Sinclair Broadcast Group Advertisers

Abortion increased under Bush II

Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.

About the Sinclair group

BOYCOTT SINCLAIR

Democratic Senators and FCC Commissioner are denouncing Sinclair
Broadcasting's decision to run an anti-Kerry film as news later
this month. Buzzflash.com and others are carrying calls to
boycott Sinclair Broadcasting:

"Click here to find out if any Sinclair television stations are
in your area:
www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml

"You will be able to contact that television station directly by
clicking on the link listed by Sinclair. CALL THE TV STATIONS,
don't just email! Believe me, 50 phone calls will have much more
impact directly on that station than 100 emails; local, smaller
TV stations are usually understaffed, overworked, and you will
definitely get their attention by calling. Get your friends and
family to call, too!

HERE IS SINCLAIR'S INFO:
Corporate Headquarters
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)

Database of Sinclair advertisers
www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers

Top Sinclair shareholders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh's=SBGI

A day in the life of Joe Republican

Thank you Nancy.!!!

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Long Flip-Flop List

Bush claims to be steady, convinced, convincing leader. But his record does not show but a long list of about-faces (we could call them flip-flops) Long Flip-Flop List

t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | The Scary Little Man

t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | The Scary Little Man: "Bush was every inch the angry man on Friday night, which is dangerous enough. But to witness anger combined with belligerent ignorance, with a willful denial of basic facts, to witness a man utterly incapable of admitting to any mistakes while his clear errors in judgment are costing his country in blood, to see that combination roiling within the man who is in charge of the most awesome military arsenal in the history of the planet, is more than dangerous. "

Bush's mystery bulge

More about the bulge that is all over the European press. Knock yourselves out!Bush's mystery bulge

IHT: Monitors sent to U.S. to scrutinize election

IHT: Monitors sent to U.S. to scrutinize election: "he Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has begun deploying 160 people across the United States to scrutinize the presidential election on Nov. 2."

FactCheck.org Bush's timber Company

President Bush does not read his own income statementsFactCheck.org. He does in fact own a half interest in a tree growing company, that will yield no income until 2007. He qualifies therefore as a small business, receiving all the tax advantages of such classification.

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Bush's mystery bulge

Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Bush's mystery bulge: "Bloggers are burning up their keyboards with speculation. Check out the president's peculiar behaviour during the debate, they say. On several occasions, the president simply stopped speaking for an uncomfortably long time and stared ahead with an odd expression on his face. Was he listening to someone helping him with his response to a question? Even weirder was the president's strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he said, 'As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh - Let me finish - The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at.' It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared 'Let me finish.' The green warning light was lit, signalling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish.
Thanks to Tracie for this link to the now famous picture of the hump/bulge/box on President Bush's back during the Florida debate.

The New York Times > Opinion > The Town Hall Debate

The New York Times > Opinion > The Town Hall Debate: "One of the uncommitted voters in the audience sensibly asked President Bush to name three mistakes he'd made in office, and what he had done to remedy the damage. Mr. Bush declined to list even one, and instead launched into an impassioned defense of the invasion of Iraq as a good idea. The president's insistence on defending his decision to go into Iraq seemed increasingly bizarre in a week when his own investigators reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and when his own secretary of defense acknowledged that there was no serious evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."

The Online Beat

The Online Beat: "'(It's) not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse,' Edwards said, referencing three senior Republican senators. 'And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration.' "

Capital Games

Capital Games: "The Duelfer report shows that whatever threat Iraq posed was rather static. It was not becoming more serious. That means there was no 'immediate' and 'direct' reason on March 19, 2003, to head into an elective war, with few major allies, not enough body armor and reinforced Humvees, and little planning for the aftermath. "

Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | The source Duelfer didn't quote

Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment |
Scott Ritter mentions the source Duelfer didn't quote: "Duelfer is not an unbiased observer in this matter. For this reason alone, his ISG report must not be allowed to hide its findings behind a wall of secrecy. Far from showing the intent of Saddam Hussein to keep WMD, I believe a full review of all material relevant to the ISG's report will instead portray a dictator whose only desire was to retain his hold on power in the face of a US government which intended to do anything, including violate international law, to prevent this. "

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat (washingtonpost.com)

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat (washingtonpost.com)

Not only did Iraq not have weapons of mass destruction, its basic military capabilities were crumbling. Saddam was far from being an immediate, imminent threat; he rather was a tinpot dictator, filling his time writing romantic novels. The threat evolved later, after the US troops had invaded: Iraq became a magnet and central point for the Islamic rejection of Western values.

Teachers remember George W. Bush

Here is what one of the President's professors at the Harvard Business School now says about him:

His former Harvard Business School professor recalls George W. Bush not just as a terrible student but as spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar.
By Mary Jacoby
Sept. 16, 2004 |
For 25 years, Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard Business School, was content with his green-card status as a permanent legal resident of the United States. But Bush's ascension to the presidency in 2001 prompted the Japanese native to secure his American citizenship. The reason: to be able to speak out with the full authority of citizenship about why he believes Bush lacks the character and intellect to lead the world's oldest and most powerful democracy.
"I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by something," Tsurumi said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "But I always remember two types of students. One is the very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong social values, compassion and intellect,the very rare person you never forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite" The future president was one of 85 first-year MBA students in Tsurumi's macroeconomic policies and international business class in the fall of 1973 and spring of 1974. Tsurumi was a visiting associate professor at Harvard Business School from January 1972 to August 1976; today, he is a professor of international business at Baruch College in New York.
Trading as usual on his father's connections, Bush entered Harvard in 1973 for a two-year program. He'd just come off what George H.W. Bush had once called his eldest son's "nomadic years" partying, drifting from job to job, working on political campaigns in Florida and Alabama and, most famously, apparently not showing up for duty in the Alabama National Guard.
Harvard Business School's rigorous teaching methods, in which the professor interacts aggressively with students, and students are encouraged to challenge each other sharply, offered important insights into Bush, Tsurumi said. In observing students' in-class performances, "you develop pretty good ideas about what are their weaknesses and strengths in terms of thinking, analysis, their prejudices, their backgrounds and other things that students reveal," he said.
One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now the seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him as a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He never confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled conservative." (Though clearly a partisan one. On Wednesday, Cox called for a congressional investigation of the validity of documents that CBS News obtained for a story questioning Bush's attendance at Guard duty in Alabama.)
Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi said. "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that." A White House spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment.
In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, ?The government doesn?t have to help poor people?because they are lazy.? I said, ?Well, could you explain that assumption?? Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking on it, saying, ?No, I didn?t say that.??
If Cox had been in the same class, Tsurumi said, ?I could have asked him to challenge that and he would have demolished it. Not personally or emotionally, but intellectually.?
Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film ?The Grapes of Wrath,? based on John Steinbeck?s novel of the Depression. ?We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt?s policies ?socialism.? He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."
"Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him", Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy."

Many of Tsurumi's students came from well-connected or wealthy families, but good manners prevented them from boasting about it, the professor said. But Bush seemed unabashed about the connections that had brought him to Harvard. "The other children of the rich and famous were at least well bred to the point of realizing universal values and standards of behavior," Tsurumi said. But Bush sometimes came late to class and often sat in the back row of the theater-like classroom, wearing a bomber jacket from the Texas Air National Guard and spitting chewing tobacco into a cup.
"At first, I wondered, "Who is this George Bush? It's a very common name and I didn't know his background. And he was such a bad student that I asked him once how he got in. He said, "My dad has good friends." Bush scored in the lowest 10 percent of the class.
The Vietnam War was still roiling campuses and Harvard was no exception. Bush expressed strong support for the war but admitted to Tsurumi that he'd gotten a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard through his father's connections.
"I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to class," Tsurumi said. "Here was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket, and the draft was the No. 1 topic in those days. And I said, "George, what did you do with the draft?" He said, "Well, I got into the Texas Air National Guard." And I said, "Lucky you. I understand there is a long waiting list for it. How'd you get in?" When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals. He was not the only one trying to twist all their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically for the war.
Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war in which others were dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught, showed his famous smirk and huffed off."
Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.
In recent days, Tsurumi has told his story to various print and television outlets and appears in Kitty Kelley's expos "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." He said other professors and students at the business school from that time share his recollections but are afraid to come forward, fearing ostracism or retribution. And why is Tsurumi speaking up now? Because with the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and Osama bin Laden still on the loose, not to mention a federal deficit ballooning out of control, the stakes are too high to remain silent. "Obviously, I don't think he is the best person to be running the country, he said. "I wanted to explain why."
Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war in which others were dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught, showed his famous smirk and huffed off."
Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

salon.com

Blind into Baghdad

This weekend I have been a bit behind the eightball, and have posted nothing. I was reading a past The Atlantic issue, and the James Fallows article "Blind into Baghdad" that is still resonating in letters to the editor and commentaries. In essence Fallows argues that the Administration was not devoid of planning and strategy, but that it totally ignored previous planning and advice from its own experts.
Last night I listened to the Cato Institute's Dr. Preble at Skidmore, presenting the libertarian point of view on the Iraq war. Although Iraq was not what he really wanted to talk about, that became his dominating topic. If we can encapsulate the argument, preemptive war should only be waged against a certain enemy that means imminent harm to the U.S.A., AND HAS THE MEANS TO INFLICT IT. Saddam Hussein does not qualify on either point. He may have had dreams of world domination, but he was careful not to attack the USA, because, according to Dr. Preble, deterrence is still at work, and had he done so, he would have faced annihilation, and he knew it. And Saddam neither had the weapons (no nukes), nor the means to deliver them (no missiles). Those unmanned planes alluded to by President Bush never existed.
It was an excellent presentation and the student questions were great. We should pay more attention to theCato Institute

The Bible banned? By us liberals?

From "Sojourners" comes this piece:
Republicans say "liberals" will ban the Bible
by Jim Wallis

Imagine this. A political party does a mailing in important states. They accuse the other party of wanting to "ban" the Bible and establish gay marriage. Well, imagine no more. That's what the Republican National Committee has done. I'm not sure even Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson would go this far, but the Republican Party has in its aggressive campaign to make sure its conservative church base votes for George Bush.

To say this is outrageous seems like an understatement. I have never seen such a blatant and dishonest political manipulation of religion by a political party. But the Republicans seem shameless about it. The RNC acknowledged doing the mailings (when another religious group got a copy and circulated it to reporters), but they have yet to apologize for them. Instead, the Republicans admitted the mailing was part of their effort to mobilize religious votes for President Bush.

The mailing includes an image of the Bible labeled "banned" and a photo of a man putting a ring on another man's hand labeled "allowed," and suggests that's exactly what "liberal politicians" would seek to do. Then the good church folks are warned, "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent in West Virginia. This new Republican campaign in the churches is similar to an earlier effort that asked church volunteers to perform 22 "duties" in this election year, including turning over congregational membership lists to the local Republican Party. That suggestion even offended some of the Republican religious base as a too-partisan intrusion into church life and an attempt to manipulate the faith of voters.

The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia responded to the mailings in an editorial headlined, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?" The paper went on to suggest that such behavior on the part of the Republicans could actually alienate swing religious voters and others: "Most Americans see morality more complexly," the paper said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."

Behind these partisan religious activities lies a fundamental assumption by top Republican operatives, that they OWN religion in America. Sojourners' "God is Not a Republican...or a Democrat" petition and ad campaign has resonated deeply around the country. Christians will be voting for both George Bush and John Kerry in this election, "for reasons deeply rooted in their faith," as the ad says. It also reminds us that all Christian values and ethics cannot simply be reduced to hot-button social issues.

Yet Republicans are not only assuming, they seem to be demanding that religious people vote only one way - their way. What the Republican Party is doing in these mailings is claiming that the religious vote in American belongs only to them and disrespecting the faith of all believers who disagree with their political agenda or candidate. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be allowed to get away with that.

It also must be said that the Republican disrespect for Christians who disagree with them runs right along racial lines. The members of black churches will be likely be voting overwhelmingly Democratic this election, as they have for many years. If President Bush is being presented as the only moral choice, what exactly is the Republican Party saying about the faith of black Christians? Does the president not know that millions of Christians, including many evangelical Christians, disagree with him on the war in Iraq, on his budget priorities and tax cuts for the wealthy, on his dismal performance in poverty reduction, or on his policies that so negatively impact the environment? What is he saying about their faith with mailings like this one? And are the Republicans also saying that gay marriage is the only issue Christians should be voting on this year?

When I read about the new RNC mailing, my first response was to ask how conservative Republicans can accuse the "liberals" of wanting to ban the Bible when they ignore it altogether on the weighty scriptural matters of social and economic justice or on Jesus' command that Christians be "peacemakers." There should at least be a serious debate in this election about what those biblical teachings mean in relation to Christian voting. But the Republicans apparently don't want any debate about religion and the election. They have just declared themselves the winners.

Well, not so fast. Sojourners and many allies are committed to taking that debate to every corner of the nation during this election season. And you can help. As the candidates begin their debates this week, we say let the debate about religion and the election continue! Here's what you can do this week:

This outrageous, partisan, and manipulative mailing to churches must not be allowed to go unnoticed. And the Republican National Committee must not be allowed to get away with this abuse of religion and disrespect for the faith of believers who disagree with their political agenda. George Bush himself owes the Christian community an apology for this mailing that disrespects the faith of millions of committed Christians.

TAKE ACTION today. Write to Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and write to President Bush. Ask them to apologize and denounce these mailings. Tens of thousands of Christians sending this message to the Republican Party will get noticed and will make a difference. Hold the Republicans accountable for this mailing and ask George Bush to tell them not to manipulate or disrespect religion in this campaign again. Do it today.

And read the

New York Times article

About the title

I have been called to attention about the Listen up! in the title. It is, it seems, unseemly, peremptory, dictatorial. I do like it: it is aimed, probably not at most of you, attentive and sharp readers, but at those distracted cohorts that may stumble onto this blog, and that need grabbing by the lapels or their string of pearls, to pay attention and yell back at me.
Not that I like being yelled at. But if that is what it takes to get the impression of relevance....
I will end with D. Quijotes admonition to his faithful equerry, Sancho:

"the dogs are barking, Sancho, we must be riding.."

Calvin Trillin's poem

In the spirit of our reborn optimism after yesterday's debate, here is Calvin Trillin's poem, courtesy of The Nation:

On Republican Populism

Our policies address the cares
Of heiresses and millionaires.
Our point of view reverberates
With folks who live behind high gates
And folks whose country clubs may lack
A single Jew, a single black.
We're backed by all the CEOs.
We waive the regs that bring them woes.
To comfort them is our intent.
Yes, though we always represent
The folks who sit in corporate boxes,
The gratifying paradox is--
And this we love; it's just the neatest--
The other party's called elitist.