Liberal Resurrection

Kucinich 2008

2006-12-11T19:18:00.000-05:00

At this point, I'm holding hard and fast to my values and my views on the issues. I consider myself to be an old school liberal, which is a new school progressive. Kucinich opposed the war from the outset, and has been calling for it's speedy end ever since. He favors universal health care, same sex marriage, a repeal of the tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, etc. In other words, he believes and will say he believes--without equivocation--the things that really matter to so many of us.

So why don't we progressives even, decide to take his candidacy seriously? In part, it's because we are suckers for the mainstream media that wants us to think someone like Kucinich is kooky and unelectable. At the end of the day, Kucinich may not have the support it takes to get so far in a primary field filled/filling up with "stars" like Clinton and Obama. But I'm done being a Democrat. I'm a progressive and I line up behind the candidate that most closely shares and supports my worldview.

Obama for Prez?

2006-10-22T15:35:00.000-04:00

Until this week, I was steadfastly refusing to buy into the Obama hype. For my taste, especially in these near apocalyptic Bush years, I thought him too smooth and non-committal on the big issues. But after listening to him during his media blitz this week, I'm rapidly changing my opinion.

Infinitely more intelligent and certainly more curious and open-minded that the current occupant of the White House, his relative inexperience doesn't concern me very much. Feingold aligns most perfectly with my progressive leanings. But I'm learning that Obama may not be quite as Hillary Clinton-esque as I had assumed.

He's got brains, charisma and a forward looking and thinking approach to the world's problems that has been so sorely lacking the last six years; in the leadership of both parties. Clinton is a non-starter for me. Edwards and Feingold would be my picks in a primary without Obama, but should he choose to run he seems to have the best chance of genuinely inspiring Democratic voters all across the country to really believe that a change could be in store.

I find myself quietly hoping that he decides to throw his hat in the ring. This appears to be his moment. Six to 10 more years in the Senate won't likely make him any hotter than he is right now.

Spitzer to Push for Gay Marriage

2006-10-07T10:51:00.000-04:00

Add NY gubernatorial candidate and aggressive Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to the VERY short list of prominent, respected nationally recognized leaders to come out strongly in favor of gay marriage. This is no small thing in Democratic politics and may portend, I hope, the beginning of a new sense of courage among Democratic candidates and officals to stand and run on principle, rather than polls.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 7, 2006
Spitzer Vows to Push for Gay Marriage in New York
By DANNY HAKIM
By saying on Thursday night that he will push to legalize gay marriage, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer put himself at the vanguard of the effort to recognize such unions, staking out a position that most prominent Democrats, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, have shied away from.

Mr. Spitzer, who is running for governor and holds a commanding lead in the polls, made his strongest declaration yet in support of gay marriage in his remarks to the Empire State Pride Agenda, the state’s leading gay lobbying group. He told the audience, “We will make it law in New York.”

If elected, Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, would be the most prominent state official in the nation to call for the legalization of gay marriage, though Democratic candidates for governor in California and Massachusetts have also expressed support. Many prominent Democrats, including Senator Clinton, have supported gays on other issues but not on this one, which has led to friction in their relations with gay leaders. Among the few prominent politicians who support it are Senators Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats; and Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican.

Mr. Spitzer’s position could be a perilous one for a politician considered presidential material, and he has acknowledged that if elected governor, he would first push other legislative priorities including cutting property taxes and overhauling Medicaid . But last night he said he would not let outside pressures influence his stance.

“We will not ask whether this proposition of legalizing same-sex marriage is popular or unpopular; we will not ask if it’s hard or easy; we will simply ask if it’s right or wrong,” he told a crowd of nearly 1,200 gathered at a Midtown hotel ballroom. “I think we know in this room what the answer to that question is.”

A Bad Day

2006-09-28T14:58:00.000-04:00

This is a terrible thing that is happening, right now as I type. The House has already approved the bill at issue and the Senate today is debating it. If this passes, and there is every expectation that it will be law--possibly by week's end; the next time the President or his supporter says we are fighting "them" to preserve our values or way of life we need to ask him to explain just what those values really are.

Rushing off a Cliff
The New York Times Editorial

Thursday 28 September 2006

Here's what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans' fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws - while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists - because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That's pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush's shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These Are Some of the Bill's Biggest Flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret - there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable - already a contradiction in terms - and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Vote Early Vote Often

2006-09-17T09:06:00.000-04:00

Yep, voting fraud is easy and seems to leave no traces at all.

Exposed by none less than FOX News.... (hat tip)

watch the video.

Democracy in danger.

Not Quite Done with the Racist Slurs During Campaigns

2006-08-15T07:42:00.000-04:00

George Allen must be sweating Jim Webb's challenge.

See, a Webb volunteer follows Allen around with a video camera. Allen made fun of this at a recent event, but in doing so, played on fears of immigrants and racist panderings.

Democrat James Webb's Senate campaign accused Sen. George Allen (R) of making demeaning comments Friday to a 20-year-old Webb volunteer of Indian descent.
S.R. Sidarth, a senior at the University of Virginia, had been trailing Allen with a video camera to document his travels and speeches for the Webb campaign. During a campaign speech Friday in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, Allen singled out Sidarth and called him a word that sounded like "Macaca."

"This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and its great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come."

After telling the crowd that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen again referenced Sidarth, who was born and raised in Fairfax County.

"Lets give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia," said Allen, who then began talking about the "war on terror."

I read this and watched the video on DailyKos...

UPDATE: Atrios notes that "makak" (and variations) are recognized racial slurs aimed at North Africans. According to Wikipedia, Allen's mother is of European and Tunisian extraction.

Wow - the far right never changes its playbook.

Another Update

2006-07-26T10:57:00.000-04:00

Hi-

Today we traveled into the city of Bethlehem to visit two centers -- one specialized in Palestinian non-violence and resistance training with adult community groups, including Hamas, the other was a youth center that offers social services to the residence while also teaching non-violence in what amounts to head start program-aged kids and youth.
After that we walked through one of several Palestinian refugee camps. The one we went to is called D'heisheh. It had about 12,000 displaced people there and nearby. Their school alone had 6000 students, with class sizes of 50 plus and only 12 teachers serving everyone there at the camp. Can you imagine that?!

This area held the poorest of the poor. I can't begin to explain the level of harassment that the Palestinian people face but here it is particularly acute. For example, the Israeli army entered the refugee camp in 2000 and demanded entry into every home. But even though the people opened their doors to allow the armies free entry, instead the solders blasted holes in the walls to gain entry just to intimidate and destroy what little structure they had.

The list of cruelty is long. Many residents of Bethlehem have not been able to travel seven miles across the city to Jerusalem because they don't have, and can't get, a security pass from Israeli government. Sure looks like apartheid to me! And that's exactly what it is! Many of the city\s residents are in jail for the most trivial offences.

But there is hope. In this same refugee camp, atop of a very tall hill that over look the city, the people have pooled enough of their resources to build a first class community center, with a large banquet area, a public library and conference space. And this space is made available to all of the residents there free of charge. NOW THAT'S COMMUNITY!

I was reminded several times of the old Negro spiritual Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around and also of the poem titles And Still We Rise by Maya Angelou.

Before Hamas won the election, there was hope for a two-state solution. But now, the Jewish government has imposed more harsh rules and most of the Palestinian people we have met disbelieve, with good reason, that a two state solution here is not a viable solution to their plight. The regional economy simply can't sustain more than one state. And the wall that has been built around the entire area makes it damn near impossible for them to travel into the areas where work might be found if it is available at all to them. The Israeli's hold the purse strings to everything, it seems.

I 'm writing this at the home of our Palestinian host for the evening. It is a large wonderfully warm family that I wish each of you could meet. Their hospitality beats the best of the southern comfort culture we have at home. Everyone really has opened their arms to us and embraced us. And we have them.

Tomorrow morning we will travel into Ramallah to visit with college students who are waging a mighty battle for peace with restorative justice. And later on tomorrow evening we will return to East Jerusalem to visit with Israeli college students who are doing much the same thing.

More later. I don't want to be rude to our hosts and it's getting late. Time for bed for all.

Much peace and love
Di-

Direct from the Middle East

2006-07-25T18:50:00.000-04:00

I posted a while back that Reverend Diane Ford Jones and her mom, also a minister, were among an 18 or 19 member delegation traveling to Israel to learn about the conflict first hand and to engage in dialogue and learning with peace activists from all sides.

This trip was planned long before the current wave of escalated violence. Reverend Ford Jones (my cousin/sister) decided at the last minute to go ahead with the trip, despite the seeming risks.

She has been sending back almost daily reports of the groups' activities and her impressions of her experiences and I will begin posting some of them in this space. This one was sent on July 21.

Hello All,

Before I go into today’s experiences, I want to share with you our experience with a visitor late Thurs evening. He is a Jewish student/teacher who came to address our group in the place where we are staying (an Episcopalian cathedral fortress located in East Jerusalem.)

Originally, 15 others young adult Jewish students planed to join our conversation about peace activism. But because of the events that have taking place over the last week, some of the students refused to come to see us because they were afraid to enter East Jerusalem. And the other students that were to join us decided that “a time of war was not an appropriate time to discuss peace.” So the young man who did come to speak with us came alone. We praised him and told him that we felt that he was very courageous. It was clear to me that he was grappling with the issues in the best way that he could. He seemed conflicted. For example, he said that he knew that the wall that separated Israelis from Palestinians is wrong and that it should be dismantled, yet he also felt that the wall that snakes around larges sections of the region has, in fact, provided the Israeli people with an extra measure of security.

Friday morning began with our joining Machson Watch, a group of Israeli women who have organized themselves to be a critical presence throughout the nation at its check points. If you recall, check points are security barriers that Palestinians must cross to get permission to gain entry into one section of the country from another. There are also something called “flying check points,” where at any time, in any given location, the Israeli army sets up a road block and station that functions like the permanent check points do.

We traveled to the first check point on highway 90 which runs north and south through the country. Tragically, this highway only allows traffic to flow to the surrounding settlements in the countryside, entirely bypassing numerous Palestinian cities and townships that run directly parallel to the road. Not only are there no off exits to get to them, or from them, there aren’t even signs that acknowledge that they are there in the first place. The highway only travels through checkpoints to and from Israeli occupied places and only Jews may travel on it with few exceptions. It is as if there are no Palestinians at all.

We stood at two check points, one bordering the West bank the other in Jerusalem. There we stood very near the Israeli soldiers in an effort to protect the Palestinians from physical harm and to protect their civil rights. Some of the teen aged Palestinian boys who walked by us raised their voices to us an enthusiastically said “Naser!” which means “To the victory!” And I raised my fist and smiled at them to signal my solidarity in the quest for peace with justice! Other Palestinian drivers and passengers nodded, smiled and winked at us, careful to do so unobtrusively.

The atmosphere is tense across the country today. In fact, it quickly became clear to us that the nation is on lock-down. Evidently the Army has been conducting raids in areas where they believe there are “pockets of resistance.” So everyone is fearful and edgy. Muslims are being denied entry into the mosques.

At lunch time we ate near the Damascus Gate, an entry into Old Jerusalem. There were Muslims there that were trying to get inside for prayer but they were met with Israeli soldiers on horseback. The soldiers chased one man into a nearby store and cornered him while a crowed gathered. It was peacefully dispersed. Still the entire event reminded me of Selma in the 1960’s.

I’ve found my “street smarts” come in handy. Mom hadn’t a clue what was happening outside until after the entire event was over. I’m glad I decided to join her on this journey… She is having the “time of her life.”

Next we joined an organization comprised of Israeli women called Women in Black. They have met each Friday for the past 18 years in the urban center of West Jerusalem (on a popular street corner) to protest the occupation, promote peace and to support the implementation of a viable two state agreement.

We wore black and carried protest signs that certainly got the attention of passers by – an understatement, to be sure. Our protest took place during a time when passions run particularly high. It felt as if we were at Central Square the week after 9/11 calling for the US to resist her impulse to attack Afghanistan.

After the protest we walked to a nearby park to talk with one of the organizations founding members.

She said that just one week ago (according to polls) 80% of both the Israelis and the Palestinians were poised for a peace but hopes for that evaporated after Hezbollah invaded Israel and abducted two Israeli solders. Now all bets are off.

She also spoke at length about what she envisions Israeli and Palestinian states being like. But her vision didn’t include any form of mutual forgiveness, nor did it provide for any type of integration. I was disappointed. I asked questions about who, if anyone, was willing to use post civil rights era Black/White relations in the US, or the South African peace and reconciliation commission model to create a new reality in the Israel/Palestine. But there seems to be a lack of imagination here along these lines…or perhaps they can see the possibilities but have chosen to reject them. And until the law changes to implement a new way of being, I doubt that hate and segregation here will come to an end.

This evening we attended Shabbat service in a conservative Synagogue. The young Rabbi made quite a point of saying that Judaism is not pacifist, but urges discrestion in determining when violence is or is not permissible. He drew a distinction between killing and murder. And he left it up to his West Jerusalem congregation, composed mostly of visiting US Jewish youth and young adults, to make up their own minds about which was which. And that’s all that he did!

With that our day came to a close.

Self Defense or Palestenian Elimination?

2006-07-25T18:42:00.000-04:00

The perspective represented in this statement signed by a group of major progressive academics and activists, is one that is rarely given the light of day in the mainstream marketplace of ideas. To my mind, it's one that should be carefully considered rather than reflexively dismissed.

A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East Chomskey.info
Wednesday 19 July 2006

The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.

That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.

Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?

Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.

This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted.

Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn

Tough Stuff

2006-07-22T09:31:00.000-04:00

This is tough stuff, but an important perspective to hear. My understanding of the suffering of the Palestinians has been reinforced by regular reports from Reverands Diane Ford Jones (my cousin) and her mother Yolande Ford who are part of a delegation in the mideast learning more about the conflict and helping to build real dialogue toward peace.

I think we must be careful not to assign all of the blame on the neocons or the Bush administration. As the House vote suggests, our government's blind support for Israel is wildly bipartisan.

The Shame of Being an American
by Paul Craig Roberts

Gentle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians.

Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel's attacks on civilian residential districts are children? That is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel misses Hezbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS. Don't be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less evil than the puppet master?

Of course, you don't know these things, because the US print and TV media do not report them.
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice. Bush is very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel's rampage and wishes he could do the same thing in Iraq.

Does it make you a Proud American that "your" president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet?
On July 20, "your" House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of Israel's massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every American complicit in war crimes, "your" House of Representatives, according to the Associated Press, also "condemns enemies of the Jewish state."

Who are the "enemies of the Jewish state"?

They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant Zionist "settlers" under the protection of the Israeli army who beat and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes because they will be murdered by Israeli "settlers."

The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called "terrorists." When Bush forced free elections on Palestine, the people voted for Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to Israel. This means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results Bush and Israel want.

Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel's way are terrorists.

Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militia of Shi'ite Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon. During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel's atrocities was Hezbollah, which fought the Israeli Army, defeated it, and drove it out of Lebanon. Today Hezbollah not only defends southern Lebanon but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care.

To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time.
Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Both governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White House Moron doesn't know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be "cakewalks" like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents.

If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing nothing good for Israel or for America.

On July 20 when "your" House of Representatives, following "your" US Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel's war crimes, the most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming "The American people overwhelming support Israel's war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis."

The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do not support Israel's war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span.
Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US "reporting," a majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah is located in southern Lebanon. If Israel is targeting Hezbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on northern Lebanon? Why are they falling on Beirut? Why are they falling on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals?

Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House confirm Osama bin Laden's propaganda that America stands with Israel against the Arab and Muslim world.

Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world's largest per capita incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that much of this "aid" comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect "our" representatives in Congress.

This perception is no favor to Israel, whose population is declining, as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel's actions and inhumane policies.
The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a refugee.

This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America still had some prestige in the Arab world.
The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel's puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe.

With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag militia in southern Lebanon. The vaunted US military cannot defeat a rag tag, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a minority of the population in Iraq, insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in civil war against the Shi'ite majority.

What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel's desires.

Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual.
Rumsfeld's neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states.

Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, "Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world," thus equating war criminals with civilized men.
Neocon Larry Kudlow says that "Israel is doing the Lord's work" by murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel's Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, "go forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands"?
The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history.

How do we Sleep at Night?

2006-07-22T09:08:00.000-04:00

This morning the NY Times, in a story called "U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis ,"
reports that at Israel's request, the Bush administration is expediting delivery to Israel of "precision-guided bombs."

The reporter says the decision to rush the shipment was made without much debate within the administration. There is some concern, the Times says, that disclosure of the shipment " threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah."

American hypocrisy and duplicity is astounding to me. It has reached absurd heights with the Bush administration. It's just another example of how the most powerful create their own reality. We have been one of the only great superpowers for so long that we believe our own bullshit. When the world doesn't fall for it, we condemn.

Tit for Tat

2006-07-20T11:55:00.000-04:00

Hmmm........should there be any outrage over this? In recent weeks, North Korea tested long range missles and the world (egged on by the U.S.) went crazy. A week later, India tested a missle and at least in America, the event went by barely noticed. Now this.

Pandering=Death

2006-07-20T08:56:00.000-04:00

Hillary Clinton's statement at a recent rally in support of Israel:

We will support her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians, to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom, that we will not permit this to happen, and we will take whatever steps are necessary.

I Listen to Pat Buchanan

2006-07-19T08:15:00.000-04:00

Conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has been a frequent contributor to antiwar.com. He's also a regular voice on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Fundamentally, my views are on the opposite end of the political an policy perspective. Yet, I have found myself admiring his willingness to speak the truth as he sees it and to make his conservative-oriented arguments with intellect rather than allegience to talking points.

This piece appeared today on antiwar.com asking a very important question:

Where Are Bush's Critics Now?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.
First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq, and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon – smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads, and the occasional refugee convoy – has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counterattack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired, and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
When al-Qaeda captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers.
But where is the proof?

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?

Strategy for Peace

2006-07-19T07:43:00.000-04:00

The NY Times is reporting this morning that the U.S. plans to give Israel about a week or so more to destroy Lebanon and kill more people before sending in Super Duper Condi Rice to help bring about a cease fire.

As the civilian body count in Lebanon and Palestine grows and the chorus of pleas for a ceasefire come in from around the world, our response is to collude with Israel in the completion of a plan-- 5 years in the making--to degrade Hezbollah's ability to do damage and push it deeper into Lebanon away from the Israeli border.

The argument that Israel is acting in self-defense, and has a right to, is wearing thin as time goes on; sort of like Iraq posing a grave and gathering danger because of its stockpiles of WMD. After all, the Arab-Israeli dispute is more than 50 years strong. Some would argue that this particular round of violence actually kicked off when Israeli forces "accidentally" killed a family of eight in Gaza as they enjoyed a day at the beach.

I suppose if America still held slaves in the 21st century, uprising by those slaves against their owners would be characterized in the mainstream media and public lexicon as "terrorist" acts. Palestinians, like Iraqi's now, live under an oppressive occupation;one that limits their ability to thrive in the most basic ways.

I don't condone violence by any side, but I am able to understand why an oppressed people go there. If we had leadership in this country better able to walk the proverbial mile in the other's shoes and lead from a perspective of hope rather than fear, the world would be a much better place.

Sadly, that isn't the case. We have been whipped into a shameful nationalistic fervor fueled by fear and assuaged by force.

The solution for a lasting peace isn't likely to come from our government, or perhaps any other. The level of honesty and genuine compassion needed to bring about a solution in that troubled region isn't politically viable. On the bright side, there are committed peace activists in Israel, Palestine, across Europe and here in America (Christians, Muslims, Jews and others) who have the answers. We just need to listen.

Why Civil Marriage, and NOTHING less....

2006-07-18T07:42:00.000-04:00

Daily Kos is a GREAT source for what is happening to real people out there. Check out this Diary I just read early this morning:

Our friend Eric Rofes died two weeks ago, and his memorial was held here in San Francisco on Saturday. He died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 52, completely unexpectedly. He was a leading gay activist and scholar and his memorial was shattering- terribly, terribly sad, with a palpable sense of bereavement felt not only by his friends, but by an entire community. It was most heartbreaking to see and hear the agonized grief and bravery of his partner of 16 years, Crispin Hollins.

Eric and Crispin were of course at the forefront of the Gay Marriage movement. They had long held Californian domestic partnership, and also married when (briefly) we believed that San Francisco law permitted us to do so. They had made for one another all the necessary legal arrangements: powers of attorney, mutual wills, etc etc. All their bases were covered, so they thought. As soon as he heard the news, Crispin had flown straight out to Provincetown, where Eric died, to make funeral arrangements. A friend who accompanied them said that when Crispin began to detail the requirements for the cremation and commitment at the funeral home in Provincetown, the funeral director drew himself up and demanded to know what the basis of their relationship was. He told Crispin: "I don't believe you will be making the funeral arrangements". It required the intervention of NGLTF lawyers and lawyer friends on both coasts to convince the funeral home that he was indeed authorized as a legal partner to make the arrangements. Crispin requested an autopsy, which was contested by the Medical Examiner on the same grounds, and the cremation was subsequently questioned as well (they called during the funeral to argue the case with Crispin).

This stands as a lesson to all of us. We are continually told that as Queers, we do not need to be allowed to marry because all legal avenues of partnership are open to us as domestic partners. For Christ sake- this happened in Massachussetts! They had the gall to question a 16 year old relationship, legally bound as far as two gay men can go. At a time when Crispin was utterly bereft and distraught they had the temerity to impugn his and Eric's relationship, which was as closely legally covered as they could make it. (Eric's family, by the way, have too much respect for Crispin to intervene- they would not, I think, dream of subverting his moral authority to decide the arrangements).

It makes me so fucking angry. Give us our bloody civil rights! Enough of this fucking heterosexual gobbledygook denying that our relationships are as worthy as a man and a woman's- we are sick of arguing- just do it: not some paltry second-best, lesser citizen crumb from the hetrosexual table: give us what we deserve- marriage.

Right. Fucking. Now..

I could not have said it better myself.... they had the GALL to question a 16 year old relationship, legally bound as far as two men can go.

Beautifully written.

Please share that story with your friends who may not yet be ready to support Marriage Equality.

EndTheOccupation.org

2006-07-17T10:08:00.000-04:00

Text of a "thank you" note I sent to the Institute for Policy Studies:

In the summer of 2002 as the Bush administration's drumbeat for war moved me from complacency to active interest, I realized that I was woefully uninformed about the most pressing issues of the day. That summer I began what has become an ongoing process of educating myself in ways that a mainstream education, including a law degree, had not done. Among the most valuable resources I found on my journey was Phyllis Bennis' Iraq primer.
Fast forward to the present. I find myself deeply concerned about the escalating violence in the Middle East in recent weeks and wanting to have a firmer grasp of how things came to be so problematic there, what the U.S. role is and what are the key issues that need to be addressed in order for peace to occur. I am especially interested as two of my family members, both clergy members, departed for Jerusalem yesterday for a two-week peace building effort.

This time I didn't have to stumble upon Phyllis Bennis. I flew to her as fast as my fingers could hit the keys on keyboard. Just as I had hoped, I found EndTheOccupation.org and the primer she wrote on this crisis.

I can't overstate the importance of these kinds of resources. Knowledge is power. Real knowledge these days isn't easy to come by. I have spent the last four years making up for 42 years of relative ignorance. Thanks to Phyllis Bennis, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and so many other committed truthtellers, the race to catch up has been a wonderful and rewarding experience.

Escalating Tensions in the Middle East

2006-07-16T21:15:00.000-04:00

I don't know enough yet about the complicated situation in the Middle East right to offer much commentary. What I do know is that my learning will not come by way of the American mainstream media. It seems to me that this latest round of fighting has a subtext called Syria/Iran. The American press rushes to report the rumor that Iran and Syria are behind the Hezbollah and Hamas aggressions. Israel seems to be suggesting the same. An article in the NY Times on line this evening mentions at least twice, that the rocket that struck in Haifa, killing 8 Israeli's, was Syrian made. I doubt we will hear anything about the source of Israel's weaponry.

Today an interfaith delegation of peacemakers left Washington, DC en route to Israel. Their two week mission is to encourage dialogue for peace. The group will also, conditions permitting, spend time in Palestine speaking with Christians. It's an important trip at a very dangerous time. My aunt and my cousin, both United Church of Christ ministers, are among the delegation that took off this evening for Jerusalem by way of Zurich.

I will be following their journey with great interest and look forward to a first hand report upon their return. Needless to say, my deepest thoughts are firmly fixated on their safe passage.

My Last Words on Hillary

2006-07-15T15:45:00.000-04:00

Here's my take on this "debate" and on assessing those I entrust with my vote. For me it's not about what people convince me to think about someone, or what someone is purpoted to be inside. Rather it's all about what that person says and does that counts.

Frankly, I too believe Hillary is a "true blue" liberal at heart. But if you are afraid to say you are and to act and vote like you are, what's the point? What are you really? That isn't leadership to me. I agree that she made a mistake with her war vote, a huge mistake. But that was in the fall of 2002 and she has had plenty of opportunity to come clean, so to speak. In the meantime people are dying and the region is on the brink of an all out war. Moreover, during that time she has taken conservative positions on issues like flag burning and significantly gay marriage. The consequence of the biggest name in Democratic politics making a "mistake" on the most important vote (arguably) of the Bush presidency, and maneuvering herself on social issues for political effect is huge. Compounding matters is her failure to speak up and out clearly and forcefully and lead the opposition party. No doubt she is a smart, hardworking woman but does she have any real courage of conviction?

The grassroots and netroots are so far ahead of the party establishment. It's been disheartening and enfuriating enough to suffer through six years of Bush leadership, but we've had to do so without a firm commanding voice in Washington.

Feingold, Boxer, Byrd (on some issues), Kennedy and a number of House members have put up the good fight but they are outnumbered in the Congress and largely ignored by the press. Why hasn't Hillary been seen on Meet the Press, Hardball or any of the other watched news shows were discussions on issues are framed and debated? To my mind she has shirked her responsibility and just about guaranteed that she won't have my support.

I'm done with this debate. There's too much at stake and certainly too much going on in the world to get caught up in the Hillary game. My view is that those of us who are seriously looking for leadership and a new direction ought to be spending our time talking about and working on behalf of candidates who bring something different to the table. As we incessantly debate about Hillary on the net and across the airwaves, potential candidates like Russ Feingold, John Edwards and even Mark Warner are not being heard on the issues.

The Hillary Debate

2006-07-13T12:37:00.000-04:00

Wow. Since I cross-posted my Hillary post at DailyKos, I got challenged in the comments quite a bit.

Here is one that really stuck out to me:

A couple of things:
* She is a true-blue Democrat and liberal
* She concedes to issues in the culture war on symbolic issues, but does not concede on actual issues that affect people
* She made a mistake with the Iraq War vote and she needs to figure out a way to regain the trust of Democratic voters
* The media manufactures a lot of stuff about her "warmth" and "personality" and "connection to voters" and about voters' fears about her
I wonder how much of the last point is reflected here on Daily Kos. The way this works is that the RNC sends out a memo telling people like Rush Limbaugh that the message of the day is "People Dislike Hillary." He spends four hours ranting about it. From there, it makes its way to mainstream news and eventually becomes the conventional wisdom here.
Democratic voters are nervous about Hillary Clinton, essentially, because the Republican National Committee is manipulating them in such a way that they do.
Every single Hillary Clinton diary entry that is written here essentially is an unpaid advertisement for the Republican Party Talking Points Machine.

Ouch. So I read her diary on the issues around Hillary attacks..... and it was quite interesting.

I recommend checking out a few things on Hillary to make us all feel a little bit better about her....

Her web page on the issues and her stances... quite openly liberal on many issues.
The fact of her vote record and the point that she did vote against the flag burning amendment, much to the chagrin of me who fell for the media crapola on that....

So really the only thing I see her having done that causes me to be quite upset with her is her vote to attack Iraq and then subsequently her failure to recant it as a mistake.

She says this about Iraq on her website:

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.

From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead.

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their "last throes," this Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I heard General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, tell us that it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq. He was subsequently mocked and marginalized by the Bush Administration.

In October 2003, I said "In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress" and "Time and time again, the Administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that."

I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops.

After my first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I returned troubled by the policies of the Administration and faulted the President for failing to level with the American public. At the Council on Foreign Relations, I chided the President for failing to bring in enough international partners to quell the insurgency.

I spoke out often at the Armed Services Committee to Administration officials pointing out that the estimates they provided about the war, its length and cost lacked even basic credibility. And I challenged Secretary Rumsfeld more than once that he had no benchmarks to measure actual progress which would lead us to believe we had a strategy that was working. Last month, I signed a letter with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and dozens of other Democratic Senators voicing strong concerns that, without a solid plan, Iraq could become what it was not before the war: a haven for radical Islamist terrorists determined to attack America, our allies and our interests. The letter asked the Administration "to immediately provide a strategy for success in order to prevent this outcome." Just a few weeks ago, I joined a bipartisan majority in the United States Senate in voting for an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill calling upon the President and his Administration to provide answers and a plan for the war. It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics.

So what does that mean??? Does she denounce the invasion? Why has she not signed on to calls for impeachment? Especially after the way in which the far right went after her husband? Argh.

So maybe I am wrong about her.

Hillary

2006-07-13T06:32:00.000-04:00

The progressive blogs are brutal to Hillary Clinton. I spent some time considering Wes' recent post about her versus Joe Lieberman. I agree - Hillary is no longer a favorite of mine - she exudes some of the qualities I dislike about Bill, though I love Bill.

I have to wonder if she can see herself realistically at all. An article/analysis of her I read some time ago said that isolating yourself from reality and from people who tell you negative things about yourself is a survival mechanism inside the white house (it seems to be the Bush M.O.), and that explains why she still does that. The problem is, that she is not getting the feedback that she needs to have in order to grow as a leader - as long as she isolates herself from feedback, she possibly still sees herself as the darling of the liberals that she was in 1993. Unfortunately, she is no longer that.

Check out this post article, especially the following:

It is a reality that Clinton's advisers are confronting as they seek to position the former first lady for a possible 2008 presidential run. They expect that any campaign would begin after this fall's election, in which Clinton, a Democrat, is running for a second Senate term from New York.

Never has a politician stepped onto a presidential stage before an audience of voters who already have so many strong and personal opinions about her, or amid arguments that revolve around the intangibles of personality and the ways people react to it.

Clinton's assets are formidable: an unrivaled ability to generate publicity and money, and approval ratings that are notably strong, given her polarizing reputation and the controversies she has weathered over 15 years in the national eye. In recent public opinion polls, she handily leads potential Democratic rivals.

Beneath these positives, however, there is evidence of unease -- about her personal history, demeanor and motives -- among the very Democratic and independent voters she would need to win the presidency.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll highlighted the paradox. Fifty-four percent of those responding view her favorably, and a significant majority give her high marks for leadership (68 percent), strong family values (65 percent), and being open and friendly (58 percent). At the same time, only 37 percent of Democrats in the poll say they would definitely vote for her for president.

A Gallup poll from last summer also highlighted a perception that she is too divisive, with 53 percent of respondents saying they do not view her as someone who would "unite the country and not divide it."

While these don't address Wes' concerns that it is her positions about the war, about flag-burning, her focus on issues other than the real issues of the day, which respond to the hearts of the Rapture Right and not the needs of the USA, that are the problem, they address what seems to me to be a core issue - What does Hillary really care about? What does Senator Hillary stand for and what would she stand for as president? If she is not truly a progressive, she is not who we need. We do NOT need someone who sacrifices what we know we need to move forward for what triangulation says will be popular. We need a LEADER - someone who tells us we have to do the hard thing and support us through the wrenching change.

I really do still want to love Hillary. I really do want her to be the shining progressive saving light for the dems. But right now, I have to say I support Feingold most of all, since Hillary seems to have sold her soul.

Will the real Hillary please stand up? If you really want to run, we need to see you and be assured of your authenticity.

Leaders of the Rapture Right

2006-07-12T20:21:00.000-04:00

Check this out on the top ten of the religious right - these are the people claiming to own Christianity and speak for Christians in the USA.

Who will defy them and speak on Christ as we know and understand?

The United States is home to dozens of Religious Right groups. Many have small budgets and focus on state and local issues; the most powerful organizations conduct nationwide operations, command multi-million-dollar bank accounts and attract millions of followers. They have disproportionate clout in the halls of Congress, the White House and the courts, and they wield enormous influence within the political system.

These are the folks that really pull the strings in Bush's white house, and to whom we will see all Republican Prez hopefuls in 08 running for support... much pandering has already begun.....

Don't Get Lost in Lieberman

2006-07-12T08:41:00.000-04:00

I hear a whole lot of talk on liberal radio about Joe Lieberman. I'm no fan of his. I think he is precisely the type of Democrat that needs to be unseated in 2006. But he's certainly not the only one and perhaps not the most significant; though you might not know that from media.

For example, how many people know that Hillary Clinton has a very impressive primary candidate in Jonathan Tasini (http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/)? He's right on all of the issues in which we find her so wrong; Iraq topping the list. She's an icon of the party so despite progressives' disappointment with her, my take is we're not ready to go full out to take her knees out. Well, Tasini is on the ballot and he very well may give her a run for her money in the primary is the Manhattan activist core really turns out. I hope so.

I encourage folks not to sucuumb to the "anyone but..." temptation; anyone but the republican, anyone but Bush, etc. Winning is one thing. Really changing the country is another.

Hastening the End-Times?

2006-07-11T16:55:00.000-04:00

Is this really what they are after? This notion is surfacing in way too many places...

Is Bush really sucking up to the evangelical way-far-right Christian Crazy types who think the end-times are on the way, and we should act to hasten the destruction of all of God's creation through nuclear annihilation in the middle-east????

It's scary, but its quite possible - as there are sects in the US that funnel money to hardliners in Israel whose goal is nuclear war between Israel and the PLO.

We must stop these people.

Original DailyKos diary here. Quoting follows without permission:

Pastors of America's evangelical megachurches, the Los Angeles Times reports...have launched a "Billion Souls Initiative" to reach every heathen on Earth. "Our whole purpose is to hasten the End Times," says Bill McCartney, co-founder of the evangelical group Promise Keepers. He's doing his part by trying to convert mass numbers of Jews to Christianity as quickly as possible. Those who fail to heed Christ's message, McCartney warns, are "toast." Iran's alarming president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is just as eager to see infidels turned to toast. Within two years, he says, the Mahdi, the last of the Prophet Mohammed's heirs, will return to Tehran, ushering in a bloody, cataclysmic confrontation with the non-Muslim world.
Even in our own, enlightened nation, 40 percent of the population believes the End Times are nigh, according to several polls, and they have substantial political influence. If a bloody cataclysm in Israel is all part of a vengeful God's grand plan, why bother trying to negotiate a peace? Why not welcome a global religious war between Christianity and Islam? Strange questions for a species that's come so far over the past two millennia, and yet has not.
---William Falk in The Week magazine

Conservatives like to say that we on the left "hate America," which of course is nonsense. But their side readily admits---right out in the open---that they look forward to our nation's literal destruction. Next time you see a bumper sticker that says "Vote Republican And Die," remember: it ain't a joke. It's a campaign promise.

Is our purpose not to glorify and further God's good creation here????

No War Zone

2006-07-10T10:37:00.000-04:00

Interesting tidbit of information I learned this morning. The Japanese consitution prohibits the use of military force to resolve international disputes and the maintenance of a military for warfare. In the wake of North Korea's missle tests, Japan is considering whether a strike against the N. Korean test sites would violate the Japanese constitution.

How antiquated are they? I didn't think government's reviewed constitutional limits before acting anymore.

Oh, and by the way, India reportedly test fired its longest range missle on Sunday. That's not a problem though, we like them.

In the Spirit of FDR

2006-07-09T12:13:00.000-04:00

A diary at DailyKos speaks to the importance of real discourse that goes beyond CYA and crowd-pleasing platitudes. It was his manner of frank speaking, telling people what needed to be done to move forward, rather than telling people what they wanted to hear to make them feel good, that made FDR one of our greatest presidents...

Political discourse today, whether it takes place on the Senate floor or on Sunday talk, is slathered with slogans and tired catch-phrases. It's saturated with bullshit. It's bloated. It's fat. It's ineffective. Great ideas and practical solutions are buried under the avalanche of platitudes that inevitably pour of every politicians mouth, so that every politician regardless of his character ends up sounding the exact same.
Let's travel back in time to a real no-spin zone. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was handed the keys to the White House at a time of national peril, the Great Depression. In his inauguration speech, Roosevelt spoke plainly to the America people. He revealed the whole truth, "frankly and boldly":

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

"This Nation asks for action, and action now," he said, and proceeded to state his solution in beautifully simple terms: putting people to work. What strikes me most about his speech is how he knew at a time when the nation was starving for leadership, talking down to the American people or talking past them with platitudes was not the answer. Roosevelt followed his frank talk with an offering of hope:

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

This formula is what leadership is about: speaking to people as a person, not a politician. It's about leveling with them and speaking to them with a recognition that they are capable of handling the unvarnished truth about the state of our nation. We need to speak with concrete clarity. The American people are grown-ups who can handle the unvarnished truth. They will be more willing to jump on board with practical solutions when they're invited to sit at the table with authentic people they can trust.
Everything else sounds like an empty campaign speech.

The time to speak truth to power is NOW.

Why I Support Russ Feingold

2006-07-07T15:47:00.000-04:00

Where would we be right now with no Russ Feingold? Would we be talking in negative terms about Bush's Iraq policy? Would all democrats still look like Joe Lieberman, kissing up to Bush all the time and rubber-stamping his policies to look more "electable?"

I love that Russ says things like this:

July 5, 2006
“North Korea represents a true threat to our national security. By firing a number of test missiles this week, North Korea has broken the trust of the international community. These latest actions will harm, not help, the North Korean position at the negotiating table. The U.S. must step up its efforts to strengthen the multilateral framework that was established to deal with North Korea, and the North Koreans must recognize that a diplomatic solution is in their interests. But we can’t fully address this crisis, or the stand-off with Iran, if we remain bogged down in Iraq. A more aggressive and fully engaged effort to address the threat North Korea poses to our country and our allies must start with a reevaluation of our current, misguided policies in Iraq.”

Russ is right. Bush's foolish policy, including the Iraq invasion, has made us deeply vulnerable to the current crisis in N Korea. It is such a shame that we have emboldened the crazy people like Kim Jong Il into feeling that they can do these things. Our takeover of Iraq did nothing to make the world safer, it merely pleased Iran and emboldened them. The angry terrorists, who seek only to destroy, are no doubt thrilled about the sheer volume of bad PR coming out of the Whtie House itself at this point.

We can only hope for a democratic takeover of the house and Senate, moving towards full impeachment proceedings in the Spring next year. Bush has done deep damage to our country, our economy, our international standing, and our future. God help us all.

Great analysis of Russ' comments here on Daily Kos.

Litmus Tests

2006-07-07T08:45:00.000-04:00

Litmus tests in political vernacular are given a bad name. I don't see it that way. In fact, I've got a couple.

A few months ago I signed on to a pledge lead by the Nation magazine. The Nation's editor Kristina Van den Huevel asked readers to pledge not to vote for any candidate who opposed a speedy withdrawal from Iraq and who did not now consider the war to have been a mistake (actually the second part of that might be my add-on.) Frankly, I would be very, very, very reluctant to vote for a candidate who ever supported the invasion, but I do hold out the remote possibility of being able to vote for someone who has changed his/her position, a la John Kerry or Edwards.

To my mind, just voting for the Democrat over the Republican won't cut it. We need new and different types of leaders in Congress. More people like--in my judgment--Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and a few others in the Senate and Dennis Kucinich, Barabara Lee, Shelia Jackson Lee, John Conyers and the rest of the progressive caucus in the House. Neither the current nor possible African American male senators--Barack Obama and Harold Ford, Jr.--are included on my list.

I've also come to the conclusion that I can't support a candidate who doesn't support marriage equality. A candidate who either genuinely oppposes the right of same sex couples to marry (for whichever irrational reason he/she posits) or duplicitously does so for political reasons, is not the kind of leader that I believe can move this country forward in a positive way.

I'm fortunate that I've got fairly easy choices for Congress in the 2006 midterms. I have the opportunity to vote for Keith Ellison, an African-American state representative here in Minneapolis. I also support Ford Bell in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton. He's a true progressive, but facing a slight uphill battle against the more moderately progressive Amy Klobuchar.

Who knows what 2008 will bring, but of those names most often mentioned a possible entries into the Democratic race for the nomination, Russ Feingold emerges as my clear choice on the issues. He passes my tests.

Dissident

2006-07-04T16:56:00.000-04:00

That's a good song by Pearl Jam.

And a GREAT editorial by EJ Dionne. I love this. This is what progressives need to say 24/7.

Here's the crux of it:

But the progressive and the reformer have a problem with what passes for unadulterated patriotism. By nature, the reformer is bound to insist that the country, however glorious, is not a perfect place, that it is capable of doing wrong as well as right. The nation that declared "all men are created equal" was, at the time those words were written, the home of an extensive system of slavery.

This is what progressives need to say 24/7.

The Fourth of July is, of course, a celebration of national unity and of shared love of country. But it need not bother us that there has always been a struggle over the day's meaning. This is part of a larger argument over how to interpret our national tradition, an ongoing quarrel that I suspect the revolutionaries of '76 would understand.

Those who reject the idea of national perfection, who insist that the Founders laid out a pathway and not a destination, should thus resist defensiveness. They should embrace the creed offered in a speech to Congress in 1990 by Vaclav Havel, the Eastern European dissident who became president of the Czech Republic.

"As long as people are people, democracy, in the full sense of the word, will always be no more than an ideal," Havel said. "One may approach it as one would the horizon in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained. In this sense, you, too, are merely approaching democracy."

Amen, and Happy Fourth of July.

Inconveniently Awakened

2006-06-29T21:59:00.000-04:00

Although I consider myself a progressive with an itch for activism, I admit that I have activated neither my mind, body, nor checkbook in the area of environmentalism. In theory I was a supporter, but science isn't something I really enjoy applying brain cells to, so I left it to others to focus on.

As a consequence, I almost had to be dragged to see "An Inconvenient Truth"last Sunday. I didn't want to go, in part because it was late in the afternoon and I would have preferred to stay home and read. But I honestly expected to be bored stiff with all the science.

Well, I was wrong. I was wrong and I'm really glad I went. The piece is fantastic. It is, quite literally, a 90-minute course on global warming; its causes, consequences and potential solutions.

I'm still no environmentalist, but I get it.

2006-06-28T08:05:00.000-04:00

Environmentalists and Evangelicals ---- bedfellows?

It makes good sense if you think about it - REAL Christians are going to love God's creation and care for it, not be bamboozled into letting Bush-ites buy it, sell it, exploit it, and pollute it.

Kojo's show is probably the best thing on public radio in the world. This episode is fantastic, because you can hear the evangelicals speaking more openly and honestly about what seem to me to be real Christian principles - not spouting republican talking points in exchange for political power.

He makes some great points about how simple things, such as choosing to put 5 energy star light bulbs in your house in place of regular ones saves significant energy - and how if every household did that it would have the same net effect as removing 8 million cars from the roadway in terms of preventing pollution from energy production. WOW.

Consider that - what minor inconvenience have you taken on in order to do something positive for the planet?

Today I was a real gym-goer and walked from the gym to the grocery store (at the other end of the strip mall) to get a few items, and walked back to my car, parked in front of the gym. Inconvenient, but saved gas. Little things like that make a difference.

F.U.B.A.R.

2006-06-25T17:16:00.000-04:00

I'm reading FUBAR:America's Right-Wing Nightmare right now. I love it, mostly because it preaches to the choir and makes me feel good being a knee-jerk liberal.

Parts of it do scare me, because I think they are right about the actual schemes behind the damage the Bush-people are doing to our society. Check this out, in the section on the shift in "the American Dream:"

"Rapture Rightists aren't the only type of fundamentalists in the Republican Party. There's also the market fundamentalists. They're not religious, but they're just as faith-based. Show a market fundie that Medicare is far more efficient and cost-effective than private health insurance (Administrative Costs for Medicare are just 3%, versus almost 13% for private insurance), and his response is, 'We need even more privatization.'"

How the Christian right justifies itself is beyond me - the sheer damage that their alliance with Grover Norquist et al has done to the poor, a simply deeply anti-Jesus, non-Christian way to live, is astonishing. The absolute mind-crushing determination to annhilate Social Security is abominable. Yet perhaps this is what they want - bring that about so that it hastens the end of the world - the end of civilization.

I love the way the authors refer to the new far right fringe as "Rapture Rightists" -- that looks more and more what the Dobsons et al are trying to do - bring about nuclear war and the absolute annhilation of America from within so that we will simply be thoroughly vaporized - not exactly the biblical rapture - but a similar experience with a 21st century twist.

In which case, you know if they are right, I'm in a burning lake for the rest of eternity.

Jim Webb, Republicrat, Repub-LIte, or Progressive Dem?

2006-06-24T12:54:00.000-04:00

There is lots of press about Jim Webb these days.

If you are out of touch, he is running to replace George Allen as the junior Senator from Virginia.

A brief bio of Webb includes the facts that:
1. He was secretary of the Navy for Ronnie Reagan
2. He voted for Bush in 2000 and Allen in 2000 (when Allen beat VA hero Chuck Robb)
3. He stated during the 2004 prez campaign that Bush's Iraq invasion and subsequent bungling was foolishness. He also spoke against Kerry.

I voted for Webb over longtime dem activist Harris Miller, mostly because I don't trust lobbyists. Miller is heavily aligned with the telecom industry, whose growing power over our lives I fear. I support Mark Warner reluctantly, mostly because of his ties to big telecom.

I think Webb can beat Allen, who needs to leave the Senate, and who I find to be an utter idiot.

There are those who suggest that Webb is Republican-lite. I disagree. He has publicly stated that the ideals of the dem party are those that are right to solve the problems in our society today.

I agree with Wes that the DLC types like Hillary and LIeberman are the true problem - they have sold out the dem party for re-election $$ from big business and allowed Bush-ism to annhilate much of what has been good in America. We must defeat them, and do so resoundingly. I think this is being led by people like Jon Tester in the west... who defeated a dem establishment candidate for the dem nomination. The change is coming. Slowly, surely.

Helen Thomas, quoted in this DailyKos article, nails the DLCers.

That's why I am getting involved - I want a voice in who we pick so we lose these damn triangulators and Bush-lite dems. We have to go back to core dem principles, and be the democrats who got so much done in America's hardest times - the 30s and 40s, so that America can flourish again and live up to its ideals.

What's in a Word?

2006-06-23T08:38:00.000-04:00

"Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."

"Resurrection: 1 a capitalized : the rising of Christ from the dead b often capitalized : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment c : the state of one risen from the dead2 : RESURGENCE, REVIVAL3 Christian Science : a spiritualization of thought : material belief that yields to spiritual understanding"

For starters, it would have been helpful for me to spell "resurrection" properly in the title of the blog. But I'll fix that.

I wish I could figure out a way to use both terms. But what will have to do Dan, is that you can serve as the voice of revolt!!! I'm frankly disgusted with the Democratic party. I'm trying to stay focused on learning about issues and policy from a liberal perspective and let that dictate my politics.

I consider myself an Independent at this point. I don't want to participate in the election of one more Republican-lite or Republican-like Democrat.

Aboard

2006-06-21T06:26:00.000-04:00

Wow, Wes, thanks for inviting me along for the ride on this blog!

I almost prefer Insurrection to Ressurection, but it works. I may be a bit more militant in my view than Wes, but less active in protesting.

Nonetheless, I intend to post about my growing involvement with the local dem party, moving it from the Clintonist Triangulations point of view to a true liberal/progressive/move america forward perspective!

Welcome

2006-06-20T20:21:00.000-04:00

From Progressive Pulpit to Liberal Ressurection. Do you get the concept? The combination of political philosophy with the sacred. That's where I'm at.