• Board 2 January 10 - 2:27 pm

Here's an article emailed to me by my mom. Maybe the Dems will heed this and wake up. I'd post the link but I dunno where she got it from. If anyone finds it then post it here and I'll replace this article with it to cut down on space.

It's the war, stup¡d

Yes, the Democrats have serious problems. But without 9/11, they still would have trounced Bush and the Republicans.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gary Kamiya

Nov. 7, 2002 | In the days and weeks ahead, as the Democrats try to make sense of the Bush-GOP train that just ran over them, there will be an orgy of soul-searching unmatched since Mao ordered Capitalist Roaders to engage in "constructive self-criticism." The worst Democratic Election Day debacle since at least 1994 is certain to inspire a torrent of accusations, recriminations and proposals. Some will say the Democrats lost because they no longer stand for anything. Others will blame their lackluster candidates and poor party leadership. Others will whack the Democrats for failing to get their message out. Still others will complain that the Democrats simply lack the GOP's killer instinct.

And so on.

All of those criticisms are valid. The party is intellectually moribund and "triangulated" to death; its leaders are timid, mealy-mouthed nonentities. It's a mess that needs a thorough house-cleaning. But before Democratic voters jump off a cliff en masse or decide to register as Whigs, they need to take a deep breath and repeat this mantra:

It's the war, stup¡d.

Without the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush and the GOP -- presiding over a terrible economy, embracing far-right positions that put them out of step with most Americans -- would be toast right now.

Tuesday's results were an anomaly, a classic case of the nation rallying around the president during wartime. Bush's popularity remains high, and his hard-driving campaigning in the election's last weeks appears to have tipped the scales. But take away his commander in chief's mantle, and Emperor Bush has no clothes.

Bush entered office having lost the popular vote in the most dubious election in American history, and he has exactly zero achievements to point to since then outside of pushing the "annihilate the Taliban" button, an action that hardly required the wartime leadership qualities of a Churchill. His massive tax cut brought joy to the hearts of anti-government zealots like Grover Norquist, but it did virtually nothing to help ordinary Americans and it will hamstring the economy for years to come. His heavy-handed unilateralism and moralistic hectoring has squandered the global goodwill Americans enjoyed after the terror attacks and has taken relations with key European allies like Germany and France to postwar lows. His obsession with Iraq and reactionary Middle East policies threaten to kick that hornet's nest open, with unforeseeable consequences. On issues from the environment to abortion rights to medical marijuana to corporate accountability, he has staked out positions well to the right of most Americans.

Under normal circumstances, and especially for a midterm election, this would not be a winning hand, no matter how lame your opposition. But on Tuesday, the desire of Americans to support a wartime president trumped everything else. "Don't you know there's a war going on, mister?" pretty much summed up the GOP's pitch. And even if the Democrats had come up with a better message or better candidates, that message probably would have prevailed.

Many Democrats, particularly those from the left wing of the party, blame their defeat on their party's failure to oppose two things: Bush's tax cut and his proposed war on Iraq. The two issues are completely different, however. As to the tax cut, the truth is that had the Democrats opposed it, they probably would have been defeated even more soundly than they were -- although I believe they should have done so anyway, sacrificing short-term pain for long-term gain. Tax cuts are kryptonite to the Democratic Party because they are popular with voters, and Republicans know this. But sooner or later, voters are going to realize that virtually all the benefits of the GOP tax cuts are going to a tiny handful of plutocrats and giant corporations -- and when that happens, it would be helpful if the Democrats have staked out a position distinguishing them from Republicans. In the short term, however, opposing the tax cut would not have helped stop the GOP and indeed would likely have made the rout worse.

The Iraq war is a different story. A principled Democratic resistance to Bush's plans to invade Iraq would probably not have affected the outcome of the midterm election. Osama simply gave Bush and the GOP too much of an advantage: The fear and confusion sown by the terror attacks made it difficult for most Americans to distinguish between different threats from the Arab world and led them to rally around the president. But the Democrats should have fought back anyway, for a variety of reasons.

Opposing the Iraq resolution would not have hurt the Democrats nearly as much as they feared, and perhaps not at all. It would have weakened Bush by raising doubts about his leadership of the "war on terror" -- the one area where voters trust him -- and about whether that peculiar "war" actually exists. Above all, it would have broken through the congealed, "patriotic" bipartisanship that the Democrats have spinelessly engaged in since 9/11 -- a supine posture that has allowed Bush and the GOP to completely set the agenda and limit the terms of national debate. By buying uncritically in to the war on terror as defined by Bush, the Democrats implicitly accepted that the commander in chief was the gold standard of patriotism, wisdom, judgment and all the other virtues that wartime leaders must be believed to embody. Once they did that, trying to criticize him was like swimming against the current.

The Democrats should have pointed out that America is not, in fact, at war -- at least not in the conventional meaning of the word. American troops are no longer engaged in regular combat, and American civilians have not been asked to make any sacrifices. After a brief initial war phase, the "war on terror" has imperceptibly and properly shifted into something more like an international police action, albeit one punctuated by ominous assassinations like the "Star Wars" robot-plane hit in Yemen. The Democrats should have made this clear and tried to lower the emotional tenor of the discussion about the most appropriate response to terrorism. After all, "Don't you know there's an international police action going on, mister?" isn't exactly the stuff to rally the troops.

The Democrats' complete failure to do this, or to engage Bush on any of the issues that came up after the 9/11 terror attacks, from the USA PATRIOT Act to Bush's green light to Ariel Sharon, cleared the way for Bush to make major political hay by demonizing Saddam. Bush's saber rattling about Iraq achieved two things at once: It helped restore a vague, politically useful sense of wartime paranoia and unease to the country, and it restored his image as a resolute war leader.

The fact is that once the Democrats rolled over, the Saddam-bogeyman card was a sure winner for Bush -- a fact surely not lost on his political strategists. Bush obviously won the votes of those who accepted his argument that Saddam posed an immediate and unacceptable threat. But, paradoxically, he also probably won over many of those who were confused and uncertain about whether invading Iraq was worth the risk. Bush's elevation of Saddam to the status of supreme world villain, and his irresponsible but politically clever assertion that Saddam and al-Qaida were linked, succeeded even in the minds of many doubters in turning Iraq into a kind of ominous miasma, indistinguishable from Osama's boys. The bottom line, in many minds, was simple: America is threatened by an out-of-focus mob of medieval ragheads, and we need the firm, even heavy, hand of a Republican to take care of them. The Republican qualities that many middle-of-the-road voters might find objectionable -- ruthlessness, impatience with niggling moral objections, selfishness -- look more attractive when a blurry horde of demented Arabs waving scimitars is riding in out of the desert.

Had the Democrats raised doubts about Bush's Iraq plans, more of these voters would have grasped that if Bush was wrong about the imminent threat posed by a secular dictator we lovingly embraced a few years ago, then he himself would be to blame if an invasion backfired. Democrats should have pointed out that an invasion of Iraq could have consequences more profound -- perhaps good, perhaps catastrophic -- than any U.S. military action since World War II. They should have pointed out that those consequences remain unforeseeable -- and that when consequences cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy, when possible negative consequences could be catastrophic, and no compelling evidence exists of an imminent threat, prudence dictates nonintervention. That's why before 9/11, almost no one outside the small cabal of neoconservative zealots who are now driving America's Mideast policy seriously advocated a full-blown invasion of Iraq.

Yet the Democrats, implicitly accepting Bush's emotional but irrational claim that the 9/11 attacks changed the frame of reference not just for the Iraq issue but for everything, refused to debate the subject. The fact is, until the Democrats dare to challenge the Republican ownership of 9/11, Bush will keep playing the "We're at war" card -- and the Democrats will continue to face an uphill struggle.

Challenging Bush and Co.'s ownership of 9/11 doesn't mean turning quisling or becoming an "appeaser," to use a word promiscuously thrown around by blowhards on the right. It means quite the opposite: bringing a cold and dispassionate eye to the discussion of how best to defeat al-Qaida. Whether the struggle we're engaged in is called war, a police action or whatever, it will be most effectively prosecuted by cool heads. It's high time the Democrats get over their perennial fear of being attacked as unpatriotic -- the Republicans are going to smear them with that anyway, as Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia found out -- and got down to taking care of the nation's business.

The Democrats probably had no chance this time -- yet another reason to hate Osama and his hellish minions -- but they have ample time to get their act together. For Bush, looking ahead to 2004, Osama could be the gift that keeps on giving, politically speaking. If he can figure out a way to keep the public in a state of low-grade war fever for two more years, the GOP will continue to hold the political heights. It is one of the many tasks the Democrats face, as they pick up the pieces, to prevent him from doing that.

Molly Ivins' take on the election, again sent by email:

Brighten Up, There's Always Another Election

by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN -- Never say this is not a great nation. A campaign in which Jesse Ventura took offense at someone else's behavior: Mr. Etiquette, the sensitive male. Poor Charlton Heston, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, no shame to him, shipped about the country, urging us all to buy more guns while being held up by supporters on each arm. Both candidates for governor in California capable of inducing brain damage in anyone luckless enough to listen to them speak. Another great year!

As a veteran of many an electoral defeat at the polls, may I remind you of the proper Texan attitude toward slaughter at the polls. A few years before the godmother of Texas liberals, Billie Carr, died at age 74, a friend called to ask how she was doing. "Well," she said, "They just impeached my boy up in Washington, there's not a Democrat left in statewide office in Texas, the Republicans have taken every judgeship in Harris County, and yesterday, I found out I have cancer." Pause. "I think I'll go out and get a pregnancy test because with my luck, it'll come back positive."

Many are the reasons to be of good cheer, my friends, and not least of them is that here in Texas we have managed to elect one of the most entrancing crews of dipsticks in the entire history of our state. Rick "Goodhair" ("It was totally coincidental") Perry for governor. David Dewhurst for lieutenant governor. The Texas Observer, searching for someone who would say anything good about Dewhurst, finally located a Republican who admitted, "Well, he's weird. But he's less weird than he used to be." I suspect many a Republican soccer mom is somewhat startled to find Texas now has an attorney general who is not only anti-choice but has said he does not believe in exceptions in case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Happy Mother's Day.

This merry Republican crew takes control of the state at an absolute stinker of a time, so they'll get all the blame, which is only fair, since it was caused by former Gov. George W. Bush. Two big tax cuts and whammo! The state is so deep in the hole every Democrat who lost has to utter a secret, "Whew!" Not only will we be down $12 billion by the end of the year, but early estimates on required additional spending are already stacking up to something in the neighborhood of 40 percent of the total budget. Since Republicans are all sworn to eat worms and die before they raise taxes, watching them deal with this disaster should be highly entertaining. Until they have to close the schools.

Another reason to be of good cheer about the larger picture is that the Democrats deserved to lose. What a gutless campaign. It's one thing to point out that the economy is a mess; it's another to have no useful plan whatever to offer. How could they let themselves be buffaloed by Republicans on taxes, with all the facts and fairness on their side? One had only to say, "Every single nickel of tax relief in that package will stay in it, but instead of giving 50 percent of the cut to the richest 1 percent of Americans, we're going to put that tax relief into a payroll tax cut, it's going to the bottom 99 percent of the people." Payroll taxes stop at $84,900 a year--anything you make over that is untaxed, a patently ridiculous system. If you cut payroll taxes, the money goes into the pockets of people who go right out and spend it, thus ginning up the economy, rather than to those who just put it in offshore tax shelters.

Further, any party so brain-dead it can't even make an issue out of Enron and corporate sleaze deserves to be out of office.

Let the post-mortems begin! This is not a whine, but I do think the major factor in the last-minute Republican tilt was television coverage. Almost the only political story for the last three days was Bush Barnstorming. It's as though reporters were covering a presidential campaign with only one candidate rather than a midterm election.

One reaction to electoral disaster should be avoided at all costs: it's that annoying radical mantra, "Things have to get worse before they can get better." The only possible response to that bit of specious thinking is, "Not with my child's life." It is indubitably true things are about to get worse--New York Times columnist Paul Krugman quotes a junior official at the Heritage Foundation on the mood of business lobbyists: "optimism bordering on giddiness." They all have their wish lists ready, and it's Christmastime for the special interests. The only recourse is to fight them smart and hard. Giving them enough rope to hang themselves with just means we all hang along with them. Sharpen wits and man the battle stations. No time to waste feeling sorry for ourselves.

Rampaging Republicans

The President, let's understand, won a historic victory
by committing politics--shrewd, aggressive, old-fashioned, take-no-prisoners
politics--while the opposition party did the opposite. That is why
Republicans reclaimed control of the Senate and even added to their House
majority. They are now in a position to do real damage with long-term
consequences for the Republic, from gutting the federal tax code to packing
the Supreme Court with more right-wingers, advancing an agenda we continue to
believe Americans at large neither want nor support. Nevertheless,
progressives should take reality's cold shower and acknowledge that this was
no fluke or fraud like 2000. Bush and his party brilliantly, daringly used
what they had to maximum advantage, while the Dems went limp.

The war-and-terrorism presidency trumped all, silenced Democrats and pushed
aside other matters from serious examination. Meanwhile, the GOP cleverly
co-opted or smothered the issues that threaten them, from the troubled
economy to corporate corruption to prescription drugs (the SEC scandal
conveniently vanished election night when chairman Harvey Pitt resigned). And
Republicans also ran away from the killer issues like their plan for Social
Security privatization. But, above all, they played to win.

The Democrats, meanwhile, once again pursued a minimalist strategy, even
emptier than their presidential campaign of 2000, and the results were worse
than minimal. Let the recriminations begin. At least, we hope they do. Start
by demanding the resignation of the national chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who
sounded like a fool on television, trying to spin this terrible defeat into
not-so-bad news. This is a disaster for the Democratic Party, given the great
public issues they had available for a fight but instead turned into mush.
The outcome ought to ignite the kind of furious, focused debates that were
suppressed by the Clinton era of New Democrats.

Organized labor and other vital constituencies need to take a cold shower,
too, and recognize that big, noisy conflict is required. Change the
leadership (Dick Gephardt's announcement that he will not run again for House
Democratic leader, reported as imminent at presstime, is a good start) and
make way for new voices, new thinking. Fire the consultants and pollsters who
design these lame, losing strategies. Hire some real-life organizers, who can
go out and begin the hard task of reconnecting the party with the American
people.

This election should be understood by Democrats as their entry into the
wilderness. The results confirmed that they are now a minority party, and
they ought to accept that status as a powerful incentive to reargue basic
convictions. Republicans, it remains true, are not able to achieve a stable
majority either, mainly because their agenda is so far out of sync with what
Americans want and need. But Democrats should put aside wishful scenarios for
how to regain power and instead take up the question of what the Democratic
Party's vision for the country is. What kind of society do Democrats want to
achieve, and how do they expect to get there? Only through intense,
freewheeling intraparty argument and genuine inquiry (as opposed to more
polls and focus groups) can the Democrats construct substantive goals. And
the goals must be real--grounded in people's everyday experiences and
aspirations, not rhetoric concocted for campaign speeches.

These goals lead naturally to an aggressive agenda of reform measures--issues
that may well be unwinnable today but that convey a forward-looking sense of
what you get if you vote Democratic. Then the party (not unanimously but
substantially) has to be willing to fight for those measures, again and
again, accepting defeats and sticking to principles, in the knowledge that
this is how a revitalized political party builds itself into a majority.
Democrats should keep in mind the lesson to be learned from the 1950s and
1960s, when Republicans, habituated to losing Congress, were eventually
energized by the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater. He lost huge but
gave the GOP the sense of conviction that led to its ascendancy.

The Bush triumph has its own vulnerabilities--campaign promises the
Republicans do not intend to keep, the public's growing opposition to war in
Iraq, the dangerous economic landscape ahead and, not least, the right-wing
agenda, which, until 9/11's patriotism arose, Americans were not buying and
still essentially oppose. The White House will try, as it did so successfully
this year, to steer past its political contradictions with relentlessly
cynical marketing. Very shortly, we expect Bush to address the economy's
problems with a stimulus package that, however fraudulent, makes him look
attentive.

Democrats have the capacity to block the worst of Bush's plans, and their
first test of purpose will be whether they have the backbone to do so. Beyond
that, they must begin now to become a fighting minority and reclaim their
party.

MarkN: I agree. In fact, I think Bill Maher said it best on Hardball. it's no that the Republicans won, it's that the Democrats LOST. Subtle difference.

http://www.democratunderground.com

Concieve of it if you will, a World where Dude and Webber debated each other, and it had nothing to do with Archangel's direction.

Quick warning about that site. People who are not Democrats or do not follow the Democratic party line are NOT allowed to post. I like this place MUCH better.

The Reason Why
by George McGovern

Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die. --Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"
(in the Crimean War)

Thanks to the most crudely partisan decision in the history of the Supreme Court, the nation has been given a President of painfully limited wisdom and compassion and lacking any sense of the nation's true greatness. Appearing to enjoy his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces above all other functions of his office, and unchecked by a seemingly timid Congress, a compliant Supreme Court, a largely subservient press and a corrupt corporate plutocracy, George W. Bush has set the nation on a course for one-man rule.

He treads carelessly on the Bill of Rights, the United Nations and international law while creating a costly but largely useless new federal bureaucracy loosely called "Homeland Security." Meanwhile, such fundamental building blocks of national security as full employment and a strong labor movement are of no concern. The nearly $1.5 trillion tax giveaway, largely for the further enrichment of those already rich, will have to be made up by cutting government services and shifting a larger share of the tax burden to workers and the elderly. This President and his advisers know well how to get us involved in imperial crusades abroad while pillaging the ordinary American at home. The same families who are exploited by a rich man's government find their sons and daughters being called to war, as they were in Vietnam--but not the sons of the rich and well connected. (Let me note that the son of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is now on duty in the Persian Gulf. He did not use his obvious political connections to avoid military service, nor did his father seek exemptions for his son. That goes well with me, with my fellow South Dakotans and with every fair-minded American.)

The invasion of Iraq and other costly wars now being planned in secret are fattening the ever-growing military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned in his great farewell address. War profits are booming, as is the case in all wars. While young Americans die, profits go up. But our economy is not booming, and our stock market is not booming. Our wages and incomes are not booming. While waging a war against Iraq, the Bush Administration is waging another war against the well-being of America.

Following the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the entire world was united in sympathy and support for America. But thanks to the arrogant unilateralism, the bullying and the clumsy, unimaginative diplomacy of Washington, Bush converted a world of support into a world united against us, with the exception of Tony Blair and one or two others. My fellow South Dakotan, Tom Daschle, the US Senate Democratic leader, has well described the collapse of American diplomacy during the Bush Administration. For this he has been savaged by the Bush propaganda machine. For their part, the House of Representatives has censured the French by changing the name of french fries on the house dining room menu to freedom fries. Does this mean our almost sacred Statue of Liberty--a gift from France--will now have to be demolished? And will we have to give up the French kiss? What a cruel blow to romance.

During his presidential campaign Bush cried, "I'm a uniter, not a divider." As one critic put it, "He's got that right. He's united the entire world against him." In his brusque, go-it-alone approach to Congress, the UN and countless nations big and small, Bush seemed to be saying, "Go with us if you will, but we're going to war with a small desert kingdom that has done us no harm, whether you like it or not." This is a good line for the macho business. But it flies in the face of Jefferson's phrase, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." As I have watched America's moral and political standing in the world fade as the globe's inhabitants view the senseless and immoral bombing of ancient, historic Baghdad, I think often of another Jefferson observation during an earlier bad time in the nation's history: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The President frequently confides to individuals and friendly audiences that he is guided by God's hand. But if God guided him into an invasion of
Iraq, He sent a different message to the Pope, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the mainline Protestant National Council of Churches and many
distinguished rabbis--all of whom believe the invasion and bombardment of Iraq is against God's will. In all due respect, I suspect that Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice--and other sideline warriors--are the gods (or goddesses) reaching the ear of our President. As a World War II bomber pilot, I was always troubled by the title of a then-popular book, God Is My Co-pilot. My co-pilot was Bill Rounds of Wichita, Kansas, who was anything but godly, but he was a skillful pilot, and he helped me bring our B-24 Liberator through thirty-five combat missions over the most heavily defended targets in Europe. I give thanks to God for our survival, but somehow I could never quite picture God sitting at the controls of a bomber or squinting through a bombsight deciding which of his creatures should survive and which should die. It did not simplify matters theologically when Sam Adams, my navigator--and easily the godliest man on my ten-member crew--was killed in action early in the war. He was planning to become a clergyman at war's end.

Of course, my dear mother went to her grave believing that her prayers brought her son safely home. Maybe they did. But how could I explain that to the mother of my close friend, Eddie Kendall, who prayed with equal fervor for her son's safe return? Eddie was torn in half by a blast of shrapnel during the Battle of the Bulge--dead at age 19, during the opening days of the battle--the best baseball player and pheasant hunter I knew.

I most certainly do not see God at work in the slaughter and destruction now unfolding in Iraq or in the war plans now being developed for additional American invasions of other lands. The hand of the Devil? Perhaps. But how can I suggest that a fellow Methodist with a good Methodist wife is getting guidance from the Devil? I don't want to get too self-righteous about all of this. After all, I have passed the 80 mark, so I don't want to set the bar of acceptable behavior too high lest I fail to meet the standard for a passing grade on Judgment Day. I've already got a long list of strikes against me. So President Bush, forgive me if I've been too tough on you. But I must tell you, Mr. President, you are the greatest threat to American troops. Only
you can put our young people in harm's way in a needless war. Only you can weaken America's good name and influence in world affairs.

We hear much talk these days, as we did during the Vietnam War, of "supporting our troops." Like most Americans, I have always supported our
troops, and I have always believed we had the best fighting forces in the world--with the possible exception of the Vietnamese, who were fortified by their hunger for national independence, whereas we placed our troops in the impossible position of opposing an independent Vietnam, albeit a Communist one. But I believed then as I do now that the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them on mistaken military campaigns that needlessly endanger their lives and limbs. That is what went on in Vietnam for nearly thirty years--first as we financed the French in their failing effort to regain control of their colonial empire in Southeast Asia, 1946-54, and then for the next twenty years as we sought unsuccessfully to stop the Vietnamese independence struggle led by Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap--two great men whom we should have accepted as the legitimate leaders of Vietnam at the end of World War II. I should add that Ho and his men were our allies against the Japanese in World War II. Some of my fellow pilots who were shot down by Japanese gunners over Vietnam were brought safely back to American lines by Ho's guerrilla forces.

During the long years of my opposition to that war, including a presidential campaign dedicated to ending the American involvement, I said in a moment of disgust: "I'm sick and tired of old men dreaming up wars in which young men do the dying." That terrible American blunder, in which 58,000 of our bravest young men died, and many times that number were crippled physically or psychologically, also cost the lives of some 2 million Vietnamese as well as a similar number of Cambodians and Laotians, in addition to laying waste to most of Indochina--its villages, fields, trees and waterways; its schools, churches, markets and hospitals.

I had thought after that horrible tragedy--sold to the American people by our policy-makers as a mission of freedom and mercy--that we never again would carry out a needless, ill-conceived invasion of another country that had done us no harm and posed no threat to our security. I was wrong in that assumption.

The President and his team, building on the trauma of 9/11, have falsely linked Saddam Hussein's Iraq to that tragedy and then falsely built him up as a deadly threat to America and to world peace. These falsehoods are rejected by the UN and nearly all of the world's people. We will, of course, win the war with Iraq. But what of the question raised in the Bible that both George Bush and I read: "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul," or the soul of his nation?

It has been argued that the Iraqi leader is hiding a few weapons of mass destruction, which we and eight other countries have long held. But can it be assumed that he would insure his incineration by attacking the United States? Can it be assumed that if we are to save ourselves we must strike Iraq before Iraq strikes us? This same reasoning was frequently employed during the half-century of cold war by hotheads recommending that we atomize the Soviet Union and China before they atomize us. Courtesy of The New Yorker, we are reminded of Tolstoy's observation: "What an immense mass of evil must result...from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen." Or again, consider the words of Lord Stanmore, who concluded after the suicidal charge of the Light Brigade that it was "undertaken to resist an attack that was never threatened and probably never contemplated." The symphony of falsehood orchestrated by the Bush team has been de-vised to defeat an Iraqi onslaught that "was never threatened and probably never comtemplated."

I'm grateful to The Nation, as I was to Harper's, for giving me opportunities to write about these matters. Major newspapers, especially the Washington Post, haven't been nearly as receptive.

The destruction of Baghdad has a special poignancy for many of us. In my fourth-grade geography class under a superb teacher, Miss Wagner, I was first introduced to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the palm trees and dates, the kayaks plying the rivers, camel caravans and desert oases, the Arabian Nights, Aladdin and His Wonderful Lamp (my first movie), the ancient city of Baghdad, Mesopotamia, the Fertile Crescent. This was the first class in elementary school that fired my imagination. Those wondrous images have stayed with me for more than seventy years. And it now troubles me to hear of America's bombs, missiles and military machines ravishing the cradle of civilization.

But in God's good time, perhaps this most ancient of civilizations can be redeemed. My prayer is that most of our soldiers and most of the long-suffering people of Iraq will survive this war after it has joined the historical march of folly that is man's inhumanity to man.

A reason not to vote for Kucinich. copied from the party that supports Yogic Flying on your tax dollar.


Urgent: Vote For Kucinich In First Democratic Primary!



MoveOn.org is an international network of more than 2,000,000 online activists and one of the most effective grassroots political organizations in the U.S. Last week, MoveOn asked its subscribers whether it should consider early endorsement of a Presidential candidate, and an overwhelming 96.3% of respondents voted yes. Consequently, MoveOn is now holding an early MoveOn Primary.

In an earlier straw poll, MoveOn members identified Rep. Dennis Kucinich as one of the top three candidates in the primary. NLP 2000 presidential candidate Dr. John Hagelin and the Natural Law Party national offices strongly support Rep. Kucinich in his presidential bid and encourage NLP members to do the same. (Please see Rep. Kucinich’s online letter to MoveOn members about his presidential campaign at http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kucinich.html.)

ACTION STEPS

If you are not already a member of MoveOn.org, please register today for the MoveOn primary by visiting http://www.moveon.org/pac/reg.

Voting in the MoveOn.org primary starts Tuesday, June 24, and will last for 48 hours. MoveOn members will be sent a unique email ballot good for one vote only. When you receive your ballot, please support Rep. Kucinich in his presidential bid.

If a candidate emerges from the MoveOn primary with more than 50% of the vote, then MoveOn.org will endorse and immediately begin doing work to elect that candidate, including an urgent fundraising appeal in time for the June 30 quarterly FEC filing deadline. Your support for Rep. Kucinich in the MoveOn primary will therefore translate into significant media coverage and funding for his presidential campaign.

Please register today at http://www.moveon.org/pac/reg to vote in the MoveOn primary. And please invite your friends to register to vote as well. The more of us who join in this process, the better the chances that ordinary voters, not big donors, will determine the Democratic nominee. Thank you for your timely action.

Berry: People here listen to you. So stop acting like TM is ALL the NL party is about. It isn't! And you know what? What exactly is it about encouraging Senaotrs and Represenative to go to work relaxed and relieved of as much stress as posisble a bad thing? Do you WANT your elected represenative to be a constipated jerk with potential fatal blood pressure levels?

AS for your "reason not to vote for Kucinich," there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING that supports your statement. Oh, wait I see now. MoveOn.org was anti-War. Your Republican roots are showing Berry, underneath the Libertarian dye-job.

Ah, why do I bother. Aside from my last paragraph being kinda mean (and dumpable most likely. I know I wouldn't want to be called a Republican), your rants about women in the [main] Kitchen Sink border on chauvenism at best, misogyny at worst. I don't know why I let your statements here bother me so much. I'll vote for whomever I choose, thank you very much. And you will too. Because unlike Peter, voting for the candiate you beleive in is what I (and maybe you) was taught ib elementary school social studies.

Off Topic for Democrats*****

Brian Webber,

If the Republicans or Democrats or even the Libertarians sponsored a study that involved trained Vedic meditators flying around Washington D.C. to lower the violence rate, found that the crime rate went up during the flight, but said the overall violence rate decreased and proposed that as a solution to the crime problem, (/headline{Police cut backs used to fund Vedic Meditators}) I'd scream about it too. It being the Natural Law party does not get it a "pass". (Except that you insist on being NL, if there wasn't anyone here that took NL seriously I would ignore it.)

BTW, I'm not, nor have I ever been a Republican. Apologize to Matt Pesti right now! Seriously, call me a Republican again and I go to Colorado and move in with you.

I've let you post the meditation is by the people who would commit the crimes before. That was a mistake. They propose meditators to prevent other people from committing the crimes. It's like the monks in medieval times praying for the feudal society. If you want to pray for me, fine, just don't send me the bill. If you (general) propose to it anyway, OK, you (general) are harmless nuts that I'll ignore. If you (general) propose to do it anyway and think men with guns should make me pay for it, then you (general) are dangerous nuts and I'll say so.

Dangerous? The "President" has publically sated he's willing to use nukes, and you call US dangerous? All we basically want is for this nation of borderline psychos to take a deep collective breath and, pardon my French, ••••••• relax! Again, I fail to see what's BAD about this. I suppose you think spending billions on an all but useless Missile Defense Sheild is more practical.

Blue Berry: How about you stop looking a jerk and actually talk about the other things the NL party stands for? I haven't seen such single-minded attacks since the Willie Horton commericals. Yeah this whole Yogic Flying thing looks dumb on paper, but "don't knock it till you've tried it," like my Dad always says. P.S. How do you know they mean flying literally? Maybe it's just metaphorical. Like how when the Republicans say "family values" they realy mean anti-Choice gay bashing. Or when a Democrat calls hismelf a Liberal, it means he hasn't taken as much money from oil and tobacco companies as his Republican counterpart has. See where I'm going here guy?

Brian: Stop trying to start a flame war with Berry. Just do what I do when some guy keps shooting off his mouth. IGNORE HIM! Jeez, I don't know why you let it stick in your craw so much. You're this guy at work who gets all homicidal looking whenever someone makes fun of him for watching Gilmore Girls. Relax. Try some of that TM stuff your people like to go on about.

Both Berry and Brian: This whole stup!d little feud between you two has to stop or I'll ban BOTH your sorry asses. Got it?

Berry: That post is being dumped too. I NEVER said screw you was appropriate. I just decided NOT to delete that one post Webber made because he had a good link. But if it'll get you to stop attacking me, I'll go in and move that post to the Dump, and just re-post his link myself. Would that satsify you?

And honestly, if you can't tell the difference between Meditation and Cross Burning, should you even be coming here? For that matter, why the hell are you running for public office in your home state?

Sax,

If you get involved in a fire fight expect to be shot at.

By the way, delete everything I ever posted. Why debate someone who can chasnge my posts?

I'm not going to delete every post you ever made Berry. Once again you fail to se my point. I am saying, that you need to stop picking on Webber, then geting upset when he flames you. It's equivalent to throwing rocks at a rhino then being shocked and angered when he gorges your ass. And for the last frakin' time I NEVER EVER siad that saying "screw you" was appropriate. Who do you think you are, Peter? I remember when you used to be able to debate something without resorting to such blatant lies and exagerations. I think I'm not alone here when I say, we want the OLD Berry back.

Published on Thursday, June 19, 2003 by the Columbus Free Press (Ohio)

Truth Is The Weapon Of Bush's Self-Destruction: The Superpower Of Peace Has The Ultimate Force
by Harvey Wasserman

"If we look at history, we find that in time, humanity's love of peace, justice and freedom always triumphs over cruelty and oppression…."
The 14th Dalai Lama

"The Truth shall set you free."
Jesus Christ

The Bush assault is foundering on the shoals of Truth.

The Republicans have seized control of the American judicial, legislative and executive branches. Their immensely effective corporate mass media misinforms, misleads and manipulates. They control the world's most powerful army, and are glad to use it without provocation.

Having stolen the election of 2000, Bush's minions are rigging America's voting machines and erasing countless suspected Democrats from voter
rolls nationwide.

Their goal is to shock and awe the opposition into extinction.

If "image is everything," Bush sits atop a dictatorial fortress, not likely to fall soon.

But history teaches that, ultimately, Truth is more powerful than image: All the people can't be fooled all the time.

Globally, George W. Bush has become history's most hated US president. After being gifted near-total support by Osama bin Laden, Bush has sunk
to unprecedented scorn. In the global village, American's unelected chief is under quarantine.

Why? Because outside the United States, the Truth is being told. The world media and the internet seethe with serious reporting and outrage against
escalating deceit.

In the US, the corporate media has polluted the information flow. So we are compelled, more than ever, to compile and refute the lies, and to spread their antidote far and wide.

Our arsenal of Truth includes:

SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: Obviously, if he had them, he would have used them. It took years for the lies about the Vietnamese
non-attack at Tonkin Gulf to unravel; it's taken mere days to establish that Bush blatantly lied in no less a venue than the State of the Union. Who will
believe him next time?

SADDAM'S NUKES: He had none, and Colin Powell lied to the United Nations [Poster's Note: Remember that post I amde a few weeks ago where Powell himself was aleldgeldy overheard referring to the evidence he was supposed to present to the U.N. as bull$#it?] and the world based on undergraduate forgeries. Who will believe him next time?

BOGUS INTELLIGENCE: The Republicans forced intelligence operatives to sacrifice their credibility to provide a pretext for war. Who will believe them next time?

THE REAL REASONS FOR WAR: Bush used terrorism, WMDs and (incredibly) human rights as pretexts for war in Iraq and Afghanistan; but everything
since has confirmed what the world knew all along: it's about oil and the pipelines to carry it, with some Christian fanaticism thrown in;

SPINNING PRIVATE LYNCH: This contrived mocku-drama, complete with threats from the Pentagon against reporters (such as Robert Scheer of the Los
Angeles Times) who document what really happened, was in fact a tale of Iraqi bravery and compassion.

TOP GUN: Bush's handlers blew a million taxpayer dollars to spin an aircraft carrier so Bush could play Tom Cruise. That jump suit now symbolizes chickenhawk hypocrisy.

AN AWOL WAR RECORD: Bush deserted his cushy National Guard unit, then joked that raising twins was harder than being in combat, which he
never saw; [Poster's Note: If I'd been the CO of that ship I'd have thrown that sonf of a Bush in the brig for desertion!]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?: Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has been liberated or conquered; the "dancing in the streets" promised by the wars'
perpetrators has become a desert Vietnam, where locals and Americans [Poster's Note: And British too. 6 soldiers were killed today] continue to die;

SEPTEMBER 11: The terrorist attacks occurred while George W. Bush was officially responsible for protecting the American people; his bitter fight against a full Congressional investigation belies something very serious to hide.

FLAUNTING TRAGEDY: To the horror of many 9/11 victims' families, Bush has manipulated the terrorist attacks into what he called a personal
political "trifecta," desecrating the sacrifice of 3,000 innocent civilians;

ATTACKING THE HEROES: While praising police and firefighter heroes, Bush slashed their benefits and attacked their (and other) unions;

ATTACKING THE VETERANS: On the brink of the Iraq attack, the Republicans slashed veterans benefits by nearly $30 billion; [Poster's Note: As the grandson and nephew of veterans this pysses me off no end]

HOMELAND SECURITY: To fund tax cuts for the rich, the security of America's ports, airports and borders has been compromised, and they may be less safe than before 9/11.

INTERNAL SECURITY: Using 9/11 as pretext, Bush has shredded the Bill of Rights, with no gain for public safety, but creating a powerful weapon against his opponents;

OFFICIAL SECRECY: Bush is the most secretive US president ever; his relentless campaign against open government belies much to hide;

HOME OF THE FREE: While claiming to spread "American freedom," Bush keeps two million citizens in jail, a quarter of all the world's prisoners, forty percent of them held on victimless drug charges;

GUANTANAMO: While claiming to spread "American freedom," Bush has established a concentration camp on conquered land where human rights
are shredded in contempt for global treaties, and where a death chamber may soon be added;

THE TAX CUT: Selling a handout to the rich as a stimulus package, and lying about its true cost, Bush surreptitiously doomed the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs that have been the backbone of American social democracy;

JOBS JOBS JOBS: Bush's mantra about job creation has proved a hollow lie as the economy continues to slide, with Hooveresque joblessness and
homelessness soaring in traditional Republican style;

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: While campaigning against "big government" Bush has pushed official spying into every corner of American private life,
including reproductive rights and our ability to choose what to smoke and whom to marry; in fact Bush supports limiting the government's power
only when it comes to regulating his corporate cronies;

AN AMERICAN THEOCRACY?: Empowered by the hellish marriage of corporate power with right-wing Christian fundamentalism, separation of Church
and state has disappeared in a global "Crusade" that uses taxpayer money to support reactionary churches and the concept of an American Ayatollah;

ARMAGEDDON OVERDUE?: Bush's foreign policy , especially in the Middle East, features a psychotic sectarian belief in an "end of days" scenario
where a chosen few with a peculiar view of Christ ascend to a very private Heaven, leaving the rest of us to burn;

STATES RIGHTS: While arguing for states rights, Bush sends federal troops to arrest harmless pot smokers in states that have legalized medical
marijuana;

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: While endorsing a wide range of government functions (like providing security), Bush really supports just three:
funding the military, subsidizing client corporations, and suppressing opposition;

A FREE MARKET ECONOMY: While mouthing the platitudes of Adam Smith, Bush demands huge bailouts for nuclear power and the other obsolete,
polluting industries that fund his campaigns;

EDUCATION: While claiming to support education, Bush is robbing Head Start to fund further tax cuts for his fellow rich;

PERSONAL FINANCES: Bush's road to financial wealth is littered with Enron-style insider trading, especially at Harken Energy and the Texas Rangers, which have avoided media scrutiny while making Martha Stewart seem a piker;

A POPULAR PRESIDENT?: Bush lost the 2000 election by 500,000 votes and his approval ratings regularly sag between crises, but the corporate media
grovels over his alleged "popularity" while refusing to pursue anything that would seriously damage him;

AN AFFABLE PRESIDENT: Bush's good-ol-boy veneer hides the meanness of spirit and coarse ruthlessness essential to a corporate-fundamentalist
attack on civil society;

TEFLON PRESIDENT?: Like Ronald Reagan (and unlike Bill Clinton) the media refusal to pursue damaging (and felonious) presidential misdeeds
guarantees Bush a free ride. Or does it?

Bush's litany of lies grows daily. In the short term, they demoralize the opposition.

The mainstream media does its part by dismissing those abundant, articulate critics who don't, like Paul Wellstone, conveniently wind up dead.

But in a world that demands non-violent resistance, there is no alternative to perseverance, and no greater weapon than an adversary's own lies.

It took a world war and forty million deaths to rid the world of the Nazi plague. Thus far Bush has killed thousands to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq, and shows no compunction about killing more.

His environmental and other policies have doomed millions worldwide, and threaten the life support systems on which we all depend.

But the Superpower of Truth can number his days.

It's been said a lie can circle the global before Truth gets its boots on.

But once shod, Truth and only Truth can crush tyrants, kick down prison doors and walk the world back into the sunshine of freedom.

Bush himself has handed an organized, focused and optimistic Superpower of Peace the tools it needs to get stomping.

So let's roll.

Harvey Wasserman is senior editor of www.freepress.org and author of 'THE LAST ENERGY WAR' (Seven Stories Press). He helped start the No Nukes
movement against atomic power.

All content © 1970-2003 The Columbus Free Press

Sax,

When you respond to this one, will you delete it? Man you are such a term used used often by Dude. Hey I'm not even going to dirctly insult you, in this post.

Oh, if you ever care to debate on an even feild I'll gladly debate fireman versus Mayoral dental hygeinists against you.

Berry: Remove the "worst moderator" stuff from your usrname and I mgiht reconsider banning you. Insulting me isn't going tog et you anywhere with me. Just be glad I'm not Webber. I'd be issuing death threats by now. As calling me a moron, that WILL get you dumped. And as soon as Phil replies to my e-mail, I'll know wether or not to ban you. I can tell you're not a stoopid guy Berry, but lately I've had an easier time dealing with screaming kids who think I'm lying to them when I say we sold out the new Harry Potter book than with you.

*LOL*

Oh man, I come here expecting to see some typically right wing biter replies to that article I posted and look what I find! *snort* I will never complain about Berry's ad homiems on us anti-war people again. That •••• is mild by comparison.

I for one can't wait to see how this little soap opera turns out eh boys?

Sax - I know you're busy with this at the moment, but PLEASE remember when you dump a message to go back into the Page Format afterwards and turn "Messages" back off again. The Garbage Dump's not a lot of good if everyone can see it under "Last Day"!

Thanks.

The only thing that surprises me about Bush's, Rumsfeld's et co. lies is that america is surprised to hear that they lied about WMD and so on. That was exactly what the Anti-war people and the UN inspectors said all along. But of course, patriotism means believing everything Bush tells you.

And lying about sex affairs like clinton is much worse than starting a war for no good reason against the rest of the world, causing unrest in the whole region, without a solution (as is obvious now). I fully understand clinton lying about sex in the prudish atmosphere in america, and though I don't like lying, I guess I would lie, too.

To 'Begin the World Over Again'
by John Nichols
Tom Paine.com
July 4, 2003
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8254


The Fourth of July falls on a Friday this year, which is great news for
the three-day weekend crowd that complains bitterly most other years
about having to go to work the day after they "celebrate" the anniversary
of the nation's birth.

In a country where just about every national symbol -- from the flag to
the presidential oath of office -- has been bent to serve the interests
of commerce and leisure, it is amazing that we still celebrate the Fourth
of July on the Fourth.

As long as no one tells John Ashcroft or Dick Cheney that this holiday
honors revolutionaries who threw off the chains of colonialism, empire,
monarchy and the state-sponsored religion that were -- and remain -- the
primary threats to freedom and human advancement, the Fourth is probably
safe from interference from our contemporary King George and his churlish
courtiers.

But how should Americans who take seriously the promise of a revolution
-- "that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by
their creator with inalienable rights" and "that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among these men (and women), deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed" -- go about celebrating
this Fourth of July?

Should we raise the red-white-and-blue banner of the Republic? Well, of
course. Though it has been dragged through the mud by so-called
"patriots" who continue to engage in the sort of military adventurism
that both Washington and Jefferson warned against in their farewell
addresses to the nation, this remains the flag of the Wisconsinites who
marched south to banish the crime of slavery from this country's soil. No
flag has yet been associated with a nobler military endeavor than the
Stars and Stripes when it flew above those who battled the Southern
scoundrels who marched beneath the banner of human bondage.

Should we celebrate the founders themselves? Yes, within reason. It is
true that many of the men who made this nation were flawed. The best of
them admitted as much at the time. The worst were revealed in time. But
no one who cherishes liberty should hesitate to raise a cheer for old Tom
Paine, who wrote of Americans in 1776: "We have it in our power to begin
the world over again. A situation similar to the present hath not
happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of the new world
is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a
few months."

As America celebrates the 227th birthday of the new world, however, it is
important to recall that Paine also reflected upon the prospect: "If you
subvert the basis of the revolution, if you dispense with principles and
substitute expedients, you will extinguish that enthusiasm and energy
which have hitherto been the life and soul of the revolution; and you
will substitute in its place nothing but a cold indifference and
self-interest, which will again degenerate into intrigue, cunning and
effeminacy."

Paine's warning anticipated this degenerate moment, in which Americans
are awakening to the prospect that the president and his advisers
intrigued the country into a foreign misadventure that stinks rather too
much of the imperialism Americans once associated with the British crown
their forebears revolted against.

Should we despair at the realization of Paine's worst fear for the land?
Perhaps a bit. But Paine would surely warn against surrendering to that
despair. These may, in fact, be the times that try men's souls. But as
Tom Paine suggested in 1776, such times are where the false patriots are
separated from the true: "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot
will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that
stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as definitional a pair of summer soldiers
as ever will be found, can lead their sunshine patriots in celebrations
of imperialistic conquest and their allegiance with Tony Blair and what
remains of the tattered British realm. The sons and daughters of Tom
Paine will stand this Fourth of July and honor the revolutionary spirit
that revolted against the corruptions of empire.

Another one to write to your Senators about.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01558:@@@L&summ2=m&
(if that doesn't work, try
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01558 )

"Religious Liberties Restoration Act" S.1558

The meat of the bill:
EC. 3. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.
(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments
on or within property owned or administered by the several States or
political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the
States, respectively.
(b) WORD 'GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several
States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers
reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, 'I
pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
Liberty and justice for all.'.
(c) MOTTO 'IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or
within property owned or administered by the several States or political
subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States,
respectively. The national motto shall be, 'In God we trust'.

They go through some legal mumbo-jumbo to justify that these blatantly
religious actions aren't in violation of the First Amendment. I'm no
lawyer, but IMO it's all B.S. If someone with a better knowledge of such
things would like to comment, I'd welcome the input.

Write to your congress critters and let them know what you think.

Not a happy camper today,
Morgan /|\
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there
are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
--Thomas Jefferson, "Notes On The State Of Virginia," 1781

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a
legal ascendancy of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to
Elbridge Gerry, 26 January 1799

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/columns/rolandx/9-7-03-lies.htm

Check out this article written by my step-father.

Got this very funny take on Dr. Seuss from my mom by email:

I do not like that George Bush man
I do not like him, Uncle Sam

I did not like him in the Guard
His life was soft, his drugs were hard

I did not like him with a Team
His Sosa trade was not a dream

I do not like that George Bush man
I do not like him, Uncle Sam

I did not like him as a Gov
The Felon-Slayer--feel the love

I do not like him as a Prez
I do not trust a thing he says

No, I do not trust that George Bush man
I do not trust him, Uncle Sam

I do not trust him with my cash
I do not trust his cronies' stash

I do not trust the things he does
He seems to do them "just because"

I do not trust him with my tax
The poor cry out, the rich relax

I do not trust him with Saddam
I do not trust him with a bomb

I do not trust his weapons search
Or what he thinks he learned in church

I do not trust him with the truth
He hits more whoppers than Babe Ruth

I do not trust him on defense
He does not have a lick of sense

I do not trust his neocons
Who think the Arabs are their pawns

He gets a lot of people killed
But hey, must be what God has willed

No, I do not like that George Bush man
I do not like him, Uncle Sam
(Oh, how I wish he'd gone to 'Nam!)

I do not like that George Bush man.
I do not like him, Uncle Sam.

He would not, could not go to war.
Instead he became a corporate whore.

He would not admit to doing coke.
Relentless lies were all he spoke.

I do not like that George Bush man.
I do not like him, Uncle Sam.

He would not lean on Ariel Sharon;
He ruined the economy at home.

He could not catch our foe bin Laden;
To the core, this man is rotten.

I do not like that George Bush man.
I do not like him, Uncle Sam.

Old, but possibly more relevant than ever

The more things change... This dates back to 1995!

>To: fire@yahoogroups.com
>From: "Rev. falonMOON"
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:18:57 -0000
>Subject: [fire] OLD ARTICLE: THOUGHT YOU MIGHT LIKE IT-
>
>Why Pagans Need to Come Out of the Broom-Closet
>by Sophia X. Pharou
>
>In the last few years, and since November in particular, the
>Religious Right has gained a great deal of influence over our lives
>in America. In their wake come new laws - ones restricting access to
>birth control and HIV information, anti-welfare resolutions that seem
>to target women specifically, and restrictions on electronic
>communication. These laws were all passed on the basis of needing to
>protect `morality' and the American family. Emboldened by their
>success in Washington, fundamentalists now are pushing for amendments
>to allow prayer in the schools and `vouchers' that will funnel tax
>money into parochial schools. On May 17, Newt Gingrich stood next to
>Ralph Reed on national television in the Capitol - yes, the Capitol -
>and promised that the Republican Party would push the Christian
>Coalition's ``Contract With the American Family'' through Congress.
>Claiming that America is a ``Christian Nation'', Pat Robertson has
>said on more than one occasion that his goal is an America guided by
>Christian values - values he himself has defined.
>
>These extremists do not represent the opinion of mainstream
>Christianity - but they have been allowed to wield a great deal of
>power, mostly because of the apathy and ignorance on the part of
>voters. Unlike most American citizens, unlike many Pagans,
>fundamentalist candidates can rest assured that `their' people will
>go to the polls to vote for them. The result, if allowed to go
>unchecked, will be a nation where fundamentalist Christianity is a
>state-sanctioned religion, and opposing lifestyles will be penalized,
>if not outright illegal!
>
>The Case of Iron Oak
>I will make this summary brief, since the case is well-publicized in
>the Pagan community. The High Priest and Priestess of Iron Oak, a
>legal church with a separate building for public actvities in
>Melbourne, Florida, had their celebrations at home interrupted
>repeatedly by the officials in Palm Bay, the city where the high
>Priestess lived. They were accused of violating zoning laws, running
>a church in an area not zoned for church activity. All for
>celebrations held six times a year on their own property! The zoning
>officials tried to hold the regulations over their heads, even when
>local Christian ministers defended them, saying that they had held
>weekly services at their homes unmolested for years. The zoning
>board, once it heard all the evidence, decided in Iron Oak's favor
>unanimously. The offficials involved, however, threatened to appeal
>the decision, but subsequently backed down. Iron Oak, afraid that
>such tactics will be used on it again, is now in the process of
>taking the city to Federal Court for what it rightly views as
>harassment on religious grounds. Even if they win in federal court,
>the Priest and Priestess have suffered financial losses. They have
>had to mortage their home, and are over $20,000 in debt due to legal
>costs. How many of us could suffer such a blow?
>
>Laws were selectively, and not even deservedly, enforced on a group
>that the officials involved disapproved of. In many cities,
>especially those in conservative areas or the Bible Belt, the law is
>dished out with a biased hand where minority religions are concerned.
>`Freedom of religion' will only exist for Christians in a
>fundamentalist-dominated America.
>
>Custody Battles
>Pagan parents have often been threatened with the loss of their
>children. At the time of the initial decision of the city zoning
>board in Florida in Iron Oak's favor, there were four pending custody
>cases reported in Florida involving Pagan parents. In Ohio and Rhode
>Island, two women had their foster children removed shortly after it
>was learned that they were Pagan.
>
>The `public stigma' argument the Virginia Supreme Court recently used
>to relieve lesbian Sharon Bottoms of her son lends an even more
>chilling tone to to such cases: will other courts, following
>Virginia's lead, soon use the same argument to justify the removal of
>children from Pagan parents?
>
>Attacks on Sexual Freedoms
>Since the fall of the `Evil Empire' (i.e. the USSR) in the late `80s,
>fundamentalist leaders have had to find a new way to generate fear in
>their followers to ensure a continued flow of cash and devotion.
>Their new scapegoat? Homosexuals! With the release of the now-
>infamous film The Homosexual Agenda, it became good business to paint
>gays as the greatest threat to the American family - and ``God's
>people''. Robertson even blamed the earthquakes in San Francisco on
>the tolerance offered homosexuals there! Portrayed as child
>molesters, diseased, and mentally disturbed, hate crimes have risen
>dramatically against gays in the last six years.
>
>The threat goes deeper, however. Initiatives have been filed in
>states like Washington and Colorado to recriminalize sodomy and deny
>Lesbigays any sort of protection against discrimination! These
>actions have succeeded in some places - striking down legislations
>already in place. Lesbigays have lost protections they once had!
>
>Other targets involve a push on the Coalition's part to penalize
>adultery and premarital sex. Pagan handfastings would not count in
>their reasoning, and polyamory would definitely be an offense. Public
>information and funding for birth control and HIV protection would be
>cut off, to enforce that sex they did not approve of had
>`consequences'. Finally, in their `Contract With the American
>Family', buried inside the `Privatizing the Arts' section, they call
>for the Legal Services Corporation (legal assistance for the poor) to
>be funded by private donations rather than tax money, because it
>assists poor couples in divorces. Thus, private organizations (such
>as church charities) could deny funding for legal assistance when
>they disapproved of its goal, and the poor would have no recourse.
>This would sentence battered women to abused lives, enforce loveless
>relationships, and deny the people involved the right to direct their
>personal lives.
>
>There is no danger to civil harmony in these activities - they are
>merely `sinful' by Judeo-Christian standards. But our religion does
>not share these standards. The majority of Pagans view all forms of
>love, sexual or otherwise, as a gift from the Goddess and the God,
>sacred and to be respected. They also view personal relationships as
>a private matter, with adults capable of deciding for themselves what
>is right for their lives. Making one religious group's moral
>standards into American law is a violation of the separation of
>church and state. And there is no other excuse for these proposed
>laws and penalties but the fact that these activities are considered
>wrong by Judeo-Christian standards.
>
>The Power of Pagans
>Many mainstream and eclectic Christians also support equal rights and
>fair treatment for Pagans and Lesbigays, but the Christian Coalition
>and similar groups have ignored voices within their own faith in
>their quest to impose their punitive views on everyone. As Pagans,
>however, we can make a difference: by challenging these impositions
>on the grounds that these laws reflect the governmental sponsorship
>of one religion's standards, and that our religion does not have the
>same values! Furthermore, the persecution of Pagans, or other non-
>Christians for that matter, constitutes religious discrimination! By
>calling attention to cases of harassment and asserting our rights as
>Pagans and followers of a valid religion, we can benefit not only
>ourselves, but non-Pagans as well.
>
>What's the Problem, Then?
>Unlike the members of the Christian Coalition, however, we Pagans
>have few national ties. In fact, the energies of many Pagan groups
>are wasted on internal squabbles, rather than being used to protect
>our way of life from people wanting to reintroduce Christian prayer
>into the schools under the pretense of ``student-initiated'' group
>prayers, cities like Palm Bay breaking up Pagan celebrations, and
>groups trying to strip us of any protection against discrimination by
>claiming it is `freedom of religion' that justifies individual
>employers and landlords, not just churches, in their denial of jobs
>and housing to Pagans and Gays. We have stood apart from political
>action, believing that politics is a `game' to be avoided. This
>belief must be discarded for our very survival. The players of these
>`games' are using our lives as bargaining chips.
>
>Unfortunately, our people are often viewed by society at large as a
>group of `kooks', because, as a group, we are so rarely visible. We
>do not back our spokespeople when they address the public, and we do
>not publicly come out in support of other Pagans when they are
>threatened. Most of us hide what we are, and thus the public
>continues to consider Pagans as people who worship the devil and
>sacrifice babies. Anti-abortionists have even claimed that witches
>view abortion as a form of child sacrifice! When no one publicly
>challenges such assertions, should we be surprised that the public at
>large mistrusts us?
>
>`Coming out of the broom-closet' may sound scary, but it is the only
>way to ensure our survival in a country teetering on the brink of
>theocracy. Unless we act now, we will have no voice at all when the
>Congress debates the measures Ralph Reed and the Coaltion have
>proposed, nor in the 1996 presidential election, with a large
>percentage of the candidates involved seeking the CC's endorsement.
>They recognize the CC as the political powerhouse it is, with a
>guaranteed group of voters that will vote for whomever Reed and Pat
>Robertson tell them to. Our pleas will be ignored, regarded as
>invalid and unimportant at best, and with with hatred and opposition
>at worst.
>
>The result? A society where our children can be taken from us with
>little recourse on our part, where we will be forced to listen to
>Christian prayers in silence at public events, where our tax money
>will go to schools run by the very people who oppress us, where,
>unless we are reasonably well-heeled, we will be unable to obtain
>birth control or legal aid in leaving abusive spouses. Instead, we
>will have to turn to Christian-run charities for the latter, who will
>have the power to decide if they approve of our actions. It will also
>be one in which sexual practices viewed as `immoral' by a small but
>influential group will be made illegal for everyone. And, as the case
>of Iron Oak demonstrates, charges of religious discrimination will be
>upheld for Christians only in many places.
>
>Things you can do:
>Write your local legislators and state senators, expressing your
>disapproval of measures promoting public or school prayer, and
>vouchers of tax money for parochial schools. Most politicians want to
>please their voters, and many think that the public wants these
>things. How will they know any better if you don't tell them?
>Write letters to the editor of your local paper, criticizing
>legislations and policies that favor one specific religion. If you
>are in an area where such expression might prove personally
>dangerous, find the paper of the nearest large city and send your
>letters there. If you still feel unsafe mentioning Paganism, use
>examples involving religions that are better known, like Buddhism.
>Start educating the people around you about Paganism and Wicca. This
>doesn't mean standing in front of the local fundie church decrying
>Christianity, although I do know one courageous woman locally who
>went to the Ichthus festival held this May at Asbury Seminary in
>Wilmore, KY and handed out pamphlets about paganism to the
>celebrants! Begin your education program with individuals who know
>and like you, ones who trust you not to be involved in harmful acts.
>When my father, now a Christian missionary, found out I was a Pagan,
>he said that while he didn't know much about Paganism, he knew that I
>personally would never do anything evil. I was able to give him
>material about our religion (Scott Cunningham's The Truth About
>Witchcraft is a good book for such purposes), which he read. Rather
>than driving us apart, it enlivened our future conversations!
>Recommend that your city and university library order books on
>Paganism so they can become available for others. Books and
>periodicals on the Religious Right are doubly helpful, since many
>Christians are equally alarmed at their actions and would find the
>information helpful in their own efforts against the Right. The
>Freedom Writer and Church and State are excellent periodicals, while
>books like Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of
>Church and State by Robert Boston are also good, especially for
>people wanting to make a constitutional argument against people like
>Robertson who claim that the United States was founded as a
>``Christian Nation''.
>Unite with fellow Pagans in your area to discuss action against the
>Right and educating the public about Paganism and Wicca. Set aside
>infighting where these important matters are concerned and coordinate
>your letter-writing efforts and information gathering. If some of the
>people in your group are talented (and many Pagans are), you may want
>to start a newsletter or write pamphlets to ensure that this
>information gets out, even if the local press is sympathetic to the
>Right or fundie-controlled. Form coalitions with other concerned
>organizatons, such as femnist groups and gay rights advocates. You
>will make new friends, and will probably get along better with your
>fellow Pagans when you all learn to work together.
>I hope that these suggestions will give you some good starting-places
>to fight against the Right. The most potent action you can take,
>however, is standing up publicly as a Pagan. Many people have never
>attached a human face to their ideas of witches and Pagans, relying
>instead on the media, the `traditional' images Christianity has
>fostered in our culture, and the efforts of the Right to portray us
>as devil-worshippers. Once they know someone who is a Pagan, they
>oftentimes change their notions. Studies have shown that people who
>know that a friend or relative is gay tend to be more supportive of
>gay rights than people who claim to know no one personally. The same
>hold true for us. Good luck, and blessed be!
>
>(From the July '95 issue of Rainbow Wind Magazine)

How Republican Leadership is Supporting the Troops

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/06/vets/index.html

Peter DeFazio D-Oregon

Floor Statement:
5 Minute from November 5, 2003

Mr. Speaker, next week is November 11. And often, I believe, in this
Chamber we pay lip service to our veterans; and we fail to deliver on
solid votes and programs that would better demonstrate our recognition
of their sacrifice and service. And this year, unfortunately with the
budget and the appropriations passed, is no exception.

I was astonished earlier today when a colleague from the Republican
majority stood up to pretend to document how great things are for our
veterans, all these new services and things we are providing. I am
hearing a very different assessment from my veterans and their
dependents. And facts are stubborn things.

Here are some real facts, unlike what we heard earlier today: 150,000
veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for appointments; 14,000
veterans have been waiting 15 months or longer for their "expedited''
disability claims; 560,000 disabled veterans are subject to the
disabled veterans tax, something we have tried to rectify.

We have 373 cosponsors. There are only 435 people here. If 373 people
want something, we should be able to do it, should we not? That is a
super, super, super majority. But guess what. The Republican
leadership, under urging from the President and Secretary Rumsfeld and
threats of veto from the President, are refusing to bring up a repeal
of the disabled veterans tax.

We can have tax breaks for people who do not work for a living, the
investor class. We can have tax breaks for whole hosts of people and
things. But we cannot have tax relief for disabled veterans. Is that
not extraordinary? President Bush refused to spend $275 million in
emergency money for veterans health care provided by Congress in the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. But of course he
wants to do everything he can to recognize the service of our veterans
and our young men and women.

January 8 of this year, the Bush administration cut off VA health care
for 164,000 veterans. They put them in a new category called Category
8. They are wealthy veterans just like the wealthy people they are
giving tax breaks to. Well, not quite. The wealthy people the Bush
administration is raining tax breaks on earn over $311,000 a year. But
these vets are wealthy. They do not deserve that veterans health care,
according to the Bush administration. They earn $25,000 a year. They
should pay for their own health care.

The President's budget also proposed doubling the prescription drug
co-payment from $7 to $15 for veterans, the ones who are still able to
qualify, and a $250 enrollment fee on another category, Category 7 and
8. These could be people with low incomes, distinguished service, but
under the Bush administration, we just cannot quite afford to give them
the service we promised when they enlisted.

Now we either believe in the all-volunteer military or we do not. And
we are either going to recognize the sacrifice and service of veterans
or we will not. And if we do not, probably the next generation is not
going to want to enlist for what is a very tough and today very bloody
and dangerous job because they are not quite sure of the promise that
we will take care of them and we will take care of their families and
their dependents.

A few other problems. Rather than funding the VA, the Bush
administration sent a memo to regional VA facilities that forbid
Veterans Administration employees from proactively informing veterans
about the services available to them in order to reduce the number of
veterans using VA facilities.

That is supportive. Is that not great?

In March, House Republicans voted in favor of their budget resolution
that cut $14 billion, "B'' billion dollars, from mandatory veterans
benefits over 10 years, including veterans pensions, education and
other benefits. That was an hour after we voted to support the troops
in Iraq.

Maybe it would have been a better message if we just had not bothered
with the words, but had duly voted for the money. But, no, the
Republican majority, pushed by President Bush, could not vote for that
money, and that budget passed by one vote.

The House Republican budget resolution also cut $14 billion from
veterans health care and other discretionary veterans programs. The
Republican budget also included the President's proposal to impose a
$250 enrollment fee on our veterans for the free health care that they
were promised.

The Republican budget also included the President's proposal to double
the prescription drug co-payment from $7 to $15. The President had
already raised it from $2 to $7, but, hey, we need money. We have got
to send a lot of money over to Iraq, and we cannot ask them to pay any
of it back, so we have to double the prescription drug benefit fee for
our veterans.

Now, the House VA-HUD appropriations bill funded VA at the level
requested by the President, which was $1.8 billion below the House
Republicans' own budget, and it was $3.3 billion below the level
requested by national veterans organizations in their independent
budget proposal.

Let us really celebrate Veterans' Day, and give them the services they
earned and need, and pay for them.

From a death notice in the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

"Word has been recieved that Gertrude M. Jones, 81, passed away under the loving care of the nursing aides at Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Louisville, Kentucky. She was a retired Vice President of George International Life Insurance Company of Atlanta, Georgia. Her husband, Warren K. Jones, predeceased her ... Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from Office."

ABC News Pulls Reporter off Kucinich Campaign

For Immediate Release: December 10, 2003

The day after Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich
took ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel to task for avoiding
questions that would be useful to voters in favor of
questions about endorsements, money, and polls, ABC
pulled its fulltime "embedded" reporter from the Kucinich
campaign, a reporter who had been given no warning that
such a move was coming and who had discussed at length
yesterday with the Kucinich campaign staff her plans and
her needs for the coming months.

ABC has reportedly also pulled its reporters from covering
the presidential campaigns of Rev. Al Sharpton and
Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun.

This appears to be another instance of what Kucinich
criticized at the debate, namely the media trying to pick
candidates, rather than letting the voters do so. In a
democracy, it should be voters and not pundits or TV
networks who narrow the field of candidates.

This move, before any state's caucus or primary, appears based
on a belief that viable candidates can be predicted 11 months
prior to an election, a belief that flies in the face of the
historical record. Time and again candidates dismissed as
"fringe" have wound up either with the nomination or with a
significant impact on the convention and in the primaries.

This action by ABC, as well as Koppel's comments during the
debate, can only serve to disempower Americans, communicating
to them that someone other than they is deciding elections and
that their votes don't mean much.

This action also seems to conflict with the network's interest
in boosting ratings and Koppel's expressed interest in making
the debate exciting, given that Kucinich received the loudest
applause of the evening.

ABC presumably has no vested interest in discouraging voting
or in lowering its ratings. It may, however, have an interest in
whether Koppel's prediction of the viability of various
candidacies proves true.

TELL ABC NEWS WHAT YOU THINK

Email nightline@abc.com or call (202) 222-7364 or fax (202) 222-7976.

First Do No Harm
Why the "lesser of two evils argument" is wrong
by Roland X, 2/29/04

So Nader's ego has finally thrown his hat into the ring. Well, as he's said, it's certainly his right to do so. (Let us pray that said right still exists in 2008.) It is also my right to call him a blind, self-righteous idiot for entering the race.

The problem with Nader is not so much that he might draw hard core liberals and progressives away from the Democrat as that he doesn't seem to see that as a problem. While he's no longer claiming that the two parties are exactly identical, he's willing to blur the lines between the two. Nader gives the Republicans a "D-minus" and the Democrats a "D-plus," as clear a case of damning with faint praise as I've ever seen.

Perhaps he's spent the entire last year asleep. Maybe Ralph's somehow missed the spinal infusion provided the party by Doctor Dean and his backup band, Kucinich and Sharpton. While the former governor may be out of the race, his influence more than lingers -- it permeates the campaigns of the two remaining Democrats.

In 2000, Nader backers condemned voting for the "lesser of two evils" when real change was an option on the ballot. In the abstract, their argument is valid. In practice, it assumes that the decision is between two evils -- two types of harm, differing only in degree -- and in the current climate, that equation is simply untenable.

No one can honestly claim any more that there is no difference between the two parties. On abortion, civil liberties, education, the environment, equal rights, separation of church and state, and trade -- in every major issue of our time, really -- the parties are a world apart. On nearly every issue, Democrats are moderate to moderately liberal, while the Republican leadership demagogues stridently for ideological supremacy on all fronts.

We are looking at an administration that guts air pollution, water pollution, and woodland protection laws with the "Clear Skies," "Healthy Forests," and "Clean Water" trifecta, that devastates state education with "No Child Left Behind," that undermines liberty and justice with a "Patriot Act," that indulges in the basest gutter politics while promising to uphold "honor and dignity to the White House," that engaged in a war of political realignment while claiming that they knew not only that Iraq had WMDs, but where they were as well. This from a regime represented by a man who said that America must be "humble." And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

The leaders of a party that stands for small government created the largest bureaucracy in American history -- an idea taken from the Democrats and turned into a bloated monster -- then claimed that the Democrats were being obstructionist by fighting for the unions. (They won back the Senate, in part, on the strength of that attack.) The "responsible adults" that are supposedly back in charge have overseen a massive job loss and the largest deficits in American history. Leaders supposedly representing true freedom insist on maintaining a virtual concentration camp on foreign soil -- to avoid due process laws -- where they detain "enemy combatants" without review or appeal. Our champions of "personal responsibility" continue to desperately pass the buck on the worsening economy (Clinton), the dearth of jobs (ditto), the deficit (war on terra), intelligence failures from 9/11 to Iraq (everyone but Bush), stolen memos (Democrats, for not using a password), and a CIA agent whose only "crime" is being married to a man who outed the administration's mendacity (they asked for it).

In many sections of the administration, lobbyists and former high-ranking members of corporations are now in charge of policing the very industries they worked for -- and will probably return to after Bush leaves office. God, the Vice-President of the United States is still receiving money from a company that is providing services to our armed forces in wartime, in a war he agitated for! Meanwhile, that selfsame company has been investigated for multiple cases of providing substandard services as well as price gouging. At the same time the administration is insisting on absolute secrecy in colluding with their corporate owners backers, they are promoting projects like the infamous Total Information Awareness, which is rising from the ashes like an obscene phoenix as the "Advanced Research and Development Activity" office. ARDA, as disturbing as it is, remains a pipe dream, while CAPPS -- the airport scanning system that doubles as a blacklist without any avenue of appeal -- is active at this very moment. While I (as a New Yorker originally) understand the need for improved airport security all too well, CAPPS is far too broad and inflexible.

Of course, corporate lobbyists aren't the only cases of outrageous appointmentitis the Bush regime is responsible for. John Ashcroft is only the most prominent example of their willingness to place radical religious reactionaries in positions of power. And like any child, Bush's favorite period is recess, with constant appointments of the most strident ideologues to the bench and internal posts.

On the international front, this administration has taken (arguably) the greatest outpouring of goodwill our nation has ever known and turned into (again, arguably) the deepest, most widespread enmity we have ever faced. The president has unilaterally withdrawn from treaties ranging from Kyoto's air pollution controls to the World Court to our arrangement with Russia banning antiballistic systems.

Their jobs program, mercifully, is simple and straightforward: tax cuts, tax cuts, and tax cuts. Sure, the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors is saying that outsourcing American jobs is good, and the administration has backed up his statement, and our "jobless recovery" continues to amaze economists in the staggering lack of job growth, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few heads, right? No, wait, that's not right...

What's most frightening about this administration is that everything I've laid out is only the beginning. The truly frightening thing about Bush himself is that he's merely the advance man for the right wing's most radical culture warriors: the movement known as Christian Reconstructionism, whose goal is nothing less than to replace the Constitution with (their version of) Biblical law, because -- to paraphrase their rationale -- the word of God is by definition superior to the words of men.

Which is where this administration's most egregious, inexcusable act of pandering comes in. Bush's recent support of the Federal Marriage Amendment has nothing to do with principle, faith, or respect for the Constitution, and everything to do with mollifying his core constituency of social "conservatives" who want to legislate morality. This time, they have taken aim at the Constitution in an attempt to, for the first time in our history, amend it to restrict the rights of a particular group rather than expand them. (Prohibition, as foolish as it was, was universal.) This craven act of unadulterated opportunism -- pun most assuredly intended -- marks the end of Rove's attempts to even pretend that Bush is "a uniter, not a divider."

Meanwhile, what are the Democrats' sins? What is the worst we can say about the two Johns, Kerry and Edwards? They got suckered on Iraq like so many others were? They're insufficiently left-wing on trade? They're not ready to slit their own political throats by unilaterally backing the right to marry? Their "special interest" histories are imperfect? News flash for the far left purists: no one is perfect. All of our candidates, however, are intelligent, decent liberals of varying degrees of moderation, and any one of them would make a fine president. Every serious contender, and even most of the "message" candidates, would be so vast an improvement over Spurious George that there's simply no comparison.

Isn't ideological purity -- of both varieties -- what got us into this mess in the first place?

I agree that the two-party system is a problem, and that the only real solution is a system that makes third parties viable options. I agree wholeheartedly that there are grave problems with money in politics right now, and that something must be done. But now is not the time. To summarize what Tom Tomorrow says so eloquently, we can't afford to waste time on a slow cancer when the body politic is bleeding all over the ER. As Doctor Dean would no doubt tell us, the first rule in medicine is to first, do no harm.

I disagree with almost everything in the article except its main point: Ralph Nader is a sad little man who clearly does not see the parties for what they are--ideological differents.

Looks like Jeb Bush has his panties in a twist about the International Election Monitors that will be posted in Florida for the upcoming November election. Why is he so upset? He says that he's insulted that people are comparing Florida's election procedures to those of third-world countries, but my suspicion is that he most likely has once again assured his brother that "Florida is yours."

Tough luck, Jeb. If you can't supervise your own election process properly and can't follow the election rules you set for yourself, someone else will hopefully step in and do it for you. Why is it so difficult to make sure that everyone will get their vote counted properly? Check out the story at Reuters on Yahoo.

New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq


BASRA -– Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.


Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches.


Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country.

An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governor’s Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces. Even the officials of the international relief organizations have informed the Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief shipments which have been registered and managed by their organizations.

The Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week, stressing that the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks but simply delivered them to the U.S. and British forces stationed on Iraq’s borders.

However, the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements.

A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment.

The professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number of these scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of U.S. intelligence operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons are found by the Bush administration in the future.

He said that the Iraqi scientists believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that senior U.S. officer Michael Peterson once said, “Iraqi scientists are at any case a threat to the U.S. administration, whether they talk or not.”

A source close to the Iraqi Governing Council said, “In the meantime, many suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about by some units of the U.S. special forces. The move has been carried out under heavy security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later.”

He also said that such mixtures had been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s.

The source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza periodical by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, the secret meetings between his envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent Shia clerics, and finally, the spate of kidnappings and the baseless charges against the Iranian charge d’affaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the transportation of the WMD to their intended locations.

He said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has directly tasked the Defense Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches.

© Copyright 2004 Mehr News Agency

Is this from the weekly wierd news or what? ithought all the paranoia militia wackos where in hiding already. USA forever petty tyrants never.

Anon: No, it isn't, but thanks for probing my point about how Conservatives like to brand anyone who isn't them with the Anti-American label.

Of course, don't point out to these hypocrites that, by their own established standards, the particpants in the Boston Tea Party were anti-American too.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277, Now, I've been saying this for years, but he has some fancy facts and figures.

Sorry Matt, but after all those editorials about the two teens in Arkansas that Clinton alledgedly killed with a train, and that one dunderheaded article praising John Ashcroft for increased gun crime prosecutions (never mind the fact that prosecutiosn only go up when GUN crime goes up, which it started to do practically the minute Bush took office) using statistics that proved that Clinton's anti-crime bill did more, I just cannot trust the WSJ editorial page.

But you can trust Michael Moore?

As much as you can trust anyone who thought Dude, Where's My Car was a good movie. :\

Hey I liked "Dude Where's My Car?". Bu seriously one thing was left out. That the survey was number of people close to you. I do know of several girls from conservative families who went off to college believing that sex before marrage and teaching kids about safe sex was wrong. Within a few semesters they were pregnant and not ready for it. So they got abortions without ever telling the family about it, because the conservative family would believe it was wrong. You'd figure that the number of conservatives who's family members have had had them woudl be higher than the number of liberals, who's family members would be more likely to discuss it with the family first.

While my info is not scientific it came from some co-workers who came from the resturant industry in Athens GA (a town that only exists because of the University of Ga, where college Republicans reign supreme.)

Also this survey was not really scientific either. They said:

With these factors in mind, the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.

Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters been present to vote in those two elections.

Problem is that the "that you know of...in your close circle of friends" part. Someone who is a self identified conservative would be less likely to have been told about it by someone in there circle of friends. If they wanted to be really scientific they would have only asked women who have had abortions about there personal beliefs, not hearsay.

What's the Dude Where's My Car thing about?

The Continium Transfunuctioner.

And then?

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/07/con04315.html

It's a sad day in America when a comedian knows more about what's going on than a respected journalist.