The sacredness of marriage

Christian hypocrisy - always a favorite subject of mine. This is old news, but in light of pride parades in San Francisco, I thought I'd post this gem on what a Constitutional amendment would REALLY say if based on the bible...

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

WOW. Moore trouble for dubya

It's finally out. And of course I saw it. As did everyone in the bay area, telling from the lines outside. Completely sold out, long lines snaking across the front of the theatre. The movie grips, builds you with tension, releases you with a laugh, and gives you a huge emotional release with a good strong cry.

But how am I now? How have I come away from the movie? Emboldened? Energized? Has the choir been preached to? Inspired? Or worn out?

I actually feel much the same way I have this entire presidency. So much has gone wrong on so many levels in so many ways that I feel inundated with sheer, unbelievable hubris. Since before Gore won the election, I've seen through the cheap veneer of patriotism that bush et al slop to the snuffling crowds. Their blatant, audacious greed has sickened me from day one, yet I feel like I'm screaming in space. No one can hear me. The masses cheer and follow along like they're at a football game.

And I'm left so overwhelmed as to be rendered immobile. Standing in the middle of chaos, so much damage has been wreaked in so many directions, that I spin around dizzy, not knowing where to begin.

It's not unlike the way I feel sometimes when I need to organize my office. Only on a far more disturbing level.

And that's how I feel with the film. Moore has covered so much territory and done it so well, that I once again feel paralyzed by ambition, by a stunning swarm of wrongs to right, so many that I can't focus on a single one.

So I do what I can do. Write these words, which nobody may ever see. Pray. Carry my head high and my integrity intact. Live the life I want to exemplify. And take whatever steps I can take to voice my thoughts and feelings. I want to scream out, to release. But I know the sickening pain of observing this callous and selfish destruction won't go away if I do. If instead I can harness this burn, perhaps it'll carry me through deeds that will make a difference.

Cheney Utters 'F-Word' in U.S. Senate?

Interesting news. Let's see how conservatives respond.

(a) Oh, he was just having a bad day. Stop hounding him.
(b) He is a disgrace to this country and must be removed from office.

Now, change Cheney to Clinton and ask again.

When will they come clean?

This just in from moveon...

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41724 > ===============================

LATEST IRAQ-AL QAEDA "EVIDENCE" PROVES FALSE

Just days after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission acknowledged that there was "no credible evidence"[1] to support the White House's pre-war assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection,[2] the Bush administration is now putting out "new evidence" that supposedly proves the claim. But as reported by newspapers around the country, senior U.S. intelligence officials say this "evidence" is false.

Days after Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he "probably"[3] had more evidence than the 9/11 Commission to prove an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, Republican commissioner John Lehman said he was given "new intelligence"[4] showing that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, was a very prominent member of al Qaeda."[5] But according to U.S. officials, intelligence experts are "highly skeptical that the Iraqi officer had any connection to al-Qaida."[6] Newsday noted that the CIA concluded "a long time ago" that the individual in question "was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army."[7]

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have both continued to insist on an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, despite "senior U.S. officials now saying there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league."[8] Members of the 9/11 Commission are formally calling on Cheney to provide any shred of proof[9] to support his assertion last week that "the evidence is overwhelming"[10] that the Iraqi government had a relationship with al Qaeda.

Sources:

1. "9-11 panel finds 'no credible evidence' of link between al-Qaida and Iraq", The Seattle Times, 6/17/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41725.
2. Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 9/17/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41726.
3. "Al Qaeda Link To Iraq May Be Confusion Over Names", Washington Post, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41727.
4. "Al-Qaida, Fedayeen militia tie disputed", AZCentral.com, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41728.
5. "Iraqi officer tied to al Qaeda", Reuters UK, 6/20/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41729
=532610§ion=news.
6. "Intelligence experts cast doubt on ties between Iraq, al-Qaida", Knight Ridder, 6/21/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41730.
7. "CIA: No Iraqi officer link in al-Qaida meeting", Newsday, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41731
318.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines.
8. "Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaida", Common Dreams News Center, 3/03/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41732.
9. "Sept. 11 Panel Asks Cheney for Saddam-Al Qaeda Evidence", NPR: All Things Considered, 6/20/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41733.
10. "Al-Qaida, Fedayeen militia tie disputed", AZCentral.com, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1185857&l=41728.

Censorship's Trial Balloons

One of the fatilities of censorship is history. I'd never even heard about this. Fascinating article.

9/11 Panel Disputes Iraq Link to Attacks

What?? You mean al-Qaeda didn't REALLY have links to Hussein? We were lied to?? Awe, I'm shocked.

You read it here.

Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi president "had long-established ties with al-Qaida." And last fall he cited what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.

The commission concluded no such meeting occurred.

"Boutique Fuels"???

Seems to me that local communities should be able to set their own environmental standards. But, never ones to miss an opportunity, the Republicans are jumping on rising gas prices to find a way to restrict just that. Rep Roy Blunt (R-MO) has just introduced HR 4545, which calls special gas blends "boutique fuels". So, in other words, if someone (say, California) passes a law requiring oil companies to, say, stop putting cancer-producing gas additives in their gas blends so they'll stop seeping into local groundwater and poisoning communities, then, well, they can't.

Basically, this would allow the EPA and the Secretary of Energy to waive local law on the basis of "controlling gas prices" and, in fact, would prevent those laws from ever taking effect if enacted after June 1, 2004.

This bill just hit the box yesterday. Now would be a good time to call one's representative.

Play Enron Connect-the-Dot

Dot One:

The Snohomish County Public Utility District released more transcripts of taped conversations by Enron energy traders.

A choice excerpt:

On their hopes that George W. Bush would be elected president.

MATT: Tell you what -- you heard this here first: When Bush wins -- --

TOM: Caps are gone.

MATT: That [expletive] (energy secretary) Bill Richardson, he's [expletive] gone. ...

TOM: Yeah.

MATT: Ken Lay's going to be secretary of energy...

Dot Two:

Feb. 22: Lay and other Enron company officials meet with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

May 17: Cheney's energy task force issues its report endorsing many, but not all, proposals favored by Enron. Later, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, says 18 of the specific points in the plan were proposed or endorsed by Enron executives.

Dot Three:

Bush said in passing today that we "should have passed that energy bill". In fact, just today, the House passed one almost just like it.

WHAT is this man on???

Bush Touts Afghanistan as Model for Iraq

What exactly kind of model are we talking about here? The little city models that Godzilla stomped all over?

How to make the world safer for US: bomb an already impoverished country into oblivion until nothing is left but a decimated infrastructure, poverty and insanity, and oh yeah, the actual terrorists you were originally trying to bomb.

Let's face it, the bombing of Afghanistan was an abject failure on all counts. Reacting out of hate and fear, we've done nothing but disperse al-Qaeda all across Europe and the Middle East, slaughter well over 3000 innocent Afghan civilians, and waste yet more billions (though not nearly as much as Bush promised in reconstruction funds). The US, and the world, is no safer from these actions.

Anyone from Texas should know how hard it is to get rid of fire ants. If you see a mound of fire ants, do you kick it over? No - that just scatters the ants all over the yard. Bombing them with hot water works in the short run, but just drives them deeper into the ground, then out across a wider underground network. On top of that, it kills everything around the mound, as well. Anytime you attack fire ants directly, you end up with 10 new mounds instead of just one. You only end up helping the colony take over the whole yard.

The terrorist network is huge, but we had most of them concentrated in one spot. We blew our advantage and, in the process, destroyed the rest of the country and thousands of innocent lives. I'd say this is not a good model to follow in Iraq.

CIA Restricts One-Third of U.S. Senate WMD Report

I had another premonition today, but it came true before I could announce it.

A prediction...

I had a random premonition today. I predict that Bush will follow in his father's footsteps and initiate a major military action just before the election, just as George H did with Somalia. Instead of a cynically false "humanitarian" mission, the action will be predicated on some sort of national security crisis and will be intended to scare Americans into keeping Bush in office until it's done. After all, we can't replace a President midway through a major military event, right?

As to whether or not it'll work, I'm not as sure. Americans are fickle, and have been scared rabbits these past few years. But my instinct tells me it won't work. Just as it didn't work with George 1 and Somalia, it won't work with George 2 and Iran. (Ooops - did I say that out loud?)

Great Quote

I came across this quote from a rather well-known political chap. If said today, I have little doubt that conservative extremists would label it incendiary and un-American.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

-- George Washington, Farewell Address of 1796.

Kerry Calls on Bush to Reverse Stem Cell Policy

I must say, I was a bit disappointed in Kerry's opportunism. Though I agree with his (and Nancy's) position, it's obvious what he's trying to do.

Not to mention that conservatives are probably going to jump all over this (whilst conveniently ignoring Bush as he jumps on Reagan's hearse and rides it like a skateboard).

Uniting two tribes

I had a dream last night. Not an MLKJ kind of dream, but a literal dream, one so powerful it woke me up at the end. In the dream, I and a small group of people were stranded on an uninhabited island. We worked together to find food and to protect ourselves from the elements. There was no voting off and no politics. We worked as a team.

Across a thin bay was another island, on which a somewhat smaller group of people was also stranded. Though fewer in number, this group turned out to be stronger, more powerful, younger, angrier. We discovered the extent of their animosity one day when one of our own wandered too close to their territory and came back with a fractured and dislocated leg. (In the dream, in the absence of any medical resources, I helped reset the leg - a bit disgusting.)

No side made any attempt to contact or befriend the other. As the days grew, so did our animosity and fear. Each side became the threatening "other" about which nothing was known and all was imagined.

One night, the men in my tribe gathered together to prepare for a raid on the other island. In the middle of the night, we would sneak over and attack. Even though they were stronger, we would catch them by surprise with superior numbers. We would lose several workers to injury or even death. But we wouldn't have to fear them anymore.

At first caught up in the momentum, I did nothing. But as I prepared, facing the mirror in my dream, a distant memory resurfaced. A lesson learned from some unknown source. I realized that instead of attacking the other tribe, we could try something that could yield benefits to everyone, alleviate the fear, make each tribe stronger, and perhaps even bring us together into one community...establish trade.

I don't know where this idea came from or how valid it was. I don't recall hearing or reading anything on the subject in real life and I have no college education to speak of populating my subconscious with random and forgotten material. But it made perfect sense to me.

I would simply float over a meager offering of the resources we had available, perhaps precious food, asking for some sort of trade in return. Their answer would tell us everything we needed to know.

Remembering an imagined lesson, I knew that the establishment of trade between two unknowns would set the earliest foundation for trust. Assuming both sides wanted peace and were blocked only by fear and distrust, trade would give them the option to create that foundation of trust, bit by bit, over time, on their own terms. Eventually, it would open the door to communication. They would share stories, cultures, lives. With familiarity comes more trust, as well as an end to fear.

With familiarity, the "other" becomes "us" and the door swings open to a lasting peace.

I'm not a historian, but it seems to me that trade routes have served as the primary cultural bridges throughout history. On the downside, uneven trade has often given way to open hostility and even war (though more often than not, religion has been the chief cause of war).

Here's the catch: both sides must have integrity and a genuine desire for peace. Or else how can a stable relationship ever be established? At the least, both sides must gain great value from what the other side has to offer, or else no natural equilibrium will evolve.

Unfortunately, here's where I run into the wall of a missing higher education. It's an idea I can explore no further, except in theory.

Slicing and Dicing

That last post brought to mind another thought: the policy of exclusion vs. the policy of inclusion.

Americans have a history, intensified in the last 3 years, of setting up a fearsome Them to unite Us against. This competitive instinct drives Little League baseball teams, departments, churches, political parties, even whole nations to work as a team against The Other Side.

We LOVE to split ourselves into factions, no matter how artificial. I've seen ridiculous office events in which everyone gets divided into teams by drawing numbers or some equally random selection process. Within minutes, co-workers are screaming themselves hoarse, red faces bulging, fists pumping, goading "their side" to defeat the "losers" across the room. In the extreme, things get vicious, fights break out, feelings are hurt. All for what? Because of an arbitrary division and manufactured conflict.

With a policy of exclusion, the world is never small enough. If Myrtle, sitting in the 3rd row of the 1st Baptist Church, was to eliminate all the people who disagreed with her interpration of the Bible, she would eventually whittle down the world population to just her denomination, and eventually just her church. Then, looking around the church, she'd realize that Helen over there is divorced - out with her. And that whole choir pit is just too colorful - out with them. And so on and so on until no one was left but the 3rd row - hers. But Joyce here disagrees with Myrtle on whether Leviticus 19:19, the one about wearing clothing of mixed fibers, applies on Sundays. Outta there. And eventually, it's just Myrtle. Alone in the world.

I prefer a policy of inclusion, in which the world is never large enough. We've heard of the lone hero working against an enemy. Or a small team of misfits uniting against insurmountable odds. Or a whole community coming together in a time of need. Or the South fighting the North. Or Americans uniting against foreigners. Or "western" countries battling Middle Eastern blocs. Since we obviously need an external enemy before we'll set aside our differences and unite, how about an international coalition uniting against global problems? Such as weather change or famine or crushing poverty?

When we redefine our "community", then the Other becomes Our Own. "Them" becomes "Us". With a simple shift in mindset, helping the homeless guy down the street becomes no more repulsive than helping your brother or a childhood friend fallen on bad times. And sponsoring a child in El Salvador or sponsoring one right here at home becomes no more of a stretch than sponsoring your co-worker's kid for a field trip.

Focusing on distinctions requires a conscious choice. If we can slice and dice our own citizenry, then we can unslice it and undice it, all the way out until we embrace humanity itself. Will it take an alien invasion before we unite as a single community?

Cannabilizing your own

At the recent Progressive Conference I witnessed a phenomenon I thought I'd left behind in my early days of young and clumsy activism: preaching to the converted. I literally couldn't walk across the room without being stopped half a dozen times for donations, petitions, or leaflets. They followed me through the food line, accosted me whilst waiting for session doors to open. One woman approached me no less than five times, usually while I was already seated somewhere, asking me for a donation.

All worthy causes, yes. But sometimes we seem to get a little too carried away. At one point, someone passed around last-minute copies of a petition for MoveOn.org itself, one of the organizers of the event. Someone was asking MoveOn to take a stronger stance on a particular issue. I passed. My first thought was, "Why didn't they just ASK MoveOn? It's not like they're hard to talk to." My second thought: why waste this passion fine-tuning a group who's already doing good work when we have so many bigger targets out there?

When the woman next to me noticed that I wasn't "Nancy", she confronted me on the issue, challenging my lack of interest. Fortunately, the speaker took the podium shortly after, so I didn't have to burn mental energy on a pointless debate.

The whole issue brought to mind all the myopic groups with which I've identified. Vegans bash ova-lacto vegetarians for eating animal by-products. Macrobiotics castigate vegans for eating non-regional food, or cooked food, or non-cooked food, or whatever that particular macrobiotic happens to believe is right. And I would think to myself, why aren't you all talking to the steak-eaters?

It brought to mind a gay activist I once knew in Dallas who spent 100% of his volunteer time attacking OTHER gay leaders, calling them on perceived hypocrisy or for not being radical enough or active enough. He had such intense passion, albeit driven by rage, that I mourned its misdirection. He spent so much time attacking his own that he ignored anti-gay legislation, attempts to quarantine AIDS patients, and other heinous attempts to criminalize the entire community. Even worse, his relentless attacks distracted true leaders who were working to unite ALL people, gay, straight, and everything in between.

It brought to mind churches I went to as a young, wide-eyed Protestant. The Baptists gossiped about the Methodists. The Presbyterians clucked at the Lutherans. And everyone attempted to convert one another. I remember reading about Southern Baptists taking a road trip to Utah to go door-to-door converting Mormons. Being a spiritualist, I thought "aren't they splitting hairs"?

I constantly ask myself, "What's the best use of my energy?" I have 24 hours a day, just like everyone else. Where is it most effectively spent? Where can I make the biggest impact using the talents I have?

One thing I know for sure - I'll make far less impact discussing peace with an anti-war activist, even if we disagree on minor details, than I will discussing peace with my war-hungry family in Texas. If it is even possible to convert someone through debate, which seems highly unlikely, then why waste that energy on fine-tuning? I can imagine the rate of return on a graph - large gains with someone on the opposite extreme, ever-smaller gains as those opinions approach my own.

Life's too short to cannabilize my own. They're not as tasty, anyway.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer

It's finally out.

The past is so quickly forgotten

Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war

Stop picking on us!

I love how Republicans are whining that we're paying way too much attention to things like missing documents and smoking gun memos about US torture policy. I mean what are they worried about? It's not like we're trying to impeach Bush over a blow job or anything.

A Compassionate Nation

Now THIS is what I'm all about! Please view. Endorse. Donate. Let the Arab world know that we are not a nation of imperialist abusers.

this just in from MoveOn

I love these guys.

CHENEY NOW HIDES HIS CRITICISM OF REAGAN

As the nation mourns the death of Ronald Reagan, the Bush administration is sending Vice President Dick Cheney[1] to memorialize the 40th President Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Cheney's kind words now, however, stand in contrast to his words while Reagan was president.

Last week, Cheney said, "during the decisive years of the Cold War, I saw the conviction and the moral courage of Ronald Reagan"[2]. Yet it was Cheney who, as a top leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said Reagan was "tolerating a decision-making process in the upper reaches of the Administration that lacked integrity and accountability"[3].

He also chastised Reagan's defense policies - the same policies conservatives are trumpeting as Reagan's lasting legacy. Cheney said at the height of the Cold War that if Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney urged Reagan to cut defense spending, saying, "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible," and told the White House that "you've got to hit defense"[4].

Six years later, Cheney followed through on his statements by changing the same Reagan defense policies he now touts. In 1990, he bragged to Congress that as Defense Secretary he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He highlighted, "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze"[5].

Sources:
1. "Public Viewing to Last 34 Hours" WashingtonPost.com, 6/08/04. 2. Vice Presidential Speech, White House Website, 6/4/04. 3. National Journal, 8/08/87. 4. Washington Post, 12/16/84. 5. Congressional Testimony, 2/1/90.

I won't show you mine if you show me yours

And now Ashcroft, who has made a career of selectively declassifying incriminating memos, depending on who they incriminate, "Refuses to Release Torture Memo" (washingtonpost.com). Hey, isn't this the same guy who's been raiding porn studios and is now pressing charges against about 50 pornographers? Isn't this the same guy who insists on being able to see what we check out at the library? Isn't this the same guy who...

Aw, screw it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a little ironic that Ashcroft is going after porn here in the states. I guess he prefers his from Iraq.

Reagan's Politics of Passion

I just asked in a comment today when we'll be allowed to criticize Reagan again. Looks like I'm not the only one ready to temper his mourning with a swig of reality. Though I must admit, that picture of Nancy laying her head on the coffin almost brought tears to my eyes.

Geneva What??

So let me get this right. America is not bound by the Geneva Conventions unless, of course, it's our own people. I'm sure this is old news by now, but still.

Rumsfeld knew about and approved torture techniques that have been used in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (at the very least). He was well aware of the abuse that would eventually be witnessed by the world at Abu Ghraib. Yet conservatives seem to find this perfectly acceptable. No, the problem is evidently not with the torture, it's with TALKING about the torture, which has now put our troops at risk. And talking about the torture is not motivated by a sense of outrage at the injustice and hypocrisy, no - it's purely political. It's because those Clinton liberals have a "blame America first" mentality.

Personally, I'm all about accountability. It seems to me that if you truly respect human life, you can find other ways to get the information you need. ESPECIALLY when you know for a fact that a large number of the people you're interrogating are not guilty of a thing and have never been so much as charged with a crime, much less convicted.

The above link includes an interesting excerpt from Article 17 of the actual Geneva Convention, written in 1949 and ratified by both the US and Iraq:

"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number."

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever," Article 17 states.

Oops. Guess we blew that one.

haunting eyes

I was just looking through the 2004 Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography and came across this image from the Liberian Civil War. Something tells me she's had quite enough.

Letter from George W. Bush

I just this moment received a survey in the mail from the Republican National Committee. It says "Your Survey has been assigned especially to you as a representative of all Republicans and Republican-leaning voters living in your area." WOO HOO!

This is a beautiful and eloquent example of manipulative propaganda at its finest. Here's the cover letter:

Dear Friend,

The enclosed letter from my good friend, Mercer Reynolds, is important. I would be grateful if you could give it your personal attention.

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and I have asked Mercer to become Finance Chairman of the critical RNC Victory 2004 program and he has graciously accepted.

Victory 2004 is a special election year program of the Republican National Committee. It has one purpose: To build Republican majorities at all levels.

Victory 2004 will be responsible for building our Party from the grassroots up with voter education and registration, Absentee Ballot programs as well as the all-important national Get-Out-The-Vote effort.

Ensuring Republican victories in 2004 will not be an easy task. Liberal Democrats and their special interests allies have pledged nearly $500 million in soft money to run negative advertising against our candidates.

Together, they could spend a record amount to help Democrat candidates for federal, state and local offices. The RNC Victory 2004 effort is vital to overcoming their attacks.

That's why I ask you to read Mercer's letter and give this vital election program your full and complete support.

Thank you for all you have done for me and for our nation.

George W. Bush

P.S. The RNC Victory 2004 program is an important part of building our Party across the country. Please do whatever you can to ensure Republican victories at all levels of government by supporting it today.

Now, ignore for a moment the "us vs them" partisan tactics, which Democrats pull off just as well. What bothers me most about this letter is the lying - the blatant lying, the very thing Bush has become most known for. The fact is, Democrats are NOT raising $500 million - God, I wish we could. Fact is, Democrats have been the ones fighting soft money donations, a battle which Republicans resist at every opportunity. Fact is, Bush has raised more money than any candidate in the history of this country, primarily from his key constituency - the wealthiest 1% of the nation and Big Corporations.

It's a smart strategy, of course - if you want power, and money buys power, then chase the money. That's why the administration has been bought and paid for by "big awl" companies, energy companies, etc.

To bemoan Democratic fundraising efforts while they pale in comparison to RNC activities is hypocrisy. To exaggerate the amount of money is false. So already, just with the opening letter, Bush is resorting to his usual fearmongering based on faulty information. And if challenged, he would no doubt say he was "misinformed" about the specifics but that Democrats WANT to raise that much money, so we better take pre-emptive action to stop them now.

One more note: it's interesting that he pushes the get-out-the-vote effort. According to Julian Bond, during the 2000 election, Republicans bought up all the air time on black stations in Florida and other key states. But instead of running ads for Republican candidates or for getting out the vote, they DISCOURAGED African-Americans from voting. I don't know quite how this was done or what the ads said, but I wouldn't be at all surprised. Especially given the massive scandal with voter registration scrubbing in that state - "blacklisting" thousands of innocent minorities as felons so that they couldn't vote on election day, prompting a lawsuit from the NAACP that was eventually settled.

At least he didn't sign it "President Bush" - that's about the only honest thing in it.

Now on to the survey.

I won't outline every question, but I find it interesting what the opening letter shows me: progressive groups and people have become shorthand for All Things Evil to this group. I see "Kennedy-Clinton liberals" thrown around without any explanation. And none is needed. Hillary Clinton is the Ace of Spades in the conservative deck, thus anything she says or does is automatically wrong. No thought necessary. Just the way conservatives like it.

I also see "big labor union bosses", whatever that is. Having seen Gerald McEntee (President, AFSCME) at the Take Back America conference, I'll admit he's an imposing figure. But labor unions have been fighting a losing battle for the past 3 years - losing health benefits, losing overtime pay, losing pensions. So this is just another ghostie meant to scare conservatives.

One of the best parts is the who's who list of bad guys - People for the American Way, the Sierra Club, MoveOn.org, America Coming Together. More shorthand, evidently. I wish conservatives would actually open up and meet some of these people - passionate, compassionate, intelligent people with an undying commitment to the ideals of America. True patriots in every sense of the word.

And of course, there's George Soros being thrown about as the big moneybags behind the whole "liberal agenda". Let's see - 1 rich white guy for us, how many hundreds for Bush?

The survey itself serves as a sparkling example of manipulative language. Admittedly, DNC surveys are no better, but it's still worth a laugh (until you think about the simple-minded folk who'll eat this up and send in their money).

Question #1: "Do you support President Bush's initiatives to promote the safety and security of all Americans?" (Golly, I want safety and security for all Americans, so I guess I should say Yes.)

Question #7: "Do you support The War on Terrorism?" (Well, I don't much like terrorists and they shouldn't win, so I guess that's a Yes, too.)

Question #15: "Do you support President Bush's No Child Left Behind program..." (The funny thing is, even Bush doesn't support this.)

Question #16: "Do you agree that parents should have the final say in their children's education?" (Well of course I do! I should be able to teach my kids that the earth is flat, man was created 40,000 years ago, and women should wear burkas.)

Question #17: "Do you support school choice to give parents an opportunity to choose schools that do a better job educating their children?" (Also known as the No White Child Left Behind In A Black School Act.)

And on and on. You better believe I'll be filling this sucker out. I just wish this was more than a sneaky fundraiser and actually got counted somewhere. Wouldn't that be sweet of all Republicans (not just the ones on the mailing list, like me) stood up for their own thought-out opinions rather than sucking down the Republican kool-aid?

True Freedom means being able to make a choice using unbiased information. I would love to see BOTH parties begin respecting the American people to do what's right without resorting to manipulation. I trust in the innate goodness of all people. But we need freedom of thought first.

S. Korea withdrawal

This is where we realize that the troops are just spread too thin. So instead of keeping a closer eye on someone who flaunts his nuclear program, we've sent all our troops on a fool's quest to a country that never had them, and are now forcing those troops to stay.

The thought occurs to me - it seems that a democracy with volunteer enlistment would have a naturally lower enlistment rate into that nation's military services. North Korea has a military of 1.1 million with a population of almost 22.5 million people. South Korea, with over double the population at 48 million, has only 690,000 troops.

I would hazard a guess that secretive North Korea probably doesn't have voluntary enlistment. However, countries like ours have a much harder time equaling those numbers, at least when the draft is not in place. So we resort to whatever means necessary to induce volunteerism - from fearmongering and jingoism to free education to appealing to that rare sense of authentic patriotism.

So how do we protect ourselves? How do we retain power over a country that strong?

First of all, that's the wrong question. America has the strongest military in the world. But we're only stronger than the runner-up, not everyone. Unless we're stronger than ALL countries put together, we cannot hope to dominate world politics through military power alone. This is a good thing. Because that would tempt us to thwart the free will of other sovereign nations (not that it's stopping us).

But rather than blaming America for all the hate, let's assume that some other countries are amassing large armies and genuine WMDs out of deep-seated zealotry against what we stand for (and not just in response to our own aggressive stance). How do we protect ourselves against them? How do we protect against multiple opponents?

A pre-emptive stance, the cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, dooms us to failure. It energizes our opponents and spreads our own troops far too thin, as is happening now. In short, it weakens our country and leaves us far too vulnerable.

Instead, we must redefine the battlefield. To use a martial arts analogy, a larger opponent (US) does have obvious advantages. But he can still be dominated by a faster, smarter opponent. And when several smaller, faster opponents strike at once, he's doomed. First, he needs allies. Just as WE need allies. Alienating our allies weakens us every bit as much as emboldening our enemies. Second, he needs a defensive strategy. Rushing after one opponent, then another, again leaves a fighter open. A smart fighter takes nothing for granted, even a perceived weaker position for the opponent. A smart fighter stops, stays ready, and responds quickly and strategically to any act of aggression, making no such acts of his own.

That, I believe, would be the most sensible strategy for us. If we as a democracy truly are the guardians of free will and individual liberty across the world, a concept I am not opposed to, then we must redefine the battlefield. You cannot force free will onto another - that's a contradiction. We are all at choice, but we must come to that realization on our own, guided and aided by those who truly care about our highest potential.

Likewise, the people of an oppressed nation cannot be forced into freedom. This is hypocrisy. It's also futile and stupid, fostering rage against our aggression and leaving our own democracy weakened. But we CAN set the example, convey the information, provide the safe haven, and offer the means through which freedom can manifest itself.

Those in a closed society, such as North Korea, cannot be bullied into choosing democracy, as we saw through several failed attempts to do just that in the region. When they are strong enough to pose a challenge, we must rely on diplomacy and communication to maintain peace, while holding a strong defensive stance in case they decide to get aggressive themselves. Then if, given all the options, the citizens of that society choose to keep their present system, we must honor that choice. It's simply not our place to enforce our standards on other cultures.

Of course, the other half of the equation: in order to set the example of freedom, we must honor freedom within our own country. We're certainly trying, but we have a ways to go, especially now.

Notice that I haven't said a thing about Iraq. It's because we all know that freedom was never the issue. Overthrowing the evil dictator was never a reason, nor was it ever given as a reason except in shamed hindsight. That war is wrong for more reasons than I care to list today.

Air America Radio

Air America Radio ROCKS, btw. Whoever hasn't been listening needs to start now. And just hope they make it to San Francisco.

Change Agent

Just a thought. I wonder how many days (hours?) before someone introduces legislation to put Reagan's face on the dime or some other coinage. Maybe they'll come up with a new silver dollar with special grooves that keep it from stopping if you roll it away from you. No wait, that one's waiting for Dubya.

Credibility -> Gone

I can't get the latest remarks by Libya's Khadafy out of my head. Libya has committed and continues to commit some of the world's worst violations of basic human rights. And yet when called to task by American leaders, even Khadafy uses Abu Ghraib as an excuse to scoff. Our moral leadership, such as it was, has been destroyed.

We know now that Rumsfeld knew about the Pentagon's torture policies, and indeed approved them. We also know that, according to the International Red Cross, up to 90% of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were completely innocent. Detainees were picked up, even disappeared, based on rumors or malicious gossip, held without charges, stripped of their dignity and rights, as well as their clothes. Is this how a compassionate government works?

Of course not. A truly compassionate country wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. A compassionate people would never have allowed the slaughter of 10,000-11,000 innocent civilians and the maiming of countless others.

How can we claim the moral high ground with Libya, North Korea, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and countless other countries currently in the process of destroying their own people when we ourselves have allowed the politics of fear to poison our own military? We can't.

Will we again? Possibly. But only under strong leadership that values the humanity in all people, not just (certain) Americans, and inspires that high regard throughout his or her electorate, troops and civilians alike. Like any business, the culture of an organization comes from the top and spreads down throughout the hierarchy. So it is with the US government. And until we replace the top with someone who truly values human life in all its manifestations, we will never, NEVER be able to display the positive moral example that effects change throughout the world populace and empowers the oppressed everywhere.

Here We Go

It's my blog now. And this is my first entry. Wish me luck.

Just got back from Take Back America conference in DC and I don't remember being this politically energized in a long, long time. The conference gave words to my rage, voice to my hope, the know-how to take action, and the passion to do it.

When I first got the invite from MoveOn, my gut did flips but I was nervous about making the leap - the conference was just a few days away. But after leaving the conference, hotel, and plane itinerary on my screen, just waiting for me to push the button, I finally realized I had already made the decision. And it was a no-brainer. I had to go. Wasn't sure why, I just had to.

Now I know why. I've come away from the conference with some of the clarity I've been seeking as of late in terms of my writing. I do believe in our capacity for compassion. I do believe it is possible to live a life of grace, pursue a path of spirit and reason simultaneously, and apply our principles to public policy in a way that benefits humanity, rather than driving us back into the caves of fear.

Since the coronation of King W, we've lost our way. Tragically and completely. When we as a nation come to believe that killing other humans for ANY reason is morally acceptable, then we have lost our way. When we come to believe that corporations deserve our charity while the least of us deserve scorn, then we have lost our way.

And so with this blog, along with whatever features, letters, and op-eds I can get published, I endeavor to describe the politics of compassion. True compassion. No hand-wringing liberalism. No tree-hugging environmentalism. Just compassion as it applies to our world, our environment, our country, our neighbor, and ourselves.

This is true Progressive thinking. Left vs Right are no longer relevant. The political spectrum has faded to grey. Now is the time to appeal to the highest and best in all of us. Motivation through fear wastes the awesome potential we own. I do believe we are capable of more.