What we've lost in the course of two generations

From a post where Open Left's Chris Bowers worries because he says that the Clinton camp has "twice, in the last week, inaccurately gauged public opinion on a topic as being further to the right than it actually is":

Perhaps I would feel differently if I was from a different generation, but my formative political experiences have largely been about the failure of Democratic and progressive elites in stopping the conservative movement from continuing to rise. We never seem to win, even when we are in elected office. As such, one of the things I am looking for in the Democratic primaries is not only a candidate who can win, but who can reverse that pattern of defeat in governance.

I am from a generation that saw the rise of prominent social figures and political luminaries such as JFK, Rev.MLK Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. And I saw what happened to them and how far their idealism carried them in a hateful, divided nation. Later, I watched my mother as she exuberantly supported Hubert H. Humphrey and how she cried when he lost to Nixon. Still too young to join them, I saw the intelligence, the heart, and the nerve of the flower children in their generation's cause to end another unjust war. I saw college students at Kent State gunned down by our own countrymen for their idealism. I remember the awful images of Vietnam in black and white on my parents' television screen. I remember watching the Watergate hearings with my grandfather during the summer I was about to become a senior in high school and how he, while disgusted yet too intrigued to turn his head away, took the time to explain what was happening to me. In 1976, at the age of 18, I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. I saw Ronald Reagan come to power with a new Conservative movement with misled neo-idealists and their leaders who kissed, corrupted, and co-opted Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.

Where Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. were remembered for their risk-filled fight for equality and civil rights of all Men and Women, Ronald Reagan is remembered for smaller government... being at the helm at the end of crumbling communism (with JFK, Carter, and others who set up the whole fall getting little to no credit). Sitting in the Oval Office on a Sunday morning, October 23, 1983 when 241 Americans, most of them U.S. Marines, were killed by a terrorist truck bomb. Still President when Pan Am flight 103 went down because of a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 35 Syracuse University students whose families never saw justice for the deaths of their children - and later were horrified to see George W. Bush make nice with devious Lybian leader Moammer Gahdafhi.


For all of this they wanted to put Reagan's likeness on the American dime.
Go figure.


You know the story from the post-Reagan years. Not too many brilliant profiles in courage-in-leadership, especially not from the Right. I think idealism and vision - the kind of vision that brings real, lasting, and necessary progress and not the kind lobbyists prefer to make - began to die off when they (whoever they may have been if you're a conspiracy theorist) began to literally kill off our most promising visionaries in this nation.


What passed for greatness after that was far from the vision of inspired men and women of the 60s Liberal era. What happened to the vision? Did it die with the murder-tainted innocence of a hopeful era? Do we teach our children to assimilate and not rock the boat because we're afraid for their well-being - - perhaps their very lives?

We think division in this country's something new, but it's not. I just think it's a lot more apparent today because of the expanded news media and the blogosphere.

What I think is particularly damaging is the people who complain about partisanship and label it as the disease that ails America. I believe the pattern of defeat in the Democratic party (pre 2006) was the tendency of Democrats to fall into the false framing of bipartisanship, traditional collegiality, and MSM-pleasing "centrism" (in parentheses because the media hasn't been shooting toward true American center on Iraq if you believe the polls). I use Senator Joe Lieberman's rise, thanks to being voted in by a majority of Connecticut Republicans and who now pushes the Iraq surge and gives lip service to a war in Iran that the majority of Americans say they do not want, as an example of how bipartisanship, by name alone, can be assigned a totally false value over common sense. I regret to see that our leaders (and the MSM who cover the horserace) seem to be regressing after winning a promising 2006 election. They have been far less than visionary and generally get a poor grade on action on ways they've chosen to try to end the Iraq war. "Going right", the direction that Glen Greenwald has caught Hillary Clinton's camp going (and they're not the only ones), is not going to help us bloggers, when MSM gets a hold of it, to convince anyone that our position is not heading toward the left fringe. This gives mouthpieces for the Right like Bill O'Reilly an opportunity to take so many undue potshots at us.

Hunter at Daily Kos can hardly wrap his mind around the audacity of O'Reilly and Fox News calling themselves a news network. I believe that the failure of our own Democrats to be strong in their vision these past five years have emboldened the owners of this new breed of media to think they can "destroy" real people out here on the blogs (like me):

Can you imagine any other news network mounting a multi-pundit jihad against a group of grassroots Americans, merely because they have the audacity to not support the Republicans? Can you imagine any other news network getting themselves into a bitter televised fight with a political community website?

Of course not. Because Fox News isn't "news" at all, and this is yet another example of why they should not be considered a legitimate news network, or even an "opinionated" news network. Actual news networks do not fabricate stories -- Fox News does. Actual news networks do not send pundits out in attempts to punish and/or sabotage grassroots political events of the opposing party -- it would be absurd. Only at Fox News, where a spectacular lack of ethics is after all the cornerstone of the efforts to manipulate the very news itself in order to prop up Republicans, would such things not get you immediately fired.

- Hunter

Nothing will change until our leaders change the tone and stop worrying about MSM's version of "partisanship" and "division".

In this country, it seems that we've always been divided on the things that matter. We're supposed to be a country that can withstand division and diversity of opinion and, out of it, create something that's actually healthy for our democracy. All we've seen these past twenty years are toxic results, a decided lack of vision, and unsatisfactory progress.

I came from a different generation, the one just before Chris Bowers' generation. After all I've seen, I have to ask many of our leaders: Why are we afraid of idealism and leading with bold vision these days? Why is our media money-jaded and controlled by private owners to the point where investigation is cut off in the editors' service of political bedfellows? Why are we made to see so often that they're working against us bloggers? Why do our leaders seem to be afraid? Who are they afraid of? What are they afraid of losing? An election? For all my eyes have seen, I'm afraid the country's losing its very soul.



The man in this video, John Edwards, has the kind of courage and vision I saw in JFK's time and the media is being complicit in framing him as a rich phony with only power in mind.

He says he won't let them shut him up.

I say good!

It's time for courage again.

Is this a returning breed?

Have we finally seen enough of the worthlessness from the empty promise of new conservatism from fat-faced hate-talk radio blatherers..and are we so sick of its vacuous political nature that we are returning to leaders who are looking well past the trees to see what could be possible beyond the forest?

This week at Daily Kos, my Idea Consultant colleague and fellow Spiritual Progressive David Beckwith said it well:

John Edwards is not promising you the world...he is delivering it. What needs being done...he is doing it. People in need cannot wait for him to be president, they need his help right now. And he is getting it to them.

I know of no one who is more deserving of the presidency, since we know he is not serving up empty promises. He is doing the heavy uplifting, and getting many other good and caring souls to help with this Herculean task.

We need an exemplar...especially after punishing the world with Bushworld Inc. Obama and Hillary are great and good people, but John is leading by example, and should be commended, not pejorated and smeared.

It has been said that when someone cares for another person, God cares for them too. Both of them. The caregiver and the recipient. I think most Americans realize that something of the sort is at play, and that caritas is indeed one of the sweetest and noblest acts a person can do.

There are people suffering today...this minute. We cannot wait for an election. Help us help John help people who need it.

Ed Koch: Done Defending US Iraq Policy

"I'm bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war."

- Ed Koch [Fox News]

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch is jumping off the Bush bandwagon. Has he seen the light? Yes and no. His persistent stock in Friedman units still causes me to question his current judgement. Koch still credits captured braggart Khalid Sheikh Mohammed where credit may not be due. The terrorist is still given public credit by Mr. Koch for having murdered WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl, but recent developments lead us to question whether or not it was, indeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was actually Pearl's murderer.

According to the BBC, widow Marianne Pearl has initiated a lawsuit to bring out fact through more rule of law and less lawless Guantanamo bragging and conjecture:

The lawsuit notably names al-Qaeda, alleged al-Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - who claimed responsibility for beheading Pearl and is now in US custody-- and Pakistan's Habib Bank among the defendants.

"I am looking for the truth of what happened to Daniel, for our family, our friends, and the public record," Mariane Pearl said in a statement.

"This process allows us to delve deeper into the investigation, and to bring accountability and punishment to those involved with his kidnapping, torture and murder," she said.

I'm not quite sure who Koch is blaming for Tony Blair's fall from grace:

Tony Blair was cast out as prime minister in part because he supported the U.S. in Iraq. Under the new prime minister, Laborite Gordon Brown, the British commitment is shrinking and the inevitability of a minimal and ultimately no British troop presence is clear.

He's not willing to let go of the fear-mongerer's meme about them following us home if we leave Iraq:

The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both Houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning and having that battle shift to American soil which I am certain will happen when we depart Iraq.

Mr. Koch, as so many writers and pundits tend to do, draws no distinctions between civil violence between Iraqis and the attacks that come from outside radical forces. He's not clear on exactly who's going to "follow us home". The bad guys in his narrative are lumped into our fortune in Iraq when, in reality, it is the Iraq war that is impeding the national security activities we could and should be pursuing.

But, at the very least, Koch is admitting that the foreign policy that the Bush administration has been pursuing for so many years is a sham and a failure - a fact that so many of us have seen for years. Welcome to your move toward reality, Mr. Koch. Thank God you aren't cursed with the Bill-Kristol-bubble syndrome.


Related:

Joe Gandelman talks about the Koch proclamation

Comments at Politico.com

Giuliani and Fox News Still Fooling People

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

- George Orwell


Watch what Rudy Giuliani does in this YouTube segment from the recent Fox News debate. He takes Ron Paul's statement about the blowback that can be expected from U.S. interventionist policy in IRAQ, a country of whose government had no link to 911, and employs faux outrage, turning it all around to his own survival on the day 19 hijackers, mostly of Saudi Arabian nationality, flew airliners into the towers in New York City. Moderator and Fox News reporter Wendell Goler, whether willingly or not, falls right into the trap and extends further inquiry based on Guiliani's false talking points. This is how misinformation/disinformation is spread. Note that Giuliani's faux outrage was over whether or not the U.S. "invited the 9/11 attack", even though Ron Paul never said such a thing at all. It was FOX News correspondent, Wendell Goler, who engineered that phrasing when he interrupted Ron Paul as he gave his position.



In truth, I believe Ron Paul is right on this. [It doesn't take an Einstein to see why we no longer have a military presence in Saudi Arabia.] I have been blogging about it for many years now, so this is not a new argument for me to be defending.

Read, for example, my posting about an interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, who put in 20 years in the U.S. military; was a former deputy undersecretary of defense for the NESA; has become a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and of U.S. Middle East policy; who holds a master's degree in government from Harvard and another one in science management from the University of Alaska.

An excerpt from Dr. Kwiatkowski's interview will reveal the likely reasons why we are in Iraq today. As most people in America know by this time, they were not the reasons offered by their own government, in whom they had - most unfortunately in this case - placed their trust:

It was not about terrorism, WMD, or saving the people of Iraq from a cruel dictator. Some of our allies are cruel dictators, support and fund terrorism, and sell lots of WMD (Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others). It was not solely about oil as a material item, but it was about placement (permanently) of troops and U.S. bases in the oil-producing region such that we are in a position to control those nations' management (or mismanagement in our eyes) of the oil. It is also about ensuring that OPEC remains on a petro dollar standard. As a heavily-in-debt and debtor nation, it is important to keep demand for dollars globally high among the world central banks. If petroleum is traded on dollars, then central banks will ensure they have plenty of dollars in reserve and not euros or other less useful currency. Iraq had switched to the euro from the dollar for their oil (Iraq in November 2000, before 9/11). OPEC meetings had occasionally discussed this as well. Also, as a way to decrease our military footprint in Saudi Arabia, we needed alternative bases nearby, and Iraq not only provided an ability to leave Saudi Arabia, which we are doing now; it allows us to leverage Iran and Syria militarily with ease. Lastly, this presence in Baghdad of an Israel-friendly force, and the construction of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was reputedly begun last summer, and possibly other pipelines to the Haifa oil refinery, can serve as an economic and military security benefit for Israel, our longtime ally in the Middle East.

Clearly, the reasons given to Congress and the American people publicly were not the real reasons—but real reasons do exist if you view the globe as your property, inhabited by people that have no right to govern themselves. The neoconservatives talk about democracy, but most have a deeply rooted contempt for it.

See Karen Kwiatkowski's latest column, in which she proudly avers, "Ron Paul Rocks!" She believes that "Rudy Guiliani has the biggest reptilian brain of all the candidates."


The fact that there are still Republicans putting an official rubber stamp on Bush's veto-prone ways stems from a negligence so powerfully wrong and self-interested that, to my way of thinking about social justice, it borders on the criminal. There is also a decided lack of moral conviction and action from too many Democrats who how hold real power to defund this war as endowed to the Democrats by the people in the last election. I don't think these Democrats believe in themselves or trust their own constituents - some whose sons and daughters are dying and/or risking all that is precious in this life for a war that nearly every American wants to see come to an end.

I heard a lot of applause in the South Carolina Republican audience for Giuiliani's trickery. Honest Abe Lincoln would be surprised to see just how many suckers can still be fooled after all this time. It's important to remember that Fox News and Rudy Giuliani can only craft false scenarios and expect to fool people for as long as Democrats keep doubting their own power to act upon what they know is true.

[Did you notice, by the way, how quickly Fox News changed the subject when Republican candidates begged to get themselves deeper into the Ron Paul debate?]

Does any Republican acknowledge that General David Petraeus is saying it's nearly impossible to predict how well the surge will succeed before the full number of troops arrive? How many Republucan candidates are admitting that General Petraeus would not even begin to say that he thought he'd have a definitive answer about prospects for stability by this September, when he is to report back to Congress?


_________________________________






Strong words of former CIA specialist Michael Sheuer from the May 18 Madison Capital Times editorial [LINK]:

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaida, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States.

"The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

Ron Paul was squaring with the people.

Rudy Giuliani was simply lying to them.

Watch Ron Paul educating CNN's Wolf Blitzer this week.

John Edwards Denies Fox News Opportunity to Be Unfair

John Edwards made the bold move of pulling out of the proposed Sept. 23 CBC/FOX Debate.

The Edwards campaign makes following statement:

"We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their January debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. The CBC champions critical issues that matter enormously to the future of our country, and we look forward to discussing them throughout this campaign and at their debate in January. But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective. If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic party when their last proposed debate was cancelled for lack of support."

In November 2003, I recall General Wesley Clark ripping Fox News' David Asman apart - taking Fox to task for their shoddy journalism. I recall feeling vindicated in some way, although I knew it wouldn't change Fox News a damned bit.

That's why I'm so glad that John Edwards is telling Fox News to take a hike on these debates. The only thing that his involvement would lead to, from what we already know about Fox News, is more of the same tilted treatment.

I recently heard comedian Bill Maher say that he thinks it would be a lot more courageous to see Democrats "taking on" Fox News (as Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark have done). The problem is, everything President Clinton and General Clark have said - and have said so well - has had absolutely no effect on the right-wing news organization's programming or propaganda-style. After being taken to task, they've lead viewers to believe President Clinton is "angry"...and that anyone who confronts them is a wacko.

I don't care to see a debate that takes away from the real issues at hand and becomes a sporting event for people whose blood gets pumped up by seeing a Democrat wasting his or her time jumping through the "fight Fox" hoops and having to call them on their obvious bias again and again. We have somuch creativity and vision to offer. If you're a candidate, why purposely stifle and darken your vision by allowing it to be ridiculed with an unbalanced set of questions? Why offer Fox News yet another opportunity to be unfair?

It's high time to start writing Fox News off as a fair news organization - and as a worthy or credible player.

They're NEVER going to be.

On Elizabeth Edwards and the Campaign

We're Committed

Our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly. We are so proud of the campaign we are running—a campaign based on ideas and reaching out to people. This campaign is not about me or Elizabeth—it's about all the people we have met these past few years and people like them all across America and the world—people worried about feeding and clothing their kids; people without health care; people facing hardships overseas.

Both of us are committed to this campaign. We're committed to this cause and we're committed to changing this country we love so much.

Thank you again for your support and for standing with us.

- Senator John Edwards, from a campaign email today

As I'm sure my readers will already know, I am deeply saddened by the news that Elizabeth Edwards will have to face yet another trying time as she fights this cancer. How I wish Elizabeth did not have to go through this. The wonderful part of the news is that she will not have to face it alone. She'll have her beloved husband and family by her - always. I've come to care very much about the Edwards - I feel, in many ways, that they are family - and my first reaction to the news that Senator Edwards will continue this campaign is that I think it's the right thing for him to have done because it was his decision and Elizabeth's decision. Family is the Edwards' first priority. They support one another and stand strong through the hardest of times - and that, to me, is setting a great example to anyone seeking personal victory and happiness in their own life.

Whatever John Edwards and his wife and family decide to do has my blessing. The Edwards have my prayers and support, as always.

I'm not sure why Politico.com had spread inaccurate news about the Edwards' intent before they really knew what was happening. It caused CNN to repeat the inaccuracies in a rush to report. It's no wonder we get so many false and misleading stories in the news. Saddest of all, this was the highest level of attention that CNN has paid to John Edwards' campaign since he announced he'd run for President. I think that fact is a damned shame. Worst of all, I heard the Fox News Live host Jon Scott cynically questioning Senator Edwards' statement of optimism immediately after the press conference. Dr. Robert Ashton, who was being interviewed, put the news host in his place, saying that he believed that optimism was the best thing for the Edwards to have.

Fools like Kathleen Parker write about trivial nonsense while a family faces the trial of a lifetime amidst a Presidential campaign. How I wish people could get real.

I wonder how Ann Coulter's feeling right now?

In the absence of eloquent words to say right now, I am going to repeat what David (Anonymoses) said just this morning. I think it ties in beautifully with the Edwards' statement about their optimism, tenacity, love, and vision:

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is reputed to have said: "Suffering is the sole origin of consciousness", which, among other things, conjures images from the life of the young buddha. Gurdjieff talks about how we evolve our being through what he called "conscious suffering".

Thinking about such things has given me courage during trying times, which is why I wanted to share it.

In many ways, Life is a steady stream of bad news. And sometimes, bad news is just well-disguised good news.

The stress of having one's current reality be so far from ideal, provides the fuel and energy that will propel one toward one's vision.

May the Edwards family be filled with light, love, peace, good health and repose.

- David

Elizabeth, you'll never be alone in this battle. May God comfort you and may you know how many of us love you and care about you. May you have the spiritual strength to bear any physical discomfort that you may have to endure from day to day, and may you find healing, spiritual fortitude, and peace from God's guiding hands.

I Don't Buy Paglia's Line on Edwards and Fox

Giving benefit of doubt, I can only assume that Camille Paglia means what she says when when she asks

What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox?

Rather than giving him credit for telling a right-wing news organization that blatantly seeks to destroy the credibility of Democrats each and every day - while blatantly boasting they're "fair and balanced" - to take a hike, she's jabbing at John Edwards for being the leader in pulling out of the Fox News debate in Nevada. She's pushing the notion that he's not a real man for having done so and I have to say that I think that that way of thinking is dead wrong.

I guess it all depends on your point of view. The way I see it, this is a free country. Fox News is free to be tilted so far right that its left end (if it ever had one) has long ago evaporated into the atmosphere. John Edwards is free (and really smart, in my opinion) to have told Fox News to take a hike.

It's a free country. Isn't it?

It's a free market. Isn't it?

Why should Edwards give Fox News any credibility - or why should he bring them any advertising by his presence on their network if he doesn't think they deserve it?

Paglia employs the meme "pampered and spoiled" about Edwards and other Democrats rather than saying what I see as what is much closer to the truth - John Edwards, like so many of us, is sick of Fox News saying they are something they are clearly not. They make the Fourth Estate look like stenographers for Dick Cheney. He knows that we are sick of it and he's leading by saying to Roger Ailes: "Enough of your lies!"

Paglia goes as far as to equate Edwards telling the propaganda-laden Fox News to shove their tilted debate to being afraid to someday stand up to China, North Korea or al-Qaida. Can you believe it? That's such crap that I don't know whether to laugh or to be insulted that Paglia would think any logical person would buy her line on this.

Paglia says she has ejoyed certain "solid" Fox segments. La di da. To imagine that these few and far between near-miracles outweigh the 24/7 whining Hannitys, the everyday filth-bearing Coulters, the belly-up-to-my-barstool loud-mouthed morality dictations by the O'Reillys, the fuggly goob jab-at-Democrats with the goofy look on your puss Doocys, and the leucous-rat-clawing-at-the-Democrats John Gibsons - is to be nothing less than delusional.

Any self-respecting Democrat should have told Fox News to take a hike long before now rather than waiting for John Edwards to do their dirty work for them.

Speaking of Coulter, Paglia throws around the word "tranny" - a name that she claims is often thrown wantonly at Coulter because of her "gender weirdness." The way I see it, two wrongs don't make a right. Why insult trannys? I know and love some real-life transvestites and I am disgusted by anyone who'd carelessly throw the term around to insult a political enemy - even if it is the Republican-she-idol/filthy-rich human garbage can of hate Coulter.

Edwards: Fighting Global Poverty Key to US Strength

"The reason I've given this post such a grandiose title is that global poverty is the biggest problem in the world."

- Neil

Neil the Ethical Werewolf (at Ezra Klein's website) has written a post about John Edwards' major policy addresss delivered by him in New Hampshire this week.

Excerpt from Neil's blogpost:

I hope what we're seeing here is the beginning of a distinctive Democratic approach to the problems posed by radical Islam, with its own grand story about how we're going to win. Being able to promise that you'll lead America to victory is very important in rallying people around your foreign policy, and one of the reasons why perceived Republican advantages on foreign policy lasted as long as they did, even in the face of wanton dishonesty and catastrophic blunders, was that Republicans kept making the promise of victory in Iraq. Democrats had to face up to the truth that Iraq was collapsing into disaster, and they were too conscientious to make any similarly grand and impossible promises. But plans like the one Edwards expresses here credibly promise victory in the larger struggle of which the Iraq War was supposed to be a part. It's how we triumphed over Communism, and it's how we're going to triumph over Islamic extremism too.

We must stop labeling the fight against global poverty as 'charity.' In this new age, the fight against global poverty is also a fight for our own way of life. None of us are completely self-sufficient, and to imagine ourselves as such is a sorry delusion. What happens to the child in Jakarta is going to have a ripple effect that stands to all too easily reach your child on the streets of your American town.

If we did not care for the way our nation approached the Iraq War, it's time to realize that, until we begin to think in a whole new way about exactly what fighting global poverty means to our own well-being, we are continuing to expose our children and the chiren of foreign nations to assured and pointless war and to the pointless and unnecessary destruction of others' lives and property in the future.

There truly is a change that can occur once we stop consciously agreeing with the frames set for us by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Cokie Roberts, Bill O'Reilly, George Will, and others who bang their ideology drums and move their dry lips to rote recitations heard a million times before. They haven't a clue as to how to change the course to Hell that America is currently on. These stale cookies have absolutely no ability to learn a new language. Someone ought to pull their political driver's licenses. They've gone blind.

With John Edwards to offer some new frames, let's teach these stale cookies something new. We can be leaders by creating and holding a vision of realistic and attainable change - then working to see that the change comes. I don't mean sitting around waiting for a miracle. I mean working with passion to effect the change that must happen if we care about our nation and its place in the world.

Remember the film "Field of Dreams?" We - simple people that we are - may be the key to the natural law of attraction. Let's build it - and trust that many will come.

Your ho-hum brand of everyday filth

I am very happy for John Edwards this week. Why? Simply said, he's showing who he is by not taking anyone's crap in the political world.

Let me give you just a few examples:





1. He put potty mouth Ann Coulter in her [very low and deserved] place.

Andrew Sullivan - [Read the whole thing. I thought it was great commentary.]

Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

2. The Edwards campaign was given media attention because of Coulter's nastiness. Thanks, Coulter. I can't believe I'm saying it, but for once I appreciate your making a complete ass of yourself and all the Republican hypocrites who laugh at your ho-hum brand of everyday filth that only the smallest percentage of humans would find amusing.




Robert Scheer [Huffington Post] -

Thank you, Ann Coulter, for boosting the principled but media-neglected presidential candidacy of John Edwards.

Like many others, upon hearing that she had used an address at a major conservative convention to call Edwards a "faggot," I quickly clicked to his home page to see his campaign's reaction--and was happily diverted to more substantive stuff, such as his firm support of universal healthcare and an end to the war in Iraq.

No wonder Coulter hates him: Edwards is a Democrat who believes in the progressive heritage of his party and is not afraid to tell the world.

3. At Beliefnet.com and the Huffington Post, David Kuo interviewed Senator Edwards about his faith and how it effects his political views and actions. I found Sen. Edwards' replies to be honest and refreshing - not at all divisive or religiously triumphal.

...when I went away to college, I drifted away from my faith. Even after Elizabeth and I got married, I had drifted away. It isn't that we didn't exercise faith. We would go to church, but it was not the sort of dominant day-to-day living faith that it is for me today. And in 1996, on a day I'll never forget, my 16 year old son died. And the days after that, when I was trying to survive and Elizabeth's trying to survive, my faith came roaring back and has stayed with me since that time, and helped me deal with the personal challenges we've had. Not only the death of my son, but some of the politics and the difficulty of that on our family. Elizabeth's breast cancer. All the things that we've seen, which is not that unusual for families. [..]

[..] Does your concern for the poor come mostly from your own background, or does it come from your faith?

Edwards: Both. It comes from both.

My own personal experience has been that I came from a very poor background when I was young. But, by the time I was in middle school/high school, we were solidly in the middle class. And now I've had everything you could ever have financially in this country. And so, I feel some responsibility myself to help and give back, to give that opportunity to lots of people who I don't think have it today. That's part of it. And it also comes from my faith. If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible. And I think I as a Christian, and we as a nation, have a moral responsibility to do something about this. [..]

4. John Edwards told us that he wasn't interested in any opportunity to participate in a Democrats debate in Nevada to be chaired and aired on the Fox News network. I couldn't be happier for him and for all of us who know what Fox represents.

Confucius [as channelled through Iddybud] say -

"For refusing to be toy of Fox
John Edwards he totally rocks."

Fox, obviously out for blood, is sporting this headline - What Would Jesus Do With John Edwards' Mansion? - with a story by Brit Hume. It's funny. Hume (and Fox) regularly boast their own support for traditional American capitalist values, yet they feel compelled to mention that Edwards has "drawn fire from some for his new $6 million, 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina." So compelled was Hume and Fox that they made a snarky headline out of it.

New Anti-War Song by Richard Thompson

'Dad's Gonna Kill Me
['Dad," Thompson explains to audiences, is grunt-speak for "Baghdad," much as " 'Nam" once meant "Vietnam." The new song will be released on Thompson's next CD, Sweet Warrior, due in May. -Slate]

It's a great tune. These are some of the lyrics as best as I can hear them:


Out in the desert there's a soldier lying dead
Vultures pecking the eyes out of his head
Another day that could have been me there instead
Nobody loves me here
Nobody loves me here

'Dad's gonna kill me
'Dad's gonna kill me

You hit the booby trap and you're in pieces
With every bullet your risk increases
Old Ali Baba, he's a different species
Nobody loves me here
Nobody loves me here

'Dad's gonna kill me
'Dad's gonna kill me.......

..........

I got a wife, a kid, another on the way
I might get back home if I can live through today
Before I came out here I never used to pray
Nobody loves me here
Nobody loves me here

'Dad's gonna kill me

'Dad's in a bad mood
'Dad's got the blues
It's someone else's mess that I didn't choose
At least we're winning on the Fox evening news
Nobody loves me here
Nobody loves me here
'Dad's gonna kill me

................

Who's that stranger walking in my dreams?
Who's that stranger who's cast a shadow 'cross my heart?
Who's that stranger do I dare speak his name?
Must be old death a'walkin'
Must be old death a'walkin'

'Dad's gonna kill me
'Dad's gonna kill me

A set of muzzle monkeys standing in a row
Standing waiting for that sandbox to blow
Sitting targets in the wild west show
Nobody loves me here
Nobody loves me here

'Dad's gonna kill me...

.........

- From a new anti-Iraq war song by Richard Thompson
Beeswing Music

Note: Go to this NPR site to hear a live version of Shenandoah by RT, one of my favorites.

And my ultimate favorite by RT is Beeswing.

Kristol: "It will not be a short term surge"

Neonconservative William Kristol is convinced, confident, and satisfied that President George W. Bush's decision to escalate the violence in Iraq "will not be a short term surge."

Mr. Kristol believes America can "win" if we shed the blood of a lot more innocent people in the Middle East. As if it's "cool" to go stubbornly against the wisdom of every respected and experienced diplomat, judge, sage, and concerned countryman, Mr. Kristol sounded like a cheerleader for Bush as rebellious-hero-adolescent raging against the establishment when he said this on Fox News Sunday:

"How often does a president go against -- what Juan referred to -- the wider consensus in this town, 'the military solution isn't possible?' It's a very broad consensus of the establishment and, I think, that's why there's so much anger among the establishment-types. 'Gee. The Baker-Hamilton Commission pronounced its verdict. And how dare the president make up his own mind and decide that he's not just going to just gracefully accept defeat with this nice bi-partisan patina of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. How dare he decide that we might win in Iraq."

Wake up, America. This is not intended to be a short-term surge. Your President is a neonconservative who will soon be calling on your son or daughter to serve a radical and immoral cause. Speak now or give your children up for sacrifice to a cause you do not agree with or understand.

Islamophobe Goode: Republicans Remain Silent

It is my opinion that cowardly Republican lawmakers should be ashamed for remaining silent about their colleague Rep. Virgil Goode's totally ignorant, racist, and Islamophobic comment, made on Fox News about newly elected lawmaker Keith Ellison of Minnesota:

"I'm for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives."

[..] While a number of Democrats in Congress blasted Goode, his fellow Republicans have remained generally quiet.

Even the Virginia Republican Party had no immediate comment, referring calls to the congressman's office.

I believe there is no question that our Constitution makes room for freedom of worship, and why that would exclude a lawmaker swearing on his religion's sacred word is beyond me. I made a comment at another website recently that explained how I looked to my own [Catholic] religion for guidelines and I found that even my religious leaders would support Rep Ellison 100%.

Paul Begala has called Rep Goode "a bigot and an idiot." He asked why George W. Bush hasn't commented on this or hasn't denounced Goode as Bush 41 denounced David Duke. Rep Duncan Hunter has defended the bigotry and cloaked his bigotry in "American tradition."

NRCC Refuses to Stop Illegal Robocalls in NY

The Robocall Scandal

One type of political advertising that is going to remain in the spotlight even after the elections have passed is the "robocall." Chairman of the DCCC Rahm Emanuel is saying that the DCCC is preparing to file civil suits and pursue the use and abuse of this method of political advertising to the fullest extent of the law.

This is not only hitting home here in Central New York. It 's a national problem. In Indiana, the practice has been rightfully squelched by the Indiana Republican party, who has cut ties to the firm responsible for the legally questionable robocalls. The Crooks and Liars blog has MSNBC's Keith Olbermann talking about the robocall situation.

Hear this 570 WSYR mp3 about people getting phonecalls (robocalls) over and over again with no political identity being given until the tail end of the call - an illegal political practice per Federal rules. The National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) is the culprit here. A N.Y. Democractic Campaign Committee spokesman says the effect of the robocalls are a voter turn-off toward the candidate they connect with the annoying phonecall. An example of a call is given on this WSYR mp3, and in this case, it is congressional candidate Dan Maffei who is the target of the NRCC robocalls. In a recent Zogby poll, Maffei was 4 percentage points ahead of incumbent James Walsh.

The NRCC has received official complaints and have said they were just going to continue their misleading and potentially illegal political practice. Leave it to the Republicans - even if caught doing something in the light of day that's clearly not above board, they refuse to back off. Reminds me of Dennis Hastert refusing to step down after we learned how long he'd known that Mark Foley was chasing after little boys who were Congressional pages. It's no wonder they've lost the trust of folks who value personal responsibility and fairness.

Update: Buffalo Geek has more.

What would possess Andrea Mitchell of NBC to make baseless accusations that Democrats have engaged in the same "dirty tricks"? Shame on Ms. Mitchell! The next time MSM accuses the entire blogosphere of making baseless claims, let's remind them that they are no more professional at times like this - and they get paid the big bucks for their so-called "professionalism" while the biggest reward I can hope for is a link from another website.

In a similar disappointing and misleading sub-headline, ABC News shows that they are apparently afflicted with the disease that NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls the "curse of even-handedness." In journalism, it's the curse that results in the key point of the piece being reduced to talking points-pablum in a race to seem "balanced." In the ABC article in question, the key point is that the Democrats claim the GOP has launched a dirty robocall campaign - yet the ABC editors feel the Fox News-like need to throw in a lame sub-headline saying that people are also annoyed by general political phonecalls by Democrats (that are not anything like the aforementioned robocalls!)