Hannah's Blog

What Doth it Profit?

What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? (Matt.16:26) Under the Bush dispensation the answer, it seems, is that profit is all. Those who have, will be given more; those who have not, will get even less. Indeed, just the intent to make a financial profit is enough to merit rewards.

How else to explain that the rule of global corporations is protected and subsidized by legislation, while the poor and destitute are dismissed; undeserving of every consideration, from a clean environment to legal protection and even the most basic medical care?

The invisible hand of the free market has been revealed as the profit motive. Those who don't have it and, lacking the predatory instinct, fail to look out for themselves will get what they deserve--nothing.

But what's really shameful is that this attitude is being spread on the backs of people of faith. Their deception adds insult to injury.

?????????????????

Melissa Makes Newsweek

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:45 AM
Subject: Melissa makes Newsweek; shows America Texans don't like Delay, either!

I made Newsweek! It totally made print, too (May 2nd edition on newsstands now). Bought three copies at Barnes and Noble tonight. It's the regular AP photo from the NRA-Delay protest (we'll have to start naming them, there are so many!). The photo is BIG, spread over two pages with some text around the bottom of the page. They don't mention me by name this time (I'm okay with that). You can totally read my shirt: DENY DELAY. In America, voters pick their Congressmen. Congressmen don't pick their voters. (Thanks Randy for the gift!).

They also used my quote on the Brit Hume show (FOX national news) on Monday. A reporter talked to us last Saturday when we protested Delay (International Space Station monument dedication protest). A friend saw it (I missed it), and he said he didn't make us look like fools! I keep repeating my sound bite: Tom Delay is a disgrace to Texas who cares about corporations, not his constituents.

I realized recently I have protested Tom Delay for the past three Saturdays. We will stay on him like duck on a junebug, white on rice (and this flippippino likes her rice!!)

AND, I was on local news again yesterday during a piece about the Bush-Delay protest in Galveson over social security. They made some comment like this was a string of protests against Delay, and they showed me and Gederberg holding three signs among us: one in each hand separately, and us holding my sign together that read: HAMMERED TEXAS FOR POWER AND PROFIT. That footage was from SATURDAY (Int'l Space Station), and I wasn't even at the social security protest. hahaha It's that cowboy hat, I tell ya!

Dean would be so proud of his little Deaniac!!

The Right's Fight
He's not one to take trouble lying down. Inside Tom DeLay's defense strategy-and what it means for Team Bush.
http://g.msn.com/0MNBUS00/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7615248/site/newsweek&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

For those who haven't protested with us, please do so! We have a blast, and we must continue to show the world that Texans don't like Delay either!!

~MRT

Unitarian Jihad

JON CARROLL

Jon Carroll

Friday, April 8, 2005

The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!

People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.

Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.

We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.

Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.

People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.

Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says.

Michael row the boat ashore, and then get some of the local kids to pull the boat onto the dock, and come visit with jcarroll@sfchronicle.com.

Hebron Story

Leah Green writes:

Dear Friends,
Hisham Sharabati, our Palestinian coordinator in Hebron, has taken many of
our groups over the years to visit his cousins in the heart of the old
market in Hebron - starting in the early 1990's as I recall. Their house,
partially destroyed by their settler neighbors in Avraham Avinu, was sealed
by the Army several years ago to "protect" them from the settlers. Family
members lived elsewhere while they fought a court case to regain entry to
their home, which has been in the family for many hundreds of years. The
Supreme Court recently ruled in their favor and this article describes their
bizarre current situation.

I have vivid memories of the strong patriarch of
the family who died in 1998. By the time he died, the family had fully
encased their courtyard in chain-link fencing (on the ground and in the sky)
in an attempt to protect themselves from the stones, paint, dirty diapers,
and other trash continuously thrown into their yard and home by the
settlers. As the former Israeli soldier in the article says, "I have seen
them do things not part of the Jewish religion -  destroying cemeteries,
hitting old men and women, children hitting them with stones." I have
witnessed these actions myself on several occasions in Hebron - surely one
of the strangest places on earth.

If any of you remember sitting inside the "caged Sharabati house", drinking
tea with Hisham's beautiful, scarved cousin who taught physics at the local
high school, this is the place! Thank you Elana, for forwarding the
article...

love to all,
leah

The West Bank: Siege mentality
Ruins of Sherebati house in Hebron

By Donald Macintyre
The Independent
21 April 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=631580

The Israeli soldier watching Muhammed Sharabati surveying the ruins of his
family home pointed to the side of his own head and described a circle with
his index finger. His gesture, the universal sign language for craziness,
was his soundless response to the enraged shrieks of the woman leaning over
her balcony. `Terrrorist,` she shouted down to us. `Thank you for coming
here to the house of the terrorists.`

Anyone who assumes a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is close
should visit the heart of Hebron, an ancient and bitterly divided biblical
city in the occupied West Bank. Implementing an order by the Supreme Court
of Israel to allow rebuilding and reopening the centuries-old Sharabati
house is no easy matter when the people who helped destroy it live only a
few feet away. The young soldier and the five other men in his unit were
there to perform the unusual task of protecting the family - and more
particularly Palestinian construction workers - from the Jewish settlers
overlooking it.

As the woman loudly accused the army of `allowing Arab killers to enter our
house`, prompting her fellow settlers to appear at their windows and other
armed troops and Israeli border policemen to deploy across the nearby
rooftops, the soldier asked us to go and return later.

The week before, as troops erected an ugly, 13ft-high wall of grey concrete
slabs to defend the devastated building from the people of the neighbouring
Avraham Avinu settlement, the settlers pelted a protective cordon of police
with stones, eggs and paint. Thirteen settlers were arrested and an
officer`s hand was broken. Anticipating the violence, the army originally
delayed enforcing the December court decision. But faced with a fresh legal
petition from the family`s lawyer, it told them in February they could
return.

After 20 years of reverses, Mufid Sharabati, Muhammed`s younger brother,
said: `For me, and for the city of Hebron, this is a victory. It means right
will win in the end. I am very happy with the result.` More soberly, he
added: `The implementation of this decision is very difficult. There is
fear. They [the settlers] attacked us in the past many times. But we will
return to our house. We are determined to do that. Allah decides our fate
and our life. We have to be steadfast.`

The struggle over the Sharabatis` right to re-enter the house they have
lived in for generations symbolises much that is most intractable in the
conflict. Gaza, as the world knows, is to be stripped of its 21 settlements
this summer. In return, President George Bush has agreed to Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon`s demand that the biggest West Bank settler population centres
would remain in Israeli hands in any peace deal.

The 900 Jewish settlers in four enclaves inside Hebron do not fall into
either category; not only do they live deep in the West Bank but they are
the only such group to inhabit the heart of a city in which Palestinians
form an overwhelming majority.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs, 300 metres from this urban front line, is sacred
to Jews and Muslims as the burial site of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But,
while any internationally agreed peace plan should guarantee access to both
religions to worship at the holy site, no such plan has so far provided for
the settlers to stay in Hebron.

Yet no settlers have demonstrated so consistently how determined they are,
despite the deaths they, like the Palestinians, have suffered in the past
four and a half years, to tighten and extend their grip on the territory
they occupy. In sardonic deference to its militancy, the Israeli commentator
Zvi Bar`el this week described Avraham Avinu as the `Jewish Sadr City`.

In 1982, when the then ample house of 17 rooms and four small courtyards was
inhabited by 80 members of the extended Sharabati family, Jewish settlers,
protected by Israeli military, began building Avraham Avinu right beside
their home, in the heart of the old city.

The settlers came to Mohammed`s father, then head of the clan and offered
him a blank cheque to buy the house. `They said, `You write the figure you
want`, but he refused,` said Mohammed Sharabati in the local council offices
where he works as a clerk. In September 1982, the Israeli administration in
the occupied territories demolished six rooms, and four more the year after,
to clear the way for settlement construction.

The settlers` repeated claims that the Sharabatis are `terrorists` are not
borne out by concrete evidence, beyond what their spokesman, David Wilder,
says are `eyewitness` accounts that long-dead members of the family helped
in the notorious massacre of 69 Hebron Jews in 1929.

(This is a city haunted by massacres; in 1994, a fanatical Jewish doctor,
Baruch Goldstein, machine-gunned to death 29 Muslim worshippers at the
tomb.) Mohammed Sharabati is in Fatah and members of the family were
arrested for offences such as throwing stones during the first intifada in
the late 1980s, but none for militant violence (of which there has been much
in Hebron) over the past four and half years.

But Mohammed can remember being detained for a day for obstructing the
demolition of his house. `While I was being taken in the Jeep, the settlers
were running after me and shouting, `Do you want to sell the house? If you
do you will be released`.`

But, consistently, the family refused purchase of the house or, in court
cases it brought in the early 1990s, turned down compensation for what had
been destroyed, thinking it would legitimise the seizure.

`This is the conflict over the land,` Mohammed said. `This is our existence,
our history, our civilisation.` The family felt, he added, that the Israeli
administration was `stealing our history`. Soon the settlers resorted to
other means. The family says holes were shot in their water tanks, and
stones and rubbish thrown into their courtyard.

Steadily, members of the family started to leave and in 1998 the Sharabati
brothers` elderly father died, exhausted, they say, by the friction with
their neighbours. By the time the second intifada broke out in September
2000, only seven members of the family were in the house.

Then on two days in July, reacting to a Palestinian attack that had killed
four soldiers on a road outside Hebron, 200 settlers stormed the house and
ransacked it while almost all the family were at a wedding. Tarik, another
Sharabati brother who had not gone to the wedding and locked himself in a
room, was rescued by the Israeli army who then welded the outside doors
shut. The house was closed to the family for the next two and a half years.

After the military decided to allow the Sharabatis back, and took them to
inspect the building in February, the settlers demolished part of the house
with sledgehammers. Israeli police who arrived were pelted with stones and
eggs. By then, many items of glass and pottery, including antiques, had been
smashed, and much of the family library was missing, along with furniture.
Kitchen cupboards were ripped from the walls. Mufid Sharabati says,
hopefully, that the family may bring other Palestinians back to the ghost
town that much of the old city now is. There is little sign of it. Only a
few shops still open after the years of violence and curfews, and the rest
are shuttered, many scrawled with graffiti, including `Death to Arabs`.

Former Palestinian stores in the old vegetable market are occupied by
settlers, who say the site is now owned by the state of Israel and this is
where Jews lived up to 1929. The army have thrown mesh, now filled with
settlement rubbish, above the street in the casbah which runs alongside
Avraham Avinu to prevent the settlers throwing objects on the Palestinians
below, just as some Jewish homes have gratings to protect them from
Palestinian stone-throwers.

As soft classical music plays in his cluttered Avraham Avinu office, David
Wilder, among the few local settlers who will speak to foreign journalists,
insists that despite the present lull in the conflict, nothing fundamental
has changed since the army decided to keep the Sharabatis out for `security
reasons`. He added: `Everybody who knows anything about security knows the
situation is going to deteriorate`.

Even if the Sharabatis are not going to inflict harm on their Jewish
neighbours, he says the settlers fear others will use the house as a passage
from the Palestinian side. `At a time we are evicting 9,000 people from
their homes [in Gaza] `for the sake of peace` why should one family be
allowed to stay in the middle of this neighbourhood and threaten our lives?
We will continue to oppose this and we hope very much we are going to find a
way of preventing them from coming back.` Can he be specific about how?
`No.`

By throwing rocks or attacking the building? Mr Wilder, a holstered 9mm
pistol at his waist, says the `community leadership` of which he is a part
opposes violence. `We don`t encourage it and we certainly don`t initiate
it.` But he is less than unequivocal in his condemnation, adding that
Avraham Avinu is `not a kibbutz` which takes decisions that bind all its
members. `There are things we don`t have [something] to say about and things
we do. People have different ways of expressing themselves.`

The settlers here, he says, are not `pro-violence` but having experienced
`tremendous terror` - he cites the fatal shooting of a baby at the height of
the intifada is 2001 as an example - they may resort to means `that are not
necessarily the ones we would prefer`.

Mr Wilder justifies the settlers` presence in Hebron since it was occupied
after the 1967 war as a return to the period between the 16th century until
the riots of 1929, when there were 800 Jews in an otherwise Arab population
of 20,000. `Where we are living now is on top of ruins of [Jewish] people
who lived here for more 400 years.` Mr Wilder would not for a second apply a
similar argument to any of the 900,000 Arabs who fled or were expelled from
their homes in the 1948 war of independence.

He says the settlers are not trying to drive the Arab population from Hebron
but adds: `If you`re asking me, `Do I cry when an Arab leaves?` the answer
is no, any more than I expect they would cry about me leaving.`

Mr Wilder expresses enthusiastic support for the army as the settlers`
protector, but is angered when it is used `as policemen` against the
settlers. Jonathan Boumfeld, a member of a courageous group of Israeli
former soldiers who served in Hebron and helped to mount a ground-breaking
exhibition about the city last year, `Breaking the Silence`, testifies to
this dichotomy, albeit from a different standpoint.

He says that on occasions when he was commanding a unit, the settlers
`kicked shit out of my soldiers`. And he added: `One minute we are
protecting them, then we end up fighting them.` That was when they would be
forced to intervene when Palestinians were attacked or their shops and other
premises were broken into by settlers.

Mr Boumfeld says he was on patrol in March 2003 when they found the door of
the Sharabati house open and evidence of recent entry. The patrol called
army engineers to reweld the door. `The whole neighbourhood turned out and
tried to enter the house. Then we formed a human chain and to stop them and
they were shouting, `Nazis, fascists, why are you helping the Arabs?```

He says settlers repeatedly threw rubbish, including soiled nappies, into
the Sharabatis` courtyard, and makes no secret of his antipathy to the
Hebron settlers (he mentions the chilling graffiti depicted in last year`s
exhibition: `Arabs to the Gas Chambers`), or his belief that Israel should
not be in the occupied territories.

But he adds: `I think some of these people will fight to the last drop of
blood to stay in Hebron. You have here some of the most militant settlers of
all. These are not the people of Gush Katif. I have seen them do things not
part of the Jewish religion, destroying cemeteries, hitting old men and
women, children hitting them with stones.`

Since rebuilding started, Mufid Sharabati says the workers were attacked by
25 settlers for 20 minutes with stones, bottles, and eggs. Soldiers, he
says, were hit, before they forced the settlers down from vantage points.

Israeli soldiers and police are still entrusted with ensuring that the
settlers do not get their way and that the Sharabatis return to their home.
This is a struggle that may have only just begun.
Sharabati house - Bulldozer still there

Hold My Hand

So, the Chief Executive of the largest economy on the planet says its retirement program is going bankrupt. Why am I not impressed?

It's already a matter of record that Bush and his cronies, unlike the people to whom salaries and pensions are owed, have developed corporate bankruptcy to a high art. Indeed, bankruptcy has to be one of their favorite things--an opportunity to bail out of an enterprise that's gotten stale and an opportunity for new friends to pick up its assets on the cheap.

As every merchant knows, it makes good sense to buy low and sell high. The only question now is how low does our country have to go? And who's going to want to pick US up?

Pharisees, Sadducees, & Scribes

Oscar in Louisville writes:

I was one of the people in attendance of the Freedom & Faith Rally at Central Presbyterian Church Sunday here in Louisville, KY. I got there right at 2:30 PM and was seated in the back-right corner next to the TV cameras. Here's my take------

We are at war. I don't mean Iraq, I don't mean Afghanistan, and I don't mean the several places where we have covert operations taking place across the globe. Right here within the United States of America there is a war raging, yet only one side has been shooting. The barbarians have sent sappers to the walls and are training siege weapons on the gates, meanwhile the Left is trying to start a dialog with them: "Can't we just talk about all of this?" The Left has been trying to promote Peace In Our Time? and has achieved Neville Chamberlain's results ? the fascists are doing an end-run around the Maginot Line known as the U.S. Constitution and are preparing to march through L'Arc de Triomphe.

The time for talk is over. The days of dialog are done. The Religious Right has no interest in a discussion and they don't value the thoughts of those who are not themselves conservative in their Christianity and loyal to their leadership. Proof-positive would be how Judge George Greer ? the judge who presided over the Terri Schiavo case, a Southern Baptist and a card-carrying Republican ? was effectively cast out by the people that he'd previously called brothers and sisters. These people are not looking for a dialog and they will not respond to a request for discussion ? they intend on total domination and they must be defeated. Right now.

So how do we defeat them? While a study of The Art of War is always useful, the nature of this war is twofold: this war will be fought on both the secular and spiritual fronts, and that requires two different armies.

Much the same way that America and England attacked the Third Reich from the west while the Soviets attacked from the east, religious liberals and atheists/agnostics will need to attack the Religious Reich from a secular POV (i.e. Constitutional grounds) while religious conservatives attack the Religious Reich from a spiritual POV (i.e. Biblical grounds). In order to be effective in our method and discipline, religious liberals should steer clear of attacking the Religious Right on biblical grounds because the Right will be able to eviscerate the Left biblically. Also, religious conservatives should steer clear of attacking the Religious Right on Constitutional grounds since that will dilute the focus of the Biblical argument. It is not that liberals can't argue Biblically or that conservatives can't argue constitutionally, it's just that if we are to be effective then one has to hit them high while the other hits them low. We need to be disciplined, and that is always a problem for the Left - getting all of us marching in the same direction to the same cadence isn't something that we do well. These cats don't herd easily.

One thing that we must remember is the nature of the battlefield, the earth upon which we will fight. We are fighting for the hearts and minds of men and women in this country, and that is battleground upon which this war is being waged. We have to persuade the persuadable that we are right and that the Religious Right is wrong. We must not waste resources on Don Quixote-esque quests to talk sense into those who would call Dobson or Mohler their pope. We have to reach those who can be reached and transform them from passive observers into active combatants. That requires each of us to personify the moral law, such that we can mobilize people to fight the good fight when they are needed. Most people don't have the time or energy to pay attention to politics the way that many of us do, but each of us needs to be a center of influence ? a commander ? that can bring many people to the fight when called upon. As Nancy Jo Kemper said at the rally yesterday, we don't need activist judges, we need activist citizens.

THE SPIRITUAL ARGUMENT

The secular and Constitutional arguments against the Religious Right have been pretty-well hashed out here on dKos so I won't repeat them here, but I would like to delve into the Spiritual Arguments and work through some lines of thought that I gleaned from the Freedom & Faith Rally yesterday. When asked about the greatest commandment of all the Law, Jesus said:
'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40

The Religious Right violates both commandments through their practices, and that is where they can be attacked and defeated.

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind

This hearkens back to the first Commandment where God said, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:2-3) The Religious Right, however, puts the United States of America before the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, before the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If you go to most any Church of the Religious Right you will find a flag on either side of the pulpit - the Christian flag to one side of the pulpit and an American flag on the other. Disregarding positions of honor (such as flying the American flag higher than the Christian flag ? see the picture to the right), why is an American flag flown anywhere on church grounds and especially in the sanctuary? Is nothing sacred? Do you think there was a porkchop's chance in Mecca of the Roman standard being displayed anywhere within the Jerusalem Temple during Biblical times? You would sooner see Free Republic endorse Barney Frank. The American flag has about as much place in a church's sanctuary as a crucifix belongs in a U.S. courtroom, yet the Religious Right bows down before both flags. That violates the spirit and the letter of the first commandment ? the Bible refers to that practice as Idolatry ? and the Religious Right needs to be called on it.

The Separation of Church and State goes both ways ? and was brought about in large part due to Baptists who were concerned that the Anglicans/Episcopalians and/or Presbyterians would become the state religion. It was to protect the Church from the state. Moreover, one of the Baptist distinctives is our insistence on the autonomy of the local church ? we don't believe in bishops or presbyters or cardinals or popes. Be that as it may, it certainly seems like certain Southern Baptist leaders have been imbued with the authority to speak Ex Cathedra. Who in the SBC would presume to criticize the great and powerful Al? Anyone? Anyone? Mohler? Not only does the Religious Right violate God's command to have no other gods before Him (or along side Him ? see Matthew 6:24), the Religious Right violates the core of what it means to be Baptist ? the autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of all believers. We have no pope: our high priest is Jesus Christ, not Al Mohler.

The Religious Right has abandoned its stewardship of God's Creation, known to the secular world as Environmental Protection. Fortunately, the good people of the Evangelical Environmental Network are working to take the Religious Right down on that point ? any Evangelical Christian who can help in that effort should.

Hypocrisy. This charge gets much more use than it should, but it is accurate when applied to the Religious Right. Homosexuality and abortion are indeed issues of moral values, but as Jim Wallis pointed out at the Rally, fighting poverty is a moral value. Taking care of the environment is a moral value. Telling the truth and seeking justice regarding war is a moral value. In each of these issues, the Religious Right finds itself opposed to Biblical values; i.e. in sin. They must be called on that every time ? they do not represent the whole counsel of Scripture, for if you listened to them you would came away believing that Jesus was Pro Rich, Pro War, and Pro American. He was not, is not, and will not be so inclined. Perhaps they missed where Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36) The day will come when Jesus returns and every knee bows and every tongue confesses His lordship, but that's His fight to win then, not ours to fight here and now. Here and now true Christians and true Americans need to work together to fight those who are neither truly Christian nor truly American and yet claim to be both ? the Religious Right.

You shall love your neighbor as yourself

They don't. We could truly leave it right there and that would say everything, but the evidence of their sin is massive and needs to be brought to light. Why oppose stem cell research but not the fertility clinics that produce the embryos that produce stem cells, other than the obvious fact that to do so would be political suicide? If you stand on principle then political calculations should not play a part in your position, and if political calculations play a part in your position then you cannot claim to stand on principle. Why oppose gay marriage under the guise of supporting the "Institution of Marriage" when it is divorce that destroys the "Institution of Marriage" and premarital sex that cheapens the "Institution of Marriage." If the Religious Right is to be consistent then they should seek laws abolishing divorce and extramarital and/or premarital sex ? that would "protect the Institution of Marriage." The honest answer is that to do so would be political suicide, but such propositions would be consistent with the "values" espoused by the Religious Right, and if they truly stand on principle and not political pragmatism then they ought to espouse such policies to solve their perceived problems. The point here is that when they talk about standing for their values as a matter of principle, they are guilty of trespassing the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbor ? they're lying through their teeth.

They want to dismantle Social Security as if they've never read Mark 7:6-13 where Jesus said to the Pharisees of His day:
Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.

You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

Honor your mother and father. Simple. Apparently it's too simple for today's blind Pharisees to see. Jesus told them to "first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." They seek external adherence to the commands of a King to whom most Americans have not submitted, Jesus Christ. If people have not submitted to Jesus' lordship then external observation of Christian-like behavior is meaningless. Much as faith without works is dead, so too is works without faith, as the writer of the book of Hebrews points out, "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Why do those who say that they honor the Bible act as if they've never read it? I think Cyprus Hill put it best: "Here is something you can't understand!" I just don't get it.

What I do get is the need to stop today's Pharisees dead in their tracks, and the best way to do that is to get them fighting with today's Sadducees ? those who only believe a limited portion of the Scriptures. Once they've trained their weapons on the Sadducees, Scribes like me can flank the Pharisees and wipe them out ? eliminating the Pharisees' effectiveness in the public square ? with a few Biblical broadsides. Like Sun Tsu said, all warfare is based on deception. The Religious Right needs to be deceived into thinking that their enemy is attacking them from the Left, when the kill-shot will be coming from their Right ? from Evangelical Progressives like myself in the Black Church.

That's the way I see it and I welcome your comments and suggestions. Take care and God bless.

I'm a Democrat

I'm a Democrat, Letter to the Editor

Let me introduce myself. I am a Democrat.

I am tired of Rush Limbaugh and Carl Rove telling you who I am.

Let me tell you about myself, first hand.

I am a Democrat and live in a small town of two thousand people. I am not an east coast, big city person.

I am a Democrat and I am a Christian. I am active in my church and my husband and I lead a healing group every Tuesday night,

I am a Democrat and I work with special needs children. I teach foster mothers how to relax drug-exposed infants.

I am a Democrat and I don?t want the government to make decisions for me. I want to make up my own mind. I don?t want government in my bedroom or in my doctor?s office with me.

I am a Democrat and I love my country. That is why I have learned everything about history and government. I have been elected to a local office and I proudly wear an American flag pin.

I am a Democrat

No, I don?t drive a Volvo. I drive a Ford
Yes, I wear Birkenstock sandles because as a therapist I know they are good for my feet.
No, I don?t drink latte coffee or any other coffee
Yes, I am college educated and I hope I can afford to send my children to college too.

Maybe you are a Democrat too and don?t know it, or maybe not.
If you are a Republican you should become active in your party because your party is now in the process of being hijacked by the ?Radical Right.? Your current leaders are neither financially conservative nor supportive of local control of government. You leaders are abdicating their control to the international corporations that neither care about Christian values nor care about maintaining a strong America.

I am a Democrat. You might be surprised. I am a lot like you.

Medicare Drug Scam

Ever so slowly, the press is starting to take a closer look at the Medicare
prescription coverage that's going into effect in 2006. If the stories
follow the one put out by the Boston Globe, readers might be left with the
impression that old people who can't make decisions about who's going to
provide the medecines they need and probably don't even know what they are
taking, may not notice the changes anyway.

That may in fact be an accurate conclusion. But, the point of the
medication isn't to make the patients "comfortable" or insensate; it's to
make it easier for the caretakers to care for them. When you have someone
who's yelling and screaming with pain or hallucinating and making up
stories about being attacked by the other patients and staff, or pooping in
other patient's rooms and "lifting" their few belongings or trying to
strangle them in their beds, it's a lot harder to manage that person. One
person taking care of twelve or twenty won't do it. You're going to need a
staff of two to one patient in order to calm and subdue them and then
you're going to have to tie them to their chairs. Which, of course, means
that when they need to poop and pee, they have to be liberated from their
bonds, etc.
Providing old people with the proper medecines isn't for their convenience;
it's to provide cheaper and more appropriate care.
So, why exactly has the prescription drug coverage by Medicare been
designed to fail? And why did they people who voted for it, vote for
something that is certain to fail? Why do they not realize that if you
expect failure, that's what you'll get? Oh yes, because that's what they
want. Being for something that you know is going to fail has been developed
to an art.

Abramoff File

Does anybody really trust the Bush Justice Department to investigate this scandal that is tied to an activist (Abramoff) who has been raising, laundering and spending money for the GOP for over 25 years?

Just take a quick look Abramoff's resume:

Credited with delivering Massachusetts for Reagan in 1980 by posting 10,000 absentee ballots from College Republicans (Reagan won by 7,000 votes).

As head of the College Republicans in the earlier 1980 he worked hand and glove with Grover Norquist to reshape the College GOP into an activist right-wing farm club for the GOP. In that roll he was the mentor (and leader) for many well-known GOP activists, like Ralph Reed (Ralph and Jack became so close that they would sleep on each other's couch and Ralph introduced Jack to his wife).

He was Executive Director of "Citizens for America" a Reagan White House "citizen lobbying" effort that helped Ollie North organize the Contra speaking tours (that helped break open the Iran-Contra scandal).

He was the lobbyist for the South African secret police during Aparthied and became a filmmaker in an attempt to break the cultural boycott of the late 1980s.

He was involved with the lobbying and fundraising for the "Contract with America".

Jack helped Tom DeLay raise $700,000 in hard money and more tha $2 million in soft money for competitive GOP races in 1994. This lead to DeLay's victory for GOP whip over Newt's candidate.

He was the lobbyist for sweatshop interests on the US Territory of the Commonwealth of North Marianas Islands (Saipan). The family that owns these factories is based in Hong Kong and has made many, many donations to the GOP. Today their factories on Saipan are closing and their factories in China are taking advantage of the lowering of textile quotas, while Bush and the GOP sit on their hands.

His largest client was Native American tribes with casino issues (like Saipan, also a ward of the Federal government). This scandal is widely reported.

He was the point of the spear for the Norquist/DeLay K Street Project.

His lobbying shop was a training ground for GOP operatives. Most of Tom DeLay's staff over the last ten years worked with Jack when they left Tom.

He was a major Bush fundraiser (with large contributions to the Florida recount) and a member of the Bush transition team for the department of the Interior.

There is more. Behind every dollar Jack raised is another scandal. The $9 million from sweatshops and $82 million from tribal casinos did not go into his pocket. The vast majority of the money (and more) was funneled illegally into GOP campaigns and the effort to build a one-party America.

People who have received contributions from Abramoff over the last decade--

SAXTON, H JAMES (R
BUNNING, JIM (R)
DELAY, THOMAS DALE (R)
SMITH, ROBERT C (R)
SMITH, GORDON HAROLD (R)
NEY, ROBERT W (R)
MCCOLLUM, BILL (R)
RYAN, PAUL D (R)
PITTS, JOSEPH R (R)
DAVIS, THOMAS M III (R)
LAZIO, RICK A (R)
PIROZZI, ELIA (R)
HILLEARY, W VAN (R)
RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND
JONES, WALTER B. (R)
PRESTON GATES ELLIS
T.E.A.M. PAC
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
EHRLICH, ROBERT LEROY JR (R)
UNITED STATES FAMILY PAC
NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (R)
MONDAY MORNING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
LATHAM, THOMAS P (R)
PHILLIPS, HOWARD (OTH)
FAIRCLOTH, DUNCAN M (R)
BORDONARO, MOLLY HERING (R)
HAYWORTH, JD (R)
RHODES, ARTHUR D (R)
ALBY, BARBARA (R)
BROOKS, SUSAN (R)
HOFMEISTER, GARY (R)
CRANE, PHILIP M (R)
SUSAN B ANTHONY LIST PAC INC
HASTINGS, DOC (R)
ROHRABACHER, DANA (R)
SCARBOROUGH, CHARLES JOSEPH (R)
BURTON, DANNY L (R)
CHENOWETH, HELEN P (R)
D!CK ARMEY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (R)
CHRISTENSEN, JON LYNN (R)
RYUN, JIM R (R)
GUTKNECHT, GILBERT W JR. (R)
LARGENT, STEPHEN MICHAEL (R)LEFEVER, TIMOTHY J (R)
CREMEANS, FRANK A (R)
HILL, RICK (R)
BROWNBACK, SAMUEL DALE (R)
CUBIN, BARBARA L (R)
NETHERCUTT, GEORGE JR. (R)
PAUL, RONALD E. (R)
WITTIG, SUE (R)
SNOWBARGER, VINCENT K (R)
COBURN, TOM A (R)
JONES, WALTER B. (R)
ADERHOLT, ROBERT B (R)
WATTS, JULIUS CEASER JR (JC) (R)
COX, CHRISTOPHER HON. (Rep)
CHRYSLER, RICHARD R (R)
PERRY, BRENT CLARK (R)
CRANE, PHILIP M (R)
CHENOWETH, HELEN P (R)
SUNUNU, JOHN E (R)
FUNDERBURK, DAVID B (R)
DUNN, JENNIFER (R)
TATE, RANDALL JOHN (R)
ENGLISH, PHILIP S (R)
POMBO, RICHARD (R)
WICKER, ROGER F. (R)
PICKERING, CHARLES W. JR. (R)
METCALF, JACK (R)
GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILLIP (R)
NORTH, OLIVER LAURENCE (R)
PHILLIPS, HOWARD (OTH)

Sunset Legislation

Buried deep in the federal budget is a provision to create a couple of commissions which would review federal departments and sunset them, if they are found not to be worth-while.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/23/21115/5213#59

This is such an old idea and stale.

I would be willing to bet that in states where it has been tried, it has proven to be a failure. Bureaucrats can always come up with excuses for why their agencies should continue. So, all you end up with is time and money spent on more meetings and conferences and studies that contribute nothing to efficiency or effective government.

One thing to keep in mind is that these proposals to reduce the number of government functions and programs are an artifact of the economic assumption that there is a significant difference between the public and private sector and that, indeed, government expenditures are a drain on the economy. To their way of thinking, every dollar government spends is a dollar not available to the private sector. So, the easiest way to make the economy grow is by shifting functions from the public to the private.
In other words, the problem arises from the practice of defining activities by WHO carries them out, rather than WHAT they actually accomplish.

So, for example, when a corporation hires a legislative consultant to draft regulations that's good because he's being paid by a "private" participant in the economy. When the department of energy hires someone to draft regulations that's bad because he's being paid by the government.

When you come right down to it, not only has the Republican Administration greatly increased the cost of government, but it's expanded the army of private "law-makers" and "lobbyists" and consultants exponentially. The don't call it government and they don't call it bureaucracy, but that's exactly what it is, if you define it by what it does, rather than how it's paid.

Unwilling Public Servants

The Boston Globe has a story about a policeman who's not getting a whole lot of co-operation where he lives.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/24/boston_police_officer_treads_thin_blue_line_in_hometown

Yes, it is a sad fact of American life that our public officials do not want to take direction from the public about how to do their jobs.  Law enforcement personnel are particularly recalcitrant.  Just look at how strongly they resist citizen review boards.  And most administrators seem to be taught to run interference for the guys with the guns.

Officer James Meredith ought to stick it out in Norfolk.  If he ends up in a court room, it will be doubly instructive to be on the other side of an unfounded complaint.  And, since he's caught the attention of the press, perhaps we can all have a long overdue discussion of the reality that people in vehicles have more rights than people on foot.

Why that is is uncertain.  Perhaps the fact that the operator of a vehicle has presumably already submitted to regulation by the state puts him one up in the social hierarchy.  Whatever the explanation, that people not fully equipped with their own wheels are getting less and less respect is not a situation our Constitution stipulates.  The rights we enjoy should not be defined by whether or not we own a car.

Why Rights?

The Bill of Rights is intended to make it easier to govern. Freedom of speech and of the press makes it easier for authority to know what its subjects think. That's why the content of speech is not to be penalized, but the opportunity to speak can be curtailed at will.

I, for one, am not satisfied with the piecemeal extension of rights related to essential human functions. The ability to speak, to hear, to breathe, to excrete and, yes, to reproduce or not, ought not be subject to legislative revue or intervention.

But, of course, if authority is granted the right to deprive a person of life itself, then it's entirely logical that all other essential human behaviors are subject to being permitted, controlled, and endlessly legislated about. That humans, who's most essential behaviors can be taken from them are being deprived of the liberty they are supposedly guaranteed and are definitely not free is the only conclusion one can reach.

If humans can be put to death and only citizens are entitled to experience certain procedural safeguards before the execution takes place, then it follow logically that there are no legal prohibitions nor procedural requirement that need to be followed before a non-citizen can be threatened with death or treated so as to approximate death. In other words, if capital punishment is legal, then so is every other punishment that authority can invent.

Moreover, if authority has the right to put people to death, there is no basis for arguing that in exercising self-restraint and not utilizing this right, authority incurs an obligation to prevent death. Not putting people to death does not imply an obligation to keep them alive. Which is why the suggestion that a woman whose life is threatened by the process of reproduction has a right to have her life protected is so strongly resisted.
Indeed, the motive for this resistance is two-fold. Authority does not want to acknowledge an obligation to protect any citizen's life (the purpose of authority is to punish) and it does not want to cede the right to put people to death to anyone else.

If you begin with the assumption that humans are bad by nature and that the sole function of authority (the state) is to punish that bad behavior (if necessary, by putting the bad person to death), then any self-determination about life and death has to be seen as a challenge to the supreme authority of the state. Which is why suicide is against the law.
Assisted suicide, on the other hand, can be justified as a delegation by the state of the power over life and death to a medical professional. In other words, the state determines that under certain conditions it agrees to relinquish its sole power over life and death to someone else. Which, of course, happens in every execution as well. Chief executives never pull the plug or insert the syringe themselves.

So, to conclude, if any of our so-called "rights" are to be protective of individual humans, we first have to get rid of the state's right to put people to death.

Munchausen by President

One of the most difficult things to understand is how a parent can poison or starve her own child just so, in tandem with a host of medical and surgical assistants, she can then "save" the life of the poor victim. Yet any number of these cases have been identified, most often by setting up a video camera and checking what happens when no-one seems to be watching. It's called Munchausen syndrome by proxy, named after a man who gained a reputation for outrageous fictions.

More and more it's beginning to look like our President has taken a page out of Munchausen's book. Or perhaps several. While the claim to be trying to "save Social Security" resembles nothing so much as an over-wrought mother dragging her child from pillar to post, other efforts to undermine or destroy the nation's social institutions are only just, as they say in the media, "developing."

The effort to do away with independent judges is a little further along than the attack on the United Nations in the person of the nominee John Bolton. But, there doesn't seem to be any widespread recognition that "reform" is really a code word for "destroy."

Parents who harm their children in order to "save" them are assumed do so for the attention they get. What the President and his cronies get out of trying to destroy our nation's institutions may be nothing more than the sensation of power that comes from knowing that they can.

Now that's scarey.

Cold Comfort

Of course they have weapons of mass destruction
And Nanny Rice is fluent in Russian
And if they have no flowers,
They'll shower us with their shoes.

When I first moved to New York, I was sent to board with the Ursuline nuns. The Ursulines are a cloistered order. In addition to vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, they take a vow of silence. What that means for a teaching order, is that there is to be no frivolous conversation. Even meals are taken in silence, except for the inspirational reading that one provides.

The boarders, of course, weren't expected to follow this routine entirely. We were permitted to converse on the playgrounds and in our rooms. But there was no talking in the halls between classes and meals were silent, except for requests to pass a dish. Actually, the only things anyone asked to be passed for seconds were bread and milk. The main dishes tended to be so awful that nobody wanted more than was needed to keep from going hungry.

The "mothers" who supervised each floor in the dormitory, having lots of prayers to recite at the end of the day, were naturally keen to see that once we were snug in our beds, we were there to stay. So, although I'll admit that the dead of winter isn't nearly as severe in New York as in New Hampshire or other more northern states, the practice of opening our windows wide to keep us from getting up and roaming around was effective. It was not unusual for us to wake to a layer of snow on the floor.

We were actually appreciative of the fact that when the "mother " came to wake us at 6:00 AM, she would shut the window before we were expected to dress for the early morning mass and assumed that such a service was not provided to her.

So, we were understandably surprised when the usually locked door to her room yielded to our inspection and we discovered not just an unmade bed but a fetid rush of air which suggested that the room hadn't been aired-out in quite some time.

Being somewhat vengeful teens, we of course confessed to our intrusion that night when the lights were already out and we couldn't see the "mother's" reaction. Indeed, I have no memory of what her reaction, if any, was. However, I clearly remember the sensation left by the discovery that things were not as we had assumed; that the frigid temperatures we were exposed to were not shared. It was the same sensation I felt upon learning that Nanny Rice is not, if fact, fluent in Russian.

Chief Pain-in-the-Ass

Julian Smith is a newly-minted Town Councilor in the Town of Durham, New Hampshire and now the recipient of "official" documents. Strategic planning seems no more effective in the cradle of democracy than in was in the old Soviet Union. But everybody's doin' it.

Email to Town Administrator:

As I am still finding my way to act properly as a member
of the council, I'm not sure how best to respond to or
comment upon the undated and unpaginated
"2005 Police Department Strategic Plan" you transmitted to
the council via your memorandum of April 7th.  I'll leave
it up to you to decide whether or not you should share
this message with the remainder of the council and/or
Chief Kurz.

Were I not on the council, I would simply direct my
comments to Chief Kurz--or send them to you with the
expectation that you would, if you agreed with what I
have to say, offer guidance to Dave Kurz, who signed-off
on the document by placing his name on the final page
under the words "Respectfully submitted."

Let me offer a few comments that will give you some sense
of what I see as real problems in this document. 

Cover sheet: under the title "Durham Police 2005 Strategic
Plan," we find the words: "POSITIONING THE DURHAM POLICE AS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY--IMPROVING THE QUALITY
OF LIFE THROUGH INNOVATION AND PARTNERSHIP".  I don't think
I am alone in responding to those bold words with this
question: "Golly--do you mean to say that the Durham Police
are NOT an integral part of this community--that they are
only now BEGINNING to 'position' themselves?"

The first of the next fourteen pages is the "Introduction"--
and what a dreary introduction it is.  Consider the first
sentence: "The Durham Police Department 2005 Strategic Plan is
designed to be an evolving document, contstantly reviewed,
updated [comma missing] and brought into line with the desires
of the community."  Well, this member of the community really
desires that any document promulgated at some expense to the
taxpayers will not need to be constantly updated over the
course of a single year by police department officials
who have, I trust, better things to do. 

And this member of the community desires that official
documents be grammatical.  Consider the sentence in the
middle of the very first paragraph of the introduction:
"The plan ensures that the elements within this document
is [sic] understood, supported [comma missing] and
reflects [sic] the wishes of the community."  The wish
of this member of the community is that official documents
follow the standard rules of formal punctuation and
subject/verb agreement.

Under "Citizen Survey" on the introduction page, we are
informed that the latest community survey revealed that
"The perceptions and desires of the community remained
static as it [sic] related to crime."  As there is no
documentation of these alleged perceptions and desires,
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the community is
still against crime and in favor of law and order.  As
for myself, I'm in favor of pronouns agreeing with their
nouns.

Under "Citizen Planning" we are told about "An annual
one day planning session designed to gain insight from
a diverse group of community clients regarding the
direction the agency should focus upon."  Well, I was
at that planning session and the very last thing I
suggested was that the department should not refer
to citizens or taxpayers or voters (or, for that matter,
criminals or suspects) as "clients."  But I'm distracting
you from the deadness at the heart of the sentence I
quoted: the notion that there is a "direction" the
department "should focus on."  I would hope that the
department would focus on issues--and actually GO in
a direction.

The last sentence on the "Introduction" page suggests
that DPD may be lost: "In the most basic sense, [this
document] is the roadmap for our future."  While I
admit that I could not bear to read the entire document
and only skimmed it, I also suggest that a roadmap
should be clear, precise, and without misleading
directions. 

So let me cut to the chase and skip to the final page. In
his first sentence, Chief Kurz writes "I would like to thank
the following participants of [sic] our annual Strategic
Planning meeting, which was held March 13, 2004."  As
the meeting he refers to was held on April 2nd of this
year, I suspect that he was probably revising an earlier
version of what the very first sentence alleges to be
a "constantly reviewed" and "updated" document.

In his next sentence, Kurz writes "Without their commitment
of time and energy, this plan would not have been possible,
or relevant."  If I am correct in the assumption that Kurz
may have been tweaking his 2004 Strategic Plan, then it is
likely that Kurz is gilding a lily that wilted last year
or years ago.  I will not comment on his suggestion that
this plan is relevant.  What seems relevant to me is that
our police chief seems to be making statements that do not
hold up to careful scrutiny.

I do, however, appreciate that he cared enough to place my
name at the top of the left hand column of the seventeen
participants he named.  And while I appreciate the nice
"Durham Police Community Partner" shirt I received at the
end of the session, I was disappointed that it was a
short-sleeved tan pullover suitable for playing golf,
not the long-sleeved blue-collar workshirt of the kind
given hard-working council members in past years.     

Respectfully submitted,

Julian Smith
Chief Pain-in-the-Ass,
Durham Town Council

Fallujah Revisited

http://www.marchforjustice.com/Fallujah22.swf

Just Desserts

courtesy of JC

Kimmy's Gang--rant

kimmy.. wrote on April 18, 2005 12:02 AM:

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OH MY GOD.

Okay, I should NOT have come back on to see my "au revoir simone" but I did. I can't let this go.

Worried about the children of the world? Or just the white children of the world? I am trying to be very careful and not hurt feelings here too, so please know that.

Now, first__

You are **completely** wrong about WHY gangs form. **Completely**. *Totally*. *100%*. You are telling me how and why gangs form- I LIVE with it. I am in it everyday and have so my entire life, please hear that. I am NOT ashamed , but PROUD of my neighborhood just as YOU are.

When I see WalMart (you know, Sams wal mart) coming into the neighborhood (every 4 city blocks around here i bet) and taking businesses DOWN with them for further white empowerment... Well, that makes people like us mad.

When the neighborhood is a display for all that is bad and its the SPOT TO GO TO when ya wanna get some black or latino votes, that makes people like us mad.

When we want our children to go to the good schools but are turned away for an address, that makes people like us mad.

When the outcries, problems and crisis' are completely ignored until election day, that makes people like us mad.

When people talk about our languages as some second rate taboo that should never be spoken, that makes us mad. (GO ESL!!)

When WHITE men sell their firearms in our neighborhoods and then crack down on crime with their precious vote enticing bills all the while ignoring the lockup rates, children dying, etc... that makes people like us mad.

"tend to stick together"

"the other race"

"37 languages"

- You do know that you are using racist language, right? NOt to mention treading all over classes..

Now, Frankie is **not** a punk. He is FROM that life and I would invite you to have a conversation with him about why gangs form , if you don't want to take my word for it. Honestly, call anytime. click

Is it out of control and scary? Not for us folks that live there and we REALLY REALLY get tired of hearing about how awful it is from people OUTSIDE.

Is it unsafe and totally lacking ? It sure is. Were gonna fix that.

Why do gangs come together? To **PROTECT** eachother, and yes, some to get what they are lacking and to NOT feel so hopelessly alone. (Trapped? Lets be trapped together. (not a goal, just the way it is)

Republican party---gang.

Democratic Party--gang.

Power in numbers, I guess I would be nervous if I was in the middle too. People are ***pissed*** off.

How are gangs more terrifying that the parties that voted for WAR? The powers the RUN THE COUNTRY and kill thousands and thousands every day! (war, aids, crime, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc)

LA Report--Dems

mprov reports from the California Democratic State Convention

mprov wrote on April 18, 2005 01:44 AM:

well, it seems as if the blog has been busy over the past several days. lots of threads, and lots of posts. go figure.

i've just practically walked in the door coming back from the california democratic convention. 3 of us from the 16th assembly district drove down to los angeles (from the bay area) in my hybrid. we're trying to be environmentally and gas friendly. even at our current gas prices, we made the trip (excluding motel and food) for under $60. and that was with 3 large full grown men, luggage, and near 80 mph.

anyway, the convention was a real learning experience. i'd not been to one before. over 2,000 delegates, plus politicians, plus party officials, plus volunteers, plus family members, plus a constant harassing la rough (sp? as if anyone cares) choir that just wouldn't stop. well, the place was crowded. art torres, our state chair, decided to design the convention around the fact that so many newcomers (read dfa people) had joined the ranks. more about that later.

on friday night we had a meeting to create a progressive caucus. this has been attempted many times over the past two decades, but has always failed (for many reasons.) well, something like 400 people jammed into the room to create this caucus. we had to endorse by laws, have at least 30 delegates (HA, BLOODLY HA!!!) endorse the caucus, and elect (temporary) officers in order for the leadership to recognize us as an official caucus. word spread fast, and before you knew it the politicans were lining up at the end of the table to ask to speak to us. some were actually turned away because our caucus business had to get done. imagine that! and these were people who are running for the top slots in our state as well as congress(people), etc. we were the hit of the convention and its only a matter of time before they officially recognize us.

so, the above took up most of friday.

saturday: we arrived early to take part in "town hall" meetings, schmooze, collect swag, pound coffee, meet and greet, etc.

the town hall meetings, held saturday and sunday, were really more like pannels with pre-selected questions. they sent out an e-mail asking for questions last week. the pannels then enabled those who were running for a new slot to hash their stump, followed by a QA session which really consisted of the questions combined into like catagories and then presented to the pannels. so, they weren't really town hall meetings, but were better than just being preached at. and most of them were quite informative.

speakers during the day were barbara boxer, nancy pelosi, and many others. at lunch, diane finestein, don perata (our state senate leader, and my senator), and lots more.

yes, the doc was there. at the dinner event, it was mostly howard.

he looked sharp. good suit. good color in his face. confidence. he recognized us, the new 300 plus delegates to the party and said that "we'd beat him in entering the party."

his speech covered all of the topics that we all know, all the topics that he's covered over the past 2 years, but there is a new polish to the delivery and the main thread is a little different. he used the "i want my country back" line throughout the speech. he intoned "women's health choices" as a primary right, he talked about fiscal responsibility. he talked about the craziness of iraq and the need to re-join the world in a sane foreign policy. he talked about all of the sane policy/issues that we all agree with, and then he focused on the point of recognizing the differences in point of view, respecing the point of view, and then finding the commonalities among people. he used the story of the woman at the fund raiser who was an evangical christian (come on, you know this story!) and why she was supporting him for president: the fact that he believed in what he was saying and the fact that you could look at him and believe him also. he is so polished now. not fake. not packaged. not flim-flam, but the real howard, delivering the lines we all know so well.

Waiting Room

Nightmares

Nightmares

Quite right. Nanny Rice wants to protect the nation from the latest report on the incidence of terror. An increase of five or six times the number that were recorded before the war on terror really got started can't be accurate anyway. Somebody must have just gotten a whole lot better at keeping track of things.

On the other hand, terror being the feeling that lingers as we wake from a nightmare, it's unlikely that reports coming out of Washington will ever have all the numbers. How can we possibly make a record of the nightmares of all of the spouses and children, whose loved ones have been killed and maimed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon. Not to mention all of those other places where war is being waged in the name of peace?

Might as well not bother. War generates nightmares. That's a given. So, if we want to escape the terror, it's war that's got to be stopped. 'Cause a war on nightmares is sort of redundant. Don't you think?

Seattle Report

Barbara*in*Seattle wrote

My take is that Governor Dean is working his a$$ off for us. We really have to trust him. He is working under the Republican radar and that?s where he needs to stay or they will do all they can to discredit him and destroy his progress.

He also had a brand for the Republican Party. It?s the party of Deficits, Divisiveness and Deceits. And, to this, I?d like to add Destruction (of the environment and so many other things.)

Possibly the easiest way for him to reach out to all of us is to put a message up on the DNC website and let his brother know so that he can let us know to read it. Don?t expect it to go into a lot of detail as he needs a certain level of security and secrecy. We must be content with brother Jim for the time being.

I was especially thrilled to hear him suggest that WW4C go to DFA for help. Inside I was just whooping and hollering! He has our backs. And our best interests at heart. To all of you, I say, take heart. If you can, try to get into your local Dem party to try to get a position on the new DNC State office. The DNC is one of those fast European trains coming down the track. We need to either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Side note here, I went to the last Town Hall meeting on election reform last night and asked when we were going to have public meetings on the REPUBLICAN manufactured Diebold machines. Which was greeted by thunderous applause. It felt really good. Especially when the two speakers came up to me afterwards and thanked me for what I said.

wOOt!!!!! Barbara does politics. :o)

Barbara*in*Seattle wrote on April 16, 2005 01:22 PM:

okey dokey, HEre goes. this first part is by way of introduction and setting the scene. None of Howie in it yet.

Ok, my report about the Dean meetings.

Dean was, as usual, in fine form. Gracious and greeting and talking to as many people as he could.

He outlined his broad plan for supporting a year round campaign HQ in each of the 50 states. He has, so far, funded 4 of these states. If I remember correctly, they are ND, Missouri, Mississippi and W. VA. Of course, to do this, the DNC needs a steady inflow of cash. (i'm wrong here, i know)

He gave the usual rhetoric about the Republicans. After all, we love the red meat. He was in Oregon on the 13th at several meetings, here in Seattle for 3 meetings, starting at 7:30 in the morning, and left in a rush to catch a plane for the next round of meetings. Howard is literally running from meeting to meeting, talking to as many people as he can. This is CRITICAL to the outcome of the next round of elections. I know that we all want a piece of him to call our own. I was very fortunate to have been able to go to these events.

The first two were advertised on the DNC website, actually on the home page. Dean had to cancel another performance in Seattle in February. Only because he did this, was I able to go the first two of the three. I got a refund of $150 from the Feb. event, and added another $100 out of pocket.

I did this because I belong to DFA. I wanted to hear him first hand and be able to report back what he had said. It was well worth it. Folks, you?ll have to trust that he knows what he is doing. He is able to meet with anywhere from 50 to 1,000 people at a time. They are all DNC fundraisers. We need this inflow of cash to run the 50 state campaigns. And, believe me, he is getting the turn out in the red states. He was talking about one of them (sorry, can?t remember without going back over the .wav file) and said that 900 people showed up to get into an 800 person room. They had to send out for pizza to feed the overflow. The Democratic Party is alive and well in the red states. We just have to support them.

After the two official DNC events in the morning, Howard went directly to another meeting of a group I belong to called Washington Women for Choice. This is where I can go into some detail. However, remember that I just had a teeny little recorder and this was the first time I used it and I couldn?t make out what was being said some of the time. I tried to mention it when this happened. And, remember, when we speak, we are not always grammatically correct. I didn?t correct Howard?s grammar, I just tried to get down what he said. Plus, I felt the need to throw in a comment or two here and there. I think it?s obvious where. If not, ask me.
He first started out by giving his definition of ?Choice?.

HD - I suspect that there is some disappointment in this room on some recent things that have gone regarding the issue of ?Choice?. Let me talk just briefly about the ?Choice? issue. I would urge you to be careful to separate out the Democrat Party from the people who (unintelligible) the Democratic Party. For example, the recruitment of Casey and Langelin (spelling?) is not the same as the Democratic Party?s position on ?Choice?. It came at an unfortunate time when were thinking about how to talk about ?Choice?.

This is going to be open to what ever you want to say. Let me tell you about my personal strategy on ?Choice?. First of all, there is a consensus on abortion in this country, believe it or not, but here is consensus in this country, which I suspect most of you people in this room are outside, as am I. I used to be on the board of Planned Parenthood for 5 years and Vermont is one of the few states that used Public Funds to pay for poor women?s abortions outside the purview of Medicaid which, of course, (unintelligible) we?re one of the most liberal states, outside of New Hampshire, in the country. So I?m outside the National Consensus on abortion.

Here is what the National Consensus on abortion is. Number 1 ? most people don?t think we should do 3rd term abortions except to preserve the life of the mother. They think we should have parental notification. They think that abortion in general, for the first two trimesters is ok - the earlier the better. This is what most of Americans think, about 60% of Americans. And the rest of us are outside those parameters. My view is that we couch the debate on abortion in a way that we can?t win.

I don?t know how many of you are George Lakoff readers, but framing matters a LOT. The person that frames the argument, wins the argument. We frame the argument wrong. Now look, I?m as in your face as any politician I know. And I love being in your face as it makes you feel good, but sometimes you lose the argument when you get ?in your face.?
I argue that we aught not to use the word ?Pro-Choice? any more because they?ve made it into a word that?s similar to ?pro-abortion?. What I argue is there?s no such thing as a pro-abortion party and there?s no such thing as a pro-abortion person. Nobody wants to put people in the position that they have to make that choice. But fundamental debate ? let me fill this out a little bit.

When I was campaigning for DNC chair, I talked to a lot of southern women, who said that they were pro-life. And they say that I think abortion is terrible, I wouldn?t want an abortion, I wouldn?t want my daughter to have an abortion, but if the next door lady, gets herself in a fix and needs one, I?m not sure its up to me to tell her what to do. Now we would define that person as ?pro-choice?. But because she defines herself as ?pro-life?, the minute we say ?pro-choice?, she?s not listening to us anymore.

I think we aught to do it this way. There?s no such thing as a ?pro-abortion party?, George Bush?s wrong to say so. The fundamental difference between the parties is not whether who?s pro-abortion and who?s not, nobody?s pro-abortion, but the fundamental difference between the parties is that we believe that a woman has the right to make up her own mind up about her health care, they believe that the decisions should NOT be made by politicians like Tom DeLay.

When you talk about a woman?s right to make up her own mind, you are talking to every woman in America, not just the people who think they are pro-choice or pro-life or what ever it is. My strategy on ?Choice? issues (I?m trying to ban that word from my vocabulary) is to refuse to let them make it an issue about the morality of abortion and make it about whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind. Cause we?ve got to have a ton of women on our side who may be uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. I think many Americans are uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. They don?t know what to do, they don?t really want it to be illegal, but they don?t want abortion on demand, which is what the Bush people say we?re about. We?ve got to make the debate about whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind, or whether that should be left to politicians.

If we can re-brand this issue in that debate, then I think that?s the end of the debate. It?s always going to be a very difficult issue because you?ve got - it?s a queasy issue for people, but we can win it if we say and make sure the debate?s about if a woman has a right to make up her own mind. That?s how I think we should re-brand it that?s why (mumble mumble hand wave, couldn?t make out what he was saying)

Obviously, I?m a doctor, I don?t think its any of the governments business whatsoever. I think it should be left up to medical ethicist and patients, and whoever else the patient wants to bring in. But that?s not the prevailing view, it?s a very difficult issue for most Americans and my strategy to deal with it is to talk about a woman?s right ? not ?Choice? - to make up her own mind. Rights, we?re talking about rights here, not talking about abortion rights, we?re talking about a woman?s right to make up her own mind.

If you are disciples of George Lakoff, which I have become, you know that this stuff is important, it matters enormously what words you use. And the instinct of a lot of the people, especially to the generation ahead of yours and my generation and older who sacrificed so much and fought so hard to win this battle, their instinct is ?How dare these people come along and undo this, lets really hit them in the face.? its going to be a losing political strategy.

So, I?m done and I?m ready to take questions, comments and rude remarks.

WW4C (Washington Women 4 Choice)- So it?s great to be thinking about the language and how its position can affect us. Because a majority of Americans are neither extremely conservative, nor extremely liberal. So when we talk about changing the message, and communicating it both on ?Choice? and a whole wide range of other issues, how is the Democratic Party going to develop those strategies, test those messages and get those messages out?

HD ? Well we?re going to do it in the usual way, we?re going to develop the message from the ground up. And I?m going to try to teach people this one. I?m going to tell you something about (something) politicians, which is something I learned a great deal about in my run for President, they are very risk adverse (which I?m not) but they learn very quickly. They are smart at copying what works. You know, two weeks before Iowa you couldn?t tell who Howard Dean was up on the podium, they were all talking about the same things we were talking about. Because we had a very powerful message.

Well, I?m not going into with any credibility to the inside the beltway politicians, and say, ?Here?s how you need to talk about abortion.? What we should do is just do it, and if it?s good and it?s right and we?re winning, they?re going to copy us. It?s a much more affective way to try to convince them. Because, for them, some thing I can?t understand about inside the beltway. So basically, we?re going to develop this, we?re going to lay it all out there, it makes people very nervous. I had a guy from Mississippi call me up and beg me not to talk about abortion when I went down there, and I politely said yes, yes, yes, and then did whatever I wanted and it was terrific! We had 900 people show up in an 800 person ballroom and had to order pizza because they ran out of food. Four former democratic governors were there. And that was very unusual because most local officials run the other way when a national democrat comes through. I said just exactly this, and there were a lot of people doing that (nods head up and down). You know, I think the best thing to do is do it, try it, see if it works. But we can?t be a lot worse off than we already are, unless the Supreme Court changes and this is why it is so interesting um um. So let?s just try it. Let?s see if it works. And so far, in my little anecdotal focus group testing, it has worked with people in the middle of the road who go, ?Oh yeah, I think a woman should have the right to make up her own mind. ?

Interestingly enough, I think the Terri Schiavo case has helped us a lot. Because when you talk about the right of a person to make up their own mind, and the families the right to make up their own minds, they don?t generally think about abortion, they now are more likely to think about Teri Schaivo.

WW4C - Can you talk about the next presidential election and how deep the candidate bench is going to be in terms of democratic candidates. It seems the Repubs have quite a few potential candidates.

HD. So do we. The Republicans will probably coronate theirs, pretty much like they did with Bush. They will try to figure out, which is interesting because I think McCain will probably be pushed out right away. We don?t do that, but I?m figuring that we?ll have at least eight candidates. Right now there are Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, maybe Biden, Russ Feingold, Evan Bahy, Schumer (? Maybe Turner? Couldn?t quite make out), Vilsack, Richardson. So obviously, it?s a huge list that will be winnowed out within the first two primaries and maybe.

WW4C - I?m a little concerned about the bottom up strategy because the Republicans have demonstrated time and time again that a top down strategy does work. So I?m concerned about our ability to stay within a singe message and a single unified vision for the party if we?re going to say that everybody has a voice. Not to say that you can?t do both, because you can have people give input, create the vision and then give everybody the message. But I didn?t hear you say that, so

HD ? That?s because I didn?t say it.

WW4C - Ok. But I?m concerned, because we?ve tried it the last two elections and that hasn?t worked.

HD ? I think we aught to have more message discipline. I admire the business model of the Republicans, but the reason we can?t use it exactly is because we?re not Republicans. You know, Democrats are very bright and their very independent minded. Especially the guts, the activist guts of the party, many of whom are in this room. So try to imagine that I told you that we were going to support parental notification because that?s what was decided, would you be comfortable going along with that message? Perhaps not. So, we really do, Democrats are different than Republicans. We are not automatons and zealots that take orders from the one on high and whether that?s the President or someone other one like Jerry Falwell. We?re independent minded, thinking people. So, what I?m going to try to do is fashion the national message from the bottom up by getting people to buy into the message because they are going to help create it.

And then, there?s going to be room, there?s going to be debate and dissent as we move forward. The key is to have the major spokesmen of the party all be on the same page. This is not going to be easy, as somebody asked me upstairs, and I said that if I get 75% of the time that the democrats would be on the same page.

But the trouble is, if we try the top down model, people are just going to leave the party. You know, half the people, more than half the people, no, it?s just about exactly half the people that supported me in the presidential race? there?s this huge Pew research poll about the people that were supporting us. Half of them were favorably disposed to the greens and didn?t consider themselves democrats. If we start this top down, you know, there?s no room for dissent in this party, they have some place to go. There?s just too many people who care deeply about issues in our party. It?s not just about party discipline. It?s a fundamental disagreement I have with Republicans. They want to be in power for the sake of being in power. We want to be in power so we can change America and move it, and have our progressive country back again with moral values. And in some ways, they?re going to succeed in the short term, but we have the power to make this a great country and we?re the only ones, because they don?t have the power to make this a great country because of the way they organize and . . .. I can only think of two great republicans, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And, Theodore Roosevelt, at the time, most people would have said he?s not really a republican. And maybe not Lincoln, either.

Certainly, the republicans have done nothing to honor the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. The reason the republicans are generally incapable of possessive leadership in America, is because they think its top down. And real leadership empowers people, and trusts them to make their own decisions and then go back up. There?s risk in that. And the risk is that people will say things that are off message. But I don?t know how to eliminate that risk without becoming republican, then we?d have two republican parties.

WW4C - What message can we get out that can compete with the republican simple message of god, gays and guns. We need something simple.

HD ? That we?re gonna do. We have this complicated exercise we?re going to do. You bring it from the bottom up, you bring it together. Each party from each state is going to have twenty-five things that they want to run on, we?re going to take the three things they all have in common. Then we are going to go to people like Lakoff and have him phrase this in a way that?s easily understood. So THAT, we have to do. But the point I?m trying to make is that we can?t enforce that vigorously. My guess is that, because of the power of the message, and its ease, that will be the brand of the Democratic Party. I?m just saying, that unlike the Republican Party, we can?t force every dissident out of the party, nor do I think we should.

WW4C ? This group has been labeled a ?Botique PAC?. We have not been contacted by Paul Berendt or any other State or County Democrats. The party does not even know if we?re willing to support their messages because we are under the radar. I believe, based on emails I get, that there are lots of these ?Botique? groups popping up and it seems like there?s not only this message piece, but there?s this support piece that .(she talked around in circles trying to get to the point that this is a group with access to a lot of money and they?d like to work in harmony with the state party but are being ignored)

HD ? Well, the organizers in every state are going to make sure that this happens. In the mean time, if Paul Berendt won?t get a hold of you, you need to get in touch with him.

WW4C ? We have, to no avail.

HD ? Well, if he won?t do it, then Karen (Marchio) or someone else in the hierarchy needs to be made aware. We have to do that. And if worse comes to worse, then you go to the DFA meetups and go through them because DFA is certainly going to have an influence. (wOOt!!!)

WW4C ? It?s not as much as us needing the attention of Paul Berendt, it?s more the fact that I think we could be a stronger force for communicating with our neighbors who may be swing voters, if I know what the three touch points are because we?ve got that message, we can be more effective.

HD ? I think it is a ridiculous idea that there should be a ?Botique PAC? and here?s why. All of you are here because of one issue? But, think of the influence on the people you touch in your lives as you go around talking about things that have nothing to do with this issue. So to have an extraordinary group of fifty women who are leaders in their communities, who all happen to come into this PAC around this particular issue, you are an enormous communications resource for us. And, you know, if Paul isn?t willing to realize this, then we?ll find someone in the Democratic Party who is.

LOTS OF YELLING AND WHOOPING AND AGREEMENT!!1

HD ? Women?s Leadership Forum, Pam Eakes. We are going to totally re-tool that and combine it with the Women?s Caucus, and they?re going to run the women?s outreach. Actually we should have men?s outreach because women are the vast majority of our party. Sixty percent of democratic votes are women.

WW4C ? Couldn?t really understand. Too far away from the mike.

(my personal observation here - And, this part, I think we all have to get ingrained in our minds and hearts)

HD ? How many of you were upstairs at the first meeting I had? There was a poll, and I?m not going to go into all the details of it, but the bottom line of the poll was, there?s (can?t make out) income people, that are terribly fearful economically, but at the other end of this barbell like distribution, there?s this terrible fear about what?s going to happen to their family, which supersedes their terrible fear of their economic viability. They?re the ones that are worried about what?s coming over the television at their kids, they are worried about what their kids are doing when they are working two jobs to support them, their worried about a drug problem because the sheriff?s department just discovered a meth lab two counties over.

But, they don?t have the education level that you do so they?re afraid that their kids are going to become gay in school because the teachers have plots to turn everybody in America gay. But that?s the problem. We laugh at it because it?s so ridiculous, and what we need to do, and we fail to do because we are very smart and we think we can convince people that there?s no such thing as a plot to turn your children gay. The problem with that is, the plot to turn your children gay, and gay marriage and abortion and all this stuff is that they?re surrogates. Surrogates for a terrible fear about loosing control of your family and your children. So we don?t address the fear, we address the surrogates. And, of course, that?s not what the problem is, so we don?t get anywhere.

We have to find a way . . . Clinton would have been great at this, he would have said, ?I feel your pain. I know how hard it is to raise a child in this moral environment we have in this country.? That?s all you have to say. You don?t have to promise to get rid of gay people and abortion and everything else. You just gotta say I understand what it is you?re going through. That gets you halfway in the door so that they can then think about it.

These are the people we wring our hands over and say, How can these people vote against their own economic interests?? Now as far as married women go, I think the soccer moms had very little to do with moral values and had a lot to do with security. I believe in a political consultants theory, that never made it to the front page, nor did the campaign take advantage of it, that one of the reason?s John Kerry lost, if not a very big one, was because of the massacre of the 300 children in Chechnia. Where people could see children that looked exactly like theirs, 300 of them were killed when these terrorists took over this school and blew it up and all this terrible stuff. I?ve gotta believe that every woman with school age kids in America went. ?Oh my God. Who?s going to stop that from happening?? and they decided it was Bush that would more likely to do it.

So, you know, there are a lot of issues we?ve got to deal with. The good news is that there is no reason that we shouldn?t touch these folks that voted with Bush, we?ve just got to push the buttons in a different way. We can?t do it with our minds, we?ve got to do it with our hearts. Because these people don?t vote with their minds most of the time, they make an internal - - It doesn?t mean they?re dumb, they?re NOT, They?re less well educated, but they certainly not dumb. They make an internal calculation based on an enormous amount of feedback, and they vote from here (points to his heart). Mostly not from here (points to his head). We vote from here (points to his head). The data on my campaign was so fascinating, most of the people - 72% of the people who supported me, vote from here (points to head) - they vote on issues. But most Americans vote from here (points to heart) and we have to learn ? and we know what their issues are ? we know what their worries are and their concerns. We just do a lousy job of touching them because we try to appeal to them from her (touches his head). This doesn?t work

WW4C ? One more question, I think that?s all the time we have.

HD ? Oh you can have two. Papal dispensation.

WW4 C ? What is the time line to get this done.

HD ? We hope to get at least the basic messaging package done, certainly by September and then we?ll massage it through the word-smithing processing to the pro?s and that shouldn?t take very long. So I?m hoping by mid fall, this year, we?re going to have the brand we want to make the Democrats, we want people to know us by that brand. There?ll be controversy over it and some people won?t be happy with it, and maybe we?ll have to change it a little bit, but we gotta try it.

WW4C ? Following up on the messaging thing, there?s got to be a way to talk to these people. She said more, but I didn?t catch it all. Howard?s answer pretty much lets you know what she said.

HD ? Can?t say it the way you just said it though. And that?s what I struggle with all the time, too. I say things in the way that I know aren?t going to work because I can say them to people like you instead of (interrupted here). It?s true, but it?s also very difficult, because remember, it?s deep in human nature, the dark side of human nature, to always blame somebody else. You know, I once (ONCE?? My aside) said something that got me in a lot of trouble, but it?s true. Bush uses the same techniques that Milosivich uses. Now, minus all the violence. but he, basically, incites one group of people against another in order to further his own political ends. That?s why he is such a despicable human being. Because he knows better, too. He knows better.

You know, Bush is not a bigot. I know him, he?s not a bigot. And, the truth is, he?s not anti gay. Which makes what he?s doing, worse. Because he knows it?s wrong. This is not some guy that, like Stalin, who comes from all these horrendously internally difficult battles. This is a guy who was brought up in relatively good circumstances. He knows it wrong to be discriminatory, and he?s not. He just uses that because he knows he can away with it. And that is despicable.

But the problem is that you can?t teach people not to do it. Because it?s deep in our souls to blame somebody else when things aren?t going well and that?s what they are going to do. We have to find a way. . . and it?s going to be hard. We can?t go in there and say, ?Well, look. We understand that you worry about your children after school so we have an after school program for YOU. It?s hard for your kid to get ahead, so we have a Headstart program for YOU.? That?s what they expect, that?s not what they want. They don?t want help with what they perceive is US telling them how to raise their kids, what they want help with is to be able to raise their kids the way they think they should raise them with a little help to do that. And those are the kinds of things we have to message.

And first of all, if we could get the Evangelical (sorry, I took the recorder out of it?s little case here to see if it was still recording and the noise wiped out part of his talk) part of religion that escapes me in Evangelicalism, there are a fair amount of Evangelicals that are tired of Bush. They think that he uses them every four years and then where is he when it?s time for reaching out for the poor?

Most Evangelicals actually DO care about the part of Christianity that we never hear about on the television. In fact, they care about it a lot. In fact, there?s a group of very conservative Evangelicals who are getting hell from the Republicans because they think we aught to do something about the environment. The stewardship of the world, of the earth is something that?s a big deal in both the new and the old testament.

So, we gotta get those folks to stand up and make it ok for them to stand up for those principles and that?s some work I can do. I?ve actually had some calls from some of the Evangelicals saying would I meet up with them. And the answer is YES, we can certainly meet with them to find common ground. I?m actually having meetings with the Catholic Church to find common ground. If they do what they did last time, there?s going to be war between the Democrat Party and the Catholic Church.

You know, this socially progressive movement we have in this country was basically built by the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church and the Labor Unions. And now, they?re going in every which direction and it?s very difficult. We?ve got some major stumbling blocks with the Catholic Church. But, on the other hand, we also have enormous common ground which I argue they?re ignoring. And we aught not to ignore because it?s what makes America great.

So, there?s a huge amount of work to be done. I feel like I?m an ambassador to, uh I don?t know what country, uh Yugoslavia before it blew up. But I?m also optimistic. I?m really optimistic. I don?t know how long it?s going to take us to turn this around, but remember, it took them 30 years to build this machine and they started after the Goldwater debacle. We?re starting at 48%. So, I do think it?s possible to do this? It just means we all have to work hard and we all have to examine our own pre-conceptions on how we relate to others as we go forth and try to give this message of, basically, what I consider to be social and economic justice. That?s really the core value of the Democratic Party. It?s social and economic justice.

My other argument is, social and economic justice makes us the far-sighted party, because without that, Capitalism doesn?t work and neither does Democracy. And we want Capitalism and Democracy to work. I argue that we?re the Patriotic Party, because we realize that America is a greater good than the Democratic party, they think the Republican Party is a greater good than America. That?s what makes them such lousy leaders, and the plane is leaving and I gotta get outta here.

WW4C ? Recommended that we all read Don?t Think of an Elephant. About framing. Wondered what he would suggest to rename this organization. Washington Women for Choice is the wrong frame. So the frame has to change.

I turned the recorder off after this and I?m sorry that I did. Pam Eakes, who works with Howard, had a lot of good things to say.

Too True

Lightning Bolt---on?

John Bolton vs. Democracy
04/13/2005

"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Bolton was one of the pack of lawyers for the Republican presidential ticket who repeatedly sought to shut down recounts of the ballots from Florida counties before those counts revealed that Gore had actually won the state's electoral votes and the presidency.

The December 9 intervention was Bolton's last and most significant blow against the democratic process.

The Florida Supreme Court had ordered a broad recount of ballots in order to finally resolve the question of who won the state. But Bolton and the Bush-Cheney team got their Republican allies on the U.S. Supreme Court to block the review. Fearing that each minute of additional counting would reveal the reality of voter sentiments in Florida, Bolton personally rushed into the library to stop the count.

Bolton was in South Korea when it became clear that the Nov. 7, 2000, election would be decided in Florida. At the behest of former Secretary of State James Baker, who fronted the Bush-Cheney team during the Florida fight, Bolton winged his way to Palm Beach, where he took the lead in challenging ballots during that county's recount. Then, when the ballots from around the state were transported to Tallahassee for the recount ordered by the state Supreme Court, Bolton followed them...

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2320

Patriot Act

The Secret Service has drawn attention to an art exhibit at Columbia College featuring mock postal stamps like these.

Al Brandtner, artist

First person account

I am on staff at Columbia College in the Art department, and Michael the curator is a friend of mine. This is not his first visit from the feds. Last time it was postal inspectors. His work always involves stamp format (or nearly always), and sometimes he does things with them that get people mad. (like when his Chernobyl Deer stamp showed up in the Nowegian mail. The Norwegian athorities were not amused)

I think this will all blow over pretty quickly, quite frankly. Unless the artist in question explicitly threatened the president, there is little they can do.

Michael has a good site. It's www.badpressbooks.com/mhdl.html

Let Them Eat Bombs

Let them eat bombs

The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling

Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian

A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.

This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.

It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.

These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.

A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

But clearly George Bush didn't. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.

And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.

In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.

·Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. He is the author of Terry Jones's War on the War on Terror

www.terry-jones.net

Constituents Be Gone

The mystery of how a Democrat in New Hampshire got a year-end report from Senator Hagel in the mail now seems to be solved by the admission that a company in Vienna, Virginia, InterAmerica Technologies sent it out by mistake.

So, instead of relying on his staff and the government printing office to communicate with citizens, the Senator has farmed out this task, as well. I say, as well, because ever since the anthrax-laden letters there's a history of adding layers of bureaucracy making it harder and harder for citizens to communicate with their representatives.

Hand-written letters are discouraged, because they take too long. Direct email to their offices is now accepted by only a few. Most require the use of a form on a web site, where all one's personal information, including street address is required and, if the address isn't within the representative's district, rejected.

Although most representatives are keen on collecting money for their campaigns from all around the country, they'll only accept questions from people who actually vote for them. But still, their responses are often not connected to the question and it's not possible to send a direct reply either. That's because, as we are now finding out, the responses don't actually come from Capitol Hill.

Which makes you wonder, doesn't it, what they actually do there anymore, other than stick their noses into people's most personal affairs?

What else can they do?

Senators Sununu and Gregg need to understand that as long as the majority hogs all the committee chairs and obstructs the minority by refusing to consider solutions to real problems, like Medicare short-falls, a gross budget over-run and mis-counted elections, much less pass the laws that would correct them, the minority can't do anything but try to talk their lack-luster proposals and nominations to death.

It's not going to be pretty. Nobody likes to see a bunch of grown ups drone on and on, even if they come up with a clever chart from time to time. And, while some members of the minority party might be gleeful about the mess the majority has created, that's only because they don't have to clean it up. It's the general public that's going to have to pay the bills and suffer the ills and they're not going to be grinning, come the next election.

Next time around, the fifty million dollars spent by the likes of the Swiftboat Veterans and the Club for Growth in 2004 won't be enough to spread the same lies. This time people are already going to know the truth. They're going to be looking for public servants, not corporate shills. And they're going to find them, because we're already looking.

No Rules

Pure Evil ?

No, it was a hoax.

Pun-nent wrote on April 7, 2005 04:28 PM:

In an effort to increase its ranks for coming wars, the U.S. military is recruiting--and paying-- children as young as 14 years old for future combat duty. It's called a "pre-enlistment" program.

...

"It's a sweet deal," says Hadley, who boasts that he bought his X-Box with the enlistment bonus he received after signing up last month. "I don't have to do hardly anything for three years, but they're paying me now."

Hadley's windfall was made possible under the Pentagon's "pre-enlistment program" that was quietly authorized last month in an effort to ensure the number of military troops available for combat remains steady for at least the next few years. The conditions of the program are simple. A young man who is at least 14 years old and has a parent's permission can enlist in the U.S. military, but will not report to duty until he reaches the legal age. The future soldier agrees to remain "physically and mentally fit" and to undergo annual physical examinations at the Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS). In exchange, the government provides him a $10,000 sign-on bonus that is paid in yearly installments of $2,500 until the age of 18, at which time any remaining balance is given to the recruit.

....

After he signed the paperwork, however, Bloomer took a closer look at the contract and was even more disturbed by what she learned. The small print reveals that the $350 monthly stipend her son receives is actually an advance on his $250 per month combat pay and $100 per month hardship duty pay.

"What they've done is guarantee that my son will go to war when he's old enough," says Bloomer. "They're paying him for it now so he can't back out later."

***

With passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, the military was guaranteed access to the nation's public schools for recruiting purposes.

****

"I don't think most parents realize how much time and energy they (recruiters) spend on these kids," she says. "I was shocked when I found out that they were calling my son at home and visiting with him outside the classroom without my knowledge."

And Foss is quick to point out that she comes from a family with a long history of military service (her grandfather was at Iwo Jima and her dad earned two purple hearts in Vietnam) and that she's a registered Republican who supported the war in Iraq.

"This is just too much, though," she adds. "These are children they're after."

***

"I didn't even know the recruiter was talking to him until he told me he wanted to sign up," says Karen. "His father, whom I divorced several years ago, agreed to let Tyler join, so there was nothing I could do to stop him. I'm fairly confident that they brought a young woman recruiter in to close the deal with these boys. They're in the throes of puberty and would pretty much do whatever a pretty girl asks them to. I just don't think it's fair."

Reas [the recruiter] refused to entertain that notion and said the final incentive for these two boys came when she pointed out the number of comic books $350 per month could buy. And in fact, when Tyler and Biehn agreed to discuss their enlistment, they arranged a meeting at a comic store where they promptly dropped more than $50 each for new releases.

"They give us a lot of money for doing nothing," says Tyler. "If we have to go to war later, it won't be that bad anyway. She (Reas) gave us a copy of an Army video game that lets you see what it's really like. If you know what you're doing, you probably won't get hurt or killed."

Milo Gets a Ride

A Howardly

It's a capital H. ('Cause Howard is a captial guy)
It's blades of grass(roots) growing out of b@lls of steel, joined by a strong bond.
It's one segment of a strand of Human DNA ('cause Howard approached problems with the mind of a scientist. And, he's the nost human politician I've ever known.)
It's the flame he ignited in the Party. (in DFA blue, of course)

It's a Howardly by Demetrius

[http://dfa.bmgbiz.net/Howardly.gif]

ACLU Message

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

Shrinking Snow

The snow is continuing to shrink as the rains continue to wash it away. The swallows seem to have returned and have inspected the garage. Probably a little early to begin building nests.
The red wing blackbird's shoulders are finally turning bright red; he had just a spot of yellow when he first arrived. He's helping empty the feeder lickety-split.Will probably have to buy a new bag before feeders are supposed to be retired so bears won't be encouraged to come near the house. Of course, if the neighbors don't shut away their duck feed at night, that's where they'll head anyway. The few seeds in our little feeder wouldn't keep a bear going for very long.
Obviously, I'm procastinating-------

So far, I'm conflicted about what my letter to the editors ought to be about today. The fact that the Veterans For Peace have joined the call to impeach Bush and Cheney, supported by very detailed indictments and grounded in the law, is really important.

On the other hand, the move on the judiciary as the next target for destruction, coupled with the warning to legislators that conservative support would not be available is they don't start toeing the line, is very upsetting. They've obviously got a war plan and if one part seems to falter (social security dismantling), then the other gets put front and center.

Perhaps DeLay threatening the judges is the most immediately important topic and the area where we can have immediate success. Besides, the attack on the judges serves them a dual purpose. On the one hand, they want to eviscerate the ability of the judiciary to call them to account for their malfeasance in their financial transactions and manipulations. That's the social raiders' personal agenda.
But there's the bigger agenda, the handmaiden of their commitment to the "free market" in which transactions are unimpeded by regulations and standards and accounting procedures. The "free market" is their ideal because when trade and exchange occur under the supervision of the "invisible hand" (sophisticated formulation of the law of the jungle where the biggest and quickest predator rules), all those social impediments will fall away. When mankind is ruled by the "invisible hand" there won't be any use or need for law. The bad you will know by their poverty and the good by their wealth. See, it's as simple as that.

Given that's their position, it seems to me that fussing over a few judicial appointments is sort of a waste of time, unless we do so in the context that mediocre or even unqualified judges are part of the larger project, of undermining the judicial system itself.

VFP--Call to Impeach

The Veterans for Peace have put together an indictment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and call on the United States Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors.

March 19, 2005

Dear Representative,

On the second anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, this letter is being sent on behalf of Veterans For Peace (VFP), a national organization of military veterans, to appeal for Congressional action to remove George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively.

We do not make this call lightly and as former members of the U.S. armed forces, we take our responsibilities as citizens very seriously. For that reason we believe that when our government conducts a war of aggression on Iraq and commits a growing and appalling series of what must legally be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity in the execution of that war, it violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441), and numerous international treaties which are legally binding on our nation.

Seeing this happen, and understanding all too well the suffering it is causing and will continue to cause among our soldiers, their families, the people of Iraq, and the fabric of both our societies, we cannot stand by in complicit silence.

If you will read the relevant sections of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the other treaties this administration has violated (see attached), you will be left with only one conclusion: that this administration's war on Iraq, in addition to being increasingly unpopular among Americans, is an unmistakable violation of our Constitution and federal law which you have sworn to uphold.

In our system, the remedy for such high crimes is clear: this administration must be impeached. We urge you as sincerely and solemnly as possible, to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney in the House of Representatives and follow that with a trial in the Senate. In the name of humanity we beseech and direct you to act.

Most Urgently,

David Cline, President

Document one

Laws violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command, sufficient for impeachment

Veterans for Peace believes the following to be a partial, but sufficient, summary of relevant laws violated by President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney, arising from their decision to invade and occupy Iraq, followed by documentation for each violation. Veterans for Peace will add additional violations to this summary as they are made known by eyewitness military personnel and other credible sources.
We believe these violations constitute impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution Article II, sec. 4, and that the U.S. Congress is therefore compelled to impeach President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

I) U.S. Constitution Article VI par. 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis added)

II) War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes committing a war crime, defined as: "...a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party...," punishable by being "...fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."
III) Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
· On September 19, 2003, Coalition Provisional Authority head, Paul Bremer, enacted Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq.
· Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing." Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos...What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?
· In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US Army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [nonmilitary] property." This is pretty straightforward: Bombing something does not give you the right to sell it...In a leaked memo written on March 26, British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law."
The Nation 11/24/03 "Bring Halliburton Home" By Naomi Klein

IV) U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as "... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State...or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations..."
· According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.
· International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
· There is little debate regarding the nefarious nature of the Saddam Hussein regime, but this has never been a legal ground for invasion. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 to overthrow the Khmer Rouge--a radical communist movement even more brutal than the regime of Saddam Hussein--the United States condemned the action before the United Nations as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The United States successfully led an international effort to impose sanctions against Vietnam and insisted that the UN recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia for more than a decade after their leaders were forced out of the capital into remote jungle areas. Similarly, the United States challenged three of its closest allies--Great Britain, France, and Israel--before the United Nations in 1956 when they invaded Egypt...The Eisenhower administration insisted that international law and the UN Charter must be upheld by all nations regardless of their relations with the United States.
Foreign Policy in Focus Oct. 2002 "The Case Against a War with Iraq" www.fpif.org/papers/iraq3.html
By Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism zunes@usfca.edu

· "Kofi Annan: Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter"
The Guardian Sept. 16, 2004

V) Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
Principle VI: "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;
· See: IV) U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314 (above)

(b) War crimes: ...murder, ill-treatment...of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war...plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages...
· Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports.
NY Times March 12, 2005 "Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail" By Douglas Jehl
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html?th

· At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials
NY Times March 16, 2005 "U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16abuse.html?th

· In Fallujah, 40% of the buildings were completely destroyed, 20% had major damage, and 40% had significant damage. That is 100% of the buildings in that city.
American Friends Service Committee: Correspondents' Journal 1/20/05 "The Price of Forgetting"
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/corres_journal/entries/20050120.htm

· See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol I, Art. 75, The Geneva Conventions (below)

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination...and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population...when such acts are done...in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."
· "I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the (Euphrates) river."
"AP Photographer Flees Fallujah" 11/14/04 Katarina Kratovac, Associated Press Writer

· "We were tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our medical instruments," Asma Khamis al-Muhannadi, a doctor who was present during the U.S. and Iraqi National Guard raid on Fallujah General Hospital told reporters later. She said troops dragged patients from their beds and pushed them against the wall. "I was with a woman in labour, the umbilical cord had not yet been cut," she said. "At that time, a U.S. soldier shouted at one of the (Iraqi) national guards to arrest me and tie my hands while I was helping the mother to deliver."
Inter Press Service 12/13/04 "U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care" by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

· Kassem Mohammed Ahmed who escaped from Fallujah a little over a week ago told IPS he witnessed many atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in the city. "I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks," he said. "This happened so many times."
· Abu Hammad said he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. "The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore," he said. "Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their heads to show they are not fighters, they were all shot." Hammad said he had seen elderly women carrying white flags shot by U.S. soldiers. "Even the wounded people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed."
Inter Press Service 11/26/04 "Unusual Weapons Used in Fallujah" by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000137.php

VI) The Geneva Conventions
A) Protocol I, Article 75: "(1)...persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict...shall be treated humanely in all circumstances...(2) The following acts are and shall remain prohibited...whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons...(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault...and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts."

· The International Committee of the Red Cross reported a number of violations including:
· Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury
· Absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families causing distress among persons deprived of their liberty and their families
· Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information
· Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight
· Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment.
Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the treatment by Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other protected persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during arrest, Internment and Interrogation February, 2004
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/icrc_report_iraq_feb2004.pdf

· Christian Peacemaker Teams, a human rights group working in Iraq has reported abuses of both detainees and their families:
· Violent House Raids: House raids terrify Iraqi children and heap shame on Iraqi women who are pulled from their beds wearing only nightclothes.
· Health Concerns: Families have no way to inquire about the health and well-being of prisoners even when families know that their detained loved ones were injured at the time of their arrest.
· Mistreatment of Detainees: All detainees CPT spoke with reported that they were housed in overcrowded tents without proper clothes or toilet facilities.
· Theft of Property: CPT has heard many stories about Coalition forces confiscating money and property during house raids. We have not heard of any instances in which Coalition forces gave the owners receipts for confiscated property. Many people who have applied for compensation for damaged and confiscated property have not received any written proof of their application.
Report and Recommendations on Iraqi Detainees January 2004, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Iraq
http://www.cpt.org/iraq/detainee_summary_report.htm

· Photos: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

· The investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that "intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel" included the following:
· Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
· Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
· Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
· Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
· Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear
· Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being videotaped
· Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
· Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
· Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture
· A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
· Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade
by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001

· See also: V, sec. b: Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, War Crimes, (above)

B) Protocol I, Art. 51: "The civilian population...shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." Art. 57: (parties shall) "do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects...an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one..."
· Eyewitness statements from Mike Ferner, in and around Abu Hishma and Abu Siffa, Iraq, where homes, automobiles and orchards were destroyed by the 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Enlisted men and officers of this battalion admitted to having caused this destruction in interviews on February 24 and 25, 2004.

· See also: V, sec. c: Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, Crimes Against Humanity (above)
· At the beginning of their recent attack on Fallujah, U.S. Marines and Iraqi National Guard troops stormed Fallujah General Hospital, closing it to the city's wounded...As the invasion proceeded, air strikes reduced a smaller hospital to rubble and smashed a clinic, trapping patients and staff under the collapsed structure.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1/11/05 "Investigate alleged violations of law in Fallujah attack"
by Jim McDermott and Richard Rapport http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/207300_fallujahhospital11.html?
BBC News 11/6/04 "US strikes raze Falluja hospital" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm

C) Protocol I, Art. 70: "The Parties to the conflict...shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel...even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party."
· Convoys sent by the Iraqi Red Crescent to aid the remaining population (in Fallujah) have been turned back.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1/11/05 "Investigate alleged violations of law in Fallujah attack"
by Jim McDermott and Richard Rapport http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/207300_fallujahhospital11.html?

· In nearby Saqlawiyah, Dr Abdulla Aziz told IPS that occupation forces had blocked any medical supplies from entering or leaving the city. "They won't let any of our ambulances go to help Fallujah," he said. "We are out of supplies and they won't let anyone bring us more."
Inter Press Service 12/13/04 "U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care" by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

D) Protocol I, Art. 35: "In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties...to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited...It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment."
· During the 2003 Iraq War, United States and United Kingdom armed forces shot ammunition made from depleted uranium (DU) at a wide variety of targets. Although there is little known about the actual quantities of DU released or the locations of contamination, it appears approximately 100 to 200 metric tons was shot at tanks, trucks, buildings and people in largely densely populated areas.
The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: An Initial Assessment of Information and Policies
June 24, 2003 by Dan Fahey http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/duiq03.pdf

· On April 1, 2003 the residential al-Hilla outskirts of Babylon were hit with an undetermined number of BLU-97 A/B cluster bombs. Each bomb releases 202 bomblets which scatter over an area the size of two football fields, with a dud rate of 5%-7%. Immediate reports stated that at least 33 civilians died and around 300 were injured in the attack. Amnesty International condemned the attack, saying that "the use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law." Independent reporter Robert Fisk wrote from al-Hilla, saying that many dud bombs landed, and remain, inside civilian homes.
· On April 3, 2003 the United States reported that it had used B-52 bombers to drop six CBU-105 cluster bombs on Iraqi tanks defending Baghdad. On the same day, Iraq's Information Minister reported that a cluster bomb attack on Baghdad killed 14 people and wounded 66.
ZNet Magazine April 7, 2003 "Irregular Weapons Used Against Iraq" by Simon Helweg-Larsen
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=3410

· On March 22, 2003, reporters from CNN and the Sydney Morning Herald - Melbourne Age embedded with the 1st Battalion 7th Marines at Safwan Hill near Basra reported air strikes dropping napalm.
San Diego Union-Tribune August 5, 2003 "Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html

· "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud," Abu Sabah, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area told IPS. "Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them." He said pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns. Phosphorous weapons as well as napalm are known to cause such effects. "People suffered so much from these," he said.
Inter Press Service 11/26/04 "Unusual Weapons Used in Fallujah" by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000137.php

E) Convention I, Art. 3: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...To this end, the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are and shall remain prohibited:...the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
· The Military Commission Order signed by President Bush on Nov. 13, 2001, mandated conduct by members of the U.S. military such as: allowing the use of evidence that the accused is not permitted to see, and excluding the accused from the proceedings. These provisions violate the rights of the accused to protections guaranteed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and civilian courts in the United States.
· See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol 1, Art. 75, (above)

F) Convention III, Art. 5: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
· President Bush issued an order on February 7, 2002, specifying that the U.S. would not apply the Third Convention to members of Al Qaeda. That order set forth policies that led to the willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment; and great suffering or serious injury to body or health, of prisoners in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
· See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol 1, Art. 75, (above)

G) Convention IV, Art. 33: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
· Eyewitness statements from Mike Ferner, in and around Abu Hishma and Abu Siffa, Iraq, where homes, automobiles and orchards were destroyed by the 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Enlisted men and officers of this battalion admitted to having caused this destruction in interviews on February 24 and 25, 2004.

· In Fallujah, 40% of the buildings were completely destroyed, 20% had major damage, and 40% had significant damage. That is 100% of the buildings in that city.
American Friends Service Committee: Correspondents' Journal 1/20/05 "The Price of Forgetting"
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/corres_journal/entries/20050120.htm

Document two

Laws violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command, sufficient for impeachment
· The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the "law of the land." Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law.
· U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: "...a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party..." punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.
· The following treaties and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator...of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as "... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State...or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations..."

Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
Principle VI: "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;
(b) War crimes: ...murder, ill-treatment...of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,...plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages...
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination...and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population...when such acts are done...in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Geneva Conventions
A) Protocol I, Article 75: "(1)...persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict...shall be treated humanely in all circumstances...(2) The following acts are and shall remain prohibited...whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons...(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault...and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts."

B) Protocol I, Art. 51: "The civilian population...shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." Art. 57: (parties shall) "do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects...an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one..."

C) Protocol I, Art. 70: "The Parties to the conflict...shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel...even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party."

D) Protocol I, Art. 35: "In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties...to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited...It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment."

E) Convention I, Art. 3: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...To this end, the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are and shall remain prohibited:...the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

F) Convention III, Art. 5: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

G) Convention IV, Art. 33: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."