This is what democracy looks like.

Democrats: We Thought They'd Kick Ass This Time, But They Just Wound Up Being Assholes Again.

2005-05-26T17:46:00.000-07:00

“I propose that I kill your son,” said the elephant to the donkey.

“I refuse,” retorted said donkey, “to allow you to kill my son.”

The elephant thought for a while and finally said, “Fine then. If you’ll not let me kill your son, then I shall be forced to kill your entire family and everyone you know.”

Oh, boy! I wouldn’t want that. So thought the donkey to himself. He had an idea. “I’m sure we can strike a deal. As a compromise, why don’t you just kill my son?”

So went the congressional debate over the filibuster against extremist fundamentalist judges. The republicans proposed something outrageous—letting nominees the democrats had previously deemed dangerous and utterly unfit for judgeship be granted the judgeship they must not be allowed—and when the democrats refused, they proposed something more outrageous—eliminating the basic administration of justice in the United States—and, in compromise, the democrats let them get away with the original point of contention. Here follows another analogy.

“I demand you give me those two dollars.”

“You shall not have my two dollars!”

“Fine, then, I’ll steal ten!”

“Jeez. I’m sure we can compromise. How about only taking two?”

That is not a victory because the democrats saved eight dollars. It’s a loss because they lost two.

I’m convinced that the only reason Harry Reid allowed this agreement to go through is because he simply did not have the votes of Senators Hagel and Collins and whoever else he needed. Even so, this is a totally unacceptable course of action. If they would lose the filibuster vote certainly, the only thing to do is to accept that, shut down congress, and CREATE A CRISIS! How can democrats go election after election, talking about their lack of a message and wondering why people don’t trust them, if they REFUSE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN?

This was never about the filibuster; it was always about preventing the Bush Administration from packing the courts with extremist judges. In the end, the democrats agreed, in order to preserve the filibuster, not to use the filibuster. This is similar to the right wing’s view on the PATRIOT Act: “I must preserve my freedom; consequently, I hereby forfeit my freedom.”

And now extremists will be on the bench.

It’s enough to make you sick.

Leading a War Worse than Vietnam, Under a President Worse than Nixon, a Secretary of Defense Worse than McNamara

2005-02-18T21:03:00.000-08:00

The unbelievable arrogance! I’m utterly speechless. No I’m not.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, “The People’s Republic of China is a country that we hope and pray enters the civilized world in an orderly way without the grinding of gears and that they become a constructive force in that part of the world and a player in the global environment that’s constructive.”

Rumsfeld is saying that China, which holds roughly a full quarter of the world’s population, is soon to enter the “civilized world?” Is he nuts? China may be the world’s most ancient civilization, clocking in at a good 5,000 years old. I guess Donny’s been too busy destroying other ancient civilizations (think Mesopotamia) to study up on his history. Or his tact!

Who the hell is he to talk about a constructive global environment? This is the administration that won’t enter into the Kyoto Protocol, for goodness’ sake! They ripped up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty! They don’t subscribe to the world court or pay their UN dues! What constructive global environment does Rumsfeld have in mind, exactly?

He just doesn’t care at all what effect his having said this will have. That quotation will be printed in every major newspaper on Earth!

Oh, right, I almost forgot to mention: he was talking about China’s military build up and saying it has to be contained. THIS FROM THE MAN WHO CONTROLLS THE LARGEST MILITARY ON EARTH, WITH MORE BOMBS AND FUNDS THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD!

COMBINED!

This is a truly sick administration.

Sorry for the excited tone, but these guys are driving me crazy.

Freedom: Occupation and all!

2005-02-18T08:13:00.000-08:00

It is so much easier to put a “Support the Troops” bumper magnet on the back of ones care (they don’t even leave sticky residue!) than it is to support them, or our esteemed president makes me think: his proposal is that we support the troops until they get home. Then? Well, then, they should shut up with this tawdry “benefits” crap and get to supporting along with the rest of us! Ingrates!

See, after already having cut hundreds of millions of dollars in veterans benefits over the last few years, the latest Bush budget is in: “Senators of both parties said on Tuesday that President Bush’s budget for veterans’ health care would not provide enough money to maintain services at current levels, much less care for thousands of veterans streaming back to the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan,” reports the New York Times, today. They also felt fit to print the news that the budget would “double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care.” The ownership society marches on!

So does freedom, in Iraq, where democracy is in full effect! Despite the 75% unemployment, the utter Dresdenesque destruction of Falluja and the absence of any modicum of sanitation in many war torn cities where blood and sewage run with more freedom than could be found in Bush’s inauguration address, the Iraqis had an election, the legitimacy of which no one can deny. Everyone, that is, except some wild eyes Communists who point out that there were no international observers, that of the 7,471 people who filed to run, only a handful publicly identified themselves, that locations for the 5,776 polling places were not announced before election day, and that most Iraqis thought they were voting for president, when they were just voting for a transitional governing body to establish a Constitution, the creation of which will signal the arrival of an election for an actual legislature, to be followed, finally, by the presidential election.

Look, I mean to take nothing away from the Iraqis who voted. They have more courage than I may ever. In fact, it is precisely because of my esteem for those people (the main reason I opposed the invasion in the first place) that with they’d gotten a better deal than the shaft they did.

For instance, the United States does not seem to have any intention to allow their newfound democracy to flourish. The United Iraqi Alliance, which won a decisive majority in the elections, calls, in its platform, for US withdrawal, social security, a write-off of Iraq’s debts, a cancellation of reparations and use of oil wealth for economic development projects. The US, on the other hand, looks ready to exercise the same strategy it had going into this disaster of a war: none. Bush wants to occupy the nation with his fourteen permanent military bases. “You don’t set timetables,” is what he had to say four days after the Iraqis voted for a group that wants to set timetables. Democracy!

Naomi Klein writes, “Iraq’s elections were delayed time and time again, while the occupation and resistance grew ever more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading u to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the ‘oil for women program’). Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for a very different set of policies.”

Here’s a fun bit: The Iraqi woman on the balcony during the State of the Union Address, Sofia Taleb Al Souhail, hasn’t, it turns out lived in Iraq for 30 years. It also turns out she’s a millionaire, and her father was murdered by Saddam in collaboration with the CIA. Also. She published for the "Foundation For the Defense of Democracies," the Board of Directors, Board of Advisors and Distinguished Advisors of which include Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Charles Karuthammer, Bill Kristol, Zell Miller, Richard Perle and R. James Woolsey. These people will lie about anything.

Luckily, at least one Woolsey’s got her head on straight: California representative Lynn Woolsey, whose resolution to bring the troops home has been signed by Reps. Xavier Becerra, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Lane Evans, Sam Farr, Raul Grijalva, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Gwen Moore, Grace Napolitano, Major Owens, Ed Pastor, Charlie Rangel, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, and Diane Watson. That’s right: a whopping 24 members, or just under 4.5% of congress calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops (Kennedy’s couple-a-years speech was off the hook, but ignored the basic problem, that no stabilization of the region can begin until the sources of instability withdrawal), representing, as of just before the Iraqi election, the 58% of Americans who thought the war was a mistake and not worth fighting and the 46% calling for withdrawal.

The picture is bleak enough to make me hope these Christian folks are right: “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Hannity and Myerson?

2005-02-05T15:52:00.000-08:00

How did I wind up upsetting one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the nation live on television (Fox News, no less!)?

TIME Magazine released a list of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the nation, which looked something like this:

Howard & Roberta Ahmanson
David Barton
Doug Coe
Chuck Colson
Luis Cortès
James Dobson
Stuart Epperson
Michael Gerson
Billy & Franklin Graham
Ted Haggard
Bill Hybels
T.D. Jakes
Diane Knippers
Tim & Beverly LaHaye
Richard Land
Brian McLaren
Joyce Meyer
Richard John Neuhaus
Mark Noll
J.I. Packer
Rick Santorum
Jay Sekulow
Stephen Strang
Rick Warren
Ralph Winter

Fox News deemed this story worthy of time on its noxious news/opinion show (this one admits the existence of opinion, unlike all the others) Day Side with Linda Vester. The gimmick for this particular edition was, “College Democrats! College Republicans! Find Out What They Think!” or something contrived like that.

With but flashy graphics, dramatic music, and a fiercely obnoxious producer who was sent to hypes us up but just wound up sounding like Gilbert Godfrey and calling Noah’s African beads “fruity” (the man had on a purple tie) preceding us, we 25 college Democrats (Vassar, NYU, Stoneybrook and maybe another two) and a mere five Republicans (they just didn’t show up—finally, fairness and balance!) took to the studio. The nauseating Linda Vester wasn’t in that day, but a replacement who actually turned out to be decent.

Ethan, head of the Bard Democrats, and big-wig in the College Democrats of America, had gotten Bard five tickets in the audience. So, there we were.

The hour long show (40, when commercial time is subtracted) started with a 10 minute piece about a non-terrorism-related plane crash with no fatalities involved. It concluded with a similarly irrelevant story about an American Girl Doll named Marisol (she’s Mexican, her parents move her from a Hispanic crime-ridden to a white suburban neighborhood, and people are offended by that) with about equal length. Stories like Howard Dean’s all-but-assured ascent to the Chair of the DNC (yes!), the State of the Union address (later that day) and Social Security’s overhaul got a few minutes, mostly devoted to hackery from quack-pundits.

However, one talking head tickled my fancy: Jay Sekulow, number 22 on the Time list. So, raised my hand did I. The producer, and, by extension, the hostess recognized me and I got to say something like, “I don’t know the extent to which evangelicals will influence President Bush’s second term, but I can only hope that influence’s manifestations will include egregious abridgment of the rights of gay Americans and intrusions into the health care of women [wide Grin and nod].”

A visibly upset Sekulow offered up the fact that 79% of Americans recognize the immorality of partial-birth abortions (as if public opinion in a nation where 75% of people believe in angels should be a basis for law that is a simple Constitutional matter; also as if that spoke to my concern) and the lie that America is the only country that allows them (China, for instance, requires them).

And that’s how I, Jesse Myerson, college student, blogger and soon-to-be candidate for local office, wound up upsetting one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the nation live on television (Fox News, no less!).

Next step: getting a show!

Torture: Confirmed

2005-02-05T14:08:00.000-08:00

When you have to clarify that the nominee for the highest legal office in America does not, in fact, condone torture, he may not be the best man for the job.

There is an unbelievable amount arrogance necessary for the president to nominate for his second-term cabinet positions people symbolic of and instrumental to the most shameful parts of his first term. Despite that, the Senate confirmed Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General of the United States by a margin of 60-36—all 36 were Democrats, except Independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont. The Democrats who voted for Gonzales were Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Gonzales is arguably the least qualified nominee ever for the position, in that he has never had any success outside of pandering to the now president. Even Bobby Kennedy was more intellectually independent of the president (his brother), when he had the position; in fact, he had a significant amount of sway.

Not Gonzales.

Check out the track record:

Regarding the death penalty, as Chief Legal Council in Texas, he, according to the July/August 2003 issue of Atlantic Monthly, “repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence." Resultantly, Bush frequently approved executions based on "only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute."

Around the same time, and in the same capacity, reported Slate in its June 15^th, 2004 edition, Gonzales wrote a memo for Bush to justify non-compliance with the Vienna Convention, which was "designed to ensure that foreign nationals accused of a crime are given access to legal counsel by a representative from their home country." Gonzales argued that the treaty didn't apply to the State of Texas, as Texas was not a signatory to the Vienna Convention. Texas executed Mexican citizen Irineo Tristan Montoya, violating his rights under the Vienna Convention by failing to inform the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest. We’ll be returning to this principle.

The New York Daily News reported on February 2^nd, 2002 that as an elected member of the Texas Supreme Court, "Enron and Enron's law firm were Gonzales's biggest contributors," giving him $35,450 in 2000. In return, in May 2000, "Gonzales was author of a state Supreme Court opinion that handed the energy industry one of its biggest Texas legal victories in recent history."

How can we trust a man to be the highest legal mind in the country when he will clearly toe the party line and support Bush in whatever he does? The problem is that Gonzales’ worst attribute is not that he manipulated the Texas death row (combined with Florida, the other Bush-run state, it constitutes more capital executions than in the rest of the world combined). His worst attribute is not his utter disregard for the law. His worst attribute is not even that his corporate ties will impair his ability to fairly prosecute white collar criminals.

No, Gonzales supported and legitimated torture, plain and simple. To hear Gonzales’ justice department memo tell it, laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Also, the pain caused by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture."

In a similar fashion to his conduct during the Irineo Tristan Montoya incident, a 1/25/02 memo he wrote said "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, according to the memo, ought to be exempt from the Geneva Conventions' provisions on the proper, legal treatment of prisoners, as those groups are not signatories to said Conventions.

Non-Muslim Americans will never be able to understand the affect this torture has had on the Islamic world. Aside from the fact that America is already detested for setting up permanent military bases on sacred land (the very reason Al Qaeda was formed), monetarily supporting Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and bringing war and puppet governments to Afghanistan and Iraq. The image, however, of an Islamic man, nude, on a leash held by an American woman GI just may overshadow all of that. With the friendliest of Administrations, it would take 50 years to repair those ties. With this one and its plan to invade Iran (a story broken by Seymour Hersh, the same journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib story), we may never live it down.

Disproving the Administration’s initial “few bad eggs” explanation of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal are the AFP’s report that “One of four Britons freed last week from US detention in Guantanamo Bay, described being tortured, witnessing the killing of fellow detainees by US interrogators and receiving threats to his family” and forage like that in Michael Moore’s Oscar-snubbed Fahrenheit 9/11. This torture has been widespread, part of protocol, and commissioned of the highest offices.

And it was all designed by Alberto Gonzales.

Who but opponents of Alberto Gonzales can say that they are not torturers, now that this country has promoted one?

Thursday in the Senate, where Republicans will dip their fingers in ink in solidarity with the Iraq vote but not send their sons and daughters to help the operation that they claim brought that vote, Republican Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter praised Gonzales as "a man of intellectual achievement" whose astounding life story and impressive professional achievements recommended him highly for the post.

Then, Ted Kennedy reminded the Honorable Chairman that "Our vote today is not a vote on whether he is a good person or whether we admire and respect his life story. It is a vote on whether his performance in the highest reaches of our government has shown that he should be entrusted with the Department of Justice.” This would seem to be common sense.

Unfortunately, as we all know, even in the face of common sense, Republicans have a winning tactic: they lie. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that Gonzales has demonstrated "an unwavering respect for the law...These are the facts, straight and simple: Judge Gonzales has acted with total professionalism and high regard for the law…Suggestions to the contrary are baseless and a slur against an honorable man."

Shame, contrarily, on Senators Lieberman, Salazar, Landrieu, Nelson, Nelson and Pryor for not making such suggestions.

War is peace; tyranny is freedom; support for torture is not support for torture. Every day is backwards day.

Insecurity (Social, Economic, Military and Otherwise)

2005-01-26T10:02:00.000-08:00

On this bloodiest yet day in Iraq (36 American troops), the Bush administration pegged the deficit at a record $427 billion. The previous record for largest deficit: last year’s $412 billion. The administration, in the “every-day-is-backwards-day” attitude that brought you military invasions for world peace and a PATRIOT ACT in the interest of greater liberty, and that has become the status quo, has called this sharp decline “progress,” since the fall this year was smaller than last year’s. Despite this “progress,” the UN has called these deficits a “major threat” to global economic security.

Of course, these deficits exist largely because of the president’s refusal to raise taxes—indeed, his insistence on cutting them—during a time of war. 31 Marines died when their transport helicopter crashed in the Anbar province of western Iraq. Five more died in attacks by the Iraqi resistance. This is Bush’s version of “supporting the troops,” again with the whole “backwards-day” thing. See, not only will Bush not bring the troops home in order to support them, he won’t even fully equip them with armor and vests, because he won’t ask for a tax increase. Instead, he cuts and cuts and cuts, and the blood keeps falling.

This is not a failure. It is not a mistake. It is a very well-planned strategic maneuver with effects desirable to the president. See, if we have all these deficits, there will be no money for social programs, which then can be starved. This was particularly effective under the Reagan administration, and is in progress currently, as the president makes clear his intentions to privatize the nation’s most popular social program, Social Security.

Karl Rove deputy Peter Wehner, in a memo, wrote the following: "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win.” See, Republicans find impossible the idea that social programs can actually help people and gain intense popularity. Wehner, however, writes, "We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government…We can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of our country." A lot of talk about an “ownership society,” a term that weaseled its way into Bush’s second inaugural address, can not change the fact that an elimination of government programs do not lend people any liberty at all, but in fact threaten the opportunity for upward social mobility.

The claim that Social Security is in a state of “emergency” is totally bogus: Paul Krugman’s op-editorials in The New York Times since his return from his book sabbatical outline this in a very detailed and easy-to-read way. Essentially, Social Security has its own extra-governmental budget and is so set for another fourteen years at least, before any measure of urgency like what the Bush government purports becomes part of the equation. On the other hand, Bush’s Medicare plan is due to experience a veritable emergency NEXT YEAR, of value more than four times that of the social security crisis. Which is worth worrying about: a minor problem more than a decade off, or an enormous problem coming right up? Bogus, bogus, bogus.

Here’s the thing, though: Americans now send 6.2% of our income to Social Security, and Bush's plan would have us putting four of those 6.2 points into the stock market, which means, in the words of Nick Stoller, that “When someone like Eliot Spitzer uncovers a major corporate scandal, a Republican will be able to say, 'He's attacking your retirement fund.' When the employees of a company try to unionize, a Republican will be able to say, 'They are attacking your retirement fund.'” Of course, environmental regulations, liability law and corporate taxes follow the same pattern.

Luckily, all congressional Democrats, while in the minority, oppose this plan. The better news is that so do some Republicans, including leaders that helped Bush come up with his Medicare plan.

Now all we need is more than seventeen representatives—Democrats Lynn Woolsey (CA-06), Danny Davis (IL-07), Lane Evans (IL-17), Sam Farr (CA-17), Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Maurice Hinchey (NY-22), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), Barbara Lee (CA-09), John Lewis (GA-05), Jim McDermott (WA-07), Grace Napolitano (CA-38), Major Owens (NY-11), Jose Serrano (NY-16) and Pete Stark (CA-13) and Republican Howard Coble (NC-06)—and zero senators calling for withdrawal from Iraq, where today, more Americans died than on any other day, since the US invasion 22 months ago.

And an impeachment.

Support Our Truth.

2005-01-25T18:24:00.000-08:00

The president of this ideally secular nation, where a separation between religious and state institutions is a basic governmental tenet, once said, “"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”

The most frightening part is not that a delusional man who believes in ghosts and fairies, essentially, is creating our foreign policy, with its disastrous and immeasurable economic, ecological and humanistic gravity. It is that so many millions of Americans believe in the very same God.

Never mind the prophesy that “He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4) Never mind that in his sermon on the mount, which the president hubristically mentioned in his inaugural address, which Gore Vidal called "The Most Un-American Speech I've Ever Heard," Jesus the Christ said, “Blessed be the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) Need I even mention “Thou shalt not kill?” (Exodus 20:13) It is not what God says that matters to President Bush and his rapture-obsessed Millenialist cronies so much as what they tell people He says.

See, their God is against abortion, which is never mentioned in the Bible, but condones the absence of environmental regulation. He is against gay marriage, again never mentioned in the Bible, but is fine with legally legitimizing torture. He is sending his son back to sweep up believers in the rapture and send the others to their fiery, eternal doom—you guessed it: no one can find this in the Bible, either—and curiously approves of the endless accumulation and consolidation of wealth, despite some crazed biblical claim that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25)

These people lie about everything! The Word is obviously not the extent of it William Rivers Pitt told an amusing story this weekend:

“I had a kind of an amusing moment during the inauguration. I was taking a break on a bench with a couple of people who were protesting, one of whom had a sign that read, ‘Bush lied, thousands died.’ Guy comes by and says, well, what did he lie about? So, I -- you know, I sit there and you say -- you remember the 2003 State of the Union address? Well, what about it? Well, in the State of the Union address in 2003, Mr. Bush said that there were -- what was it? -- 26,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons, which is one million pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; 30,000 munitions capable of delivering the stuff; mobile biological weapons labs; and uranium from Niger for use in nuclear bombs. By the way, the page describing all of this is still up on the White House website today. It's called, 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' You can go find it yourself. I said that's a pretty big lie. His response: That was the democrats lied about that. Miracles of nature, some of these people.”

Finally, Democrats used the word “lie” to describe what the Bush Administration does. "I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," is how Minnesota’s Mark Dayton put it, in the Senate’s debate over the appointment of Condoleezza Rice to the Secretary of State position. I’ve certainly gotten tired of John Kerry’s accusations of “misleading” or not “being straight with” the American people. Equivocation is so last year. Of course, at the same hearing, Nebraska’s Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said Dr. Rice had always been “candid and honest.” Like that time she said, “let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad." Or that time she said, “We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." The gap in her credibility is only overshadowed by the one in her smile.

It’s not that I deny the extensive history of politicians lying. It’s just that never has a government in the United States so holistically embraced lying as the very basis of communication. Not only that, but this government has, in a major way, rejected the enlightenment’s notions of reason, rationality, evidence, argumentation and critical thought. When people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, those aren’t things we can be willing to forfeit. It makes a modicum of sense, in fact, since their administration’s existence is based on the lie that they’ve ever won an election.

I wonder how God weighs in on the issue: “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is how he puts it in Exodus 20:16. Then again, how could God endorse truth, when he was so busy proclaiming the virtues of the privatization of Social Security. But that’s another blog post.

Washington Weekend

2005-01-23T16:23:00.000-08:00

The savior descended from on high, divine tablets in hand, messianic authority fully in tact, and, in a tone indicative, George Bush the Christ gave what some evidently viewed as an inspiring speech on freedom, liberty and opposition to slavery, presumably to manufacture support for his upcoming drive to invade Iran and portray it as the fight of liberty against tyranny.

The Washington Post, this morning, finally caught up with Seymour Hersh’s ten day old investigative report on the state of the Bush government’s dealings with Iran (key words: covert military operations, commandos, death squads), revealing that Donald Rumsfeld now has measures of control over the military traditionally and legally reserved exclusively for the president. The question, says Hersh, who broke the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as well, is not if we invade Iran, but when.

As we denounce torture but promote its architect, as we call for peace but plan new wars, the hypocrisy of this administration shone through former Governor Bush’s speech:

“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Interestingly, the US has supported fascist and military dictatorships against democratic governments in Afghanistan, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Jamaica, Cambodia, and others.

“America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling.” The Iraqis, evidently, are willing to implement democracy on their own, a fact proven by their warm embrace of the American liberators with celebration and relative calm.

“America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.” On the other hand, we’ll indefinitely lock up suspected enemy combatants, with no trial, due process or writ of Habeas Corpus, we’ll ensure that a woman’s health care is not decided by her and her physician, but by a bunch of men, and we’ll bully the world for American corporate profit and military advantage.

“And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.” This from the man who ran an utterly racist campaign, ruled over an utterly racist death row in Texas and had an utterly racist strategy on Election Day.

Freedom this, freedom that, boomed the Orwellian speakers in the streets, and then came the benediction, in which Bush’s pastor asked the Lord to forgive us for our concern over “petty partisan politics,” followed by Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and Bill Frist waving to their throngs of fawning sycophants. Freedom.

In Iraq, freedom is very much on the march: violence is so fierce and perilous that there will be no foreign observers monitoring the vote, minus the shabby International Mission for Iraqi Elections, who will be ensuring the legitimacy of the elections from 800 miles away—in front of TV monitors in Jordan. When the conditions for a vote are worse than in Afghanistan (where 122 international observers proclaimed an “orderly and transparent process”) and especially in war-torn and dangerous Palestine (where 800 observers including Jimmy Carter and two US congressional delegations went to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) than in Iraq, democracy really is, as the president says, “hard work.”

Given the theocratic (“That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people.”) and, sometimes, downright Hitlerian (“Renewed in our strength—tested, but not weary—we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.”) speech the president delivered to Washington and the nation Thursday, it is shocking and awesome that I feel today a sense of optimism.

Centered around the 2004 election cycle, there has started a progressive movement of size and determination unimaginable in the neo-McCarthyist national environment established by the Bush Administration. ACT, Democracy for American, MoveOn and others were insufficient only insofar as they were unable to activate the progressive vote to the effect of any net electoral advantage. Quite despite this failure, The Nation pointed out the blue-ward shift in progress in the traditionally deep-red Rocky Mountain region. Quite despite this failure, George Lakoff’s writings are being taken seriously by important people like George Soros and Howard Dean, who, quite despite this failure, appears likely to win the chair of the Democratic National Committee, which may soon run for us and not from us. Quite despite this failure, in my home state of New York, it seems probable that my next team of Governor and State Attorney General will be Eliot Spitzer and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., two progressive democrats, indeed.

This weekend, after the speech, I attended the Progressive Democrats of America’s summit, in that great city of taxpayers, overwhelmingly poor and black, with no congressional representation, more populous than half a dozen or so states. PDA is a coalition of Democracy for America, Code Pink Women for Peace, the Rainbow/PUSH coalition, the Hip-Hop Caucus, the Shalom Center, FAIR, and about twenty other progressive organizations. Let me tell you, it was tough work cavorting with Jesse Jackson, Jr., William Rivers Pitt, Amy Goodman, Medea Benjamin, Tom Hayden, David Cobb, Pat LaMarche and Davey D.

Essentially, the point is that in 1964, the Republicans were in essentially the same political boat we are trying to mend right now, for ourselves. They had just suffered crushing defeats in a multitude of races, had no consistent message and nothing really to build on. They ran Goldwater and lost, but they didn’t give up. They didn’t even compromise by acting, voting and sounding more like democrats (John Kerry, take note). They got more and more conservative, all the while building a political infrastructure that led to the current crisis.

Now it is we who lack a consistent theme and strategy. But we’re doing what they didn’t. We’re imagining a political capital that we’re reserving for other fights, but that’s as worthless as the dollar would be, if the Chinese pulled out. Schumer, Dodd and others who concede, concede, concede are too far removed from the playground, where it is known that if you give money to a bully, he does not take from it that you are cooperative and should be left alone, but instead that you have money and will give it up. They compromise to the point of impotence. Dr. King, whose birthday it recently was, said, “We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

PDA is doing what it can to form a really meaningful coalition based around the issues, primarily of the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instant runoff voting, universal health care and social security. I got some advice from this convention that I’d like to pass on to you:

Tell your representative to sign Rep. Woolsey’s letter demanding immediate military withdrawal from Iraq, since the troops there are the problem and so can never be the solution. Tell your Senator not to vote for $100 Billion more dollars to finance an unwinnable and illegal war. Tell your governor that our National Guard is to protect us here at home and so to demand that your state's guard be sent home. Promote the independent media. Be involved in the 2006 elections for Secretaries of State (think Blackwell and Hughes). And know that when issues are so big as human lives, war and the sacred right to vote, there is no room for compromise. If Rosa Parks had taken Montgomery’s initial offer of a free one-year bus pass, or even its second of firing that bus driver, we might never have won the struggle for public accommodations, which took nine years.

That’s right. Their worst nightmare is true. Progressives are starting to get it.

We are not going away, we are not giving up, and we are not nominating Evan Bayh in 2008. We are growing, we are wildly, passionately and ferociously in love with this idea called America, and we are going to work like hell for four years to ensure that the president inflicts the least possible damage on our nation and the world.

So, to Red America, we 55 million blue voters wish our regards sent and to be remembered.

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it – always.” Mahatma Gandhi