Sweeping It Under the Rug, Part II

Here's a nice handy-dandy link for writing your letters to the editor. Broadcast your senators responses far and wide. Educate his or her constituents!

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/mail/compose/?voteid=0&alertid=7656046&target=ML&type=ME&azip=48158

Today, I will be calling Senator Levin and Senator Stabenaw to see why they didn't sign John Kerry's letter. They represent me and they need to know my view.

I will post their responses here and I will post my letter to the editor here as well.

Now, since today is the day when Bush will leave the White House for his 'faux' speech in front of the military, I think I will spend the day papering windshields and giving them them Congressmans phone number to call and ask for the investigation.

Maybe I'll even let them use my cell phone too.

Taking back America isn't easy, but it's not going to happen by preaching to the choir.

I'm with you, Suz! Good thread topic!!!

In my blue state we have senators slime-ball Coleman (Dumbya's puppet) and Dayton (not running for re-election, but I have my eye on a savvy prosecuting attorney who looks to be a viable Dem candidate in '06, and I hope she gets the Dem nomination - so far what I've seen of her she thinks on her feet and is not intimidated by cameras, and of course she is used to being in front of juries and prosecuting criminals), and my local Rep. has an office in town and I can talk to one of his office people locally (no long distance) and get my messages across (have done so, will continue to do so).

Sometimes I think our Senators and Representatives have only read the mainstream presses for news because they fail to mention the things I know we read in foreign presses. There is ever so much more out there that I know we on this blog and other blogs are aware of that should be making national news on ALL networks....

My ears just just physically ache to hear ANY Senator or Representative call for a comeuppance of Dumbya and his administration on live TV, and no danged apologies for bringing up "sensitive" topics!!! (Like war crimes, torture the American people certainly never sanctioned, but Dumbya and Gonzales and Rummy did; when the war really started - before the official declaration... etc.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/23183/

Keeping it Simple, Stupid
By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet
Posted on June 28, 2005, Printed on June 28, 2005

George W. Bush has turned America into the world's biggest scold. Ironic, isn't it? This was the guy who, during his first run for President, pontificated on how the US needed to become less arrogant and mind its own business -- we needed to stop telling the rest of the world how it should live, and let it govern itself.

There was never an ounce of truth in that, and we should have known it. Because there was a single defining fact we knew about George: he's an evangelical. That fact is, and remains, the only thing Americans need to know to understand George W., because it dictates all he is, all he thinks and all he does.

To be evangelical is to banish doubt from your life. The term is most commonly used to describe born-again, fundamentalist Christians who believe all truth resides exclusively in the Christian Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. To an evangelical Christian, all nuance is Satan's nose in the tent of blissful certainty. And, if nuance is the Devil's nose, any facts that might challenge their narrow views, such as evolution and the real geological age of the earth, are Satan personified.

When facts become a problem for evangelicals, they simply dismiss them. If pushed, they attack the offending facts, no matter how nonsensical, absurd, untrue, juvenile or just plain silly their rebuttal has to be.

For those of the evangelical bent, there is always only one true way. This is precisely the mindset we put in the White House when we elected George W. Bush. The press has misinterpreted it, calling Bush's behavior "stubborn." No -- that's not it. He's not "stubborn." Nelson Mandela was stubborn. Winston Churchill, Rev. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Gen. George Patton, Rosa Parks... they were stubborn.

George W. Bush is simply "right." And I mean "simply." Maintaining simplicity has been George's salvation. After years of quiet desperation, a rich frat boy, a certifiable putz and a drunk Bush was "saved." Until that moment, life's plethora of choices, conflicting options, moral and personal issues overwhelmed poor young George. Then someone turned him on to Jesus... the one-stop, one-track, one-size-fits-all solution. For young George, the Bible became his life's owner's manual.

Suddenly life's complications, choices and confusions were culled down to a handful of easy-to-understand instructions. Life's once-intimidating blank canvas was transformed to a paint-by-numbers set. He now not only knew what the picture was, but all he had to do was not mix his colors to end up with a perfect painting every time.

So here we are, five years after electing un-curious George to the highest office on earth. He has been true to his evangelical mindset, not just in his adherence to his Christian faith, but in his public policies as well. It is that behavior that has led the press to call him stubborn.

Global warming, stem cell research, war, Terry Schiavo, evolution -- each are issues about which volumes have, and will, be written. But George W. will not -- cannot -- be moved by a single word. Being saved taught Bush that the key to keeping his personal demons at bay is to narrow the flow of information to a trickle. Establish certainty -- the simpler the certainty, the better. Keep it simple, stupid. Then don't just stick to that certainty, but evangelize it. Others must be saved, too.

We see George's evangelical proclivities most clearly in his proselytizing on the glories of democracy to what he views as "heathen regimes" around the world. Undemocratic governments are, to George, the equivalent of unrepentant sinners. They shall be saved. (Resistance is futile; they will be assimilated.)

Here we clearly see the "damn the facts" behavior of the evangelical mind. First, when George says another country should become "democratic," he means it the same way he does when he suggests non-believers should become Christians. He doesn't mean they should become Mormons, or that they should join the Greek Orthodox Church. He means they should become Bible thumping, Lord-praising, born-again, like him. Ditto with democracy. George is not interested in hearing about other forms of Christianity, or democracy. There is only one right form of both: his, and his.

Inconvenient fact: Iran had its version of a democratic election last week. Voters had two choices, "the bad candidate" and "the worse candidate." They overwhelmingly chose "worse." Iran's new fundamentalist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters this weekend, "We didn't fight a revolution to have a democracy." (And no, he's not related to Katherine Harris.)

Even as that exercise in Middle Eastern democracy was unfolding in Iran, Bush apostle Condi Rice was in Cairo, preaching to the Egyptians. The crux of her sermon was that Egyptians needed to get some democratic salvation, and fast.

Inconvenient fact: Rice didn't betray even a hint of irony that Egypt is a country where our CIA routinely sends terror suspects to be tortured. Italian police last week issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents accused of snatching a terror suspect off the streets in Milan and sending him to Egypt to be "interrogated." When the Egyptians were done, he was released. The first thing he did was call his family in Italy to tell them the Egyptians had damn near killed him. The call was intercepted by the CIA, which had the Egyptians re-arrest the guy to shut him up. Democracy for Egypt? Really now.

Inconvenient fact: Also while preaching in Egypt, Condi avoided meeting with members of Egypt's most popular political party, the Muslim Brotherhood. These guys are decidedly not an Islamic version of the Knights of Columbus. They are radical Muslims and on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, if there were free elections in Egypt tomorrow, the anti-American, anti-Israel, Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood would win hands down -- a replay of what just happened in Iran. But if Condi had met with MB, it would have cluttered Bush's democratic crusade with pesky facts and contradictions, and that could lead to devilish uncertainties.

Bush gets particularly excited when he talks about Lebanon, which he sees as a born-again democracy candidate. But he also sees Satan at work there in the form of undemocratic Syria. Bush is demanding Syria stop meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs.

Inconvenient fact: Even as George Bush lectures Syria on interfering in Lebanon, he commands 200,000 heavily armed US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are actively trying to remake both countries into his democratic vision. Somehow George sees no contradiction there -- that Syria's behavior constitutes interference, while US policy doesn't. That nuance, he surely believes, is just one of Satan's many traps.

Virtually all George W. Bush's behavior in office can be explained by that single event in his life: being saved. Complexity had driven George to drink. In simplicity he found peace, self-confidence and salvation.

So, as the world becomes an increasingly complicated place, expect George W. Bush to keep keeping it simple and "regard-less" of facts.

It's enough to drive even an un-saved sinner like me to say, "God help us."

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.
Copyright 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Today's Five Minutes A Day:

Today's Five Minutes for Democracy is: ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Topic: The Congressional Research Service

CRS (Congressional Research Service) has hundreds of analysts and a $100 million dollar budget. They issue reports that are concise and nonpartisan. But these are issued to Members of Congress and only a Member can release these reports to the general public. These reports are one of the best resources in the world for understanding the complexities of the issues confronting the Congress. WHY the Congress has made it so difficult until now for the public to gain access to these reports is a mystery.

The Center for Democracy and Technology believes that reports paid for with tax dollars ought to be available to everyone.

http://www.opencrs.com/

Check out their efforts to open up free access to these reports--you can help them too!

NonnyO
Whenever I meet a local politician such as a local Congressperson, I ask them to recommend news sources. Then I give them more. So far I've been pleased, but their voting record seems to correlate with the depth & breadth of their sources. Best way to meet them has been
at picnics & the like where they are "featured" but the atmosphere is casual.

6 page meaty article:

"Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/magazine/26EXCEPTION.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=print

worth archiving - found it when reading the Kerry Op-Ed

from the article:

John Kerry's presidential campaign could not overcome liberal America's fatal incapacity to connect to the common faith of the American electorate in the Jeffersonian ideal. Instead he ran as the prudent, risk-avoiding realist in 2004 -- despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that he had fought in Vietnam. Kerry's caution was bred in the Mekong. The danger and death he encountered gave him some good reasons to prefer realism to idealism, and risk avoidance to hubris. Faced with a rival who proclaimed that freedom was not just America's gift to mankind but God's gift to the world, it was understandable that Kerry would seek to emphasize how complex reality was, how resistant to American purposes it might be and how high the price of American dreams could prove. As it turned out, the American electorate seemed to know only too well how high the price was in Iraq, and it still chose the gambler over the realist. In 2004, the Jefferson dream won decisively over American prudence.

But this is more than just a difference between risk taking and prudence. It is also a disagreement about whether American values properly deserve to be called universal at all. The contemporary liberal attitude toward the promotion of democratic freedom -- we like what we have, but we have no right to promote it to others -- sounds to many conservative Americans like complacent and timorous relativism, timorous because it won't lift a finger to help those who want an escape from tyranny, relativist because it seems to have abandoned the idea that all people do want to be free. Judging from the results of the election in 2004, a majority of Americans do not want to be told that Jefferson was wrong.

Ok, I've decided I will bring paper and pen and I will ask people to write a letter for me to fax.

Judging from the results from the results of the election in 2004, a majority of Americans do not want to be told that Jefferson was wrong.

Posted by: DiAnne at June 28, 2005 09:31 AM

Judging from the attitude of those on the right, I get the impression that they believe the Founding Fathers were simply way off wild-eyed LIBERALS...

Slipping into my Paternity Suit

Posted by: DiAnne at June 28, 2005 09:31 AM

That's an interesting, but kind of weird analysis of the election. You could look at history and see that Americans tend towards prudence. But you could also find some evidence against that, I guess. And personally, I think it is possible to be a prudent idealist... and I think that's what Kerry was. You can hold and fight for idealistic visions, but still be based in reality, and be prudent when you know so much is at stake! I also don't see where Jefferson fits into all of this... are they saying he would have voted for bush? Haha, that's a good one. Bush IS proving Jefferson wrong. I'd think we'd want a Kerry to make him right again.

Cyrano--weigh in on the Jefferson thing, OK?

Nonny --

I'm in Minnesota, too... in the Twin Cities. Where are you?

Chuck in Houston on the Jefferson thing:

I should read the article first, but it seems to me that Jefferson et al were a bit more nuanced on this export of Ameican democracy thing then, say, Bush or Rice.

On the one hand, Jefferson et al talked a lot about the universal nature of the liberal values expressed in say the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lincoln in his day, to roughly paraphrase, came to see this as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" being the "last best hope" of people writ large.

At the same time, Jefferson et al returned time and time again to the idea that the US should avoid foreign entanglements, which to me meant we should be very conservative and cautious when dealing with complex entities outside of US jursidictions.

I think they resolved this seeming paradox by understanding that the US best promotes the last, best hope through leading by example and patient small steps diplomatically, not by secular crusades.

Chuck in Houston

http://www.democracycellproject.net/buystuff1.shtml

Ok, this isn't the "sales" pitch it seems. We all talk about taking a message to the street. Well, our DCP t'shirts do in fact start conversation.

In fact, when I was in Chicago for the Rainbow Push Conference, I had some non-attendees asking me about my t'shirt and where I got it.

So, if you're serious about being the media and reaching out to others, then click the link and buy a t'shirt.

http://www.democracycellproject.net/buystuff1.shtml

Chuck my understanding was that our founding fathers did believe in universal truths like freedom, liberty, and democracy,and free elections but had problems with equality in treating slaves and women fairly much as we see in Syria and the Middle East. But I don't recall a time in America's history where we believed in imposing these values on foreign lands except for the missionaries and what Howard Zinn reports of how the Spanish came to America and terrorized the Awanka Indians. I do recall LBJ and Kennedy's efforts to overthrow Diem in Vietnam and meddle in Vietnam's civil war but that was supposedly to stop the domino theory.It is my understanding that our foreign policy and our wars have generally been more about defending national borders and stopping genocide rather then about imposing American religious values and political will.
If someone is suggesting that Jefferson would support our efforts in Iraq I would like to read that writing and the logic behind it and see if Mr. Zinn could respond to that from a historic perspective but I just don't see it.

Chuck; I believe that both Korea and Vietnam were justified by Truman and LBJ as protecting national borders, as questionable as their logic was, even there. There were Chinese troops in Korea and Vietnam which was state sponsored.
That is why I believe many Progressives see a difference b/w Desert Storm when Saddam crossed Iraqi borders to invade Kuwait vs the current unprovoked encounter. Personally I thought that Desert Storm was justified b/c I have a problem with countries crossing borders to invade other national borders, a lesson we learned from WWII. Curious what others thought about Desert Storm b/c the right has us all pigeonholed as being pacifists against all wars which I just don't think is the case. At least not from my perspective.

Chuck in Houston for Ira:

This topic has to do with an article that DiAnne posted a link to above:

"Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/magazine/26EXCEPTION.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=print

In her next post, there is a citation from the article. On another level, and relative to the citation, I am sure that, for example, Washington's position was also tempered by personal experience of both conventional and partisan warfare. This probably can't be said for Jefferson, although I have no doubt he was quite aware of such issues and that such an awareness certainly pervaded the framing of the Declaration of Independence.

I should read the article before I go further other than to say that I agree with you in the following sense. The Founding Fathers, and no doubt their significant others and good friends, had a moral vision based on what some would call a liberal, secular humanist view of things. They did not seem to be totalitarian in this, though, as they agreed to disagree about many fundamental contradictions between the 1787 consitution and this vision, most obviously about whether or not popular sovereginty meant one adult male, one vote, much less one adult one vote, and even more fundamentally compromised on the concept of whether it was OK for some people to own other people on the basis of primitive notions of race or to take land from other people by force on that same basis (i.e., what evolvedinto Manifest Destiny). One thing that makes me proud to be an American is the way in which, over time, these contradictions have resolved themselves almost excusively in the direction of redefining popular sovereignty and individual rights in an ever more inclusive and tolerant way, notwithstanding some serious damage we might have done along the way. On the issue of the degree to which (and manner in which) the US should project this evolving value and legal and governance system outside its borders, I think that meaningful progress comes more from example, engagement, and encouragement -- moral and material -- than from military force. And I think that such a view is consisent with the philosophy of framers of the Constituion and former Presidents such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams (Sr.), Franklin and Lincoln.

Chuck in Baku

This just in, from MoveOn:

Tonight at 8:00 p.m. ET, President Bush will speak to the nation about the war in Iraq in a televised address. Despite the car bombs and rising attacks, he's expected to offer no new policy—in fact, he's expected to say that we're making progress, that everything is going just fine.

Over the last week, we asked you to vote on whether we should work together in a major campaign to get Democrats and Republicans in Congress on board with a responsible exit plan. As of this morning, hundreds of thousands have voted and the results are clear: more than 83 percent said you were in. Together, we're ready to tell our leaders that it's time to come home.

One good first step is letters to the editor. Bush's speech tonight will be one of the major "tipping point" moments since the war began, and we can help make sure that no one buys his "stay the course" rhetoric. Politicians will be watching the letter-to-the-editor pages closely, and newspapers are likely to print letters on what will be the major story of the week. If we're able to push back hard enough, we can build a drumbeat for a real exit plan.

We've set up an online tool that makes submitting a letter easy. Tonight, you can watch President Bush's speech and then immediately go online and write a letter to the editor by clicking below. (We'll update our suggestion for the best thing to write about 30 minutes after his speech ends.)

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=764&zip=20002&id=5720-2675137-lM5NEiKr2nhO6SdiKoj6Gg&t=2

CNN International Edition:

Created: Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 09:59:59 EDT
Do you approve of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war?

Yes ..... 26% ... 31693 votes

No ...... 74% ... 87935 votes
Total: 119628 votes


CNN US Edition:

Created: Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 09:59:59 EDT
Do you approve of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war?

Yes ..... 26% ... 31693 votes

No ...... 74% ... 87935 votes

Total: 119628 votes

Stay The Crooked Course
Ray McGovern
June 28, 2005
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050628/stay_the_crooked_course.php

Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the United States and Britain started pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before the president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men-his co-opted military brass-have no clue regarding what U.S. forces are up against in Iraq. Get ready to hear President George W. Bush tell us this evening that we "have to stay the course."

As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president's practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks-men who "kiss up and kick
down," in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford,
describing U.N. nominee John Bolton's modus operandi at the State
Department.

[snip]

A General Speaks The Truth
More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army, ret.),
the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak
out on strategic and intelligence issues.

[snip]

Here is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV's Panorama program :

When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties.

When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Halfway down he says, 'I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course...

Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.

[snip]

When the president speaks on Iraq this evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks and Ambassador Paul Bremer are likely to be cheering on the president to "stay the course." A most unsavory spectacle.

If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.

Rudyard Kipling ++

Just FYI from Salon:

Hey, look! A story about Downing Street

We've had plenty to say about the way the national press has downplayed -- when it wasn't busy ignoring -- the Downing Street Memo. So we'd be remiss this morning if we didn't note Glenn Frankel's long Downing Street piece on the front page of today's Washington Post.

Frankel's report deals mostly with the British half of the equation and thus does little in the way of investigating the core allegations set forth in the minutes from the July 2002 meeting between Tony Blair and his top advisors. But given the barren journalistic landscape so far, the Post piece is still a must-read.

Frankel writes:

"Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

"Supporters of the administration contend, by contrast, that the memos add little or nothing to what is already publicly known about the run-up to the war and even help show that the British officials genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They say that opponents of Bush and Blair are distorting the documents' meaning in order to attack both men politically.

"But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war. "

-- Tim Grieve

[10:27 EDT, June 28, 2005]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/28/post/index.html
Link to Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584.html

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.
~snip~

Chuck in Houston for Fe:

One thing bothers me about Gen. Odom's Empire State Building analogy -- the implication is we need a Superman of Spiderman to change course, or a temporary suspension of the laws of physics by, I suppose, divine intervention (in other words, nothing short of a comic book hero or a miracle).

I wish he would have said something like two guys in a canoe, both with paddles, drifitng down the middle current of the Niagara River in a fog and toward the falls, with one guy saying "stay with the flow" and the other saying "I don't like that rumble up ahead, maybe we better change course and paddle to shore and see what that noise isup ahead."

Not as dramatic, I know.... I guess that's why I do contracts and policies and procedures and databases and not PR....

Chuck in Houston

Courtesy of Americablog:

When Repubs Attack -- Each Other
by Joe in DC - 6/27/2005 04:25:00 PM

Love it when they start bashing each other.

First, Cheney goes after Hagel. Now conservative leader Grover Norquist attacks three GOP Senators over at the College Chickenhawks conference:
Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as "the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona" - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.

Seems to be more of this going around.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/when-repubs-attack-each-other.html

Also from Americablog:

Bush's Empty Words On Torture
by Michael in New York - 6/28/2005 12:39:00 PM

Anyone catch this? The UN just celebrated the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

Bush happily and unselfconsciously weighed in with these words, per USA Today of 6/27:
"Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law."

And if it takes torturing a bunch of thugs and criminals and terrorists to get to that world, by God you can be damn sure we're the ones to do it!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/bushs-empty-words-on-torture.html

Humane USA PAC has given $5,000 to Rick Santorum and proclaims they will do everything in their power to help his re-election. This was my responsive letter to their Director:

6-28-05

Dear Mr.Michael Markin:

Thank you for your response in your email, but nothing you stated changes my opinions about your organization and your support of Senator Santorum.

The fact that your organization is willing to be manipulated and used by Senator Santorum, who's voting record voting on human rights and human liberties is quite disturbing. He is quite well known throughout Pa for his political posturing and changing positions during election times to appear moderate(which he is far from) and then falling back to his very right wing philosophy and voting history immediately after his election.

What is even more disturbing is your endorsement and large contributions to Senator Santorum 16 months before his election without knowing anything about his very likely opponent BOB CASEY and his positions regarding animal rights. Your organization has dishonestly presented to the voters of Pa that Senator Santorum is superior to his likely opponent Bob Casey morally and as an animal rights advocate without your organization expending one moment researching Bob Casey's positions or voting record on animal rights.

I will be urging every activist I know throughout the country and especially in Pa to actively boycott your organization.

Sincerely,
Ira

[Edited]

NonnyO,

Re:

Keeping it Simple, Stupid
By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet
Posted on June 28, 2005, Printed on June 28, 2005

Posted by: NonnyO at June 28, 2005 08:19 AM

NonnyO, thanks for your posts, I enjoy them. And while I am sure you know how much I appreciate your contributions and posts because you bring such great information to the table, I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Pizzo's premise that catagorizes ALL evangelicals as people having a mindset exemplified by George W. Bush.

I know many "evangelicals" (don't know that one can label all people who claim to be "born again" as "evangelicals" - Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were in the "born again" catagory) who certainly do not think like or have the same moral standards, and do not define Christianity or their place in society in the terms George W. Bush does.

George W. Bush is who he is, and makes the poor judgement calls he does because of a lack of judgment, character, and a whacky moral compass.......but not because he "reads" a bible and claims to be "born again". His actions are his, and stem from his misguided sense of morality and reality, not because he runs with a tribe of "born again" lunatics who taught him to think like he does.

I know many evangelicals who don't think like he does.

For example, let's reread some of what Stephen Pizzo claims is the reason why George W. Bush acts and thinks the way he does:

"There was never an ounce of truth in that, and we should have known it. Because there was a single defining fact we knew about George: he's an evangelical. That fact is, and remains, the only thing Americans need to know to understand George W., because it dictates all he is, all he thinks and all he does.

~ snip ~

He has been true to his evangelical mindset, not just in his adherence to his Christian faith, but in his public policies as well.

~ snip ~

When facts become a problem for evangelicals, they simply dismiss them. If pushed, they attack the offending facts, no matter how nonsensical, absurd, untrue, juvenile or just plain silly their rebuttal has to be.

~ snip ~

~ ~ * * ~ ~

I can understand how one can look at this administration's actions and judge the religion, but I think George W. Bush's character and judgement flaws lie deep within him, and stem from his life of priviledge, that clouded his morality and view of reality long before he ever "found God", and that he drags that baggage with him into the religion and has manufactured his own personal brand of "Christianity".

All Evangelicals don't think we should wage pre-emptive war, run our nations economics into a deficit, starve and neglect millions while committing murder and mayhem to make ourselves richer, and tell the peoples of a free religious state how to believe, how to act, and how to live.
Nor do we think we have the right to go from nation to nation and tell each of them to get their act together and promote "freedom and democracy" the way George and Co. do. These acts are best not blamed on a religious sect. Let's call it what it is: MADNESS. These are the rutheless acts of insanity.

Posted by: dwahzon at June 28, 2005 02:40 PM

Bush happily and unselfconsciously weighed in with these words, per USA Today of 6/27:
"Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law."

So, they are committed to building a WORLD like that, huh?

Oh, JOY.

otter:

If you still check in here please let me know if there is any additional action I can take regarding this endorsement by a Pa animal rights organization and whether the Casey campaign is aware of it.

Its early on but never too early to get involved in these pre-election efforts.

From todays Wall Street Journal...

'Downing Street Memo'Has Lingering Effect

Activists Use British Documents
To Mount Media Campaign,
Put Bush on Defensive Over Iraq

By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 28, 2005; Page A4

A series of three-year-old British documents seized upon by those who think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence before the war with Iraq has demonstrated unusual staying power. That is due in part to declining public support for the conflict – but it also has much to do with an Internet campaign by war critics prodding journalists to talk about them.

Documents detailing the run-up to the Iraq war have been splashed across London newspapers since they surfaced in the fall and hit a crescendo on May 1 with the publication of the so-called Downing Street memo.

After a slow start in the U.S., a half-dozen liberal activists are having some success in making the documents fodder for Capitol Hill rhetoric and White House news briefings.

Their campaign comes at a dicey point for President Bush, who has seen support for his Iraq policy erode amid the insurgent violence that has followed January elections in that country. A spate of recent bombings in Iraq has taken a heavy toll on Iraqi security forces and has produced fresh anxiety in the U.S. about how long American troops will have to remain in Iraq. Facing criticism from Democrats and some fellow Republicans, Mr. Bush will deliver a nationally televised speech from Fort Bragg, N.C., tonight in an attempt to regain the high ground in public opinion.

Read more.... http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111990950692870845,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature

Chuck in Houston for Fe with another try:

Or I could picture a couple one of those straight-as-an arrow section line roads in the American heartland. The driver sets cruise control to max, and the passenger says, "Honey, don't you think we are going a bit fast?"

The driver says "No, honey. You see, I can see for miles and I have a special understanding with the law. No one can bother us."

After a bit, not having moved the wheel a degree to the right or left, the driver decides to wedge it in place.

"Honey...?" says the skeptical passenger.

"Don't worry honey, we'll stay the course. This makes it easier for me to relax and we'll get there just as fast. See, know I can use my hands to pour you a nice cup of coffee. Isn't this great? See, I can nudge the wheel with my knee a litte to the right orleft when I have to."

"But honey, it's getting dark, you can't see as well now."

"We haven't seen a car or truck all day, and, and I may not have told you this before on acocunt of it's highly secret, but I've got this special radar that tells me no other vehicles are on this road"

The sun set. In this lonely country with a new moon, the darkness was profound. Beside the circle of the headlight glow, it was as if the cabin of the car was a comfy little world of its own hurtling through empty space.

"Honey, didn't that sign we just passed say 'Detour-Bridge Out Ahead?' Don't we have to turn here?"

"Oh, stop fussing, honey" chuckles the driver good-naturedly. Trust me, you may not know this, but I have a special map my friends gave me and it says that bridge was fixed this morning. Again, that's a big secret and I can get in a lot of trouble at work for telling you this, so don't let it out, but trust me. That sign, that's just some no good lousy government bureaucrat not doing his job and leaving these signs up to scare people when the truth of the matter is that bridge is just fine. Trust me. It's just there to scare the little folks. We're staying the course. I tell you, these lazy bureaucr..."

The conversation was tragically cut short. The sign was right. The bridge at the Rubicon Arroyo was OK in the morning, but due to a blueprint error had collapsed at sunset. The driver miraculously escaped unscathed. The local paper ascribed it to nothing short of a miracle. The passenger wasn't so fortunate.

Chuck in Houston.

PS: With respect to our Iraq policy, I don't claim to have an answer. I just wish our administration had taken the time to educate us just a little (plattitudes don't count); I wonder if we'll be educated at all after this speech. I am beginning to suspect, in my darker moments, that the reason we're not being enlightened by our folks in the Executive Branch is because they have no earthly idea at all how to get out without leaving a huge mess. I'm tending to believe this because they demonstrably had no earthly idea of what would happen when we got in and even willfully ignored all kinds of reasonablewarning signs, which is a fairly objective proposition almost overwhelmingly supported by all availible evidence.

:-p

Is there an emoticon for projectile vomiting?
_____________________

Senate passes energy bill, House talks loom

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a wide-ranging energy bill that doubles use of corn-blended ethanol, shores up electricity grid reliability and offers $16 billion in tax breaks and incentives to boost domestic production.

The 1,250-page bill, which passed 85-12, still must be reconciled with an $8 billion energy package passed by the House of Representatives in April before a final version is sent to President Bush.

Even as industry leaders and the White House offered kudos, knotty problems like the bill's pricetag and lawsuit protection for makers of a water-polluting fuel additive must be solved before Congress can deliver a bill for Bush to sign into law.

"I urge the House and Senate to resolve their differences quickly and get a good bill to my desk before the August recess," Bush said in a statement.
...&more

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-06-28T181605Z_01_N28388705_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-ENERGY-CONGRESS-DC.XML

What a relief-- there's nothing wrong w/ the Shrub's economic "policy"-- it's just that the price of oil is too high...

Im W-world, everything dovetails effortlessly
_________

Snow says oil prices hurting US economy - CNBC
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8918513

Ed Schultz is talking about his being a guest on a conservative talk show yesterday(didn't hear which one) and when they asked him his assesment of W's administration he said that W is the Worst President in American History.
Their comment: that's outrageous. Deep.

http://backbonecampaign.org/pagen.cfm?name=shirtlarge

Interesting T-shirt design.... not sure where Vachon, WA is, but I think they might be onto something....

Time for another election?

"A Field Poll released last week found Schwarzenegger's approval rating among registered voters plunging to 37 percent from 55 percent in February."
________

Californians think state on wrong track-Field Poll

The percentage of Californians who believe the state is headed in the wrong direction has climbed, propelled by those who disapprove of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance in office, according to a Field Poll released on Tuesday.

The Field Poll found that 59 percent of Californians believe the state is on the wrong track, compared with 51 percent in February and an average of 52 percent in 2004.

Only 28 percent believe the state is on the right track, compared with 40 percent in February and an average of 36 percent last year.

Democrats, women, nonpartisans, older residents, Latinos and households with incomes below $40,000 are most pessimistic about the state, according to the Field Poll's report.

It noted that among the 58 percent who disapprove of Schwarzenegger's performance in office, 78 percent believe the state is "seriously off on the wrong track."

By contrast, among the 31 percent who back the Republican governor, there is "considerable optimism" about the direction of California, with 64 percent saying it is on the right track.

The leading reason volunteered by pessimists for why they believe the state is headed in the wrong direction can be summarized as "the governor is taking the wrong positions, oppose his positions," followed by the state's lawmakers and elected officials are not doing a good job, and schools are performing poorly, according to the Field Poll report.

A Field Poll released last week found Schwarzenegger's approval rating among registered voters plunging to 37 percent from 55 percent in February.
...&more

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-06-28T130651Z_01_N27324823_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-POLITICS-CALIFORNIA-DC.XML

aimzzz Anold's numbers are as low as Gray Davis. Hopefully that will mean that Anold is toast but it will also mean that Ca is ungovernable.

If people were polled today and asked how they would vote if they could revote now, I wonder how many would revote Bush.

Chuck in Houston for Fe Again:

NOTE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION BASED ENTIRELY ON THE IMAGINATION OF THE AUTHOR. ALL THE EVENTS AND PERSONS DESCRIBED OR DEPICTED HEREIN ARE NOT BASED ON REAL LIFE EVENTS OR PERSONS AND ANY RESEMBLANCE TO SUCH IS PURELY COINCINCIDENTAL AND THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED OTHERWISE. OR HOWEVER THEY SAY THAT IN THE MOVIES.

The day after the accident at Rubicon Arroyo, the local paper reported another tragic footnote. It seems that one of the state highway workers that had erected the sign an hour or so before the tragic events unfolded had been down in the arroyo inspecting the damage to the bridge just before the accident occured. Due to budget cutbacks, the highway workers are no longer supplied with powerful flashlights that could be kept charged in state-issued vehicles, and the worker had been using his own to inspect the damage. To save batteries, he turned off the light while taking a coffee break just prior to the approach of the unsuspecting car, which killed him instantly on contact. Perhaps had the light been on the entire tragedy could have been avoided. The body was only found in the wreckage yesterday. In a further irony, it seems that the usual warning barriers had not been set up by the highway team because the depot that dispatched the team did not have any, again due to the current budget dispute at the state Capitol. The victim's co-workers had left the site to try to locate some subsititute reflective materials and the victim volunteered to stay behind to see if any such materials from the collapsed bridge might be used. After all of this came to light, the driver was asked to comment on the tragic death. The driver was visibly upset and moved upon hearing the news, and expressed heartfelt sympathy for the survivors of the deceased, adding "it's a crime how these government bureaucrats operate. Those fat-cat politicians as good as murdered that poor man. I don't understand why we pay taxes at all." Asked if the driver felt any personal responsibility for the tragedy, the driver seemed genuinely puzzled and asked, "I don't get it, what do you mean? I'm not a government bureacrat." The reporter clarified the question by saying the question had to do with the fact that it was the driver's car that killed the man, and in that sense did the driver feel any personal responsibility as adriver. At this point, puzzlement turned to a hint of exasperated anger as the driver responded "I just told you, I am not a government bureaucrat. Don't you understand plain English? And I'm sorry to have to speak plainly, but why are you torturing the poor man's family by harping on the fact that he neglected to carry spare batteries? We all make little mistakes like that. That was a very undertandble mistake on his part and you are dis-honoring his memory by harping on it. Think of the poor man's family." The interview ended when the driver left the room abruptly.

DISCLAIMER: SEE NOTE ABOVE WHICH APPLIES TO MY PRIOR POST TOO.

Chuck in Houston

TSP -

I bet even less than voted for him before. I'm concerned, though, about our voting system. We're all so busy dealing with the day to day garbage, that 2006 will be upon us before we know it, and the Thugs will steal another election with their fixed machines. And laugh all the way to Congress. It's starting to make me really nervous.

Chuck,

Surely, our leading man was a practiced neo-conservative politician, making a quick visit to his constituency...

;-)

At 10:30 am, Sen. Bill Frist elucidates his philosophy of jurisprudence and judicial nominations in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. This is the first time, we are told, that the Majority Leader has publicly given voice to his criteria for acceptable Supreme Court nominees. And the speech seems to be a primer on Dr. Frist's self-perception of his leadership acumen: what he's been able to do on judges, where he's failed, and what remains.

In his speech, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News, Frist calls for civility, and suggests that the so-called "constitutional option" of changing Senate rules to provide up or down votes on judicial nominees remains on the table, especially if Democrats hint at filibustering a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Frist stops short of threatening to unsheathe that option immediately, but he promises his audience that "should there be a vacancy" he will "continue to lead on principle" — which means that he'll work to give every nominee "the courtesy of an up or down vote."

Looks like Frist has every intention of overriding the Senate compromise on the filibuster and once again invoking the nuclear option.

E.J. Dionne writes today of Karl Rove's comments as being the 21st entury version of McCarthyism.

Carol,

It is a big concern, and I have read several posts from people who think voter reform is the top priority, because if it is fraudulent we don't stand much of a chance of righting most of the other wrongs.

In the meantime, what you say is true, they have given us many fires to put out.

Just deciding which one to try to put out is a bit tiring!!!

Ira,

We're just too damn nice. The Thugs lie and cheat all the time to get what they want. What could have possibly made the "gang of 14" actually think that Frist would adhere to the agreement in the compromise?

Our guys caved. I thought so then, and now Frist is just proving us right. We should have just let them go nuclear, and then put our agenda on the table - that would have shown them we have some guts.

Howard Dean may rub some folks the wrong way, but at least he's not so nice that he can't stand up to them. We jsut come away from every battle looking like we just got sand kicked in our faces. GRRRRRR!

http://backbonecampaign.org/pagen.cfm?name=shirtlarge

Interesting T-shirt design.... not sure where Vachon, WA is, but I think they might be onto something....

Posted by: Amy at June 28, 2005 03:35 PM

Amy,

Vashon is near Seattle and, if you saw our coverage of the Take Back America Conference, you will recall that the backbone guys were at the table next to us and were great fun. We have discussed ways in which we can be helpful to each other--so thanks for the link to them!

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/06/end_of_day_1_1.html

(Check out the good-looking guy in the head scarf...He's our Backbone Connection!)

TSP -

There was an excellent article in the last issue of the Washington Spectator (on line if you subscribe) on election fraud. It's too long to post, but here is the end:

-snip-

The central project of US Count Votes is to put together a database into which information can be fed about elections in every state, so that any discrepancies can be detected immediately after the election. The project has already begun, using volunteer computer programmers to carry out the work. A public archive system will be set up to catalogue all the original data. There is also the Open Voting Consortium, mentioned above, "a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections."

As has been noticed, the fewest problems with voting and vote tallying in 2004 occurred in precincts that still used the old-fashioned paper ballot, counted by hand. The guideline for safe and accountable voting and vote tabulation goes: vote in private; count votes in public.

One simple remedy for some states, especially states with large cities, would be simply to have smaller precincts. There is no reason why all inner-city precincts have to have overcrowded polling places, shifting and confusing changes of polls, or long lines at the polls owing to a lack of voting machines or a lack of election officials.

Starting well before the next election, any area with high population density and frequent vote problems should responsibly redraw their most crowded precincts: more people, more voting machines. A legal maximum for the ratio of population served per voting machine would help, and any responsive state government should be willing to help fund the requisite improvements. In a smaller precinct, cheating and manipulation would also be harder to get away with.

Network TV sportscaster Jim Lampley has commented online that "at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day 2004, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up."

Lampley had more to say: "People who have lived in the sports world, as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election."

The sportscaster Lampley goes on to conclude that the votes, that November day, could not have been fairly and legally counted. He also criticizes media silence and passivity: "Is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and re-establish democracy in America?" he muses. "Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime."

Let's stop putting out the little fires and focus all our energy on three things: election reform, immediate exit from Iraq, and rescuing our economy.
---------------------------
Many Americans don't know that there are lots of mercenaries wearing US military uniforms in Iraq. I have read accounts by Iraqis suggesting that these soldiers are not counted in our US casualty numbers and that they are often buried quickly without ceremony to avoid notice. Does anyone have any info about this? Thanks.

----------------------------

TSP, I had similar reservations about Pizzo's article. I do agree with him though that overall, people who have evangelical/fundamentalist religious beliefs are by-and-large black/white, good/evil, right/wrong people. That's been my experience over many years in churches, and in fact I have watched my mother go from a rational, tolerant person to a judgmental, narrow-minded evangelical, merely because she moved and changed pastors.

Chuck in Houston for Carol/Truth:

I agree on this voting thing -- in fact, if memory serves that's how the DCP began -- a place to come and discuss reforms and issues relating to voting procedure and media access to various viewpoints and the related issue of how to minimize the role big money plays in the political process.

That bit about stamping out all these fires resonates with me. In my jobs over the years, I have dealt with a lot of policy and procedure issues. One insight I gained has to with the relationship between allocating scarce resources in dealing with urgent issues -- e.g. putting out fires -- versus important issues -- e.g., figuring out why fires are popping up and dealing with it systematically. As 2006 approaches, the important issues the DCP was founded (I think) to address are becoming urgent.

When more and more important issues become urgent, that means a system is being overwhelmed, and management (e.g., the sovereign people in this case) can either chose to ignore a collecting disaster or can step back and re-evalute the whole situation. Thas is a crisis management situation and that is what we are in and it calls for out-of-the-box thinking applied to the overall strategy to hold the line on those urgent issues that are deadly, accepting that some urgent issues that are not deadly simply can't be adequately addressed now with the resources available, while focusing instead on the important issues that have become system-threatening urgent issues in a systematic way.

In that sense, kibbitzing on Iraq, for example, while good and useful and somewhat urgent, may have to take second place to how to progress a 2006 agenda in a systematic and principled way that may not yield immediate returns but will create momentum for addressing the import. Same goes for judicial appointments and a host of other urgent issues one might thnk of.

To re-phrase, when enough important issues like war and the separation of powers in the federal government become urgent (e.g., what to do in Iraq or the judicial filibuster thing), that is a real red flag. Rather than stamp out the fires, we the management have to figure out how to keep them from killing us while dealing with the root causes. As Battlebob used to say: OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act).

IMHO.

Chuck in Houston

War: Realities and Myths
By Chris Hedges

". . . the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy."

The vanquished know war. They see through the empty jingoism of those who use the abstract words of glory, honor, and patriotism to mask the cries of the wounded, the senseless killing, war profiteering, and chest-pounding grief. They know the lies the victors often do not acknowledge, the lies covered up in stately war memorials and mythic war narratives, filled with words of courage and comradeship. They know the lies that permeate the thick, self-important memoirs by amoral statesmen who make wars but do not know war.

The vanquished know the essence of war – death. They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals of hatred and destruction. They know how war fosters alienation, leads inevitably to nihilism, and is a turning away from the sanctity and preservation of life. All other narratives about war too easily fall prey to the allure and seductiveness of violence, as well as the attraction of the godlike power that comes with the license to kill with impunity.

But the words of the vanquished come later, sometimes long after the war, when grown men and women unpack the suffering they endured as children, what it was like to see their mother or father killed or taken away, or what it was like to lose their homes, their community, their security, and be discarded as human refuse. But by then few listen. The truth about war comes out, but usually too late. We are assured by the war-makers that these stories have no bearing on the glorious violent enterprise the nation is about to inaugurate. And, lapping up the myth of war and its sense of empowerment, we prefer not to look.

We see the war in Iraq only through the distorted lens of the occupiers. The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency, one I have myself felt, to protect those who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the unit and are, in effect, captives. They have no relationships with the occupied, essential to all balanced reporting of conflicts, but only with the Marines and soldiers who drive through desolate mud-walled towns and pump grenades and machine-gun bullets into houses, leaving scores of nameless dead and wounded in their wake. The reporters admire and laud these fighters for their physical courage. They feel protected as well by the jet fighters and heavy artillery and throaty rattle of machine guns. And the reporting, even among those who struggle to keep some distance, usually descends into a shameful cheerleading.

Read more... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/hedges2.html

So many confusing stories and strategies about the war,the reps won't know which way to turn after tonight!
I viewed the Donny Deutsch show last night with Ed Schultz ..hillarious! Deutsch is a moderate(so he says) but to see Schultz and Lionel tear Monica (Bush heavy) Crowley apart was priceless. Crowley kept repeating the Bush mantra and Schultz and Lionel woundn't give an inch. I think the REPS are learning we're not buying this garbage anymore and they're having a tough sell on all fronts. Interesting that Norquist called McCain a "nut case" this past week...LOL!
Seems like anyone that's planning an 08'run is on the tv constantly and esp the reps...running like hell away from shrub. The bad news is if JK wants to run again he's keeping too low a profile....just my observation which means..NOTHING!!
Let's just hope there's a huge protest at Fort Brag tonight,then that the media covers it!

From a vet over at takeittokarl.blogspot.com

Veteran: Lead Us Not into Temptation...
From the mailbag:

Deliver us from Chickenhawks: Rove, BushCo et al:

"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk." Joaquin Setanti

Among the atrocities they've given us - 100,000 + dead Iraqis and many more thousands of US causalities to come.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

The 'playbook' for warmongering existed before Hitler's Goering's Nuremberg admissions ( All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." )
as evidenced by Twain's Civil War laments:

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain

So, 'we the people' have no one but ourselves to blame ultimately:

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." Bertrand de Juvenal

It is 'gut check' time:

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Lead us not into temptation:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken

...but, deliver us from evil by organizing politically, shining a VERY bright light on these roaches, and, removing the warmongers majorities from Congress in the 2006 mid-terms before they 'strike' again, and again... Bring ALL BushCo war criminals up on charges, impeaching Bush first!

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/2005/06/veteran-lead-us-not-into-temptation.html

Chuck:

"One thing bothers me about Gen. Odom's Empire State Building analogy -- the implication is we need a Superman of Spiderman to change course, or a temporary suspension of the laws of physics by, I suppose, divine intervention (in other words, nothing short of a comic book hero or a miracle)."

Glad I got back to see your posts!

You know and I know that there is no Spiderman or Superman. The closest object we have to flying in the Odom analogy is a watermelon dropped from a great height.

(By the way, I do government contracts, policies and procedures, too. Are you a FERC(ie) or use another governing agency's guidelines? I'm strictly local--a little state work--mostly municipal.)

Oh Carol!

Why do I always think of Chuck Berry when I see your posts?

Anyway, have to close but I think this is very useful -- this discussion of where energies ought to be directed. I see Amy and Ira and you as well as Truth feeling a bit frustrated by this conundrum.

Do you have a website for this Vote Counts thing? I have LONG thought that it is high time that someone used the web to collate demographic and voting and voting practice (or technology) issues on a precinct-by-precinct level going as far back in time as possible and using top-flight statistical methodologies. Sort of a Human Genome project for the evolution of the American political system. THEN get behind a coherent program of election reform based on transparent principles and take the show on the road in the biggest way possible.

Going back to OODA and addressing the important as a priority -- you have to have something empirical to Observe before you can Orient and then Decide and Act. Otherwise, you can go straight to Act on the basis of unexamined, and possibly wildy erroneous, assumptions. The sooner you can observe before you get to a crisis management decision point, the better your chances of survival.

We are at a distinct disadvantage in that those invested purely in power today have already observed and oriented and decided and are now acting with impunity; and I mean impunity to the welfare of the American people. I honestly think that approach is intrinsically evil, and as the ends do not necessarily means I think we ought to fully explore the ethical alternative to that manipulative and essentially amoral approach, which sees personal victory as the only good and personal loss as the only bad while saying something entirely different in order to win. If we fight fire with fire, only arsonists and pyromaniacs will be happy! Or, before you wrestle with a pig, consider that the only sure outcome is that you both will get very muddy, which only makes the pig happier.

Chuck in Houston

Posted by: Chuck at June 28, 2005 04:43 PM

I was trying to find a part that I could snip and re-echo down here but I agree strongly with your whole darn post and ended up highlighting the whole thing.

So I tried again...

~snip~
...As 2006 approaches, the important issues the DCP was founded (I think) to address are becoming urgent.

... [We need] out-of-the-box thinking applied to the overall strategy to hold the line on those urgent issues that are deadly, accepting that some urgent issues that are not deadly simply can't be adequately addressed now with the resources available, while focusing instead on the important issues that have become system-threatening urgent issues in a systematic way.

...As Battlebob used to say: OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act).
~snip~

Hear, hear... you hit the nail on the head.

Hey Fe, fellow Contracts Person! This is Chuck in Houston:

No, I do contracts in the upstream (exploration and production, or E&P) oil patch on international start-ups. As such very few federal contracting issues come into play. Larger companies incorporate them into, especially pruchase order, standard terms and conditions (T&C's) because they cover upstream as well (e.g., transport of oil and gas, refining, and product sales like gas at the local service station), and as such often deal in govenment work (e.g., no doubt, selling fuel to the US Military or to a vehicle assigned to the Smithsonian). The T&C's I deal with are usually governed according to FCPA and other SEC considerations (including SOX and other Conflict of Interest, or COI issues), plus non-discriminatory pricing and other issues (Patman ACt or something like that). Specialized contracts, like marine vessel charters, incorporate all sort os SOLAS and Jones Act and other type things. Most also have HSE provisions driven by corporate policy, which in turn is driven by risk allocations, including political risk.

Chuck in Houston

Hey Dwazhon, this is Chuck in Houston and thanks for the kind words!

You know, we often call "putting out fires" "killing snakes," and in the process we get "up to our elbows in alligators." I have come to realize that crisis management is often a Catch-22 situation. You can either try to get outside the vicious cycle and deal with the crisis systematically and ethically (or according to transparent principles), or you can paper-over the festering rot, sell yourself off as a hero, and leave it for your replacements to deal with, by which time it may be so rotten that the enterprise cannot be saved. The Catch-22 then is if you take the first course, you are liable to get torn to pieces by the folks pursuing the second course on the basis of a narrow, parochial concept of personal interests. That is, there are no guarantees. Just the way of the world, I guess.

Chuck in Houston

Posted this in last thread by accident: it seems relevant to the discussion:

Need a job? Job application for Deep Throat II !
http://www.thinkbluedems.com/deepthroat.php?osCsid=b0ab59190210d43c48897007f874e58d

Be sure to check out all the options for "Current employment", "experience", and other.

Also, in preparation for the Speech tonight, be sure to read John Kerry's oped piece in today's NY Times. Madame Defarge has posted url in last thread. .

Ok, so July 23rd Congressmen will hold town hall meetings about the DSM across the country. SO...how can we support them? Sure we could go and sit and listen, but we already know about them. So how are we going to get the other people who don't know to go listen and ask questions? You know there will be neoCONS to harrass the people who go, so we must show our support and we must gather crowds to go and listen.

So what can we do to get the message out and to get the uninformed to become informed?

Supreme Court to tackle abortion protests

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will consider limits on anti-abortion protesters outside clinics in the fall.

The court said it will hear an appeal over a 20-year-old campaign against abortion providers. At issue: whether federal laws against racketeering and extortion can be used against those who, according to the official court filing, organize "sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct public's access" to medical clinics.

Abortion rights supporters say those laws were the only solution against what they call dangerous, often violent behavior aimed at those seeking or providing abortion. They filed suit in federal court more than a decade ago.

Operation Rescue argues that the case is about free speech and the right of assembly. Jay Sekulow, head of the American Center of Law and Justice, which is representing anti-abortion groups, accused opponents of prolonging a "meritless marathon" suit.

The Supreme Court has been at odds over the issue in recent years. In 1998 it concluded that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, traditionally used against gangsters and organized crime, also applied to anti-abortion groups.

Read more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/index.html

Greetings DCP!

There's a wealth of coverage over at LUTD on JK's speech on the Senate floor today, re: Bush's speech today - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org

Busy, busy, busy! Hope everyone is awesome!

Bush: Iraq 'vital' to U.S. security
President to address nation from Army post

Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Posted: 6:12 p.m. EDT (22:12 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will tell the American people Tuesday night the sacrifices being made in Iraq are "worth it" and "vital to the future security," of the United States, according to excerpts released by the White House.

Seeking to turn around sagging public support for the war in Iraq, Bush will mark the anniversary of the U.S. handover of sovereignty to Iraqis with a speech at 8 p.m. ET. He will address a military audience at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which is home to Airborne and special operations forces.

"We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve," Bush will say. "The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat -- and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins."

In the speech, Bush calls the work in Iraq "difficult and dangerous."

"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," Bush will say. "Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question, 'Is the sacrifice worth it?' It is worth it."

Bush will lay out his case for why the effort is vital to U.S. security, according to the excerpts. He will also say the insurgents in Iraq are failing.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom," Bush will say. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like [Osama] bin Laden."

"We are fighting against men with blind hatred, and armed with lethal weapons, who are capable of any atrocity," Bush will say. "They wear no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail."

news we already knew: Bu$h is obscene.
Yahoo news is getting bolder with its titles:

Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It'

AP - 45 minutes ago
FORT BRAGG, N.C. - President Bush on Tuesday appealed for the nation's patience for "difficult and dangerous" work ahead in Iraq, hoping a backdrop of U.S. troops and a reminder of Iraq's revived sovereignty would help him reclaim control of an issue that has eroded his popularity. In an evening address at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq, Bush was acknowledging the toll of the 27-month-old war. At the same time, he aimed to persuade skeptical Americans that his strategy for victory needed only time — not any changes — to be successful.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration

new thread...

The T&C's I deal with are usually governed according to FCPA and other SEC considerations (including SOX and other Conflict of Interest, or COI issues), plus non-discriminatory pricing and other issues (Patman ACt or something like that). Specialized contracts, like marine vessel charters, incorporate all sort os SOLAS and Jones Act and other type things. Most also have HSE provisions driven by corporate policy, which in turn is driven by risk allocations, including political risk.

Chuck in Houston

Posted by: Chuck at June 28, 2005 05:16 PM

Chuck in Houston:

You and I should talk and share resources off-line. Would love to expand areas of contracting expertise--hell, it pays the bills. Would also like to know, if you care to sharwe it, what you're billing at or if you're a company man.

If you're a forum member, PM me. I'm the only Fe around.

Amy, you asked about civilians contracted by the US government in Iraq.

There are several mass graves in Iraq, western men buried in US body bags. These are suspicious and news is clamped down by this White House. These are probably pentagon contracted civilians, but who buried them in US body bags is what raised suspicions.

Using mercenaries has usually proven a bad idea. They do not fall under rules of engagement and have been found responsible for disporportionate amounts of war crimes. I think when this is all over we will find that many of the stories of rapes, abductions, murders, art thefts, and missing hundreds of millions of dollars has been done by Mercenaries contracted by the Pentagon.

Chuck in Houston for Fe:

DiAnne has my email. Feel free to give me a shout. A quick glance at the Forum didn't yield an obivous way to send a PM to Fe. Just me being lazy plus I've got some work to do right now.

Chuck in Houston

TSP, I had similar reservations about Pizzo's article. I do agree with him though that overall, people who have evangelical/fundamentalist religious beliefs are by-and-large black/white, good/evil, right/wrong people. That's been my experience over many years in churches, and in fact I have watched my mother go from a rational, tolerant person to a judgmental, narrow-minded evangelical, merely because she moved and changed pastors.

Posted by: Amy at June 28, 2005 04:31 PM

Amy, I'm not denying those kind of people and that kind of mindset float around in the evangelical crowd, just as they float around in other areas of society. And I agree that their world is black/white, right/wrong, good/evil, to a great degree, but there are many who see shades of gray, too, if they think for themselves at all in a logical manner. It is very hard to judge reality in a black/white way when situations are subjective, and many times there are many angles to truth, depending on where a person stands in relationship to what is being examined. Many things necessarily are gray, and many Christians, because of a direct teaching of scripture, believe that as long as a person is at peace with their decision, it is not up to someone else to judge their perception of truth to be heresy.

I am speaking more to the obvious wrongs committed by this administration, that some, like Mr. Pizzo, are quick to say are committed because of the evangelical mindset. I am saying that I don't personally know any evangelicals who believe lying, cheating, stealing, murder, deceit, manipulation, greed and power are attributes they were taught as being a part of the Christian evangelical "born again" doctrine, or by associating with evangelicals. These are not values any evangelicals I know hold to be worthy or reflective of the religion or those who are sincere in their desire to be part of it.