The struggle against the War on Terror, or whatever name we wish to give the policy of pre-emptive wars endorsed by both candidates, is the most important struggle of our lifetimes. To succeed in it, we need now to establish a new antiwar movement on a broader popular basis than the one which chose to self-destruct in the Kerry campaign. To do this we must first step outside the mind-set which dismisses as mere bigotry the moral concerns of Americans who oppose gay marriage and abortion and other items on the liberal agenda such as gun control and affirmative action, but who are also deeply opposed to this criminal war.

The new movement must welcome into the fold people from the right and the left. It must use no liberal litmus test for membership. Opposition to the war must be the only criterion.

The bleak outcome of the electoral campaign shows the enduring effectiveness of liberalism as the key strategy of social control by the US ruling elite. In a nation where people from all walks of life and political philosophies opposed a war based on lies, the organized antiwar movement embraced a narrow liberal agenda which excluded millions of people opposed to the war. Because of the perceived weakness of this self-isolating self-definition, all but a few elements of the antiwar movement then allowed themselves to be corralled into the Democratic Party and to accept as their leader a pro-war candidate.

By its astonishing docility the liberal antiwar movement proclaimed loud and clear to the US corporate elite that it had nothing to fear, that liberals would be loyal and true even to a candidate calling for mass murder and victory in Iraq, as long as he kept reasonably ambivalent about gay marriage and abortion.

The post-election U.S. onslaught on Fallujah should come as no surprise to anyone. It wasn’t Bush’s 51-49% win that made more devastation in Iraq a certainty, but the fact that the antiwar movement allowed the Democratic Party to define the movement’s goals and methods and its relationship to the people. With both candidates promising victory in Iraq, what else could happen once the polls closed, whoever the victor may have been? It was not Bush but the War Party, comprising both Democrats and Republicans, that was unleashed by the electoral campaign.

The Democratic Party and John Kerry performed exactly the task they set out to do and for which they received hundreds of millions in corporate largesse: they wed the antiwar movement to the pro-war Democratic Party, and thereby deprived it of life and purpose–until the movement is organized on a new basis.

Since the days of FDR, the role of the Democratic Party has been to undermine the self-confidence and unity of the working class and lead it away from direct action, like the sit-down strikes that swept the nation and had governors and industrialists in the1930s in fear of impending revolution. In the 2004 campaign it performed its role to perfection. Bush as candidate was vulnerable as few incumbent presidents have been. He had lied his way into a war rejected by most of the American people. He had led an assault on civil liberties alarming to citizens of all stripes. He was the first president since Herbert Hoover to bring American workers a net loss of jobs over his term. He had demolished the greatest federal surplus in history to create the greatest deficit. He had created in No Child Left Behind a federal assault on public schools that engendered unprecedented opposition from parents, teachers, local school boards and state legislators.

But the Kerry campaign refused to mobilize the huge majority of Americans who have been severely harmed by these policies. On the contrary, the campaign demobilized people, sucking the life out of issues that people cared deeply about and leaving them with nothing but "Anybody But Bush" hysteria. Kerry went out of his way to support the war in Iraq and to protect Bush from serious attack. Kerry refused to expose the Patriot Act and its assault on the Constitution. He endorsed the "War on Terror" and said that he would pursue it more vigorously than Bush. Kerry declined to propose measures to reverse the ravages of NAFTA on American working people and the outsourcing of jobs. He failed to criticize the No Child Left Behind atrocity, instead calling for it to be fully funded.

Why did Kerry not lead the way in opposing the war and loss of civil liberties and loss of jobs and the attack on public education? Why did he not further energize a base that was already in motion, already crying out for action on these issues?

The answer is obvious: Kerry did not lead on these issues because he and his party in fact support all these attacks on ordinary Americans. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq (as did the Democratic leadership in Congress) and for the Patriot Act (as did most Democrats) and for NAFTA (engineered by Bill Clinton) and for No Child Left Behind (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy) because he believes in them and because they represent the interests of the wealthy class he serves. The primary goal of the Democratic Party and Senator Kerry in the campaign, more important even than gaining the presidency, was precisely what they achieved: to demobilize and demoralize working people and split them into hostile camps.

The real problem, of course, is not with people who found themselves voting or working for Kerry but with a political system which has made people feel powerless to take any action themselves beyond voting. Change has never been achieved in the US through voting. It has always taken mass popular action by millions of people in their workplaces, their schools, their communities, their streets to create change. This has always been true in the past–in the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement–and it is true now.

What next for the millions of Americans who remain deeply opposed to this war and to the whole set of anti-democratic policies in which it is enmeshed?

We need to step outside the Democratic Party to form enduring, popularly-controlled, democratic organizations with which we can challenge the direction of our society. The new antiwar movement must find its energy and its power in the ability of millions of people across the country to take concrete action themselves in the communities and workplaces against the War Machine. We need to build a mass movement of refusal to cooperate with Empire, and we need to figure out practical ways to do it. Never again should the antiwar movement line up behind a pro-war candidate because we prefer his Eastern liberal style. Never again should we let our goals be set by capitalist politicians. Never again should we abandon direct action to let politicians act for us.

We have a huge task before us. That task is not to elect another politician to office–even one who, unlike Kerry, might actually oppose Empire. Our task is much larger but doable. That task is to dismantle the Military-Industrial Complex and disarm the War Machine. If we are serious about this task and stay focused on the issue, we will find ourselves surrounded by many millions of new allies–new not because they weren’t there before, but new because we just couldn’t see them.

Dave Stratman edits NewDemocracyWorld.org and is author of We CAN Change The World: The Real Meaning Of Everyday Life. You can reach him at [email protected].

See the video Votergate online, or download to your computer to view offline.

Consider Contributing to:
USCountvotes.org
Nader Recount Fund

If You know of voting problems, contact VoteProtect.org. You can also track incidents at this site.

Contact your representatives:
Congress: Congressional email directory by webslingerZ or House.gov email site

Senate: Senate.gov

Full list of your federal representatives and their email addresses: Contacting Congress

Nice link page for committees and government agencies at PeaceDay.org

Or the heck with counting, let's boot them out. Ramsey Clark is urging people to contribute to VoteToImpeachBush

While everyone waits for the administration's first move a Rubicon has been crossed and there is no turning back. America will fight for oil wherever it feels the need.

Now the real Fourth World War begins. Sorry to disappoint all the scriptwriters and futurists who were thinking exclusively in terms of bombs, plagues, famine etc. The first weapons of mass destruction in this war will be economic and they will be devastating beyond imagination.

I feel good now, three days after the election. It was much easier for me to recover than most because FTW and its readers had less invested in the election than most. But I am not so glib or cavalier as to overlook the massive disillusionment that weighs like a wet blanket on all who had hoped that their prodigious efforts might oust the Neo-cons.

The biggest blessing today is that the disillusionment is so deep, so fundamental, that at last people who have bound themselves to ineffective political strategies may rethink their deeper core beliefs; their beliefs about what America was supposed to be versus what it has become. They will redraw their maps. Perhaps with that process - painful as it might be - will also come a willingness to abandon strategies which no longer work for entirely different ones that do. In order for that to happen, however, those on the left, as well as those conservative and libertarian voices who wanted to return a degree of sanity to the Republican party, will have to admit that America is not America anymore.

We are living in a foreign land; a nation that is behaving like our enemy; a nation which has weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

This nation is so deeply divided that the words "civil war" stand for a possibility that is longer remote. Next year, even the next few months, will reveal these deep and irreconcilable divisions. The electoral process is dead. Only the fear that there is nothing to replace it except revolution and bloodshed will prevent people from seeing that there are different ways to fight; ways that should have been adopted four years ago. The rest of the world knows that physical force is not effective in this struggle and the rest of the world has something to teach us. We will look anew perhaps at the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but it is in what's left of the First that we will find our strength. The freedom of association includes within it the right to decide where and how to spend our money.

Perhaps out of fear, perhaps out of prudence, I have been told that some activists and whistleblowers are planning on leaving the country in short order. A thought I have seen circulate in discussions since the election is that many well-known activists and whistleblowers think it wise to run before Dick Cheney and Karl Rove get their legs and start hunting us down, one by one. Reuters published a November 3rd story about many Democrats seeking to emigrate to Canada.

As a man who has written a book charging the President and especially the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Commander of NORAD, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the former Directors of Central Intelligence and the FBI with multiple counts of premeditated murder, it is my belief that it is foolish to wait and see what the administration does. Now is the time to attack, and to attack with all of the vigor our movement and our wounded, offended spirits can muster. It is our best means of self healing. If we cut and run now, we die.

No longer is that word hyperbolic.

I am going on the attack.

Let me be quite clear about this: This is spiritual warfare. There is no place to run. There is no safe place to hide. On her home page (www.solari.com) Catherine Austin Fitts posts a great quote from Gandhi.

"The only devils in the world are those running around in our own hearts - that is where the battle should be fought."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Only the protection offered by a universe that responds more powerfully to love than to fear can be an effective shield now. That protection has no limits in geography, nor do the dangers against which it guards. I criticize no one for making a decision to expatriate. Some may have physical or financial limitations and concerns. Some may be honoring an old Special Forces axiom that running today makes possible a fight more likely to succeed another day. This is a sifting out for the battles that are to come; battles which will be unlike anything ever seen in this country. There will also be a great many new brethren who will show up on battle lines that we must now redraw to suit ourselves. We must begin choosing the times and places of battle to suit our needs. No task is more important than this.

We have expended our money, our liberty, our hearts and our souls by spending money as powers that be, and media programming describing a fictitious America, told us we should; by volunteering in efforts that were laid out for us by others; by believing that we were doing the right thing playing in a rigged game. The biggest ball and chain for us now is the notion that we might resurrect an electoral process that officially died four years ago. Anything brought to life now would be a Frankenstein rather than a happy ending to an episode of ER; and at what additional cost in terms of time and energy?

What happened on Election Day was no surprise to me and it should have been no surprise to long-term FTW readers. Perhaps now some of the over-conditioned lefties out there will start to ask serious questions about what kind of bang they get for their buck - and their dedication. Billions of dollars and countless man/woman-hours that could have been expended on real-deal strategies that had a chance of making a change have been diverted and pulled away and wasted as badly as the energy of tens of millions of demonstrators who poured into the world's streets for months in an effort to prevent the US invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003.

When will the American opposition start to ask what kind of return on investment they are getting? When will they start demanding better performance? What a waste and what a cost in broken hearts for the young, those just beginning to try and change the world. If the young are to save themselves (and us) they must refuse to be herded into a political process that is, in itself, their prison.

Even though there is evidence that Ohio was stolen, John Kerry has given up; conceded; thrown in the towel. There won't be any lawsuits because he won't allow it. Bush won the popular vote. If the 2000 election passed into history "as-is" it is certain that the 2004 election is zip locked. Fuggedaboudit! The people now performing that task of documenting electoral fraud in Ohio and elsewhere have safely made themselves historians and targets of lesser priority for Cheney and Rove. They are no longer activists.

There will be no successful suits over this election. The courts are rigged and lawyers are sea anchors. As I predicted a week after 9/11, every lawsuit since filed has been derailed, morphed, sidetracked or sabotaged from within. Any lawsuit over the 2004 election (assuming Kerry permitted it) would wind up in the Supreme Court. Has everyone forgotten Bill Rehnquist's cancer or that the Neocons get to pick the next three justices?

HUMAN AND MONETARY THERMODYNAMICS

Human energy works like physical energy.

Just a while ago I received a call from a source indicating that John Kerry ended his campaign with $45 million unspent dollars in his war chest. That money had reportedly been laid aside to pay for a recount or post-election court challenges. There will be none. The caller suggested that Kerry might get to keep it personally. This will need some checking but it would not surprise me.

In many respects the dynamics of money - as activists now spend it - parallels the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It only changes form in an entropic direction; from being able to do useful political and social work to being useless. But there is a way to make it multiply. This is the FTW model where dollars spent with us recirculate within the activist community and create more energy.

As Jesus pointed out, the gift of two pennies from the poor woman was infinitely more valuable than the large gift from the wealthy man. The corporations which profited from all the opposition advertising, the political campaign chests which swelled and spent that money, will never reinvest that money to slow America's descent into tyranny. That energy - created from the sweat of the people - has been pretty-well neutralized. Sure George Soros lost money (I suppose), but what was the percentage cost to him as opposed to all of the "little" Americans who opened their thinly-stretched purses in pursuit of regime change? Soros suckered you into spending money that was far more important to you than his was to him.

What if John Kerry had won? He was going to add 100,000 troops to the army. He denied Peak Oil's existence and promised a chimerical "independence from Mid-East oil". He endorsed the notion that 19 hijackers operating from caves executed the attacks of September 11th. Then he said he would fight the war on terror better than George W. Bush. He said nothing about a corrupt economic system which has fed and sustained both him and George Bush all these years. He hasn't lost a penny.

A day after Kerry conceded defeat; The Boston Herald ran a story:

Bay State electric customers facing shock of high oil prices
By Jay Fitzgerald

Thursday, November 4, 2004

Massachusetts electric customers can expect more jolts in coming months as rising oil and natural gas prices drive up the cost of generating electricity.

Crude oil prices jumped by $1.26 yesterday after President Bush's election, settling at $50.88 a barrel.

Rising natural gas prices also pushed wholesale electricity in New England up. Natural gas is used to power plants that generate electricity.

The bottom line: Expect electric bills to head higher this winter with heating oil and other energy costs…

Another story talked about how oil and gas companies breathed a sigh of relief after the Bush win because they would face less regulation. Duh. But less regulation only means a more frenetic, thoughtless and careless mad scramble to suck up remaining hydrocarbon energy resources rather than an effort to mitigate our dependence on them by the only real choices available: a reduction in consumption and an intense, transparent effort to look for and liberate renewables and any technologies that may have been suppressed.

Will someone up there in elite land - Yo, you guys up there on Olympus! - please get it. We know what's going on. You are not fooling us.

EVERY VOTE MAY NOT BE COUNTED BUT EVERY DOLLAR ALWAYS IS

So if we don't keep trying to fix the electoral process what do we do? For four years we at FTW and elsewhere have also been consistently saying that the way to change what's wrong with America and the world was to get outside of the election box into which most activists and opposition forces have placed themselves as if under house arrest. The way to fight is not with votes but with money. Every vote may not be counted. But every dollar always is.

For activists wishfully clinging to an old and inaccurate map, there is good reason for despair. On the FTW map, and the map of great economic thinkers like Fitts - the accurate map - there are no grounds for discouragement here. Yes, things will surely now get worse before (if ever) they get better. Yes, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, absent the need to show restraint before a re-election campaign, may now take the gloves off. Quel surprise!

So now what?

VOTE WITH YOUR MONEY

Since 9/11 we have witnessed the evolution of a number of powerful, truly authentic journalism syndicates. FTW is but one of many that are credible, trustworthy and which have proven themselves providers of valuable and accurate information. I know many of these people and small companies personally and we have all pretty much behaved the same way. Every dollar that was spent with used was used to benefit those who gave it to us. That keeps us all in the game.

In November of 2001, when I lectured at Portland State University I pledged to the audience there - and in the permanent record of my video "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" - that I would take money spent on us and devote it to making FTW bigger, more effective and capable of getting more important stories to them; stories that would give them information that might save their lives. In 2001 I had two part-time writers, an office staff of one and me.

Today FTW has an office staff of four, three editors/writers, four regularly contributing writers and now almost 20,000 subscribers in more than 40 countries. I have kept my promise and you have seen the results. I am still living in a studio apartment and driving a 9 year-old Ford. I may soon get to have - out of necessity - a larger and better place to live and for the first time own a home of my own but you get the point. There are many others who have behaved this way because we share a common sense of urgency.

But there's something else your help makes possible for me and for all of us. We are all knocking down the doors of the major media.

ANOTHER PROMISE - I'M GOING TO WASHINGTON

Before describing this economic warfare and how we can fight it let me make you another promise.

As soon as we can reasonably arrange it, I am throwing all of our meager funds for a book tour into one large, well-publicized book signing in Washington, D.C. Rubicon's publisher just did not have the resources to fund a book tour. I am going to ask for all the back-up and support I can get, for as many of you to come to Washington as possible, because I am going there - to the city where Bush, Cheney and Rove rule; the city where I was born - to stand up and publicly accuse them and others of murder: multiple counts, and with premeditation.

The world will be watching and your dollars made that possible.

The only way I know how to lead is from the front. We will keep you apprised of developments via the FTW web site.

MONEY IN THE WORLD - MONEY IN AMERICA

There's a great first rule in economic warfare. It's exactly the same reason why flight attendants instruct people to put on their oxygen masks before assisting others when an airliner's cabin depressurizes. To save the world you must save yourself first. The way you start to fight with money is to get out of debt. If that means simplifying your life then that's good anyway, you'll use less energy. But to be debt free is to stop paying your money to the corporations and banks that are creating this naked aggression anyway.

These are the same corporations and banks that will come and pluck your economic corpse when the economy crashes next year as it surely must. If you are debt free then there will be less for them to pluck.

All around the globe we see newly forming economic and political alliances. In South America and elsewhere new regional common markets are evolving rapidly. The Euro is rising to new significance as a world currency and a way to pull the rug from under the Empire. From Russia, to Iran, to China to Venezuela, to Saudi Arabia the world is drifting inexorably to a decision to price oil in Euros. China has just raised interest rates. In 2005 Iran is planning on opening an oil bourse trading futures in Euros and is quietly building consensus support. This is, in my opinion, the major motive for pressuring Iran just as Saddam Hussein's decision to price oil in Euros was his chief crime.

I still believe that any military adventurism against Iran is not possible and that the US knows this.

On October 22 Pravda reported that the Russian Central Bank had stopped supporting the US dollar. As I write this essay the Euro is now trading at close to $1.30 US (a record high) and gold is holding steady at close to $430 an ounce. It was $280 an ounce just three years ago. Sure, oil prices have dropped a bit but that has no bearing on the reality of Peak Oil. I am still expecting oil to hit $100 a barrel in 2005. What happens to your job then? Your mortgage? The housing bubble is on the verge of collapse and Fannie Mae is under criminal investigation. There may be three times more paper mortgages floating around than there are physical properties. (www.solari.com; www.sandersresearch.com)

Think again of the significance of the fact that Vladimir Putin in Russia has just ratified the Kyoto protocols limiting greenhouse gas emissions. This takes on a whole new meaning when one remembers that for the last 50 years there has been an overwhelming correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emission. In other words, economic growth is not possible without burning more energy and this empire's Achilles heel is its insatiable living requirement of infinite growth even unto the death of the planet. This is the price of fractional reserve banking, debt-based growth, a fiat currency, and markets trapped in Price/Earnings ratios.

Russia's move is significant because under the Kyoto treaty - as reported by The Economist on October 7th - Russia's voice in resurrecting the 1997 accord carries special weight:

LIKE a swamp creature in a bad horror movie, the Kyoto treaty on climate change has risen from the dead. A certain Texan cowboy thought he had killed the Japanese monster. Alas, thanks to a last-minute betrayal by an inscrutable Russian spymaster, the green beast is back.

That is only a slight exaggeration of how some people view the revival of the Kyoto protocol. The controversial UN treaty, agreed in Japan in 1997, commits rich countries to cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012. But it was dealt a near-fatal blow when George Bush confirmed America's rejection in 2001. The EU, Japan, Canada and over 100 others remained in, but Russia wavered. If it did not ratify, the pact would fail.

Today, as I finished this essay, Putin has ratified the accord after overwhelming passage by the Russian legislature. The BBC writes:

Putin clears way for Kyoto treaty

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed the Kyoto protocol on climate change - clearing the way for the treaty to come into force next year.

This is Russia's final and crucial stamp of approval for Kyoto. The pact needed support from countries responsible for 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, which most scientists blame for global warming.

After the United States refused to ratify it, only Russia could enable this threshold to be passed.

The significance is clear. Limit greenhouse gas emissions and you limit economic growth. Limit economic growth and you undermine America's financial and economic vampire. The world is fighting back. We can too and in this way we can force a change.

HOW DO AMERICANS DO THIS?

There's a reason why I asked former Assistant Housing Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts to write the foreword for Crossing the Rubicon. She knows money and she knows how to change the system. I spoke with her yesterday and neither of us is contemplating a cut and run strategy. We are both committed to taking the fight to Washington and New York, no matter the cost.

"I can show these people how they and all of us can make more money by fixing money and what it does. But the first requirement is that people understand that they have to stop feeding the tapeworm that is creating all of this."

Perhaps now disillusioned Kerry supporters will take a second look at what FTW has been teaching for years.

* Get out of debt.

* Spend your money and time on things that give you energy and provide you with useful information.

* Stop spending a penny with major banks, news media and corporations that feed you lies and leave you exhausted.

* Learn how money works and use it like a weapon.

It is already becoming clear that as Peak Oil becomes a stark reality, survival will become a place-based, local phenomenon. Local economies, to the degree that they exist and are flourishing will provide strength to resist what is coming. Everyone who sees this essay should compare the return on investment they got with the election against something that offers more payoffs, an opportunity to become real, independent actors on the fields of their own lives.

Go to Fitts' web site http://www.solari.com and look at the section "Coming Clean". Not until each one of us looks at the ways that we feed the beast and accept responsibility for that do we have a chance for today and for tomorrow.

As I have said in Crossing the Rubicon and in almost every lecture for the last three years, "We will change nothing until we change the way that money works."

Perhaps now some people will be willing to listen to our voices crying in the wilderness.

Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

The party has nothing to lose. The business of state can go on, as usual, while electoral experts scrutinize all allegations of electoral fraud, and provide a vindication. A few hundred ballot inspectors, if appointed, aren’t going to generate public hostility for the Democrat party; instead, if the allegations are true, they’d really watch out the next time after this life-sucking double-whammy. The Democrats will score a real moral victory. Yet, Kerry conceded fast, as expected. He wasn’t the fighter the party presented. Bush certain was, however much, one dislikes him.

Kerry’s campaign had the familiar, pre-planned circus themes, and avoided all the real issues of the day, and if you read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of United States, this is nothing new. This tacitly agreed engagement of safe issues between both major parties– that only serves the ruling class – is a recurring feature of American politics. In the late 1890s, when there was strong dialectical backlash against the tyranny of money and class, many progressives, populists, and socialists hobnobbed with the Democrats and individuals of renown for what they saw was a chance to smash the electoral ransom by a few. They were betrayed time and time again. It’s the 21st century now, and “progressives” are repeating the same charade, thinking of short-term goals, which never really transpire, instead of just winning eventually by sticking to their guns.

Here is a really interesting question. How many votes that went to Ralph Nader during the 2000 elections went to George W. Bush this time? I’d be surprised if the Crawford Cowboy didn’t corral a chunk of them this time.

Upon observing the elections at close hand, India Today’s (Nov 15 edition) Aroon Purie felt like he “was back home” – yes, these things happen everywhere where there is a ballot box – and heard all the familiar raging debates “about voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, the inaccuracy of exit polls, money power and even electronic voting machines.”

He was confused over the “divided electorate” and a “plethora of opinion polls” and picked the winner two days before the results. He did it by observing Americans.

Many didn’t like Bush, but voted for him nevertheless. Why? Because they were goaded to make this decision by elements of the “so-called left” which later morphed to endorse Kerry on a big scale, dragging along individuals wary of the Democrat candidate.

An eventual win for Bush was plain to me, even a year ago, and what confused me equally was the opinion polls, which showed a strong support base for Kerry.

Almost every American I talked to in person had already decided on the vote. It was for Bush, a man they ironically despised but who had made his stance clear on certain issues. His tough talk on terrorism and insecurity could have been smashed by the Kerry brigade in no time. It would have been that easy, if the Democrats had not been beholden to their financiers. But Dubya got away with it, and the votes.

There were two other reasons for this debacle, something omitted out of political or editorial correctness:

Attack on Christian beliefs: It backfired badly. “Liberal” elements paradoxically lost the votes for Kerry the moment they endorsed him. Many evangelicals who didn’t vote for Bush the last time were galvanized this time, mainly over these five "non-negotiable" issues: abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, human cloning and euthanasia. Underlying these “non-negotiable” issues were fears of further attacks on their views and lifestyle. They didn’t like a cowardly system that upholds free speech for Oscar-nominations like the Last Temptation of Christ and oppose free speech in the form of school prayer. They don’t like selectiveness over Freedom of Speech.

They have seen this assault on Christian beliefs in places like the United Kingdom, and the minority appeasement that results from it. How can you explain the case of M'hammed Azzaoui, 38, a Muslim trainee traffic warden, who got wobbly, for religious reasons, after discovering the existence of a tiny cross on his St Edward's Crown insignia. Police badges contain that symbol of monarchical/state authority. Ian Blair, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police agreed that the crown used since the coronation of 1661 could be offensive to minorities (hardly a Sikh or Hindu in UK objects to this, and no-one objected to this when Indians, including Muslims from a Pakistan formed later, were fighting for the Brits, with good pay, during both the World Wars). There are countless more examples downplayed or omitted in the media.

Here is the Christian response to the “liberal” elements: “Sure, we have strong beliefs, but do we lop off the heads of homosexuals, women who abort, and physically intimidate those who oppose our views? Do we force women into marriages, hunt pornographers down, and threaten our own daughters with mortal danger for seeking their own boyfriends? Does the New Testament teach us to hate our enemies and take up the sword? Do you respect our culture and beliefs while shying away from another, for your own safety?”

To that you can add: Why is the Western World – once the laggard – are ever developing materially and philosophically to an extent that its appeal can be found in a liberal Islamic, non-Arab country like Malaysia? James C. Dobson may be feathered and tarred in the writings of US intellectuals, but his Focus on the Family messages are popular with Muslims there. They are aired every morning on national radio, and heard with much appreciation as workers commute to work in Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere.

You’d find arguments like these in more “right wing” articles. They are powerful, blunt and hit the mark. Ironically, some of the first post-election derogatory comments about women came from the traditional left, alluding to the usual “bimbo newscaster seduced the population” theme. For now those comments are OK, after Kerry willingly lost, but earlier it was a sign of male chauvinism, which came from the traditional, anti-feminist “right”.

Why bring in religion? Well, that’s why you got Bush.

Its important to know that society, as far as the ballot is concerned, is an aggregation of individuals and their votes. Some of their collective experiences have been publicised by neither Big Media nor the progressive-liberal front.

Here is a personal experience. I have attacked Christians at online debates for their political views. Some of them later invited me, a complete stranger, to their homes. I have assailed right-wing Jews for Israel’s policy on Palestine, after the usual Christianity-Judaism joust and we still called each other achi. That’s non-lethal democracy and freedom of speech. I have argued with the impassioned Vishwa Hindu Parishad sympathizers about freedom of religion and they kept agreeing with many of my points. They are appreciative of the fact that Christian missionaries don’t use brute force, not since the time of the Portuguese rule, centuries back in India. They support freedom of belief, as long it is “genuine”. Almost all of them have to lower their voices into whispers when they talk about an established, non-tolerant Islamic militancy, one that has resulted in thousands of deaths. Ask yourself why the whispers, by a majority, in a democracy? Read all you can about Kashmir.

Whenever I got into a taxi in Leeds, England, the ethnic Pakistani drivers frequently mistook me for a kindred soul, and sometimes I played along. It comes easy to me.

When I did, I heard all sorts of anger and resentment against the Britons.

Why? Here is a typical answer.

“They persecute Muslims. They eat pork, they drink. Their lifestyles are different from our culture.”

Different lifestyles cause hatred, I presume, even when it’s non-intrusive. I asked:

“Have you been attacked by these people? How long have you been in England?”

“No. I have never been attacked. Just six months.” That answer of six-odd months came from a restaurant help at a fish and chips shop near Leeds University. A year or two later, I would read about militant sympathizers being rounded up in that area.

I stayed in a Christian home in a calm South India recently, within a Muslim neighborhood. The kind of lifestyle change needed was pretty darn vexing. I had to don track pants over my shorts to cross over from my room, through the study, to the balcony for a smoke. The erogenous potential of my calves and knees didn’t make me feel like a male supermodel. I get angry when head-scarved strangers look at me menacingly, in my sweltering track pants, while I make coffee in the kitchen, at a distance deliberately attained as far as possible from a Muslim maid. Still, some puritanical, sex-crazed mind would call up incessantly to keep tabs…No, my ankles don’t come close to Brad Pitt’s, me thinks, and no male I know can describe Nicole Kidman’s either, offhand.

I don’t like my liberty being held ransom even after I have made the necessary cultural compromises. I explode if I see that that the same liberty, post compromise, is being held to daily ransom by brute force…

Has this short discourse on the religious freedom angle, post-election, gone too far? It hasn’t; you have an ethnic Arab general named John Abizaid leading US forces in Iraq.

Many like Abizaid, though not specifically referring to him, arrive in America (and now, increasingly Australia), after knocking on its doors for years, into a system that rewards chop-chop Wahabbi fundamentalism more than their interests. The wealthier evangelicals do nuts about this, hardly pressure congress, and that’s where they should be attacked.

These immigrants tell you, despite their education and relative wealth, of the daily reprogramming and self-suppression they have to undergo to avoid a murderous riot, and a unique one at that, as it can explode without warning. They arrive in America and tell church members of how even in an online chat, they had to repackage the Lebanese Civil War as one between Palestinians and Israelis, and that the Lebanese religious groups were not involved…

They’d rather live in the United States and cherish their little freedoms, and they cherish it more than do Americans themselves.

The same article by Aroon Purie starts with this quote from a US election expert:

“India runs its democracy better than us.”

Partly true.

This is what politically savvy Indian professionals in the US tell me:

“Here, you can say any damn thing you want, man”…and call Bush a @#$% in the same breath.

There are more Hindus in India rejoicing over Bush’s victory. The papers state reasons of strong defense ties under Bush, and his approval for outsourcing etc. A young, mobile, educated lot is not held hostage to “outsourcing.” Talk to them and you’ll find an endorsement of what Bush is doing in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. They are angry. Many of them would have had a relative or friend in the Gulf states, who faced discrimination and humiliation in the hands of “oppressed Arabs.” At home they turn angry at India’s official appeasement of their own “oppressed lot”. This is civilization that welcomed Judaism and Christianity, with the promise of safety and wealth, long before they reached the shores of Western Europe, with its promise of centuries-old tumult.

Failure of the liberal-progressive left: They are riddled with infighting, repeating a trend seen throughout all of the United States’ dialectic history (read H. Zinn again). They make too many compromises and practice equal control and censorship as do the Big Media they complain about. Freedom of speech means you have to find another outlet, perhaps your own, as you can’t air your views freely within their suffocating, confined spectrums. In the process, this group ticks off almost every potential sympathizer. They Love to attack the church, evangelicals, and to an extent fanatical Jewry, never the Mosque that tries to impose its values on, even the majority, if permitted.

The US liberal (or progressive) front has the historic habit of picking the wrong allies for short-term convenience, resulting in cyclical failure. Like before, they can enlist luminaries who in turn can subvert or drown out their screams for justice (again, read H. Zinn). The demands of those times, specifically the turn of the last century, were however desperate. There were “284,000 children aged 10 to 15”, who were laboring and dying in “mines, mills and factories.”

Mother Jones described one such situation: “Every day, little children came into the Union Headquarters, some with hands off, some with the thumb missing, some with the fingers off at the knuckle.” (Zinn, p 346)

The Ludlow Massacre of April 1914 resulted in the “charred, twisted bodies of eleven children and two women,” perpetrated by National Guardsman on the payroll of the Rockefeller Family who owned the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation profitably, and the lives of its mainly-white immigrant workers, in slave-like conditions. (Zinn, pp 354-355) Oh, Bush was a proud Guardsman.

Activists then, even among the educationally deprived poor, saw this as a class struggle, pitting capital and labor, one not confined to the United States alone.

Their modern variants, however, include among them a lot trying to carve a class for themselves, ostensibly under the guise of class struggle. They find it fashionable to reconcile environmental activism and tribal rights. Oh, “the traditions of tribal people must be maintained” is a common theme even if it means high infant mortality and lack of a literacy they have superbly mastered themselves.

They rant against elitism, move in elitist circles, arrive in comfort to stir up an impoverished population, and return to a hometown where they are poised to inherit a posh school that thrives on bribery, donation and discounts for donations, meant only for kids of the super-rich. The paradox here is that their parents boast about this to their super-rich American neighbors, who realize the game. They complain about Big Media while their articles are published by major national dailies; the best money can buy for its purportedly steamy details. (I am recounting a true story here, corroborated over and over, the last one by an insurance manager who had to use a legal technicality to extricate both his daughter and his “donation” out of the school).

As Noam Chomsky once said: “People are not stupid. They “feel powerless” and realize the threat of amassed wealth. ( Power and Powerlessness By Mark Harris, Conscious Choice, April 2001)

You can argue about Chomsky, dispute his views and their contexts, but his words never fail to find a niche somewhere.

How can 59,732,000 people be so dumb? The Daily Mirror (Nov 4 edition) should have headlined it “How can millions of Americans be so pissed?”

No, its NOT OK if tribal children are left to lead primitive lives and die from lack of medication, and by association, wealth and literacy. No, its NOT OK when such people are applauded when they assail Dubya while retaining their dubious activist credentials. No, its NOT OK to make deals with “anti-war activists” who inadvertently or not, are now our present day’s biggest accessories to bloodshed, all from a system of censorship and compromise, from the progressive-liberal front.

It has backfired, and the White House is secured for another four years.

Mathew Maavak
Bombay, Nov 10 2004
Copyright@ Mathew Maavak 2004

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

Whose Votes Are Discarded?

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provbisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, is now available on DVD. View a clip at http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm

To receive Greg’s investigative reports click here: http://www.gregpalast.com/contact.cfm

The Centre of Globalization Research has a bunch of great links, but here are a few of them:

US Together.org which has an email list option to send updates.

The Tampering of Electronic Voting Systems on November 2nd is an article by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org. Bev Harris has been a prime investigator and information source on this from the beginning. By the way, BlackBoxVoting.org needs your contribution. They have launched the largest Freedom of Information Act request ever to get at the real events of voting on 11/02/04. If you can contribute a little, I think this is a good investment in democracy - ours.

Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam by Michael Keefer discusses the discrepancies between exit polls and the recorded votes.

The following is from Variation in voting by party registration .

If you have other good sources are articles please share them. I'll put them together into a file with a link for easy reference under the "Quick Find Resources."

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .

John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one
ballot has yet been counted. He's also losing big time in Colorado and Ohio; and he's way down in Florida, though the votes won't be totaled until Tuesday night.

Through a combination of sophisticated vote rustling‹ethnic cleansing of voter rolls, absentee ballots gone AWOL, machines that "spoil" votes John Kerry begins with a nationwide deficit that could easily exceed one million votes.

The Urge To Purge

Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson just weeks ago removed several
thousand voters from the state's voter rolls. She tagged felons as barred from voting. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that, unlike like Florida and a handful of other Deep South states, Colorado does not bar ex-cons from voting. Only those actually serving their sentence lose their rights.

There's no known, verified case of a Colorado convict voting illegally from the big house. Because previous purges have wiped away the rights of innocents, federal law now bars purges within 90 days of a presidential election to allow a voter to challenge their loss of civil rights.

To exempt her action from the federal rule, Secretary Davidson declared an "emergency." However, the only "emergency" in Colorado seems to be President
Bush's running dead, even with John Kerry in the polls.

Why the sudden urge to purge? Davidson's chief of voting law enforcement is Drew Durham, who previously worked for the attorney general of Texas. This is what the former spokeswoman for the Lone Star state's attorney general says of Mr. Durham: He is, "unfit for public office... a man with a history of racism and ideological zealotry." Sounds just right for a purge that affects, in the majority, non-white voters.

From my own and government investigations of such purge lists, it is unlikely that this one contains many, if any, illegal voters.

But it does contain Democrats. The Dems may not like to shout about this, but studies indicate that 90-some percent of people who have served time for felonies will, after prison, vote Democratic. One suspects Colorado's Republican secretary of state knows that.

Ethnic Cleansing Of The Voter Rolls

We can't leave the topic of ethnically cleansing the voter rolls without a stop in Ohio, where a Republican secretary of state appears to be running to replace Katherine Harris.

In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), some citizens have been caught Registering While Black. A statistical analysis of would-be voters in Southern states by the watchdog group Democracy South indicates that black voters are three times as likely as white voters to have their registration requests "returned" (i.e., subject to rejection).

And to give a boost to this whitening of the voter rolls, for the first time since the days of Jim Crow, the Republicans are planning mass challenges of voters on Election Day. The GOP's announced plan to block 35,000 voters in Ohio ran up against the wrath of federal judges; so, in Florida, what appear to be similar plans had been kept under wraps until the discovery of documents called "caging" lists. The voters on the ³caging² lists, disclosed last week by BBC Television London, are, almost exclusively, residents of African-American neighborhoods.

Such racial profiling as part of a plan to block voters is, under the Voting Rights Act, illegal. Nevertheless, neither the Act nor federal judges have persuaded the party of Lincoln to join the Democratic Party in pledging not to distribute blacklists to block voters on Tuesday.

Absentee Ballots Go AWOL

It's 10pm: Do you know where your absentee ballot is? Voters wary about computer balloting are going postal: in some states, mail-in ballot requests are up 500 percent. The probability that all those votes‹up to 15 million‹will be counted is zip.

Those who mail in ballots are very trusting souls. Here's how your trust is used. In the August 31 primaries in Florida, Palm Beach Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore (a.k.a. Madame Butterfly Ballot) counted 37,839 absentee votes. But days before, her office told me only 29,000 ballots had been received. When this loaves-and-fishes miracle was disclosed, she was forced to recount, cutting the tally to 31,138.

Had she worked it the other way, disappearing a few thousand votes instead of adding additional ones, there would be almost no way to figure out the fix (or was it a mistake?). Mail-in voter registration forms are protected by federal law. Local government must acknowledge receiving your registration and must let you know if there's a problem (say, with signature or address) that invalidates your registration. But your mail-in vote is an unprotected crapshoot. How do you know if your ballot was received? Was it tossed behind a file cabinet‹or tossed out because you did not include your middle initial? In many counties, you won't know.

And not every official is happy to have your vote. It is well-reported that Broward County, Fla., failed to send out nearly 60,000 absentee ballots. What has not been nationally reported is that Broward's elections supervisor is a Jeb Bush appointee who took the post only after the governor took the unprecedented step of removing the prior elected supervisor who happened be a Democrat.

A Million Votes In The Electoral Trash Can

"If the vote is stolen here, it will be stolen in Rio Arriba County," a New Mexico politician told me. That's a reasoned surmise: in 2000, one in 10 votes simply weren't counted‹chucked out, erased, discarded. In the voting biz, the technical term for these vanishing votes is "spoilage." Citizens cast ballots, but the machines don't notice. In one Rio Arriba precinct in the last go-'round, not one single vote was cast for president‹or, at least, none showed up on the machines.

Not everyone's vote spoils equally. Rio Arriba is 73 percent Hispanic. I asked nationally recognized vote statistician Dr. Philip Klinkner of Hamilton College to run a "regression" analysis of the Hispanic ballot spoilage in the Enchanted State. He calculated that a brown voter is 500 percent more likely to have their vote spoiled than a white voter. And It's worse for Native Americans. Vote spoilage is epidemic near Indian reservations.

Votes don't spoil because they're left out of the fridge. It comes down to the machines. Just as poor people get the crap schools and crap hospitals, they get the crap voting machines.

It's bad for Hispanics; but for African Americans, it's a ballot-box holocaust. An embarrassing little fact of American democracy is that, typically, two million votes are spoiled in national elections, registering no vote or invalidated. Based on studies by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Harvard Law School Civil Rights project, about 54 percent of those ballots are cast by African Americans. One million black votes vanished‹phffft!

There's a lot of politicians in both parties that like it that way; suppression of the minority is the way they get elected. Whoever is to blame, on Tuesday, the Kerry-Edwards ticket will take the hit. In Rio Arriba, Democrats have an eight-to-one registration edge over Republicans. Among African American voters...well, you can do the arithmetic yourself.

The total number of votes siphoned out of America's voting booths is so large, you won't find the issue reported in our self-glorifying news media. The one million missing black, brown and red votes spoiled, plus the hundreds of thousands flushed from voter registries, is our nation's dark secret: an apartheid democracy in which wealthy white votes almost always count, but minorities are often purged or challenged or simply not recorded. In effect, Kerry is down by a million votes before one lever is pulled, card punched or touch-screen touched.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php

"Anything" that makes people afraid. "Anything" that raises the issue of terrorism. How about Cheney running around claiming their will be a nuclear attack on the US?

"ANYTHING"?

How far would some go to insure the Presidency remains in neo-con hands?

Text of Bin Laden Tape From Reuters 10/29/04:

UBAI, Oct 30 - Following are excerpts from a speech by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden addressing the American people in a video tape, parts of which were aired by Al Jazeera television on Saturday, as translated by Reuters.

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

"It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander yours.
"I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

"In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

"As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

"He (Bush) adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism.....

"We had agreed with the (the Sept. 11) overall commander Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God...

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.

See tape as boost for Prez (DeFrank, NY Daily News 10/30/04 - thanks to Chepooka for the heads up on this)

With his typical flair for drama, Osama Bin Laden inserted himself directly into the presidential election yesterday, and both parties believed it would boost President Bush's reelection hopes.

Bin Laden popping up like a malignant jack-in-the-box four days before the balloting may bolster John Kerry's argument that Bush should have finished wiping out Al Qaeda before turning his attention to Iraq.

But it also refocused the nation on terrorism, which polls show helps Bush. And it reminds voters of their horror on Sept. 11 and Bush's well-received response, as well as obliterating the recent flood of bad news for Bush.

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Kerry has accused Bush of "letting Bin Laden escape" when he was cornered at Tora Bora by "outsourcing" the job to unreliable Afghan warlords instead of using U.S. troops. And he has mocked Bush for never mentioning the Al Qaeda leader after pledging to get Bin Laden "dead or alive."

But the new tape - which is so nakedly political that it should end with the words "I'm Osama Bin Laden and I approved this message" - makes it difficult for Kerry to keep hammering Bush on the subject without appearing to be capitalizing on terror. Kerry eliminated those lines from his speeches yesterday evening.

"If Kerry had been making this a bigger issue, as he should have been, it would definitely translate to his benefit," said a Democratic strategist with ties to the Kerry camp.

Kerry's staff looked somber.

"It's very important for us to move forward. We're going ahead and doing our events as we would," said spokesman Mike McCurry.

I understand that the existence of a radio device has not been proved, but it takes a much greater stretch of the imagination than a radio device to explain the strange shape photographed on the President's back, and science always favors simple, clear explanations. Some of his legions of loyal followers in trailer parks across the nation likely favor the idea of a device grafted to his back by aliens - this is a possibility I suppose - but reason casts some doubt.

How easy it would have been for Bush to dispel the radio-device idea. He just needed to call a brief press meeting with the hump in place, removing his jacket to reveal how a wrinkled shirt could create the distinctive three-dimensional shape. It would have been a very effective demonstration, but I think we all know why he didn't try it.

I hesitate to suggest a drug-pumping device similar to that worn by dying cancer patients, but the damning revelation by Kitty Kelly that Bush was still doing cocaine during his father's term as President leaves one wondering. Genuinely-recovered addicts are not that common, and here was a man, a weak man, addicted to two drugs, alcohol and cocaine. I know the Good Lord can work miracles, but most experience suggests He lets humans clear up their own messes.

Perhaps Bush is on some kind of experimental methadone-like treatment. Yes, I know Kitty Kelly is not a serious biographer, but she is a tough investigative reporter against whom legal challenges generally fail. The public recanting by Bush's sister-in-law, the source of the story, means nothing because Kelly went over her notes with an editor after the original interview. She called the sister-in-law in the editor's presence and reviewed the points of her story, having them all confirmed as accurate.

The disappearance of a huge stock of high explosives in Iraq following the invasion - enough apparently to fill about forty semi-trailers - was to say the least a rather unfavorable revelation. Please note there can be no doubt that Bush was aware of this cache which had been under close guard of UN officials, yet he took no measures to secure its safety during the invasion, any more than he did for Iraq's priceless cultural artifacts looted from museums at the time. Note also that analysis of the explosions that have been killing American troops surely reveals the stolen stock has been used, it being a distinctive and unusual explosive. Note, finally, that we did not learn of this dangerous event from Bush, but from that horrid organization, the UN.

Then we had the matter of a study in the Lancet from scientists at America's own Johns Hopkins University concluding that civilian deaths due to the invasion of Iraq were at least 100,000, half women and children. Lancet is Britain's best-known medical journal, and it does not publish rumors. It is peer-reviewed and highly regarded.

Of course, we have had no counts from the Pentagon of civilian deaths. An American woman's non-government organization made an effort to count deaths and came up with more than 10,000, the number most widely cited. Not long ago, an Iraqi group, people in a much better position to communicate and be accepted throughout Iraq, came up with the number 37,000, a number generally ignored in the American press. Now, we have a statistical study showing, at minimum, 100,000 civilian deaths.

So much for claims of pin-point bombing accuracy, although we should have all been conditioned to the utter falseness of such claims after the first Gulf War. I wish American journalists would in future insist that any Pentagon official making such claims publicly demonstrate them by having planes bomb dummy homes near one he or she is in on some military proving ground. We know this will never happen.

The fact remains that aerial bombardment is a crude weapon that always kills many more civilians than soldiers. The Pentagon favors it because pilots do not see the details of the terrible things they do and because many more ground troops would themselves be killed if it weren't for death from the skies. Clearly the Hitler idea of a terror weapon remains in the thinking of those who talk of "shock and awe." It has many home-town supporters, too, who enjoy full-color explosions and flames over dinner without the details of broken, mangled human beings. Oh, it's like being there, where real history is happening, only in complete safety from the couch.

Now, suddenly, just days before the election, we have Osama's Jesus-like face again appearing on every front page in the world. Who benefits from Osama's re-appearance? At first, you might say Kerry because the face is such a vivid reminder of Bush's utter failure. He didn't get the guy responsible for 9/11 (and from this tape we receive, for the first time, genuine evidence of Osama's involvement), but Bush sure managed to kill a lot of innocent people.

Almost certainly, the re-appearance serves Bush's interests, who for some unknown reason manages to hold a strong rating in polls narrowed to the specific issue of security. I know it's a mind-numbing puzzle, but the man who shirked duty in Vietnam, the man who went AWOL from the National Guard, the man who spent years frying his brain with alcohol and cocaine, the man who continued reading about goats after being informed of the strike against the WTC, the man who has created armies of America-haters with his insane war in Iraq is regarded as strong on security by Americans.

The only rational explanation for this phenomenon is that Americans sense Bush's psychopathic qualities and are re-assured by them at a time of absurdly-exaggerated fear. After all, I had Americans writing me seriously, after 9/11, that Afghanistan should be reduced to a chunk of radioactive glass. American fundamentalists' much-beloved Old Testament and Book of Revelations, not to mention the entire history of Christianity, overflow with such bloodshed and ravings. Were a poll taken in America about the idea of "just killing them all," I think the results might be painfully revealing.

Osama and the boys chose a critical moment to endorse Bush because they know four more years of his violent, incompetent arrogance does more damage to western interests than any attack they could hope to mount.

From most of the news reports on this bill, you would think that it is the only corporate give away in the last three years. It's not. And if Bush is elected (or selected) it probably won't be the last.

Before looking back, let's look at the bill Bush just signed. In typical Orwellian fashion, the "sweeping rewrite" of corporate tax law is called "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" (HR4520). The introduction reads: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology."

While purportedly, this little treasure (or king's ransom) benefits business large and small, some benefit more than others. According to CNN Money, the bill allows for tax credit for small oil and gas extractors, and a rapid depreciation schedule for large corps with pipelines (Conoco, BP and Exxon) in Alaska. Earlier this month Congress approved legislation that will provide up to $18 billion in federal loan guarantees to those same companies (80% of the expected cost). As noted in the article: "This should make it easier and cheaper for private energy companies to get financing for the pipeline, because if the companies cannot repay the loans the government will do so." And I imagine the government (we tax payers) will do so.

According to an AP report (Bush Signs $136B Corporate Tax Cut Bill), the bill replaces a $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks. While energy companies get a pretty penny, tobacco farmers get $10 billion (somebody has to pay for all those people stopping smoking), and military contractors General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman get a piece of the action, as do some "Houston companies that have reincorporated in foreign tax havens."

As I mentioned above, this "jobs" bill is not the first corporate handout on Bush's watch. I recommend an interesting report by Citizens for Tax Justice titled Bush Policies Drive Surge in Corporate Tax Freeloading - 82 Big U.S. Corporations Paid No Tax in One or More Bush Years. The report looked at 275 of the Fortune 500 companies and found that in the last three years 82 of them had paid no income taxes in at least one of the three years of the Bush reign. Not only that, 46 of those actually got breaks that put them in the negative tax bracket and the government gave them money. The effective tax rate for the 275 companies dropped from 21.4% in 2001 to 17.2% in 2002 and 2003 (the corporate rate is purportedly 35%). According to the report, GE topped the list with $9.5 billion in tax breaks from 2001-2003. In 2002 and 2003 these same 275 companies were able to shelter more than half of their profits which gave them a three year tax break of $175.2 billion.

Please keep in mind that our current National Debt is in excess of $7.4 TRILLION, and Bush's most recent budget adds a minimum of $513 billion in deficit spending.

No matter who gets the Presidency, we have big problems ahead. Unfortunately Bush will not make that deficit disappear when he leaves office. Floyd Norris over at the NY Times asks Is It Time to Stem Asia Deficits With a Weak Dollar?. Oh what a dilemma since Japan and China hold the lion's share of our debt.

Such a ''weak dollar'' policy would raise the cost of imported goods, and thus hurt consumers. But the alternative is to see more and more American economic stimulus drain overseas as the trade deficit grows ever greater, making the eventual resolution that much more painful.

The problem is that a "weak" dollar means that US workers earn less and pay more. It also means that the interest on our debt to Asia (and elsewhere) would be "less." Unfortunately, a weak dollar also weakens the US credit credibility and makes international lenders (much less the IMF) very nervous about the United States' ability to repay its debt. There are not good economic times ahead. Few are talking about this issue (and certainly not Kerry and Bush), but David Broder over at the Washington Post politely states that fiscal ruin is on the horizon.

It's not true that people in Washington can't agree about anything. Across the policy spectrum, there's a clear recognition that the present path of budget-making is unsustainable -- in fact, ruinous.

The Concord Coalition, whose leadership includes prominent Republicans, says that with realistic assumptions but no change in policy, the federal debt will swell by a staggering $5 trillion in the next 10 years. The liberal Economic Policy Institute says that a "budget train wreck" lies ahead. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that it looks as if "substantial reductions in the projected growth of spending or a sizable increase in taxes -- or both -- will probably be necessary" to avoid fiscal disaster.

What lies ahead is not a picture of a growing economy with lots of living wage jobs and tax cuts for all. No siree Bob - the reverse I'd say, but the corporations will obviously do well (at least for a while).

Sources and Resources
10/22/04 AP, Bush Signs $136B Corporate Tax Cut Bill

10/22/04 Reuters, Bush tax bill helps energy firms

10/22/04 CNN Money, Bush tax bill helps energy firms

The Bush Tax

McIntyre, 9/22/04, Bush Policies Drive Surge in Corporate Tax Freeloading - 82 Big U.S. Corporations Paid No Tax in One or More Bush Years

After spending a couple of years successfully peddling columns attacking Bush for repeating the bloody stupidity of Vietnam, Pat has come to the conclusion that Bush isn't so bad after all. He says that while Bush is wrong on the war, he is right on just about everything else.

I suppose Pat's list of things that are right with Bush includes Jehovah's receiving a seat on the National Security Council, some of the Patriot Act's finer points on human rights, sending individuals secretly to places like Syria or Egypt to be tortured, insulting and alienating friends and allies, squandering a hundred billion dollars without managing so much as a patch-up of Iraq's smashed infrastructure, and laughing off world environmental threats far more deadly than anything dreamed of by terrorists.

Pat perfectly represents America's noisy, pointless "culture of complaint," something which mimics the effects of a bad gene pool, endowing America with ridiculous trash like Crossfire or Rush Limbaugh or whole networks like CNN or, indeed, the grotesque practices of its national elections.

Recall Emerson's advice, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Certainly, no one can accuse Pat of consistency, foolish or otherwise. When war served his career, his rise to White House speechwriter, war was a very good thing. He defended it, or should I say he defended others being sent to it, fists flailing and lips flapping. Later, as failed presidential candidate for the re-born Know Nothing Party, being against another war provided some limited scope for still being listened to by some of the party he had opportunistically turned against.

Pat, not being an evangelical in religion, is very much one in politics. Much like Bush, but with far more showmanship, he always displays an evangelist's sputteringly obnoxious and insistent tone of certainty about what he is selling: if you don't listen to me, you're doomed to a horrible fate. The evangelical tone is common in America's politics and contributes to the massive sound and fury of its political campaigns. The same dead certainty and implicit threat are, after all, the underlying message of so much of the television advertising in which Americans are immersed day and night: use our product or risk the torments of social hell.

Pat is typical of so much of America in his efforts to claw his way to the top, embracing a bizarre distortion of William James's philosophy of pragmatism. Whatever works for our own momentary self-interest, we do, a practice which makes the moral relativism falsely-ascribed to liberals look deep by comparison. Likely, the near-absence of genuine morals now common in the commercial and political life of America is partly responsible for the resurgence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism offers certainty where there is none and the sense of always being able to start fresh. The Puritan brand also is long associated with notions of those chosen and those not chosen, a satisfying private reflection for those who are less successful in clawing for the top.

How many Americans reflect on the stupid, needless death and destruction inflicted on Iraqis (families hiding in smashed apartments without clean water, electricity, or jobs) while driving their air-conditioned SUVs, listening to the stereo, on the way to a sale at the Crate and Barrel? Were they concerned with such things, the bloody, destructive invasion could not have happened, but, then, neither could there have been ten years of organized murder in Vietnam.

Returning to Pat's pick for president, my first thoughts on the Bush "bulge" controversy (see the wonderfully informative site, http://homepage.mac.com/c.shaw/BushBulges/PhotoAlbum15.html ) went to Shakespeare's hump-backed embodiment of evil, Richard III, but Shakespeare's character is fascinating, and of course the historical Richard, so far as we know, was a genuinely heroic figure. Bush is simply a dull man with a shrill voice. The next comparison that came to mind was a marionette, only an updated version with radio controls and servomotors instead of strings and hinges.

Whatever the best analogy, the fact that the American president wears a radio device of some kind during important meetings and national debates has been sufficiently established for people of a critical turn of mind. The revelation seems almost an over-the-top parody of what we already knew of Bush's capacities, an absurd editorial cartoon about an inadequate man walking through responsibilities he doesn't understand, leaving in his wake terrible damage to decent government and peace. Where do the voices in his ear piece come from? Lynne Cheney? The Boston Strangler? Franklin Graham? Jesus? The Wizard of Oz? All of the above?

America, you elected this plodding creature, and it appears you are about to do so again. Never mind the narrow focus on stolen votes in Florida, nasty stuff that it is. Stolen votes are an enduring part of the great chaotic noise you call national elections. Stolen votes in Texas got Lyndon Johnson's political career going, and stolen votes in Texas and Illinois put Kennedy into office. We usually do not hear much about stolen votes in America because the two parties are satisfied with the calculation that the damage inflicted is roughly equal.

Are stolen votes more contemptible than the absolutely corrupt practices of powerful politicians like Tom DeLay? Are stolen votes more contemptible than an election campaign in which the genuine issues of the day, matters of life and death, do not receive a sensible airing? Since those same great issues are ignored by most Americans between national elections, just when are they considered? The truth is that there is no national debate in America on almost anything of genuine importance. The most narrow self-interest continues relentlessly under all the superficial noise and cheap tricks that pass for politics, and, so long as that remains the case, America will continue to kill and maim and overthrow whenever it serves the needs of clawing for more and the heat of evangelical fervor.

Only empty slogans are heard, a billion dollars worth of slogans on television, a billion dollars obtained from the people who actually do run the country.

link fo full transcript of the 10/13 Debate

Brief excerpt...

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.

I went to Washington to solve problems. And I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system, year after year, grade after grade, without learning the basics.

And so we said: Let's raise the standards. We're spending more money, but let's raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now, before it's too late.

No, education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure we've got a workforce that's productive and competitive.

Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what I would say to that person.

I have a follow-up question Mr. President. What are the jobs of the 21st Century that we are training for? I thought that things like technical support, engineering, accounting, medical transcriptionist, and computer analyst were the jobs of the 21st Century. That's what those blue collar workers who lost their jobs to NAFTA were training for (or held). Now those jobs are being "off-shored" in record numbers. What are the new jobs of the 21st Century Mr. President?

And another follow up question Mr. President. What is the "trade adjustment money, and how do I access it? My understanding was that Trade Adjustment Assistance offered the shortest training possible (extending up to 104 weeks) to get a worker displaced by trade agreements back in the workplace. Which 2 year (maximum) program do you recommend President Bush? What should a tax accountant with a 4-year degree take 2 years of training in? Or do you have any 2 year training suggestions for doctors who specialized in radiology?

Oh, Sorry. One more thing - what about the people who aren't displaced by globalization - they are just trying to enter the workplace at all?

In my family our historic love for the Yankees was like our religion, except we put more time into the Yankees. My father and my mother’s father, separated in our families by deep cultural divisions (both were Jews, but one was a Russian Jew, both were men, only one was educated, both loved my mother, one not enough for the other) were only able to communicate on one level—the championship level, occupied when the fan becomes the team in victory.

In 2000, Jackson and I were so engaged in the hope of victory for the New York Yankees. He asked, though he had school in the morning, to stay up and watch the Yankees play. He did. They won game one of the series against the I don’t remember now team. But on the night of the second game, Jackson could not stay awake. The Yankees lost game two and Jackson was convinced that it was his fault. Determined to do his part, Jackson stayed awake to watch the Yankees play to victory in game three. Then again in game four. But, as it happens to exhausted little boys, sleep claimed him for game five. I watched, though, and rooted and swore (as I had taught him to do when he roots for his team and as I taught his sister, Vanessa and his brother, James to do as well) and the Yankees won game five and in the year 2000, the last year it mattered to us in the same way, the Yankees were the World Series Champions. I ran up to Jackson’s room and woke him by lifting his head gently in my hands and saying, “Jackie, we won. The Yankees are the World Champions.”

As a family we all were filled with joy: My daughter, Vanessa, considered the victory an early birthday present. She was twenty-eight, newly married, gleeful! Her birthday is October 31st. She came home to Syracuse to celebrate and gave Jackson a framed, black and white picture of the stadium. Over her computer she had a framed, black and white photo of the stadium and another one, same size, same shape, of the World Trade Center. She gave me a Gore/Lieberman yarmulke and we laughed over the relationship between the gifts. We talked about Gore and the done deal of the election. Vanessa and I were certain Gore will would win. Certain. The conviction of the Yankee fan certain. This country would never elect a George W. Bush.

In November of 2000, Jackson was determined to stay up. I watched in absolute delight, waiting for the moment Gore was granted Florida. And it happened. We all shrieked with joy. I went up to check on Jackson. He was asleep. I woke him, cupping his head in my hands. I hadn’t realized until that moment how much I knew the import of this election, how much responsibility I would have to take if Gore hadn’t won. I had done nothing to see that Bush was defeated except to go the polls. But it was done. “Jackie, we got Florida. It’s over. Gore is going to be the next president.”

The next morning I was gone before my husband put Jackson on the school bus. I wasn’t looking forward to the conversation we had to have when he got off the bus in the afternoon. But I waited for him in the falling afternoon sun. When he got off the bus, I put my arm around him. “Jack, there is some bad news…”

“I know, I heard,” he said.

“It may not be over,” I said, hoping still and part lying (because I knew the Bushes, what they were capable of). “Gore may still have a chance.”

I waited for his response. To see, in part, how he processed all that his father and I had told him about the democratic process, to see how much of the ideas of the campaign and of the parties he had internalized. He looked up at me and asked a chilling question: “Are the Yankees still the World Champions?”

I was so disturbed by that response that that night I shared with my husband my fears about America: “we will be at war,” I told him. His reassuring words: “He’s just a Republican. He won’t just go to war.” But I knew different. Call it instinct. Or insight. Only don’t call it intuition because it’s not magic. I knew George W. Bush would find a way to play with every one of his daddy’s toys. And what could be a more compelling toy that United States military?

I am an expert in reading habits of mind. I always thought that this made me a good parent, a compelling teacher, a kind (most of the time in my actions) person.

Now, it has made me an activist.

George W. Bush used my daughter’s name to have his war, a war he was determined to create even as I thought I had the luxury of encouraging my kids to root for their team, to celebrate their birthdays as if they would have many more. He has made the United States into the pinstripes, used our best tendencies (the love for our homeland) and our worst habits of mind (racism and polarization of good and evil as if those concepts are immediately recognizable in a complex world) to kill and maim innocent civilians in Iraq along with our own soldiers. He has blocked attempts by the families of 9/11 to get to the bottom of what happened over and over again by refusing to back the commission to investigate 9/11, by refusing to testify under oath once that commission was established, by refusing to (as did the French, the Spanish, the Germans, etc.) aid the families in their lawsuit to bankrupt terrorism as it sits in the lap of luxury in Saudi Arabia.

He has supported the rich, waged a rhetorical war of hate in this country against gay persons, and has proven himself ready, willing and able to enact racist practice here and throughout the world, racist practice with the most dire of consequences.

During the Democratic National Convention, the Yankees played at Fenway Park, hosted by the Boston Red Sox. On the night before Kerry was to speak, he appeared at the Red Sox game. The Yankees were losing. Jackson and I were watching the game. Jackson is now eleven. His brother, James is now seventeen. Jackson fears that next year James will leave him to go off to college. Jackson won’t be calling Vanessa this year after the season to root, to howl or for any other reason. Because Vanessa’s last Yankee victory was in the year 2000. I wonder, though I am frightened to raise this directly, if Jackson knows that college for James is not the frightening thought that I turn over each and every minute of my waking life. Jackson watched John Kerry cheering for the Red Sox and he got up and left the room. “Where are you going?” I asked him.

“I can’t stand to see it.”

“What?”

“I can’t watch him root for the Red Sox.”

“Jackson,” I told him, “then you stay and root for the Yankees. But you shouldn’t pray for them to win. Because if the Yankees win, they play tomorrow. If they lose, they play again tomorrow. Save your prayers for important things. Save your prayers for John Forbes Kerry.”

Habits of mind in all cultures are largely unconscious. That’s how language works. But democracy cannot function as long as our primary modes for making key choices are left to the habitual, to the slippery methods of taking sides perpetuated by the unconscious. I am afraid that those who know I am right are more afraid that Bush will lose (because there goes the team) than they are afraid for their own lives if he wins. Rooting and voting are different things. Never has it been so important for America to be engaged in conscious choice.

I am so certain of this: We must not think that this election is about taste, or feelings of nationalism or about our personal pride. We must not think this election is about whether or not we get to play again tomorrow. It is not about pinstripes or the flag.

This election is about whether or not we will survive and which human tendencies we will take, in full knowledge, into the future.

You cannot look to the prominent members of either major American political party for an honest assessment of how their candidate performed. Despite being regularly trotted out on America's political-discussion programs, these people leave the impression of old Soviet apparatchiks offering spontaneous views on Stalin's latest speech.

If you looked to the mainline press or the small group of people who hold lifetime sinecures on television, you would have concluded the morning after that the debate was a tie, an opinion generated by the same tireless machinery that churns out most of what Americans hear about Iraq. Only the so-called instant polls told you something else, and there was a clue from John McCain, a man desperate to cleanse his conscience of groveling for Bush, who briefly admitted that Kerry had his best night in a long stretch.

If you had read the words of former Vice President Al Gore just before the debate, you might have expected Bush to be a formidable opponent, consistently underestimated. But to credit Gore's judgment required you to ignore the fact that he is the man whose inept campaign in 2000 put Bush into office. Gore does not want to be remembered as the smart man, groomed for decades in politics at the highest level, who let one of the most sniveling and uninformed politicians in American history take the country's highest office, but that is precisely Gore's legacy.

With most of the usual sources of authority discounted, you were left to your own judgment, something with which Americans are not all that comfortable. American television's hazy, synthetic vision of the world, where everything from the best choice of toilet-bowl cleaner to what should be your view of the latest colonial slaughter is appealingly served up to be consumed as directed, makes independent judgment unfamiliar territory.

Still, once in a while, there's no shaking the effect of a stark fact. Any fool could see that Bush is a man who cannot think on his feet, that his responses are those of a toy doll whose same scratchy set of recordings play each time you squeeze him. Winning a debate with a man of his quality would not be an achievement anywhere, except in America. Gore should have landed a string of knock-out punches during the 2000 debates, but he utterly failed to do so. My private guess as to why he didn't is that he thought the audience might judge him harshly for assisting an incompetent to appear incompetent. It reflects the same political sensibility that had the razor-sharp mind of Mrs. Clinton focused on baking cookies. Kerry's wife, an outspoken woman of foreign birth, has only just been asked to make herself a little scarce. She doesn't go down well with the bowling-bag-and-Barbara-Bush set.

Before the debate, Kerry pretty much had followed Gore's script for campaign as light farce. On a few occasions, Kerry indulged an inexplicable taste for the Keystone Cops, making floundering, bizarrely-twisted statements about the war in Iraq. You almost expected to see his eyes crossed while his jaw worked at the words. His audience, not surprisingly, failed to see a Keystone Cop as someone to rescue them from a moron, and the polls marked Kerry down as someone the Political Angel of Death was not going to bypass in November. As for turning instead to a thoughtful, honest man like Ralph Nader, that simply is not on in an America that only buys brands with billion-dollar advertising budgets.

So, Kerry had little to lose in the debate. Still, he offered nothing heroic, nothing startling, only just managing a few pointed comments most of the world takes as common sense, but in politically-asthmatic America even that little wheeze is significant. Judging by Bush's reaction, which (broadcast on split-screen despite a previous understanding not to do so) resembled the movements of one of those old monkey-on-a-stick toys, even these few comments were deeply irritating. It may be that the broadcast of Bush's reactions was more telling than anything Kerry managed to say. Get ready for years of howling cries about a stab in the back from those who await the coming of a new Dr. Goebbels to save them from the sick fantasy of a liberal American press.

The ridiculous circumstance in America that tends to make an incompetent like Bush seem above scrutiny and criticism starts with the very nature of a Constitution making the President both head of state and head of government. Thus, when you criticize a President for doing something stupid, you are seen to be criticizing the symbol of the country itself, and not merely another politician, which is of course what Presidents are, first and foremost. In the case of war - even a totally illegal, bungled, and pointless war like the one in Iraq - you may be regarded as giving aid and comfort to some undefined enemy or as not supporting the "boyz in hawm's way," perhaps the most unforgivable transgression an American politician can commit.

Less-instant polls at this writing indicate the public-opinion impact of Bush's broadcast reactions may be substantial. If so, it is remarkable that it took Americans four years to see what a pathetic lump their President is, but it is equally remarkable that Kerry, who has said little of anything beyond the obvious, will benefit.

Polls apparently show the large group of undecided voters already having second thoughts about Kerry. You can't elect a man Emperor who distorts the truth about things like that. Much better if he actually did them.

I only wish undecided voters had the same doubts about the other pathetic candidate, but that is expecting too much. Bush has demonstrated he could overcome a background of avoiding Vietnam for no reason other than to carry on his happy games as frat boy, stock fraud, and drug addict, eventually to rise to the Imperial Purple and lie his way into killing tens of thousands of people. If I'm not mistaken, those are precisely the qualities expected of a contemporary American Emperor.

If all the men sent to Vietnam behaved the way Kerry is said to have behaved, how would the mission have succeeded? How would you have managed the awesome task of killing about three million people? How would you have managed to leave their country looking, in the words of a contemporary witness, like craters on the moon? How would you have managed to saturate their soil and aquifers with toxic chemicals?

How would you ever have played that magnificent exit scene, as the last helicopters left the roof of the fortress embassy, with Vietnamese servants and supporters literally having their hands ripped from the landing skids, abandoned to those they had been told for ten years were their deadly enemies? Or the scene with a load of kidnapped Vietnamese babies killed in the crash of an American cargo plane, an event one editorial cartoonist depicted as a huge plane dropping babies instead of bombs?

Perhaps Americans should dismiss as frivolous charges that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were earned by such mundane events as bumping his head on the boat's dashboard and focus on the big issues like whether he deserved a Silver Star for shooting someone in the back. He does seem the kind of man who bumps his head a lot on dashboards, whether going out to shoot people in the Mekong Delta or to wake-board off Cape Cod. Still, I know from old veterans of World War II, including one awarded a Purple Heart, that the medals sometimes were dished out with the K-rations. I guess that's why some states actually have special license plates with "Purple Heart Winner" emblazoned on them. There's that many of them around laying claim to their fifteen minutes of fame.

When Kerry isn't photographed earnestly saluting or jabbing his finger in a bad parody of John Kennedy during the Cold War, he's photographed being thoughtful next to some symbol of war. Clearly, Americans just can't get enough of this kind of thing. A picture appeared in some newspapers recently of Kerry contemplating some state or local Vietnam memorial, one with a Vietnam-era helicopter atop a pillar. This particular memorial had no bronze casts of Vietnamese hands being yanked off the helicopter's skids, nor did it have a statue of desperate Vietnamese prisoners being hurled from its door. There's just a desolate-looking helicopter over some plaques commemorating some of the people who might have died helping do those things.

There should be at least one memorial somewhere in the country with a statue of that cargo plane dropping babies. It might provide Americans a bit more to think about. Considering the Iraqi babies mangled by cluster bombs, Americans clearly haven't thought enough about Vietnam, at least not about the lessons that matter. That certainly includes Kerry, who voted to support the low-key suburban psychopath who now prances around in Imperial Purple.

Overview from the Kerry web site:

(All quote)
Overview

Restore America's Respect in the World and Make us Independent of Mideast Oil
Today, we face four great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq; Fourth, end our dependence on Mideast oil. To meet these challenges, Kerry and Edwards will:

Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats.
Kerry-Edwards will ensure that our forces are fully prepared for the dangerous and vital missions they may face, and that America's military always remains second to none. We must extend our capabilities to better face new threats of terrorism, failed states and homeland defense.

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal.
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. Kerry - Edwards will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil.
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. Kerry-Edwards will create a new energy and conservation trust fund to accelerate the development of innovative technologies, such as more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, and creating clean, secure, hydrogen-based energy. Kerry-Edwards will also expand the supply of natural gas, assure 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and make clean coal part of our energy solution.

Create New Jobs, Strengthen the Middle Class, and Ensure Educational Opportunity

Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America.
The Kerry-Edwards plan will end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to reduce the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, cutting taxes for 99 percent of corporations. The Kerry-Edwards plan also includes a New Jobs Tax Credit for new hiring in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

Strengthen the Middle Class.
As incomes decline and costs rise, families are having a hard time paying their bills, let alone saving for tomorrow. Health care costs are up by nearly 50 percent, college tuition has increased by 35 percent, and gas prices have skyrocketed. A Kerry-Edwards administration will provide relief to middle class families by cutting taxes and investing in health care and education.

Invest in the Jobs of the Future.
To keep America competitive for the future, a Kerry-Edwards administration will invest in research and technology and provide tax credits to unleash innovation in broadband, energy and small business. They will also provide a tax credit on up to $4,000 for each of four years of college tuition. And they will work for responsible immigration laws that honor America's promise and strengthen America's economy and security.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington.
Kerry and Edwards have a record of fiscal discipline that is absent in this administration, and they have promised to live within the budget principles that helped lead this nation to balance the budget. Their plan will cut the deficit in half in four years, increasing economic confidence and keep interest rates from rising.

Provide High-Quality Health Care, Improve Education, and Strengthen Families

Up to $1,000 of Health Care Premium Relief
The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide relief for employers who offer their employees quality health coverage by helping out with certain high cost health cases - saving families up to $1,000 per year.

A Health Plan for Every Child
The Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid. In exchange, states will expand eligibility for children's health coverage and low-income adults and enroll every child automatically.

Manage Skyrocketing Health Care Costs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will improve health outcomes while reducing health care costs by cutting administrative costs, waste, fraud, and abuse; enhancing disease management efforts; and reforming malpractice insurance.

World Class Education
The Kerry-Edwards plan will support more resources and more reform in our schools. The plan will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act so students have smaller classes and more textbooks. The plan will make reform work for our schools, supporting innovations in public schools like smaller schools, all-girls schools focused on math and science, and charter schools. And the plan will invest in afterschool programs so that 3.5 million children have a safe, quality place to go after school.

Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher
The Kerry-Edwards plan will raise teacher pay, especially in the schools and subjects where great teachers are in the shortest supply, and will improve teachers' professional development and training opportunities. At the same time, the plan will create rigorous new tests for new teachers; provide higher pay for teachers who have extra skills and excel in helping children learn; and ensure fast, fair procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform well on the job, while preserving protections from arbitrary dismissal.

Every Young Person Graduates
Today 3 in 10 young people do not finish high school, and half of Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans don't graduate. Kerry-Edwards will keep better track of graduation rates to hold schools accountable for raising them; will offer more tutoring and mentoring to at-risk youth; will make big high schools smaller when they are not working for their students; and will strengthen the high school curriculum so all students can graduate with a meaningful diploma.

To Track who is financing various candidates OpenSecrets.com

Special Interests
Election 2004 | Drug Industry Spending for Congressional Races Outpaces That of Liberal Groups Kaiser Network

The Bush Record: Top Ten Shameless Special Interest Paybacks

Miscellaneous
Presidential Battleground States
Real Clear Politics Battleground State Poll Placement

Council for a Livable World - articles and info
All Races

The Army's internal study of the war in Iraq criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel -- not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images -- who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

After the colonel -- who was not named in the report -- selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

Of course, Cheney used the false event in his speech at the D-Day Museum (White House press release) on July 1.

I guess this is just another example of "if you say something often enough most will think it is true." Unfortunately, most news references to the "famous" toppling do not mention the whole thing was a fabrication, which helps enforce the lie.

Papers with articles on the sham
LA Times

Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling, The NewStandards

Radio Netherlands 7/01/04

Editor & Publisher

Those attending a down-home get-together recently were greeted with hay bales designed by a team of Neiman-Marcus window dressers; a custom-made silk flag, gigantic enough to use for hang-gliding, flapped over the mansion in breezes generated by rented Hollywood wind machines; a band subtly suggested the Marines Corps Band playing "Hail to the Chief"; and, as if in homage to Ronald Reagan, a rented soldier home from occupation-duty in Iraq led the crowd through a heart-rending Pledge of Allegiance. They may well have served jelly beans along with the tapioca pudding, but reports don't tell us.

The new class of visitors to the estate was not allowed to enjoy the hot dogs without receiving a dose of inspiration from the campaign trail, almost the way poor men at a Salvation Army shelter get scripture between bites of doughnut. Kerry enjoined guests to leave the hallowed grounds "with the spirit in an uplifting sense that we're going to change this country." Yes, those were his very words, much as we might have received from that other source of constant inspiration, the President himself, down in Crawford, Texas, over some smoldering cows and cold root beer.

Guests apparently left with puzzled faces over what they were being asked, but they merely joined the swelling ranks of puzzled Americans who have attended Kerry's rallies and speeches.

Kerry likes to say, "This is the most important election of our lifetime," and his guests heard it again over dollops of tapioca in Dixie Cups. It's his best line when he doesn't muff it, although he never explains why the claim should be true. Its threadbare, re-tread quality begins to suggest Richard Nixon's "It's time for a change!" a line that got him elected in 1968 so he could vastly expand the pointless killing and destruction in Vietnam.

Everyone understands, though, that Kerry's slogan is about "anyone but Bush," exactly the kind of substitute for thinking that gave the world Bush in the first place. Anybody-but-Bush is about the only positive adjective you can apply to the candidacy of John Kerry.

If you want to read some indigestible stuff, finish whatever it is you're eating and then go to John Kerry's Town Hall Meeting Internet site. Other than a few slabs of party boilerplate, there is nothing there, absolutely nothing, to inspire Americans and others in the world about the future. On many of the site's "on the issues" topics, when you go to subtopics, you find nothing of substance. The headlines themselves are the most encouraging words, and they do not even fairly describe what is contained under them. In several cases, there are statements that are positively depressing.

Here is Kerry's summary statement on Iraq:

Winning the Peace in Iraq…A Strategy for Success

To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.

This is Kerry-speak for saying that NATO allies should pay part of the human and material cost for America's mess in Iraq. Why? In case, Kerry hadn't noticed, Bush has been trying to accomplish this very thing for some time, applying a good deal of nasty pressure to allies, but Iraq, as Bush was pointedly told recently by Europeans, has nothing whatever to do with NATO's mandate.

I suspect the phrase "true leadership," apart from being a totally unwarranted advertising claim about the Senator's dreary career, means Kerry sees himself playing good cop in the old good cop-bad cop routine used by police to break down suspects, but friends and allies aren't usually regarded as suspects.

Consider the words, "winning the peace." At first glance, they suggest heroic purpose like that of World War Two, providing a gloss of worthiness to the utter human and material waste of Iraq. The words were undoubtedly selected also to suggest for some Americans, the Planet-of-the-Apes crowd, slogans like "winning in Vietnam." The word "peace" was selected with entirely another group of Americans in mind, mostly wishful thinkers and harmless dreamers.

If putting together the words "winning" and "peace" suggests to you George Orwell's "war is peace," you are not alone, particularly when you consider that Iraq already had peace and was a genuine threat to no one before the United States smashed it.

Tucked under the topic on Iraq at Kerry's site is an item "Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights." Here's an advertising pitch for tossing a tiny packet of sugar at each military voter, recalling, at one and the same time, scenes in World War Two films where GIs toss sticks of gum to hungry refugees and microphone reminders to shoppers for today's special at Wal-Mart - all with a suitably sentimental nod to all the Jimmy Stewarts serving at spots like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo's human dog cages. Well, a packet of sugar is better than nothing, because God knows Kerry's view of foreign policy promises a future with plenty of the same duty.

We could analyze the rest of the stuff on Kerry's site - all of it trying to make it appear he has something new to say and all of it about as helpful and clear as the fine print on a prescription-drug brochure - but it just isn't worth the effort. I'll only note further that Kerry had a featured item there about China, accusing Bush of letting Americans down about China. Please, Senator, say that we are not being promised another years-long chorus of American hectoring and carping about a proud but poor people working hard to earn their place in sun. Good God, what hypocrisy that was under Clinton.

It is important to remember that George Bush, while a top contender for title of Biggest Flop in American History, is largely a spent force. It is difficult to see what else he could possibly do to damage the planet. Once, not very long ago, his presidential Brain Trust, the neo-con Nazis, advocated mopping up Syria, Iran, and other places whose names they couldn't even pronounce as soon as they finished up in Iraq. Well, things are not going to finish up any time soon in Iraq. America has spent herself silly trying to stabilize Iraq after de-stabilizing it.

There is a distasteful quality about Bush that people all over the world instinctively feel, and Bush's efforts, we may all be thankful, will continue being hindered by that perception. Kerry has the advantage of being utterly boring instead of distasteful, but his ideas about the world are remarkably similar to Bush's. If Americans elect Kerry, they will get a fresh, new Bush who may actually be able to leverage some of the world's recent weariness and desperate desire for change to carry right on with more destructive stupidity.

They sell everything in America. I recall the many patriotic displays of flags, buttons, and sweats in parking lots, supermarkets, and doughnut shops - all for sale, day and night, right after 9/11. Many claimed to be at reduced prices or even offered at two-for-one in especially touching displays of national feeling.

I recognize that Kerry needs all the advertising and marketing he can get. Every niche counts for one of the most uninspiring candidates in memory, although competition for the distinction of "most uninspiring" is tight in America. The nation's political system seems capable only of advancing con men, bumblers, and paste-board cutouts anymore, although, occasionally, as in the case of the late Great Communicator, a single man combines all three identities. A network of powerful interests much like rivers and tributaries running together to form one roaring cataract sweeps away any candidate in a major party who might actually stand for something other than the imperial ethos.

God knows Kerry never has never represented much of substance. Efforts to sell him are likely wasted. Ask any professional marketer whether he or she thinks Bud Lite, even with the best marketing effort, can outsell Bud. If there's a better description of John Kerry than "Bush Lite," it eludes me.

Kerry, the boring, monotone moose of American politics, has hung up his set of Senate-fundraising cummerbunds - or at least restricted photographers access to the galas when he still hitches them up - in favor of casual plaid shirts. Well, he isn't completely consistent about the plaid shirts: it's a matter of which group he's addressing whether he wants to suggest being a regular guy or society swell. When he does wear the plaid - always immaculately pressed to make sure no one mistakes him for someone who actually works for a living - there is more than a passing nod to millionaire, perpetual candidate, Lamar Alexander, who made a hobby of running for the Republican nomination sporting custom-made red lumberjack shirts.

People in struggling or oppressed lands who dream of being able to vote freely will be distressed to learn that America squanders her national elections on such costumed silliness, but it really cannot be otherwise when candidates have almost nothing to say.

Kerry's casual shirts are probably custom-made, too, with enough of them in each of his wardrobes to provide a fresh change three times a day. After all, Kerry is a very wealthy man, coming from a privileged background and having married the fabulously-rich heiress to the Heinz Pickle and Canned Spaghetti fortune (no, she has no connection to the company, now part of a monstrous agglomerate, she just sits on mountains of cash it generated). You can see where Kerry's sympathy and understanding for the little guy might come from.

There are precedents. George Washington inherited wealth and also married a very wealthy lady, Martha Custis, probably the richest widow in the colonies. Washington was famous for his warm qualities, too. The icy, piercing stare given to anyone for so much as touching his sleeve unbidden was legendary. His private characterization of early militiamen in Massachusetts, the men who genuinely had risked everything to start the revolt against Britain that he and other aristocrats then took over, was along the lines of filthy rabble.

Now, Kerry is not built of quite the same stern stuff as the Father of His Country. Washington would never have worn a plaid shirt, but a lot has changed since his day when maybe the wealthiest one-percent of Americans could vote. Now, most Americans can vote, so you can't be standoffish and you must expose yourself to the mob if you want to become President. The wealthiest one-percent now are limited strictly to determining with their campaign contributions which candidates the rabble sees on its ballots.

But Washington did sometimes coyly draw his silk frock coat over his cummerbund for touching moments when he spoke to people who weren't fellow aristocrats: he was skilled at acts like removing his glasses as his eyes went misty addressing the men, whose poor promises for pay he would in some cases later buy up at severe discount. You wouldn't recognize his capacity for empathy with ordinary men, though, from the monstrous bill he submitted to Congress after the Revolution for everything you can imagine including the wagon trains of wine he consumed at table while the rabble often did without a decent meal.

It's true that wealthy people sometimes make inspired leaders - F.D.R. comes to mind as does the greatest prince in Europe's history, Elizabeth I - but such people give strong signs of their remarkable talents long before they've reached Kerry's age. You don't hide your light until the near approach of senility. More often than not, you get Bushes or Rockefellers from the likes of Kerry, people with no more motivation for serving than capping their family's list of achievements with the nation's highest office.

Kerry rarely speaks of working people or the poor, rather he speaks of "the middle class," feel-good language adopted by contemporary politicians to cover just about everyone in the country down to McDonald's employees with more than one-month's service. You are not supposed to speak of class differences in America. Everyone there is middle-class, unless extremely wealthy like Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney or Mr. Rumsfeld, something not to be mentioned, or so poor as not to be worth mentioning. Economically-marginal Americans like to be called "middle class," just as they like to brag about their kids "going to college," even when the kids are working towards a degree in playground supervision or fast-food management in one of America's countless sleazy, for-profit diploma mills.

Mr. Kerry, of course, didn't attend a diploma mill. Only the best for him, the Yale of George and Daddy Bush. Incidentally, Bush's graduating Yale is often advanced as an argument for his actual intelligence being higher than the public's perception. But those old schools just love accepting the sons and daughters of rich patrons, and they manage to graduate them virtually always. You don't build fat institutional endowments by flunking guys like Georgie Bush. Even Oxford and Cambridge in England follow the practice, accepting and graduating some of the most mediocre members of the Royal Family.

America's love affair with everyone's being middle class nicely serves the establishment's belligerent foreign policy. It just doesn't count for much when you kill peasants somewhere on the periphery of the empire, it's a bit like stepping on ants while doing your gardening, and Kerry knows, firsthand, about killing peasants. He and his merry band of men buzzed up and down the rivers of Vietnam in a boat shooting people too poor and ignorant to understand the great blessings of liberty being offered them.

That experience may equip Kerry to handle the revolt of Iraqi peasants against American occupation. After all, in Vietnam they didn't bother with stripping prisoners naked and smearing excrement on them. That was a war for real men. They took prisoners up in helicopters and threw them out from several thousand feet if they didn't give the right response, and frequently even when they did give the right response. It just made for one less gook (the affectionate nickname American troops bestowed on the locals). When America's good old boys tired of such vicious games, they just napalmed whole villages instead of bothering to find out what should or should not be attacked. That's how you build a "body count" of about three million.

Kerry's statements on foreign policy indicate, as they are intended to do, that he is ready and willing to kill and maim for whatever are America's interests of the moment abroad. Of course, he doesn't say just those words, but what he does say carries those implications. Never mind any emphasis on diplomacy, international institutions, or cooperation - that's all sissy stuff. On the issue of Israel's bloody occupation of the Palestinians, a dreary, deadening reality at the heart of much of America's current trouble in the world, Kerry sounds even more fanatical than Bush.

Of course, the one comforting thought about an idiotic slogan like "These colors don't run," is that it is so plainly false. The colors ran like a cheap dye in Vietnam and Cambodia, leaving a trail of death, disillusionment, and broken promises. And the colors ran again in Somolia where an arrogant people busied themselves more with trying to shoot-up the bad guys than they did with feeding desperate people.

A stark summary of what actually has occurred over the last few years highlights the slogan's goonish nature. The only attack on America was by nineteen fanatics with virtually no weapons who all died. It is positively inspiring that Old Glory, imperial symbol of the world's mightiest country, didn't run on such a challenging field of battle. Old Glory also withstood the heroic assault and occupation of two pathetically-poor countries whose combined capacity for defense was roughly comparable to the state of Missouri.

How could you lose with cruise missiles, stealth bombers, high-tech fragmentation bombs, the poison of depleted uranium, plus all the money and means imaginable to bribe officials and reward disloyalty? It was indeed a shining achievement, and if you recall John Kerry's voice standing against any of it, you heard something the world missed.

The examples are countless of headstrong people like Americans learning hard lessons only by banging their heads into walls. A second dose of Bush's truly destructive leadership will likely do more for America's ailments than taking a placebo like John Kerry.

The polls are all over the place, but given margin of error, the Dems are running neck and neck with Bush at this point. There are clear signs of fracture on the conservative side - particularly between the conservatives and neo-conservatives (see Schisms on the Right, UTJ, 2/18/04). It also seems that Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over (NYT, 2/24/04). However, NOW did a report last night on zionist evangelical Christians and one stat they slipped in was that 45% of Bush's base is evangelical Christians.

That is a huge piece of support, and one that has been increasingly political. If we look at Bush's "faith-based" policies, then he has done little in that area to dissatisfy that group. Some may be troubled by his not issuing an Excutive Order about same sex marriages, but he has done little else to make evangelical Christians nervous about his policies - including his continued dance with Israel.

The political power of evangelical Chrisitans in the US was addressed by 60 Minutes in their report Rise Of The Righteous Army (2/08/04). The lead-in for the report stated:

Evangelical Christians form one of the most potent forces in American politics and society. They are people who place their faith, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, above everything else in their lives and hope to spread that Gospel to the world.

An estimated 70 million Americans call themselves evangelicals, and their beliefs have already reshaped American politics. In the last election, 40 percent of the votes for George W. Bush came from their ranks, and now those beliefs are beginning to reshape the culture as well ...

It seems unlikely to me that Bush is going to do anything to cause these voters to question whether he is God's appointee in Washington. Therefore, the majority of these voters are unlikely to become swing voters.

What is somewhat frightening to me is that the neo-conservative voice which is so loud and clear in the Bush White House largely follows a path that seems appropriate to the zionist evangelical Christians. Therefore, while conservatives may be increasingly nervous about Bush, both of his extremeist groups seem firmly behind him.

This is not to say that all evangelical Chrisitans support Bush, nor that all are even highly politicly active. However, those that do back him are a highly organized and dedicated group.

Returning to the "voice" issue, I think that the more voices involved in the presidential process the more likely that critical issues are going to be raised. I do not think that Nader is likely to "pull" votes that would lead to a Bush victory in 2004. I do believe that these voices bring critical issues and perspectives into the public view, and do change the nature of the visions being promoted by the "front runners." This has been clear to me in the way that response to Kucinich's and Sharpton's messages have pushed the focus to a broader and more radical agenda - even Dean's. Certainly Dean pushed a broader message on those further towards the middle/left as well. Perhaps as candidates see what is resonating with voters, their views and policies change. Perhaps it is just an attempt to steal support from another candidate. One thing I am sure of is that the Democratic Party's message has changed as much as the visions promoted by some of the candidates. That is critical because the line between the Democrats and Republicans had become very fine in the eyes of many.

This is really pretty big news all things considered. First, "electronic voting" is the big push in the US these days despite ongoing concerns ( Test of Electronic Balloting System Finds Major Security Flaws, Schwartz, NYT, 1/30/04). I recommend the Black Box Voting to track the whole issue of electronic ballot tampering risks.

Second, is who has just lost the contract for the US military's voting system - Arthur Anderson under their new moniker "Accenture" - Offshore Company Captures Online Military Vote (Landes, Scoop, 7/16/03). Yes comrades the accounting firm that allegedly colluded with our old friend ENRON ... and you thought they were history.

It will be very interesting to see if the Pentagon's decision has any effect on electronic voting in general. The whole thing may just "slip under the radar" so to speak.

When Gingrich was in office he founded a group called GOPAC. GOPAC issued a memo - Language: A Key Mechanism of Control - to Republicans. Since then, the power of language manipulation and the power of Luntz have only grown.

In September 2003 Deborah Tannen had an excellent article at The American Prospect - Let Them Eat Words: Linguistic lessons from Republican master strategist Frank Luntz:

"Exploiting the power of language to persuade, despite the absence of policies to back up the words, is the openly stated goal of Republican strategy as articulated by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster and tactician who was one of the primary drafters of the GOP's "Contract with America." Luntz tests phrases in focus groups and advises Republicans on how to win votes by changing what they say, not what they do." ... The welter of words that stir emotions -- and in particular the word hope repeated as an incantation -- can also be heard as echoes of Luntz's advice. "Politics remains an emotional arena," he writes, "and television has made fear a very salable commodity. But fear alone is not enough. The commodity Americans most desire -- and the one in shortest supply -- is hope."

...

Luntz promised that changing words, not works, would be successful "if executed effectively and with discipline." This caveat was not casually tossed out. He cautioned Republicans that "good communication is more than just words, phrases and messages." I'll pause here for a moment to give you a chance to predict how you expect Luntz's next sentence to read. OK, here it is: "As a party and as a movement, we will fail if we continue to go it alone or change messages daily. We can only succeed when we work together and talk together and stick together as a team. Only through a movement-wide effort and constant repetition can our voices unite in perfect harmony."

This linguistic harmony is clear in Luntz memo "Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf) (backup copy at Luntz Research Companies - Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf)).

Excerpts from the 16 page section

The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general- and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable. A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit. And only the Democrats and their good-hearted friends from Washington can save America from these sinister companies drooling at the prospect of strip mining every picturesque mountain range, drilling for oil on every white sand beach,
and clear cutting every green forest.

The fundamental problem for Republicans when it comes to the environment is that whatever you say is viewed through the prism of suspicion. As with education, Social Security and so many other issues, the Democrats have been expert at constructing a narrative in which Republicans and conservatives are the bad guys. And if Americans swallow that story, then whatever comes later is mere detail.

Indeed, it can be helpful to think of environmental (and other) issues in terms of �story.� A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth. The popular movie Erin Bruckovich presented a courageous woman fighting against an impersonal corporation that poisoned the public with cancerous chemicals with impunity. The Wall Street Journal and investigative journalist Michael Fumento later conclusively demonstrated that the real-life E M Brockovich�s legal case was full of holes and contradictions, but no matter: the public had it�s emotional story, and no number of exposes will ever come close to matching the power of that story.

...

"Facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them"

...

"That is why you must explain how it is possible to pursue a common sense or reasonable environmental policy that preserves all the gains of the past two decades� without going to extremes, and allows for new science and technologies to carry us even further. Give citizens the idea that progress is being frustruted by over-reaching government, and YOU will hit a very strong strain in the American psyche."

...

Global Warming debate strategies:
- "The scientific debate remains open"
- "Acting with all the facts in hand" ... "Making the right decision, not the quick decision"
- "international fairness" in environmental aggrements

....

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with �global warming�� and ending with "environmentalism,�� It�s time for us to start talking about �climate change� instead of global warming and �conservation � instead of preservation.

1. �Climate change�� is less frightening than �global warming; � As one focus group participant noted, climate change �sounds like you�re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.� While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2. We shuuld be �conservationists. � not �preservationists or �environmentalists." The term �conservationist� has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth�s natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

�Environmentalist� can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly t h s e outside the Northeast. c�PreservatioIiis�� suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a replenish what we can when we can.

Luntz' message is clear and the text of the document even offers sample speeches onad excerpts for press releases. He offers examples of how to rephrase things such as using "update" or "modernize" existing legislation on the environment rather than "rolling back legislation"; and "open space conservation" rather than "urban sprawl."

I and many others have commented on the 1984ish flavor of Bush political-speak. Luntz is a major crafter of "new-speak" in the United States. For those who think about what they are hearing -- and comparing it to the the reality of events -- much of what is said sounds like pure nonsense. It is pure nonsense. A rhetoric is crafted and evolving whose sole purpose is to "quiet" the critical thinking process; to portray an image that has no substance. In other words, the language of propaganda.

This is a campaign year and there will be an acceleration of the use of this thought shaping garbage. Certainly Bush will use it, and most likely the Dems will use something similar. It becomes critical in this coming year to look beyond the rhetoric and to assist others in doing so. Luntz argue that the truth is not important. In fact, that the intent is to distract from the truth to change what people think. That makes facts a critical tool for regime change.

Wolf's Guide for Countering Prevailing Rhetoric
1. Be informed
2. Get the facts and share the facts
3. Compare the facts to the rhetoric.
4. Learn the code words and phrases.
5. Listen for the repeated phrases ("unity of message") and point them out. If a bunch of folks are using the same phrases then you can be darned sure that somebody said "those words work," and that propaganda not communication is the key.

The corporate media is not going to do this and the people's media doesn't have the scope to inform the populace. Only we can do this in our conversations with friends and family, co-workers and neighbors, strangers in the grocery line or at the bus stop. Yep, it is a lot of work, but the threat is the morphing of perception to the point of mind control. Then there will be no "informed public" to check the power of those who would rule.

Sources and Resources
Luntz Research Companies - Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf)

Luntz memo at Uncommon Thought

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) Letter to US Chamber of Commerce

Representative Blumenauer's Floor Statement (4/8/03) Concentrated Assault on Environmental Protections

Rebuilding the Green Old Party? Tibetts, Coastal Heritage, Fall 2003

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control GOPAC Memo to Republican Candidates - 1990
Propaganda - How Newt Gingrich Uses These Techniques

Dr. Frank Luntz - Harry Walker Agency Bio

Using Language to Sell Your Product at Pacific Views, 8/31/03.

Let Them Eat Words: Linguistic lessons from Republican master strategist Frank Luntz Deborah Tannen, TAP, 9/1/03

LuntzSpeak (Web Site)

No one denies that Racicot is a good fundraiser. according to Jefferey St. Clair (Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man CounterPunch, 8/9/2003), Raciot raised $250 million in soft money for the 2000 election cycle and was the "man" called in put the strategy in place in Florida to "seal the election."

Racicot Claims that: "He has restored dignity and honor to the White House. President Bush has led America with moral clarity and purpose and strength in the War against Terrorism. The President provided the leadership necessary to cut taxes and restore economic growth. President Bush's reforms are making America a more compassionate society where no child is left behind. But that positive record ... the President's strong values ... his character and integrity and vision ... that all may not matter. "

The irony of the appeal is almost too great for words.

First, President Bush has been raising a million dollar plus at every campaign event he goes to - I don't think any of the Democratic candidates have done this yet.

Let's see what Open Secrets has to say. Their donation figures include receipts through October 15, 2003.

Total Receipts
George W. Bush (R) $84,583,768
Howard Dean (D) $25,387,493
John Kerry (D) $20,043,631
John Edwards (D) $14,510,398
Dick Gephardt (D) $13,666,915
Joe Lieberman (D) $11,779,353
Lyndon H. Larouche Jr (D) $5,652,783
Wesley Clark (D) $3,491,108
Dennis Kucinich (D) $3,399,709
Carol Moseley Braun (D) $341,668
Al Sharpton (D) $283,529

Source of Funds
Bush
Individual contributions $82,843,770 98%
PAC contributions $1,581,711 2%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Matching program $0 0%
Other $158,287 0%

Dean (because he is the next largest fund raiser)
Individual contributions $25,327,097 100%
PAC contributions $15,500 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Matching program $0 0%
Other $44,896 0%

Donor Demographics for all candidates
Candidate % of $2000+ donors/ % of $200 or less donors
Bush, George W 73% / 11%
Dean, Howard 13% / 56%
Kerry, John 55% /12%
Edwards, John 65% / 3%
Lieberman, Joe 52% / 9%
Gephardt, Dick 55%/ 12%
Clark, Wesley 31% / 35%
Kucinich, Dennis 11%/ 65%
Larouche, Lyndon H Jr 5% / 45%
Moseley Braun, Carol 30% / 25%
Sharpton, Al 64% / 9%

I guess that you can say that Bush has brought "moral clarity and purpose" to the Whitehouse. This is what I call a third level concept - one that plays upon the cultural assumptions of people while not meaning what one says. It is like the idea of "family values." Everyone supports "family values" and thinks that everyone means the same thing when they use that phrase. With Bush's "moral clarity and purpose," it is one of being "called" and establishing a "Christian" empire that rules the world by force and coersion (Onward Christian Soldiers). Of course, helping a few "friends" gain financially and politically along the way is all to the good --- afterall, "Christians Prosper" if you remeber the bumper sticker from the 1980s.

The appeal is to Bush's "grassroots" though not to his primary supporters since only 11% of his contributors are in the $200 or less range. One has to wonder what the $2000 and up group is called? Oh yeah ... they are called "Rangers" -- those who raise $200,000 or more -- and "Pioneers" -- those who raise $100,000 or more. There are 134 "Rangers" thus far in the 2004 campaign and some of the names look familiar: Marvin Pierce Bush (GWs brother I believe), Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the House), George Pataki (Gov of NY), and Gordon Smith (Senator from Oregon). To keep track of who is who in the Bush fundraising campaign check out Texans for Public Justice and what is happening in the campaign WhiteHouseForSale.org

1. Be Confident Your Vote is Counted. Next November, for the first time in American history, states plan on using no paper ballots. Electronic voting machines, which have many potential flaws, will be depended on. The potential problems that could result would make Florida 2000 look like a walk in the park. We can stop the potential problems by having a paper record kept. Sign the petition at www.VerifiedVoting.org and learn more about the problem. Contact your Senators and Congressman (Especially the Republicans!) in every single one of these ways: phone calls, letters, e-mails, faxes, and by visiting their local state offices. Ask them to support the voter confidence bill HR 2239 introduced by Congressman Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey. Go even further by contacting your local newspaper, T.V., and radio stations about the problem. This is the most urgent of all current actions.

2. Choose Your Actions. Think and reflect upon what actions you are interested in taking. For more information regarding what actions are available read activist and campaign handbooks. Consider every single action you hope to take and begin preparing through self-education. Some of the most effective actions in 2004 will be: Registering Voters, Canvassing Neighborhoods, Fundraising, Educating the Public, and Influencing the Media. Sign up for the mailing list at StopBushin2004.com to learn of the numerous actions that will be available.

3. Choose Your STATE of Action. We must emphasis the importance of taking action in Swing States and take action in them. If you live in one of the following swing states, you will likely focus all of your efforts on your state: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, and Maine. If you don't live in a Swing State, split time between taking action in your state and a neighboring swing state. Determine which swing states are good for you.

4. Educate Yourself. Keep up on the current political scene and Bush's Record. Subscribe to the following email lists: WashingtonPost.com daily politics and Democrats.com daily newsletter. Bookmark Democrats.org, Legitgov.org, and ThousandReasons.org and utilize their excellent sections on Bush's Record: Emphasis the following issues: Homeland Security, War in Iraq, Health Care, Social Security, Employment and the Economy, Military Treatment.

5. Join a Group or Organization. By 'Join', I do not mean sign up for an e-mail list or give money. I mean using your physical self to attend meetings, provide input, listen to others, work with others, and participate with actions designed to defeat Bush. Get involved with a Presidential Candidates Campaign or special interest group (local Sierra Club, NOW, Democrats, NAACP, etc.) near your hometown. If you'd like, form a group utilizing resources in your local newspaper and phone book, the Internet, and libraries. We cannot act alone if we are to be successful. Organize, participate, and work with others.

6. Donate Money. Money is going to be a huge factor in '04. Each of us must do our part no matter how small. All of our donations of $10, $25, $50, $100, or more add up to give us, the people of America, power and a voice. Start donating money now and be prepared to donate more during the campaign. BushRecall.org and AmericaComingTogether.org are two organizations that need your help and are exclusively devoted to Defeating Bush next year.

7. Support Alternative Media. Send a signal to the corporate media giants that they're not doing their job good enough. Moreover, you'll receive more diverse viewpoints and get the stories not usually mentioned on T.V. For magazines read The Nation, In These Times, The Progressive, Zmag, and Mother Jones. For news websites visit Truthout.org, CommonDreams.org, Buzzflash.com, Alternet.org, and Indymedia.org. For radio and web casts, visit WebActive.org, Meria.net, ieamericaradio.org, NewDimensions.org and Alternativeradio.org. If you can, donate money to the media source. As for news on T.V., I would only watch it for comedic purposes, since nearly every broadcast is joke.

8. Boycott Bush Donors. Why should we support companies that are helping Bush get elected? Are we crazy? Not anymore. We do have a choice, so let's make it. Put your money where your mind and heart are and boycott companies who favor Bush by donating a disproportionate amount of campaign money to Republicans. Oil Companies include: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, and BP-Amoco. Buy gas from Shell or a local facility. Phone companies include Verizon, BellSouth, Sprint, and MCI. AT&T is safe. Tech companies include Ebay, Gateway, and Texas Instruments. Everyday companies include Wal-Mart, Coca Cola products, Pepsi products, Anheuser-Busch products, Hallmark Cards, and Tyson Foods. Transportation companies include Ford, Chrysler, UPS, Fed Ex, Delta, Continental, Southwest, and Enterprise. Safe companies are GM, USPS, American, United, and Northwest. Few financial institutions are safe. I put my money in a local bank and credit union. Go a step further and write/call/fax the companies about your intentions to boycott and explain why. There are many more companies that favor Bush. Visit www.OpenSecrets.org to learn more.

9. Spread the Word. Tell as many friends, acquaintances, family members, and co-workers why your taking action to defeat Bush. Appeal to their self-interest by talking about the issues they care about. Discuss Bush's record on the issues and give them handouts, books, magazines, articles, etc. that explain Bush's record. Emphasis not only the importance of taking action, but how taking action can be fun and does make a difference. If you reach them, give them a copy of this list and take action together. It's much more fun working with people.

10. Make Copies of this List! This is NOT copyrighted; it can be reproduced in any way without the author's consent. Post this list, legally, where people will be able to read it. Make copies and hand them out. Put the public on notice: You are not alone; Tens of Millions of Americans want Bush out. We can defeat him and must. With all of us, including you, taking action, we will succeed. Perhaps then common sense will return to the Whitehouse.

Copied from the email:

Also, mark your calendars for next Tuesday, when Gov. Dean will be in Portland. the invitation is below.
Hoping to see you there,
Sue Hagmeier

The Honorable Barbara Roberts
The Honorable Bill Bradbury
The Honorable Serena Cruz

Terry Bean, Gabriela Goldfarb, Matt Hennessee, Ashley Henry,
Win McCormack, Linda Love & Mike Williams, Jenny Marx, Teri Mills,
Cheryl Perrin, Mac Pritchard, Mark Waller, Kelly Whitty

cordially invite you to join,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Democratic Candidate for President of the United States

Tuesday, November 11th
Montgomery Park
2701 NW Vaughn Street
Portland, Oregon

** Note: If you contributed for a Save the Date on November 13 - your Contribution and RSVP has been credited to this event on November 11. Email [email protected] with any questions. **

Special performances by local Portland musicians Jackstraw

7:00pm
$1000 (or max out)~ VIP Reception
Click here to CONTRIBUTE & RSVP for the VIP Reception.
7:30pm
$100~ General Reception
$25~ with Valid Student ID at the Door
Click here to CONTRIBUTE & RSVP for the General Recption.
$2,000 ~ Maximum Individual Contribution

Click here to forward this invitation to a friend.

For additional information on this event, please contact Emily Wurgaft email at [email protected]

For more information on Howard Dean, please visit http://www.deanforamerica.com

Paid for by Dean for America.
Contributions to Dean for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

There are many of us who simply can't wait until November 2004 to act against George W. Bush. We're tired of the lies, the shattered economy, the trampling of our civil liberties. It's time to recognize that we have the power to act NOW!

The Defeat Bush Now! campaign is a multi-partisan effort that encourages all concerned Americans to "Vote Three Times":
1.) Cast your own vote against Bush.
2.) Find a Bush supporter and convince them to vote for another candidate.
3.) Register a new voter and convince them to vote for someone besides Bush.

That's just the beginning of the actions Americans can take if we share ideas, share skills, and work _together_. The Defeat Bush Now! campaign has compiled a thorough list of actions to appeal to anyone interested in getting Bush out of the White House next year. Come attend our campaign kickoff on August 16 to learn more, and participate in free workshops on persuasive speaking, voter registration, and protecting our civil liberties!

For more details, please check out www.defeatbushnow.org or call (503) 450-9922.

We want to let the people there know that Dennis is the best, the progressive candidate for president. Leafletting help is needed, contact Haris Wolfgang, [email protected] for more information

Meetup Flyer Team (6 registered participants)
Your Neighborhood
Portland, OR
Beginning one week before Meetup, let's post flyers in our neighborhoods to encourage people to come who are not plugged into the Internet. We'll be creating flyers as soon as the locations are confirmed. We need volunteers to make copies of these flyers, and post them in your neighborhood. If you can help, please let us know what part of town you live in, so we can send you flyers for the Meetup closest to you.
Wednesday, July 30, 07:00 PM

Dean table at Last Thursday - Art on Alberta (15 registered participants)
ONDA Studio & Gallery, 2215 NE Alberta St
Portland, OR
We'll be setting up a Dean information table in front of Onda Studio & Gallery. We need volunteers to help decorate the table, gather campaign materials, hand out flyers, and sign people up for the Dean campaign.
Please do not park by the gallery itself - we need to save those spaces for Last Thursday visitors who are visiting the gallery. Either take public transit, or park several blocks from Alberta Street. Thank you!
Thursday, July 31, 06:00 PM

Tabling at the Salem Library (1 registered participants)
585 Liberty SE
Salem, OR
Anyone who wants to table for a few hrs of their choice during Salem library hours contact me and I will set you up with everything you need. Library hrs are Tues through Thur. 10am-9pm and Fri and Sat 10am-6pm. People can commit to a set time each week, a one time commitment, or different times during the week if this works for you. Just contact me first so we don't have overlap. This is a great way to meet potential Dean voters. Our library is VERY busy. Bring your comfy chair and something to drink; I provide easy training and everything else. Let's get Dean in there everyone! Elizabeth Monson [email protected] or 503-585-2011 or cell 503-559-5702
Friday, August 1, 10:00 AM

Vancouver Farmer's Market Dean Table (13 registered participants)
Eighth & Esther Streets
Vancouver, WA
Please sign up to assist with the table to spread the word about Governor Dean. We set up next to the Vancouver Farmer's Market in Esther Short Park on the sidewalk at the SE corner of 8th & Esther Streets on Saturday from 9:30 AM to about 2 PM (you can choose anytime convenient during this period). You can also stock up on produce and other good stuff! And spreading the word about Dean is good for you and good for America! You can also help people register to vote. We will have handouts and materials and you are welcome to bring your own materials and your own approach. We are an inclusive group of people getting the word out about People Powered Howard. Come find out how exciting it is to talk about Howard Dean and how he is helping everyday people to get involved in the political process. You have the power to take our country back. Come join us please.
http://www.vancouverfarmersmarket.com/map.html
Saturday, August 2, 09:30 AM

Kucinich was obviously surprised at the turn out. He has a tremendous amount of energy, and is a quite passionate speaker. The focus of his brief speech was war and peace. He spoke to the fact that the US is being run right now by the politics of fear and that the grip of that fear had to be broken. He spoke of this being a time of a critical decision - to take the path of ongoing war or to take the path of peace - and that he was taking the path of peace.

While he did not detail all areas of his agenda, he did speak to wanting to fund three universal programs: quality daycare for children 3-5 years old, college education, and health care access (including alternative health care). To fund these initiatives he would cut back the Defense budget, cancel the Bush tax cut, and restructure existing social programs funding.

One thing that did come out is that Kucinich's campaign is definitely a people's campaign. He is not accepting any contributions from corporations. That alone speaks volumes about other issues he did not elaborate on - such as the power of big business on government. He did stress that it was time for the people to take back the power.

I left before it was over because my claustaphobia was getting the better of me, but I heard that they would be opening a Portland Campaign office.

He is still my first choice for a candidate. If he gets a broader audience, he could surprise a lot of folks.

You of course remember that Arthur Andersen was the mega accounting firm that handled ENRON'S accounting and financial advice. Landes notes:

Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) is the system and Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting of Enron bankruptcy fame) is the company. And although Accenture has not been officially implicated in the Enron scandal, they have created a reputation of their own that is already raising eyebrows.

This is hot off the newswire -- "7/15/03 NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Accenture Ltd., the former Andersen Consulting, disclosed Tuesday that it might have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Chairman and CEO Joe Forehand, on an earnings call with analysts and reporters Tuesday, said the consulting firm's Middle East operations could be in non-compliance with the Act, which prohibits the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. persons."

While Accenture does not have a good track record for either the quality or cost of its work, it is the leading offshore contractor for privatizing government services. Accenture also has close business relations with Halliburton (Cheney's former gig).

Back to the Scoop article for a moment:

Accenture is big. It has more than 75,000 employees in 47 countries, and generated net revenues of $11.6 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2002. On their Board of Directors is Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO and known to many as Bad Boy Ballmer for his ruthless, if not illegal, business practices. Microsoft has been sued by the federal government and several states for monopolistic business practices which were designed to destroy their competition. Massachusetts’s Attorney General is still pursuing Microsoft. In March 13, 2000 Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) and Microsoft signed a "$1 Billion Pact To Form Joint Venture and Expand Global Alliance." What's the alliance? To control voting systems around the world?

Now what about Microsoft ehh? According to investigative journalist Greg Palast (author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" an expose of the Florida voting scandal in the 2000 election) the philanthropy of Gates is not altrusistic. In White Man's Burden (Guerilla News Network 7/15/03), Palast argues that Gates is using TRIPS (and international trade agreement protecting intellectual property rights) to keep a global monopoly on operating systems.

From the Palast article:

Let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called “Foundation.” Gate’s demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called “TRIPS” – the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices.

Example: in June 2000, at the urging of Big Pharma, Bill Clinton threatened trade sanctions against Argentina for that nation’s daring to offer low-cost drugs to Southern Africa.

Gates knows darn well that the “intellectual property rights” laws such as TRIPS – which keep him and Melinda richer than Saddam and the Mafia combined -- are under attack by Nelson Mandela and front-line doctors trying to get cheap drugs to the 23 million Africans sick with the AIDS virus. Gate’s brilliant and self-serving solution: he’s spending an itsy-bitsy part of his monopoly profits (the $6 billion spent by Gates’ foundation is less than 2% of his net worth) to buy some drugs for a fraction of the dying. The bully billionaire’s “philanthropic” organization is currently working paw-in-claw with the big pharmaceutical companies in support of the blockade on cheap drug shipments.

Gates’ game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.

Gates says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he’s locking in a trade system that will block the delivery of cheap medicine to over 20 million.

Andersen, Enron, Accenture, Halliburton, Big Pharma, Microsoft - this is an example of how the corporate system works and how it rules. Monopoly, criminal activity, bilking thousands of their retirement, fraud - the day to day business practices of big business ... all in a day's work. There is rarely any negative consequence even when they are caught, or exposed. Behind the scenes they lock in lucrative government contracts.

The world is watching the antics of the Bush regime as they wriggle and talk about "technically" telling the truth, but the payoffs are huge. Despite public spats, the networks hold and prosper. In fact, the reach extends.

While I write this bit of rant, Chile, Singapore Trade Agreements Begin Moving Through Congress (Odessey, Scoop 7/17/03). Yes comrades and critics, free trade must go on. The current agreements are expected to breeze through Congress, so in a blink of the eye new deals are consumated.

Ah the life of the happy capitalist!

Calpundit
Julian Sanchez
Julain's Lounge
Jim Henley - Unqualified Offerings
Eve Tushnet
Kesher Talk
where I lose the thread.

Here is how my poll came out. It was interesting to see that there were folks I actually disagreed with more than Shrub.
1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (91%)
2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (74%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (70%)
4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (67%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (66%)
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (65%)
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (63%)
8. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (54%)
9. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (52%)
10. Libertarian Candidate (26%)
11. Bush, George W. - US President (14%)
12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (0%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-7%)

Here is the link to Overall Poll Response Results

Winners of the presidential selector race
(18387 Responses)

51% Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat 13% Bush, George W. - US President 11% Green Party Candidate 7% Libertarian Candidate 5% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat 3% Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat 2% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat 2% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat 2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat 2% Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat 0% Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat 0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat 0% Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat 0% Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat 0% Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat 0% Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat 0% Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat 0% Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat 0% Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat 0% McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican 0% Phillips, Howard - Constitution 0% Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican 0% Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat

Apparently, thus far the poll is in the more liberal net, but it is getting around. Be interesting to keep an eye on this little gem.