Wednesday, October 20, 2004

"We're Not Going to Have Any Casualties"

Comment: I don't know what is more unsettling: The idea that Bush said this to Robertson, or that a huge number of voters are so blinded by their worldview, or uninformed, or just so corrupted by the gravy train that they want this deeply flawed man to continue as the leader of what once was called the "free world".


"We're Not Going to Have Any Casualties"
By Atrios
Pat Robertson claims that's what Bush said to him:
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."Of course, Bush also said:
I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war.

Label Avoidance

Comments: Arrrrrrrg!, Oh no I'm sounding like a Deaniac. It's no surprise that I think the Author is off-base in a major way, and that his rhetoric can be countered completely with common sense rebuttal.

In short, as an "any mammal but Bush" voter, I would say that as a conservative leaning peace lover, I can think of many "liberal" politicians who have rightly been singled out for their "liberal" views, causes, and voting records. However, as many other honest intellectual conservatives have explained in making a stand against Bush, the real person who has betrayed conservative values in our world today is GW.


Label Avoidance
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 10/14/2004 12:05:55 AM
WASHINGTON -- Where else but in an American presidential campaign can a candidate declare with solemnity that "labels don't matter" or, for that matter, with persuasiveness. When Senator Jean-Francois Kerry denies the significance of the "label" being applied to him, is he trying to pull a fast one on the poor credulous voter? Are he and his surrogates convincing when they insist that "labels" are nothing but pieces of trickery deployed by the hellish Republicans? Well, if labels do not matter, pay no attention to the label on that bottle over there, Senator, the label marked "poison," or "dangerous to nursing mothers," or "do not take when windsurfing." Of course, the label that the Massachusetts Braggart is objecting to is the label "liberal." For some reason he considers it unfair when his opponent calls him a liberal, though the nonpartisan magazine, National Journal, catalogues him as a liberal, in fact the most liberal senator in Washington. Presumably the National Journal had merely savored the Boastful One's twenty years in the Senate where he has been on the self-congratulatory liberal side of every issue. Moreover, does anyone doubt that when this long drink of water ambles onto a university campus or into a media newsroom -- say the CBS newsroom -- he boldly declares with timpani rumbling offstage: "Yes, I am a liberal. And proud of it, come hell or high Perrier"? Why is it that in presidential campaigns liberals, upon accepting the Democratic nomination, scurry from the label liberal? Actually, it is very disingenuous for them to object to "labels"?Labels are one of the liberals' favorite remedies. They demand labels on tobacco, ardent spirits, children's toys -- anything that offends their constituents and might assist in their election. I would not be surprised to hear that they had fashioned labels for basketballs ("Bounce With Care") or condoms ("Keep Away From Needles and Other Sharp Objects," "Do Not Use With Alcoholic Beverages," or "May Cause Drowsiness"). Labels are the consumerists' best friend, at least when prohibition is impossible. Yet now out there on the campaign trail the Democrats' cosmopolitan presidential candidate is objecting to "labels." He and his surrogates insist that labels are meaningless. It is another admission by them that the words they use and the positions they take at election time are unserious. They, who pride themselves in their high intellectual commitment, actually seem to believe that they can persuade voters that the philosophical and political positions they have taken over the years should not matter to us when we vote. Well, what does matter, the senator's windsurfing skills? George W. Bush's cowboy boots? In this campaign Senator Kerry has tried to reduce the issues to style and sophistries. Frankly his style is pompous and oafish, and his sophistries are unconvincing. His brand of economics leads to slow growth and probably high inflation. His brand of foreign policy leads to the United Nations where he admits he will take us for endless debates with corrupt foreign hucksters and dignitaries who hate America and its interests. It has now been many decades during which liberals have believed that liberalism is the morally and intellectually superior position. Conservatives are in the liberals' reckoning philistines, materialists, racists, and uncouth. Yet it has been at least three decades since a Democratic presidential nominee faced the nation and proclaimed himself a liberal. Does this mean that the Democratic candidates consider themselves morally and intellectually superior to the rest of the nation? I think it does. In fact they think themselves so intellectually superior -- and the rest of us so obtuse -- that they believe they can conceal their many years of liberal politicking from the electorate. Like participants at a masked ball, they practice masked politics in presidential campaigns. Unfortunately the American people are serious about matters of national security and economic growth. Faced with a windsurfer, a spandex-clad cyclist, and a potential bungee jumper, I think they will choose a leader. Someday soon, the Democrats are going to have to face up to the sham that is their kind of liberalism. They are right about one thing; it is unpopular across America.R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is editor in chief of The American Spectator and a contributing editor to the New York Sun. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute and the author of Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).


The Derrida Achievement

Comment: Ok, I'm out of my element here. I admit I didn't know who Derrida was until his obit. I'm pretty sure that I think I disagree with the Author, but I have to say I appreciate, with my limited exposure, the article as an honest attempt to discuss the subject.

Copyright © 2002 Spectator.org. All Rights Reserved.

The Derrida Achievement
By Mark Goldblatt
Published 10/14/2004 12:05:28 AM
NEW YORK -- Jacques Derrida, the controversial French philosopher often called "the father of deconstruction," died last Friday at 74. Obituaries over the weekend duly noted not only his influence on literary theory, film criticism, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, sociology and even law, but also the ongoing debate over the ultimate value of his work. The New York Times, for example, pointed out that Derrida "was the target of as much anger as admiration," adding, "For many Americans, in particular, he was the personification of a French school of thinking they felt was undermining many of the traditional standards of classical education, and one they often associated with divisive political causes." This is no doubt true. Many traditionalists, in and out of academia, were put off by the political implications of Derrida's theories -- as well as the actual consequences of deconstruction as a critical tool. But such objections miss the point. It's not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but Derrida's special significance lies not in the fact that he was subversive but in the fact that he was an outright intellectual fraud -- and that he managed to dupe a startling number of highly educated people into believing he was on to something. For example, there is no more self-evident truth than the law of non-contradiction: P cannot simultaneously be both Q and not Q. It is a sine qua non of rational discourse. When I assert the proposition "Socrates is mortal," I must simultaneously deny the logical contradictory, "Socrates is not mortal." If Socrates' mortality doesn't rule out his non-mortality, what does the initial proposition "Socrates is mortal" mean? The law of non-contradiction is implicitly invoked in every rationally meaningful proposition. Yet in Of Grammatology, Derrida describes one of his signature concepts, the arche-trace, as "contradictory and not acceptable within the logic of identity." Yet the particular "logic of identity" to which Derrida refers is simply logic; it is not one logic among many. And since rational discourse entails accepting the law of non-contradiction, Derrida's insistence that his concept is unacceptable within the "logic of identity" amounts to a declaration of nonsense. In fact, a reasonable paraphrase of Derrida's words might be: The concept of the arche-trace makes no sense whatsoever, but play along anyway. (Derrida's disciples often point to the sense of "play" in his work.) To be sure, Derrida himself embraces the senselessness of the concept: "The trace is in fact the absolute origin of sense in general. Which amounts to saying once again that there is no absolute origin of sense in general." The trace is what it is not. It would perhaps be credible to read Derrida's remarks about the arche-trace as mere rhetorical flourishes, or even burlesques of traditional reasoning, except the context belies such a reading: he builds on the concept of the arche-trace. Nor are his remarks in Of Grammatology isolated instances. In Diss√©mination Derrida states: "It is thus not simply false to say that Mallarm√© is a Platonist or a Hegelian. But it is above all not true. And vice versa." As the critic John Ellis has pointed out, the key to the Mallarme passage surely lies in the final sentence, in the apparent throwaway "vice versa." Attempting to make sense of Derrida's words, a reader might well allow a distinction between saying that a proposition is "simply false" and "not true": a proposition that is absurd ("The invisible elephant looks pink") might be deemed "not true" yet not "simply false." Still, the "vice versa" undermines any attempt to get at what Derrida's means. THE PROBLEM OF INTELLIGIBLE meaning in Derrida's writing arises again in his book Positions. He begins, typically, with a checklist of his "undecidables": "supplement," "hymen," "spacing," "incision," etc. These are concepts which, he declares, "can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical opposition, resisting and disorganizing it." Thus, for example, "the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the compliment of an inside, neither accident nor essence." How any of this resists and disorganizes "philosophical opposition" is never made clear since the phrase itself is never defined. If the "philosophical opposition" Derrida seeks to resist and disorganize is comprised of the rules of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, then it should be noted that he has not set up logical contradictories in his pairings -- as would be the case if the "supplement" were neither accident nor non-accident. That would indeed resist and disorganize logic; it would overthrow the law of excluded middle. (P must be either Q or not Q.) Still, a reader will necessarily inquire on what grounds Derrida bases his pronouncements in the first place. His method, insofar as it can be delineated, is to free-associate with a given word until he is able to tease out a connotation that belies the original sense of the word; but does this mean that he has undermined traditional logic? Whence the "is" in Derrida's declaration "the supplement is …"? Finally, however, none of these questions seem to matter. For Derrida winds up his analysis with another logical throwaway: "Neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or." In other words, whatever Derrida is affirming, he is also simultaneously denying. From a logical perspective, the only way to read Derrida on his own terms is mentally to insert the phrase "or not" after every one of his statements. Again, the man is dead. That is an empirical truth of the sort Derrida himself liked to deconstruct; it is an empirical truth the majority of us have been taught to respect. The fact that he achieved, ex nihilo, the stature he did in the humanities speaks to the cognitive capacities of college professors and artists. It does not speak to whether Jacques Derrida was a good man or lived a good life. That is a question better addressed by those who knew and worked with him. As an observer to the Derrida phenomenon, I only bid him farewell. May he rest in peace. Mark Goldblatt (mgold57@aol.com) is the author of Africa Speaks, a satire of black urban culture. He teaches history of ideas at Fashion Institute of Technology of the State University of New York.

Berserk Stewart

Comment: Mr. Macomber adds his name to the list of "Hacks"!

Berserk Stewart
By Shawn Macomber
Published 10/18/2004 12:06:39 AM


All the praise and attention the media have spent the past four years lavishing on The Daily Show has finally gone to Jon Stewart's head. The cover of Newsweek, on-air heart-to-hearts with Bill Moyers, a Number One New York Times bestseller, and old institutional hands like Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather groveling at his feet in every possible forum have all conspired to launch the comedian into a celebrity stratosphere where the air is so thin he forgot it was humor and impeccable comedic timing that opened the door to this particular kingdom, not his political acumen.

A sure sign of Stewart's atrophying sense of humor was his Friday afternoon appearance on CNN's Crossfire. Much lauded out in the hazy blips of the blogosphere, the appearance was nevertheless a boring, soulless, and, worst of all, completely humorless exercise in hubris. From the get-go it was apparent Stewart had no interest in telling jokes or even busting out any of his trademark understated cerebral mocking. He began by explaining he thought the show was "bad" and accusing the hosts of "partisan hackery," before launching into his main self-righteous dialogue between…well, mostly between himself and his sizable ego.

"I wanted to come here today and say stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America," Stewart admonished hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. "And come work for us, because we, as the people...need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns."

When did Stewart suddenly become the established voice of "we, the people"? It looks as if the "fake news anchor" has decided to combine Ralph Nader-esque populism and vague conspiracy theories about spectral capitalism-spawned bogeymen with sarcastic humor. A registered letter from Michael Moore's attorney cannot be far behind.


BUT, THEN, WHAT'S annoying about the newly minted Stewart the Crusader isn't that he's taking serious political stands. The best political comedians -- Mort Sahl, Bill Hicks, Dennis Miller -- have always been true believers with a core of seriousness and righteous indignation at the center of their humor. The problem with Stewart is that he demands respect but is unwilling to take responsibility for the things he says. When it is time for a Stewart lecture, there is no room for kidding around. But when his conclusions or statements are questioned, it's suddenly time to roll his eyes and morph back into the Teflon comedian. On Crossfire, for example, after pleading with a straight face for the hosts to "stop, stop, stop hurting America" and praising his own show for its level of "civilized discourse," Stewart summarily shot down Carlson's questions about the kid-glove handling of John Kerry on The Daily Show last month.

"If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to," Stewart said, adding snarkily that he didn't realize that, "news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity." When Carlson protested that he thought Stewart was going to be funny, Stewart shot back acidly, "I'm not going to be your monkey." Blogs everywhere exploded with glee at this verbal coup de grace, but -- like it or not -- Carlson was making a valid point. When Stewart had John Kerry on the couch, he grilled him with questions such as, "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" and "Have you ever flip-flopped?" Fine. No one expects Leno, Letterman, or any other late night entertainer suddenly to begin channeling Chris Matthews.

Stewart wants it both ways, however. He'll lightheartedly lob softballs at Democrats he openly endorses for office, but when a conservative voice comes on there are few smiles and fewer mercies. In a recent post-debate interview with Rudy Giuliani, Stewart barely let the mayor finish a single sentence. Over and over it was, "But I think what John Kerry was saying was…" reducing Stewart to a pinch hitter for Mary Beth Cahill. Similarly, Ralph Reed's views on the war in Iraq were dismissed out of hand during his visit to The Daily Show.

It's worth noting that we didn't hear Stewart protesting that he was just a comedian when a Kerry spokeswoman told the Washington Post, "Jon Stewart understands perfectly all the important issues facing this country right now." In fact, in the same article, Daily Show executive producer Ben Karlin seemed to be taking the comedy show's campaign coverage exceedingly seriously.

"All of us [on The Daily Show] are just blown away by the turn the campaign has taken," he said. "We cannot believe that this is what is being talked about at this juncture. It's so astounding to us. We are trying to work through our amazement and to conduct a meaningful conversation absent of incredulity."


ABOVE ALL, THIS IS one comedy show no one is allowed to make any jokes about: When Bill O'Reilly suggested earlier this year that Stewart's audience was made up of "stoned slackers," Comedy Central couldn't let such an accusation impugn the credibility of its "fake news show" and was soon feverishly issuing press releases pointing to studies that showed viewers of The Daily Show were more politically savvy and better educated than those who spend every night in the No Spin Zone. Likewise, when Carlson suggested that Stewart was "more fun" on The Daily Show, Stewart -- scion of "civilized discourse" -- said, "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show." Umm, touché?

In the midst of this even Paul Begala's patience, typically limitless with liberals, was tested. "Let me get this straight," Begala said. "If the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that... Crossfire reduces everything to left, right, black, white…Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show…It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front." Earlier in the show, Stewart had demanded Begala say something nice about George W. Bush, which he graciously did. The whole thing reeked of hypocrisy. When was the last time Stewart followed his own advice? It's a free country and any of us can say as much good or bad as we like, but don't be a partisan jerk all the time and then lecture others on the beauty of non-partisanship. It makes you sound like Pat Leahy.

It's all selective behavior, of course. When an interviewee with a shared viewpoint is on, it's time to "conduct a meaningful conversation," a "civilized discourse." But when someone they don't agree with is on, it's time to raze the village. All of which is all well enough. It's how the game is played. But when you preach your own virtues and lecture others about their deficiencies, you become a target. Maybe Bill O'Reilly and Stewart have something in common after all.


Shawn Macomber is a reporter for The American Spectator. He runs the website Return of the Primitive.



The Geek Factor

Comment: This article comes from the American Spectator website, which most would consider a far right wing outfit. However, in seeking the understand what the dynamics are that leads voters to support a fraud like unelected Pres. GW, I think this article may have some truth.

The Geek Factor
By Pamela Yates
Published 10/20/2004 12:04:22 AM
George W. Bush is a throwback to the strong male that, until 30 years ago, was the accepted norm. It is only because America's sexual culture has become genderless that Bush's normal masculine qualities are treated with suspicion. The election this November will determine whether the nation still wants to be led by an Alpha male.The only place to showcase one's gender these days are in the fields of entertainment, fashion, and pornography. Men and woman are confused, with men acting like women -- "girlie men" -- and women acting like men.Parity and equality between the sexes is a moral imperative, but denying Mother Nature is a formula for disaster. As a member of the boomer generation, I spend more than my share of time with children of the '60s. Their romanticizing of those days sets my blood to boiling. The advent of the Age of Aquarius set our country on a path of moral, ethical and sexual destructiveness. As a society we have decided it is of the utmost importance to embrace our feminine side. Consequently, we deny the most obvious and elemental differences between male and female. But after 9/11 this delusion is impossible to sustain. The feminists' social engineering project only complicates our ability to think clearly and retain our uniquely American approach to life.When it comes to making strategic decisions, soft men are useless. More preoccupied with emotion than reason, they seek to please everyone rather than solve the problem. And what do they do when they need to show they're real men? They don't show it; they talk about it. Can one imagine Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower flaunting their war experiences in the Boer War or World War II in order to prove that they were real men?We are in a chaotic time of social and cultural confusion in which women want to be dominant and men are expected to be nurturing and empathetic. It has gotten so absurd that there is now even an action figure called "The Geek." In my day, a geek or nerd was someone who was weak and introverted. Now the geek is cool, the male desirable to dominant women.Strong woman, soft men, "Geekman" sex symbols -- it is a dizzying time in this new millennium. George W. Bush's "bring it on," in your face, real guy approach vs. the more feminine model of international consensus-building and "sensitivity" in John Kerry raises the question: Could the latter instill the leadership and inspiration necessary to lead our troops into battle? And why would a "sensitive" coalition builder like John Kerry sprint outside to make cowardly, defamatory statements to the press after the courageous and hopeful speech that the new Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi recently made before the U.S. Congress? The laws of Alpha behavior are the backbone not only in the world of animals but also of men. Alpha types come in all forms, good and evil, male and female. They are born, not created. They have common traits such as focus, egocentricity, high energy, and strong wills. Great success, in high stake games, is usually the result of Alpha types. Leaders, not followers, shape this world. As in nature, a predator -- the Alpha type -- instinctively smells out weakness and vulnerability. No nation that expects to be respected and feared can be led by anyone other than a true Alpha-type personality. To quote Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Girlie men make bad choices." But the self-anointed, wealthy, liberal intelligentsia in this country have convinced themselves and a percentage of the American population that excessive hand-wringing, debating, and agonizing over a situation makes one somehow more caring, intelligent, and insightful. Will squishy consensus-building capture our country's imagination and confidence?I, for one, will not find it refreshing or comforting to have a president fecklessly taking the pulse of the Third World and our enemies in the United Nations while a "Thorny Rose" of a First Lady tells reporters to "Shove it." Perhaps the wrong Kerry ran for the Presidency.Pamela Yates is a writer in Wyoming, New York. Her book, The Gift of More, will be published by FaithWalk Publishing next spring.


Moonies knee-deep in faith-based funds

Moonies knee-deep in faith-based funds Pushing celibacy, marriage counseling under Bush plan
Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer
Sunday, October 3, 2004 now part of stylesheet -->

President Bush has some new troops in his crusade to promote "healthy marriage" and teen celibacy with federal funds -- followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the controversial Korean evangelist and self-proclaimed new world messiah.
At least four longtime operatives of Moon's Unification Church are on the federal payroll or getting government grants in the administration's Healthy Marriage Initiative and other "faith-based" programs.
Two of those Moon associates were in Oakland last week leading dozens of local pastors and social workers enrolled in a "Certified Marriage Education Training Seminar" at the Holiday Inn next to the Coliseum.
In some ways, Moon is an unlikely ally for President Bush's crusade to promote traditional family values.
The 85-year-old Korean is perhaps best known for presiding over mass marriage ceremonies for devotees whose unions are arranged by Moon or other church leaders. After marriage, Unification Church couples are given detailed instructions for their honeymoon, right down to the sexual positions they are supposed to assume during their first three conjugal couplings.
According to Unification Church teachings, the children born from these marriages are "blessed children,'' who, unlike the rest of humanity, are born without original sin.
At the Oakland seminar, Josephine Hauer, a graduate of the Rev. Moon's Unification Theological Seminary in New York and a newly hired "marriage specialist" with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, worked the crowd of ministers and church workers packed into a stuffy room.
"Family is a good thing," said Hauer, holding a cordless microphone in one hand and her PowerPoint remote in the other. "I want to make this a marriage culture again -- a healthy marriage culture.''
As Hauer spoke, the Rev. Bento Leal, another graduate of the seminary and the associate minister at the Bay Area Family Church, a Unification Church congregation in San Leandro, checked a list of names at the door.
Before her new federal job, Hauer was the director of marriage education at the University of Bridgeport in Bridgeport, Conn. That school was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, a Moon-affiliated group, and its current president, Neil Salonen, is a former president of the Unification Church in America.
After less than three days, attendees of the Sept. 23-25 seminar in Oakland were awarded a "Certified Marriage Education Professional Document of Completion," issued by Moon's University of Bridgeport.
"Sixteen hours of training won't make you the best marriage educator," Hauer told her students. "But it takes all kinds of work to save marriage -- people to run the sound system, write the press releases.''
During a seminar break, Hauer declined to answer any questions about her ties to the Unification Church.
"I'm a professional. I don't talk about my religion or my politics," she said. "My religion is not an issue.''
Bush administration officials agreed.
"We don't ask people's religious affiliation before we hire them,'' said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services.
"But if someone uses federal funds to proselytize, that would be a violation,'' Horn said. "It doesn't matter whether they are Baptist, Presbyterian, Jewish, or even members of the Unification Church."
Last week's crash course on marriage education was sponsored by the California State Healthy Marriage Initiative, an organization founded two years ago by the Rev. Dion Evans, pastor of Chosen Vessels Christian Church in Oakland.
Last month, Evans and his partners won a $366,179 grant from the Bush administration's Compassion Capital Fund -- part of the latest $45 million in social service contracts given to churches and community groups from the program this year.
"For four years, I did this work with no government funds,'' said Evans, adding that he has not yet received his first check from the Compassion Capital Fund. Evans said he partnered with the University of Bridgeport because "acknowledgement from a university gives them (seminar participants) support.''
"We had to settle for the University of Bridgeport,'' he said. "This is the last time we will be using them."
Critics say the Oakland program shows how difficult it is to give money to religious organizations while maintaining separation of church and state.
"Moon has been a big backer of the faith-based initiative,'' said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "But it's beyond belief that you can have the University of Bridgeport issuing marriage education certificates and claim that is secular.''
Lynn said the Oakland program also shows how "there is virtually no monitoring of where this money is going.''
"Money goes out and nobody knows how it's used and nobody knows what it's for,'' he said.
Following the money from the federal government to the streets of Oakland is not easy.
The organization that actually received the federal grant is the Institute for Contemporary Studies, a conservative think tank in Oakland and one of Evans' key partners in the California Healthy Marriage Initiative. That partnership comes through another recently founded organization, the Bay Area Inner City Leadership Alliance.
It was founded by the Rev. Walter L. Humphrey, the pastor of Moriah Christian Fellowship Baptist Church in Oakland, and Robert Hawkins Jr., president of the Institute for Contemporary Studies. Board members include Evans and Leal, the Unification Church minister. Leal said the Institute for Contemporary Studies, not the Unification Church, applied for the federal funding for the marriage education training.
"Unificationism is my own faith," Leal said. "This just gives me a chance to work with clergy who are also interested in this issue.''
Hawkins, the director of the Institute for Contemporary Studies, said Moon's teachings were not part of the marriage education program.
"Bento (Leal) has never proselytized, and I didn't know Josie (Hauer) was a Moonie,'' he said. "I just looked at her curriculum and thought it was good. ''
Hawkins said the project is designed to give pastors of smaller inner city churches new skills for "marriage and family strengthening." He added, "It's an experiment. You have to start somewhere.''
Moon has also partnered with the Bush administration in support of the Korean evangelist's strong teachings against premarital sex.
Free Teens USA, an after-school program in New Jersey promoting abstinence until marriage, has been given $475,000 by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, another part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Free Teens is led by Richard Panzer, another alumnus of Unification Theological Seminary. Panzer was also a leader in the American Constitution Committee, one of many political organizations affiliated with Moon.
Panzer insists that his program is "devoid of any religious content.''
"I am a Unificationist, but I am also a professional,'' he said. "The purpose of Free Teens is not to bring young people to any one religious faith. ''
Another longtime political operative in Moon front groups, David Caprara, now directs the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the federal government's Corporation for National and Community Service. That agency runs, among other things, AmeriCorps Vista, which works with community organizations in low-income neighborhoods, and has emerged as a key player in Bush's faith-based initiative, handing out $61 million to faith-based organizations in fiscal year 2003.
Caprara is the former president of the American Family Coalition, a "grassroots leadership alliance" funded by the Washington Times Foundation and founded by Moon in 1984. Caprara declined to comment on his Unification Church ties, referring questions to his press secretary, Sandy Scott.
"We don't inquire about employee's personal religious beliefs,'' Scott said. "What inspires David's work is a dedication to fighting poverty.''
During the 1970s, Moon's Unification Church was widely accused of deceptively recruiting and "brainwashing" idealistic converts on street corners and college campuses across the nation.
In 1982, Moon made headlines around the world when he presided over a mass marriage ceremony involving 2,075 couples in New York's Madison Square Garden.
Late that decade, Moon spent a year in federal prison after being convicted of income tax evasion.
For the past three decades, his controversial sect has struggled to make the leap from "cult" to "religion," to win credibility among political and religious leaders in the United States and around the world.
Through such publications as the Washington Times, a church-financed, conservative daily newspaper in the nation's capital, and through alliances with priests and pastors across the theological spectrum, Moon and company have spent a fortune courting the opinion-makers of church and state.
Moon showed an early interest in the Bush administration's faith-based initiative. In the spring of 2001, the American Leadership Conference, a project of the Caprara's American Family Coalition and Washington Times Foundation, sponsored a "Faith-Based Initiative Summit," a conference that was transmitted via satellite to 40 gatherings in churches and hotel meeting rooms across the country.
That summit came just months after one of President Bush's strongest supporters in the Christian Right, TV evangelist Pat Robertson, warned that religious cults would soon be eligible for federal funds.
In the Feb. 20, 2001, broadcast of his "700 Club" television show, Robertson said the president's faith-based initiative "could be a real Pandora's box."
"What seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite the organizations as well as the federal government," said Robertson, who expressed particular concern about federal money going to the Church of Scientology, the Hare Krishas and "the Moonies."
Robertson and Bush have since come to a meeting of minds on the president's faith-based initiative.
Another of the 145 recipients in the most recent outlay of the Compassion Capital Fund was Robertson's charity, Operation Blessing International, which got $500,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services.
E-mail Don Lattin at dlattin@sfchronicle.com.

Project for the Old American Century

In "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."
1.) Powerful and Continuing NationalismFascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.



and let's not forget the failed "Bring 'em on!"
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
House bill looks to legalize torture by foreign operatives
Ashcroft refuses to give Congress torture memo
July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: The United States on Tuesday suspended military assistance to nearly 50 countries, because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.
Outsourcing Torture: Contractors act as interrogators: Defense Department turned to private sources to question prisoners for intelligence gathering.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detention
al-Qaida Detainees 'Disappeared' : At least 11 al-Qaida suspects have "disappeared" in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.
President Bush today distanced himself from his administration’s quiet effort to push through a law that would make it easier to send captured terror suspects to countries where torture is used.
Guantanamo Eyes Possible Execution Chamber
Bush Civil Rights report released: "...the administration has failed to exhibit leadership or define a clear focus, relegating civil rights to a low priority."
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Cheney warns that if Kerry is elected, the USA will suffer a "devastating attack"
A scared populace is a compliant populace Terrorists are likely planning U.S. attacks, a U.S. Homeland Security official said Friday.
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
How U.S. Attorney-General, a Christian Evangelist With Anti-Islamic Views On Record, Is Waging War On American Muslims
Dr. James J. Zogby: A co-ordinated and bigoted assault The anti-Arab campaign being waged today in the U.S. is an organised multi-pronged effort targeting a variety of Arab leaders, institutions and Islam.
Congressman: Muslims 'enemy amongst us'
4.) Supremacy of the MilitaryEven when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


If you haven't seen the Oreo flash animation yet, see it here

5.) Rampant SexismThe governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights
Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 failed to provide any exception if a woman's health is at stake.
Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records
W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture.
Bush Administration to Extend Health Coverage to Fetuses but Not to Pregnant Women
The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.
Bush calls for constitutional ban on same-sex marriages
6.) Controlled Mass MediaSometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
In bed with the republicans and banning antiwar songs: Clear channel
The White House recently called the president of NBC News, to discourage that network from broadcasting interviews with author of book about the Bush family
Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials right before election
US seizes webservers from independent media sites
Fibbing It Up at Fox
If it's allowed to stand, an FCC ruling will feed media merger mania
Articles published by American outlets suppressed in their own country
Reporters in chains: Under Homeland Security orders, journalists from England, Sweden, Holland and other friendly countries are being detained at U.S. airports, strip-searched and deported.
Bush releases another fake news video See an excerpt from the Education Department fake news propaganda video here (realplayer)
7.) Obsession with National SecurityFear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.


Bush Aides ADMIT 'stoking fear' for political gain
GOP convention in a nutshell (quicktime)
8.) Religion and Government are IntertwinedGovernments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Falwell says evangelical Christians now in control of Republican Party
Religious networks broadcasting Bush's White House prayer event
Thou shalt be like Bush: What makes this recently established, right-wing Christian college unique are the increasingly close - critics say alarmingly close - links it has with the Bush administration and the Republican establishment.
Presidential Prayer Team
US is 'battling Satan' says general
US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush
Park Service Continues to Push Creationist Theory at Grand Canyon and other nat'l parks
9.) Corporate Power is ProtectedThe industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Halliburton, Bechtel, and the Carlyle group: Why were lied into war
Bush's talent for cronyism: foxes guarding the henhouse
Bush Administration Exempts Oil Industry From Clean Water Act
Controversial drilling method may be protected Energy bill compromise would exempt 'hydraulic fracturing'
10.) Labor Power is SuppressedBecause the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Organized labor locks horns with White House Union leaders are working to displace GOP candidates
President Bush Attacks Organized Labor Bush attacked organized labor Saturday, issuing orders effectively reducing how much money unions can spend for political activities and opening up government contracts to non-union bidding.
March 2001: President Bush signed his name to four executive orders on organized labor last month, including one that cuts the money unions will have for political campaign spending.
Congress and the Department of Labor are trying to change the rules on overtime pay, eliminating the 40 hour work week, taking eligibility for overtime pay away from millions of workers, and replacing time and a half pay with comp days.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the ArtsFascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Bush's new economic plan cuts funding for arts, education
NEA vows to undo President Bush's education programs
Artists from all over the world are being refused entry to the US on security grounds.
In a highly unusual use of the USA Patriot Act, which its creators say was designed to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, The New York Times reports that three artists have been served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury June 15
12.) Obsession with Crime and PunishmentUnder fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
U.S. Patriot Act Summary of fascist parts
EFF Analysis of "Patriot II"
13.) Rampant Cronyism and CorruptionFascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Bush Cronyism: Foxes Guarding the henhouse
Iran-Contra Felons Get Good Jobs from Bush
Big Iraq Reconstruction Contracts Went To Big Donors
The companies making the most off the new Medicare contracts also donated the most to the GOP
14. Fraudulent ElectionsSometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
RNC funds voter suppression efforts in at least 5 states
Republican judge upholds RNC efforts to supress Democratic party voters
Bush campaign chairman quits over illegal phone jamming
the 2000 election
How To Rig An Election In The United States
Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Election officials all over the country are erecting illegal barriers to keep young voters from casting ballots. From New Hampshire to California, officials have designed complex questionnaires that prevent college students from registering, hired high-powered attorneys to keep them off the rolls, shut down polling places on campuses and even threatened to arrest and imprison young voters
This picture is what stopped the ballot recounts in Florida shortly after it seemed that legitimate President Gore had a lead. The "citizens" started what was later called "the preppy riot". Screaming, yelling, pounding on the walls, these "outraged citizens" intimidated the polling officials to halt the court mandated recount. A closer look reveals who they really were. They were bussed and flown in at Republican lawmakers expense. Some even flew in on Tom Delay's private plane.

more election fraud information
If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the Republican party?
Related Articles:
"Now and Then"- Part 1 A 3 part series by W David Jenkins III on the similarities between America now and Germany post Reichstag fire
"Now and Then"- Part II: The Propaganda Machine
Now and Then- Part IIIHitler's Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power
The Road to FascismMake that roads, and three great libertarians explained them, says Roderick T. Long.
Is America Becoming Fascist?
Eternal Fascism:Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
The Danger of American Fascism:With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
Sheila Samples: Freedom To Fascism -- A Bumpy Ride: Republicans don't seem to realize that they are no longer individual members of a coherent "party," but are merely part of a mean-spirited and dangerous movement that is threatening to sweep away democracy as we know it.
Germany In 1933: The Easy Slide Into Fascism
The Brownshirting of America: Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.
Three women kicked out of Bush rally for wearing t-shirts that say "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

America: `This is a Crude Government'

Published Sunday, October 17, 2004 in the Toronto Star
America: `This is a Crude Government'
By William Keegan

There are those who lift your spirits, and those who keep you on your toes.
Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, who celebrated his 96th birthday Friday, has lifted the spirits of generations of politicians, officials, economists, students and general readers around the world. He has also kept them on their toes.
When I had lunch recently with him and his wife of 67 years, Catherine, in their house just outside the Harvard campus, autumn was beginning and the great man was in fighting form, despite still being in a wheelchair after a recent illness.
He was also struggling with various deaf-aids, but the spirit was, as always, indomitable.
I was carrying a copy of his latest book, The Economics Of Innocent Fraud, in which he attacks politicians and the media for colluding "in the myths of a benign `market' that big business always knows best, that minimal intervention stimulates the economy, that obscene pay gaps and unrestrained self-enrichment are an inevitable by-product of the system."
It is, as he remarked, his "smallest book, but has taken the longest amount of time."
He had been working on it when we last met two years ago, but he rewrote in between stays in hospital, after the fallout from the Enron crisis proved a dramatic illustration of his thesis that there is nothing that unfettered chief executives will not do to feather their own nests.
Before signing my copy, Galbraith drew my attention to the illustration on the cover.
"This is the roughest thing I've ever had on a book of mine," he said, "An executive briefcase scattering bombs!"
In a world where U.S. foreign policy in Iraq has been dictated by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others with strong corporate links, Galbraith, who has campaigned about the power of large corporations since The Affluent Society (1958) and The New Industrial State (1967), is sticking to his guns, as it were.
Galbraith, following seminal British economist John Maynard Keynes, writes like a dream, and reading The Affluent Society was one of the factors that led a number of my generation to study economics.
As Catherine Galbraith offered a glass of sherry, the professor boomed: "I'm still partly crippled, but alcohol is still remedial."
Then, before I could ask a question, he sailed in.
"Let's start with a few problems I have. Is Blair in trouble?"
I said he ought to be, but it might be wishful thinking on my part, and reminded him of Lord Hailsham's dictum that the British political system is an "elective dictatorship."
Galbraith continued: "It's a strange political calculation of his to stay for so long in support of George Bush. Why did he do that?"
I said his bafflement was shared by many back in Britain.
In Galbraith's view, the French are more in tune with reality.
"Politics must take account not only of the position of the government but also of the forces behind it, and Blair does not have the support of the articulate in the U.S."
He added: "And that is the group which has always thought well of a certain allied relationship with Britain."
At this stage, I tried to move the conversation back to The Economics Of Innocent Fraud and get him to say something about Conrad Black, his fellow Canadian, with whom I recalled he had not been too enamoured on a previous occasion. But he would not be moved.
"Why has Britain been so tolerant of George Bush and his gang?"
He smiled, adding: "I always interview the reporter."
I did my best to answer this. He then said that perhaps it was partly because "a lot of things important to the U.S. do not have the same repercussions in Britain."
Warming to his theme, he said: "This is a crude government, and its crude misdirection of power in minor things has more direct impact domestically than abroad."
Such as?
"One of the worst things — unimaginable in Britain — is the open character of legislation for the rich, particularly on taxation, and the open resistance to support for the poor.
"When income tax reductions" — he pauses and revises "reductions" to "slashes" — "were put into effect, they were combined with this warning: `Let's not open the way for a softer policy for the poor and the unemployed' — a softer policy that in Keynesian terms might have been a more important factor in alleviating the recession."
Many people enter their "anecdotage" at ages much younger than Galbraith's. Although he was happy to reminisce, he kept returning to the gravity of the American and world scene.
"We are seeing the disintegration of the American economic and wider world role, which could well continue after this election. I am talking about the passage of power to the Rumsfelds of the economic and political structure."
In his new book, Galbraith points out that, in the fiscal year 2003, "close to half the total of U.S. government discretionary expenditure (outlay not mandated for particular use, such as social security or service of the public debt) was used for military purposes — for defence, as more favourably it is called."
In one sense, as he acknowledges, little has changed since Dwight Eisenhower warned in the 1950s of a "military-industrial complex."
Galbraith gave a dire warning of what would happen if George W. Bush were re-elected:
"Under the thrust of power of present forces, including the money-making powers, there's going to be a continuing and disastrous decline" in America.
"The Rumsfelds and the Cheneys will still be there, and anyone with a grasp of world history should be here to report it."
He smiled and added: "Why don't you do that?"
The great man feels passionately.
"In all my 90-odd years, I've never had such a clear view of the future," he said, adding with a twinkle in his eye, "with still, of course, the possibility of being wrong."
But only the possibility.
"I have a feeling that not since the end of World War II have we had such a time when the role of wisdom, action and misunderstanding in the U.S. has such worldwide consequences."
With that, he was assisted into a chair that hoisted him up the stairs, as if on a domestic funicular railway, for his nap.
As he disappeared from sight he called out: "There's just one more thing."
His nurse brought down a bumper sticker with a picture of George W. Bush. The slogan: "Some things were never meant to be recycled."

© 2004 Toronto Star

Open letter to the citizens of the United States of America

Comment: (in an ironic tone) Can't believe this editorial hasn't been reprinted in every American Newspaper

From Pravda.....
Open letter to the citizens of the United States of America
10/18/2004 13:10
Never in the history of humankind has an election had so much at stake
Dear friends,
As a journalist who has the good fortune to write for an international journal with millions of readers around the world, I have the individual responsibility to inform you of the feeling in the international community regarding the outcome of the election on November 2nd.
As citizens of the United States of America, who have the power to endorse or to dismiss the policies of the Bush regime, you have a collective responsibility not only unto yourselves, but to the world, which will hold you accountable for your decision.
I write this letter as a citizen of this international community and as a journalist for a newspaper whose name is Pravda (Truth), I have the obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I can say for a start that the vast majority of the international community will agree with the thoughts and requests expressed in this open letter. As proof, one only has to see the opinion polls held around the world, in which only a small handful of citizens from a tiny percentage of states prefer a re-election of George Bush to regime change in Washington.
It is not for foreigners to dictate to the people of the United States of America how to vote, however since the media in the USA is controlled and since people do not have access to the current of opinion in the international community, it is an act of friendship to inform the citizens of the USA how the world feels about the state of affairs today and it is our right as citizens of the world to express our concern, for the Bush administration does not confine itself to its shores.
9/11 was a horrific event, which went against the grain of human civilization, as did the horrendous terrorist attack in the school of Beslan in the Russian Federation. However terrible these events were, it is necessary to envisage the facts with maturity and to draw the correct conclusions from them, not to use an evil event to justify another act of evil.
Unfortunately this is what the Bush regime has done. While the attack against Afghanistan was understandable in the circumstances (although such an attack had been planned well before 9/11, not because of the Taleban regime, which George Bush Senior created, but because of the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan), the attack against Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with international terrorism.
From a moral point of view, the Bush regime could not have descended lower. Lies, forgery, blackmail, bullying and belligerence became the modus operandi of American diplomacy, instead of discussion, dialogue and debate, the fundamentals of democracy, which Bush and his clique of corporate elitists threw out of the window in their haste to get their hands on the resources of Iraq, a country which did not possess chemical or nuclear or biological weapons, despite the repeated claims that it did.
The raw truth is that Saddam Hussein was the man telling the truth and that George Bush was the one who "stiffed the world".
The fundamental precepts which justified the war have since been refuted and denied, in their entirety, by the very people who stood before the cameras and lied through their teeth, saying they knew where the WMD were hidden and they knew where the evidence would be found.
These people are the members of the Bush regime, not one or two members, but all of them. It is not only George Bush who stands for election on November 2nd - it is the entire regime, including the substantially important Jewish lobby within Washington. It is not only Capitol Hill which controls your foreign policy, it is also, and with increasing importance, the Knesset in Tel Aviv.
George Bush may have tried his level best at being President of the United States of America and nobody doubts that he will have wanted to give it his best shot and do a good job. However, his background, his speeches and his skills, make it only too apparent that he does not have what it takes. Like the Texas he was born in, he is a Lone Ranger.
George Bush and his government have managed to divorce Washington from the international community. He dare not step off an aircraft in most countries and even in the home of his closest ally, the UK, he was the only visiting Head of State to have to run out of Number 10 Downing Street by the back door, because he was too scared to leave by the front, given the fury of the demonstrators against him.
Is this the image you wish to vote for on November 2nd?
George Bush and his administration spent four long years breaking every fibre of decency and each and every norm in practice in the diplomatic community. If New York is host to the United Nations Organization, how can it be justified to breach the UN Charter by attacking Iraq outside the auspices of this organization? Each and every resolution bears the express condition that any act of war must be the result of a separate resolution of the UN Security Council.
If Washington and London did not believe this to be the case, why did the USA and UK spend so many energies trying to secure the vote, only to deride this organism when they saw they could not win the day by diplomatic means? Hence the phrase, echoing around the international community: US out of UN or UN out of US.
George Bush has turned the USA into a pariah state in the international community and before the eyes of the citizens of the world.
The legacy of George Bush is unfortunately abject failure in everything he has done. Internally, it is up to the citizens of the USA to decide whether he has delivered on jobs, health care, welfare, pensions and so on - for this is nobody else"s business. Externally, however, he has wholly destabilized a delicate region which he was advised not to enter.
Afghanistan is far from pacified, the Taleban are as strong as ever, the difference being now that the heroin trade has restarted. Fantastic for the cities of Russia and Europe, now flooded once more by prime quality smack. We can thank George Bush for that every time an old lady is kicked to death for her pension money by some guy who needs a fix.
Iraq was never a bastion of terrorism, as Rumsfeld now admits. It is now, only after the illegal, incompetent, unfounded invasion launched by George Bush. Cities like Fallujah, more than one year on, are still in the hands of Iraq"s freedom fighters and now, the calls for British troops to help the US forces, who are losing control in Baghdad, are causing a political furore in London, due to the fact that the actions of the US armed forces would be considered war crimes in Europe.
The torture at Abu Ghraib was one symptom of a disease called George Bush and his neo-conservative, extremist, elitist regime, basically a group of super rich kids who thought nothing of spending two hundred thousand million dollars of your hard-earned money, which, you"d better believe it, you will pay a heavy price for in the coming years. Elect Bush again, and there will be more, much more.
You, the electors, will be the ones who pay, not Bush or Cheney or Rice or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. They"ve already filled their coffers, they only care about you before November 2nd. After that, all you can do is to sit back and watch as the horror unfolds before your eyes..
The final twist to this sordid and horrible tale is that the war crimes committed by the Pentagon have created a sullen hatred in the hearts and minds of the international community. The shock and awe we feel at learning how cluster bombs were dropped in civilian areas, for children to pick up thinking they were sweets, only to have their eyes and faces and futures and lives blown away, makes us stand together making a solemn and heartfelt request to our friends, or those we wish to count as friends, over the other side of the Atlantic.
Please, consider very carefully what you are doing on November 2nd. We want to have the USA back among us as part of the international community of nations. A vote for Bush is a vote for more wars, more terrorism, more violence, a shift further away from the welcoming arms of the community of nations, which wants to live together as brothers, not in hatred.
Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not Christian, it is evil and the callousness with which this issue is faced by the Bush regime is witness to the coldness in their hearts and minds, a coldness which creates shock and revulsion in the community of nations. In Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in Canada
If you cannot bring yourselves to vote for any of the other contestants, then at least, please, consider not voting for Bush. In a nutshell, there are no two ways about it. Killing tens of thousands of civilians by strafing their homes, mutilating tens of thousands more, commiting rape and torture on a scale unseen outside the concentration camps of Hitler, amounts to war crimes, murder.
Voting for Bush is voting for a war criminal and a mass murderer.
In the name of the world community,For the Love of God,
Respectfully and in friendship

A Little Patriotic Sacrifice

Published on Friday, October 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
A Little Patriotic Sacrifice
by Bill Moyers

There are moments when you see suddenly crystallized in a particular event, a threat to democracy as ominous as the smoke rising from Mt. St. Helens.
How Did Your Representatives Vote? US House Roll Call 509HR 4520 10/7/2004 US Senate Vote 211 HR 4520 10/11/2004
This week it was that enormous payoff to big corporations by their subjects in Congress. I say payoffs advisedly. Business elites provide politicians with the money they need to run for office. The politicians pay them back with a return on their investment so generous it boggles the mind. That legislation enacted this week is worth $137 billion in tax cuts for corporations. One company alone -- General Electric -- will receive over $8 billion, despite earnings last year of over $15 billion. Many companies -- Microsoft, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Eli Lilly, among others -- have been parking profits overseas rather than bring them back to America where they are taxed. So Congress has now blessed them with a one-time "tax holiday" during which they can bring home the bacon at about one-seventh of the normal tax rates.
These plums are usually couched in such language they would defy a Delphic oracle to interpret them -- all the more to hoodwink us. What's behind those hieroglyphics in Section 713, Subsection A and B, Page 385? Why, a multimillion dollar windfall to Home Depot for importing ceiling fans made by serfs in China. And that little clause written in Sanskrit so tiny it would take a Mount Palomar telescope to read? Nothing less than a $27 million tax present to foreigners who bet at American horse and dog tracks. On and on it goes, the pillaging and plundering by suits with Guccis.
In a time of war, terror, and soaring deficits, you would think the governing class would be asking these corporate aristocrats to make a little patriotic sacrifice like that asked of single mothers or our men and women in Iraq. Instead they're allowed to pass their share of the burden to workers and children not yet born. At the least they ought to be required to remove the flag from their lapels and replace it with the icon they most revere -- the dollar sign.
Bill Moyers is the host of NOW with Bill Moyers, airing Friday nights at 9 on PBS (check local listings at www.pbs.org/now/sched.html)

Election Showdown In Fallujah


Election Showdown In Fallujah
Robert Dreyfuss
October 19, 2004
Yesterday I reported on the fact that the United States had inexplicably arrested the main negotiator for Fallujah, making it clear that Bush and Rumsfeld have no intention of trying to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, for electoral purposes, they are trying to show their "resolve" in an effort to win a war that is clearly not winnable.
During Vietnam, until the release of the Pentagon Papers, we didn't know that even the U.S. military considered the Vietnam War unwinnable. In this war, we pretty much know that they do—leading generals, even conservatives like Gen. William Odom, have said so. [See Far Graver Than Vietnam and Media Lost On Iraq .) Yet the Bush administration can't admit it, especially not before the election, so they are rumbling ahead, killing everything in their path.
The Times reports on the arrest of Khalid Jumali, the Fallujah negotiator, making it clear that it signals the start of the occupation of the city:
The American military confirmed Monday for the first time that they had detained and released Mr. Jumali, but it is unclear why they did so and what they did with Mr. Jumali when they had him. "He was detained for a short time," said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, a military spokesman in Baghdad. The colonel gave no further details.
Back at home on Monday, Mr. Jumali said he had been picked up by American forces on Friday in the nearby town of Habbaniya and flown by helicopter to a military base, where he had been interrogated about conditions in Fallujah. He said the Americans had given him a toothbrush and a bar of soap during his detention. "They treated me well," he said.
His detention, which the Americans initially denied, seemed unusual, if only because some of the Americans and Iraqis involved in the negotiations said they regarded Mr. Jumali as well intentioned. It seemed clear enough on Monday that he was very much a man caught between two powerful forces that he could not control: the American military and the insurgents.
"I don't know why I was arrested, and the investigator told me he didn't know either," Mr. Jumali said.
But the fact is, the insurgents are split, and intelligent diplomacy could isolate the Zarqawi Al Qaeda circle by making a deal with the nationalists, the Baathists and the rest of the non-Islamist resistance in the Sunni triangle. No other solution will work for Iraq, in the long run, so why not make the deal now, instead of a year from now? November 2, that's why.