Tell your representatives to uphold their oath of office, protect the Constitution, and cosponsor this legislation.
read more | digg story
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Naomi Wolf's Call to Patriots -- Today's Echoes of Goebbels, and the Fragil
This is an important read for all who value our American democracy. It is a call to action and waking up to what is happening.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Greenspan Misses Cheney’s Memo: Spills the Beans on Oil
The Truth about Iraq invasion finally surfaces---what the rest of us knew all along!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, August 23, 2007
ES&S Facing Massive Fines, Possible Decertification in CA
The notice goes on to announce a hearing that will be held in Sacramento on September 20th to determine the penalties that ES&S may face, including a $10,000 fine per violation, complete refund for the price of the "compromised voting system, whether or not the voting system has been used in an election," full decertification of the system, and ...
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Courage Campaign | Erik Love's Blog: No More Dirty Tricks
The California Republican Party is trying to pass legislation in the state to redistribute electoral votes by congressional district. If this happens in a traditional "blue state," the Republican Party will gain at least 20 electoral votes in the Presidential election. California should not be the only state targeted for this dirty trick.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, August 20, 2007
James Heffernan: What Does "Pro-Life" Really Mean?
It means pro-coercion. It means pro-criminalization. It means seeking to punish women for exercising a right that for more than thirty years has been treated as Constitutional. (You can't make abortion illegal without prosecuting, convicting, and jailing the women who choose it as well as the doctors who perform it.)
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
New Executive Order Could Lead to Endless Chain of Repression
July 20, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild If you go to an anti-war protest, and the Treasury Secretary claims you "pose a significant risk" of committing an act of violence, he can put a freeze on all your financial assets, including your home.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Conyers: White House lied about Rove
"Our system of government does not allow the White House to demand this kind of blind faith and secrecy."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, July 16, 2007
David Bromwich: Character of G.W. Bush
More lies from the Bush administration---building up another false case to start another failed war. "Never wholly separate in your mind the merits of any political question from the men who are concerned it it." Edmund BurkeThe men occupying the White House have lost contact with reality.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Firefighters Speak Out About Giuliani's Record In New York City
The firefighters in New York City have put together a video explaining their opposition to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. It's a powerful video in which firefighters explain how Giuliani's decisions put them at risk.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Paul Begala: George W. Bush is One Tough Hombre
Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. Tough enough to sanction torture. Tough enough to order an American citizen arrested and held without trial.And we still have 567 days to go.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Bush and Cheney walk, too
Even as the president confesses that Scooter Libby engaged in a cover-up -- after all, that was the verdict -- he completes the ultimate obstruction of justice in the Plame affair.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of
From C&L: Keith Olbermann delivers arguably his most pointed and most powerful Special Comment yet on the ramifications of Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, July 1, 2007
New NSA Whistleblower Speaks
A former member of U.S. military intelligence has decided to reveal what she knows about warrantless spying on Americans and about the fixing of intelligence in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. She says she was given an orally communicated waiver to spy on US, Canadian, French, German, Australian, and British citizens without probable cause.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, June 18, 2007
Like No Other Commentator - Bill Moyers on Scooter Libby
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/06/begging_his_pardon.html
Begging His Pardon
by Bill Moyers
We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.
It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice President Cheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threw the book at Libby.
You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”
Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…of personal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.
“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its own reconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.
The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby’s “honesty, integrity, fairness and balance” as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. “The case was such a farce, in my view,” he said. “I’m for pardon on the merits.”
One beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving—“weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness” of Libby's sentence.
And there’s the rub.
None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing “in the nobility of this war,” wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a “casualty”—a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.
Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.
There are contrarian voices: “This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice,” said Pat Buchanan. “The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.” From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.”
So it may well be, as THE HARTFORD COURANT said editorially, that Mr Libby is “a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot…but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn’t matter much.”
Begging His Pardon
by Bill Moyers
We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.
It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice President Cheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threw the book at Libby.
You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”
Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…of personal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.
“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its own reconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.
The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby’s “honesty, integrity, fairness and balance” as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. “The case was such a farce, in my view,” he said. “I’m for pardon on the merits.”
One beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving—“weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness” of Libby's sentence.
And there’s the rub.
None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing “in the nobility of this war,” wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a “casualty”—a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.
Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.
There are contrarian voices: “This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice,” said Pat Buchanan. “The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.” From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.”
So it may well be, as THE HARTFORD COURANT said editorially, that Mr Libby is “a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot…but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn’t matter much.”
Sunday, June 17, 2007
"Media does Matter" - from mediamatters.org
Fri, Jun 15, 2007 8:41pm EST
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706160002
"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
With the truth so far off, what good will it do?
If there's a more pointless word in political journalism than "authentic," it must be "electable."
Like "authenticity," "electability" is little more than a catch-all that allows the speaker to express his or her approval for, or disapproval of, a candidate in seemingly definitive terms, based on ... anything at all.
NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams provided an example this week. Asked by Williams if Sen. Hillary Clinton "is electable as president," Russert responded by pointing to a Gallup poll that Russert said found her "favorable rating amongst all Americans was 46 percent; her disapproval, 50 percent. So, it would be a very difficult, hotly contested campaign -- winnable -- but no doubt difficult."
Moments earlier, Russert and Williams had been discussing their own network's recent poll. But asked to assess Clinton's "electability," Russert turned to a Gallup poll to ominously note her high disapproval rating -- despite the fact that NBC's own poll included a perfectly legitimate measure of Clinton's "electability": a hypothetical head-to-head general election match-up with Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani. According to the NBC poll, Clinton beats Giuliani by five points in such a match-up.
In other words, Russert could just as easily have pointed to a result from his own employer's poll that would have created precisely the opposite impression. And doing so would have presented results every bit as valid as the poll results he did tout. Which suggests that media discussions of "electability" are little more than predictions -- guesses, really -- dressed up as analysis.
Think back to 2000, for example. In its October 16, 2000, issue, Newsweek wondered -- under the heading of "conventional wisdom" -- whether Al Gore was transitioning from "unlikable" to "unelectable." Three weeks later, Gore won. He had gone from teetering on the edge of unelectability -- someone for whom victory is impossible -- to winning more votes than his opponents. (And lest anyone protest that "electable" in presidential politics refers to electoral votes rather than popular votes, keep in mind that for the purposes of this discussion, voter intent is what matters. And a clear plurality of Florida voters walked into their polling place on Election Day intending to vote for Al Gore.)
To be sure, political journalists aren't alone in their obsession with "electability" -- or in their inability to accurately assess it. As late as June 1992, columnist Bob Novak was writing that Democrats were wondering of Bill Clinton, "Why does he seem to be unelectable against a flawed and unpopular Republican incumbent?" Mary McGrory of The Washington Post agreed, writing on June 4, 1992:
The Democrats, having done just what they were told and having gotten just what they wanted -- an early nominee -- are miserable. So is the nominee.
Bill Clinton seemed made to order for a party that kept nominating unelectable liberals. He is not just moderate, he's DLC, which is practically Republican. He's tall, good-looking, good-hearted, a born campaigner, a pet of yuppie journalists. For the most part, he talks in sensible specifics. So how did he disappear in the bright sunlight of California, in the last primary, where he was a victor but not really a player?
[...]
No Democrat speaks the dark party doubts about electability out loud. So-called party elders who might suggest another course are inhibited about speaking out. Clinton was at least willing to run. The party's brighter lights refused. Lloyd Bentsen said it was too late; Bill Bradley said it was too early; Mario Cuomo said go away, I'm busy with my budget. Others who might say something are either hoping to be Clinton's vice president or the nominee next time. A great silence prevails; underneath it, a great fear.
The Democrats have realized that while they were looking for a winner, the country was looking for a leader.
But just because "The Democrats" thought it didn't make it true. Clinton, of course, turned out to be quite "electable," winning Electoral College landslides in both 1992 and 1996.
Columnist Mark Shields (inadvertently, it seems) provided what may be the best illustration of the folly of broad assertions about electability during a January 25, 2004, appearance on CNN's Sunday Morning:
SHIELDS: Let me just add, that I think it's interesting electability really is upper most. You talk to voters, talked to a Wesley Clark voter yesterday, they said, were you bothered at all in any way about the fact that Clark had supported, voted for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and said, nope, we got to win back people who did, those Reagan Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan.
So electability is central. If electability had been dominant in the 2000 election, which it wasn't, then Democrats would have nominated Bradley who is far more electable than Al Gore, and Republicans would have elected John McCain, who is far more electable than George Bush.
Got that? Bill Bradley, who lost to Al Gore in every single primary, was the more "electable" of the two. And John McCain was "far more electable that George Bush." George Bush, as you may have noticed, is currently serving his second term as president of the United States. John McCain, as you may have noticed, is not. But John McCain "is far more electable than George Bush" -- no matter what those pesky elections show.
But the best reason for political pundits and journalists to get over their obsession with "electability" isn't that they risk looking foolish when their guesses turn out to be incorrect -- which is good, because the fear of looking foolish when they turn out to be wrong rarely seems to deter pundits from saying foolish things.
No, the best reason not to focus on "electability" is that news reports full of speculation about "electability" are news reports that aren't focusing on what the candidates would do if elected, and what that means for the country.
Let's say that on Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews and his guests spend 10 minutes in a spirited debate about Hillary Clinton's "electability." "She's unelectable," a pundit declares. "You're crazy. She's completely unelectable," Matthews responds. And so on. Now: what has the audience learned? That Clinton can't win? Well, true or not, we'll find out soon enough. Meanwhile, we haven't learned anything that will help us decide if she should win.
It is important to note that this does not seem to be equal-opportunity pointlessness. Democrats seem to be the subject of far more media speculation that they may be "unelectable" than Republicans.
A Nexis search covering January 1 to today finds 74 news reports that contain the word "unelectable" within 10 words of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. Only 24 contain the word "unelectable" within 10 words of McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. And this isn't merely an artifact of the media's obsession with Hillary Clinton. "Unelectable" appeared within 10 words of Clinton 58 times, Obama 29 times, and Edwards 15 times. (These individual numbers do not total 74 because some articles mentioned multiple candidates near the word "unelectable.") On the Republican side, John McCain led the way with 13 mentions of his name within 10 words of "unelectable," followed by Giuliani with 9, and Romney with 4.
That's an imprecise measure, to be sure. But it seems that, after portraying progressives as bumbling losers for so long, many in the media actively look for reasons why a Democratic candidate can't win -- and for reasons why a Republican can.
As a result, for example, John Edwards' hair and purported good looks are portrayed as a negative -- an indication that he is a lightweight. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney's "perfect hair" and "great chin" and "shoulders you could land a 737 on" are painted as assets. And Fred Thompson -- he's "the new Robert Redford." You can "smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva." More substantively, Rudy Giuliani's stated positions on the Iraq war and national security are wildly unpopular with the American people. And yet the media fall all over each other in a race to declare national security a political winner for him.
In September 2005, we wrote about a column by Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "[A]t a time when it seems that half the Republicans in Washington are being fitted for orange jumpsuits, Howard Fineman argues that Democrats are in trouble." Then, for much of last year, the media portrayed the Iraq war as a political danger for Democrats, despite a nearly limitless supply of public polling that showed the opposite. As the year wore on, and Democratic electoral victories looked more and more likely, Mark Halperin warned that the Democrats should be "scared to death about November's elections," while Mike Allen and James Carney weighed in with an October 9, 2006, article declaring, "You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them." A month later, Republicans lost big.
Constantly searching for reasons why Democrats can't win, why they are "unelectable," may be a comfortable old habit. But it doesn't serve the public well, and it makes the media who participate in it look increasingly silly.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706160002
"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
With the truth so far off, what good will it do?
If there's a more pointless word in political journalism than "authentic," it must be "electable."
Like "authenticity," "electability" is little more than a catch-all that allows the speaker to express his or her approval for, or disapproval of, a candidate in seemingly definitive terms, based on ... anything at all.
NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams provided an example this week. Asked by Williams if Sen. Hillary Clinton "is electable as president," Russert responded by pointing to a Gallup poll that Russert said found her "favorable rating amongst all Americans was 46 percent; her disapproval, 50 percent. So, it would be a very difficult, hotly contested campaign -- winnable -- but no doubt difficult."
Moments earlier, Russert and Williams had been discussing their own network's recent poll. But asked to assess Clinton's "electability," Russert turned to a Gallup poll to ominously note her high disapproval rating -- despite the fact that NBC's own poll included a perfectly legitimate measure of Clinton's "electability": a hypothetical head-to-head general election match-up with Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani. According to the NBC poll, Clinton beats Giuliani by five points in such a match-up.
In other words, Russert could just as easily have pointed to a result from his own employer's poll that would have created precisely the opposite impression. And doing so would have presented results every bit as valid as the poll results he did tout. Which suggests that media discussions of "electability" are little more than predictions -- guesses, really -- dressed up as analysis.
Think back to 2000, for example. In its October 16, 2000, issue, Newsweek wondered -- under the heading of "conventional wisdom" -- whether Al Gore was transitioning from "unlikable" to "unelectable." Three weeks later, Gore won. He had gone from teetering on the edge of unelectability -- someone for whom victory is impossible -- to winning more votes than his opponents. (And lest anyone protest that "electable" in presidential politics refers to electoral votes rather than popular votes, keep in mind that for the purposes of this discussion, voter intent is what matters. And a clear plurality of Florida voters walked into their polling place on Election Day intending to vote for Al Gore.)
To be sure, political journalists aren't alone in their obsession with "electability" -- or in their inability to accurately assess it. As late as June 1992, columnist Bob Novak was writing that Democrats were wondering of Bill Clinton, "Why does he seem to be unelectable against a flawed and unpopular Republican incumbent?" Mary McGrory of The Washington Post agreed, writing on June 4, 1992:
The Democrats, having done just what they were told and having gotten just what they wanted -- an early nominee -- are miserable. So is the nominee.
Bill Clinton seemed made to order for a party that kept nominating unelectable liberals. He is not just moderate, he's DLC, which is practically Republican. He's tall, good-looking, good-hearted, a born campaigner, a pet of yuppie journalists. For the most part, he talks in sensible specifics. So how did he disappear in the bright sunlight of California, in the last primary, where he was a victor but not really a player?
[...]
No Democrat speaks the dark party doubts about electability out loud. So-called party elders who might suggest another course are inhibited about speaking out. Clinton was at least willing to run. The party's brighter lights refused. Lloyd Bentsen said it was too late; Bill Bradley said it was too early; Mario Cuomo said go away, I'm busy with my budget. Others who might say something are either hoping to be Clinton's vice president or the nominee next time. A great silence prevails; underneath it, a great fear.
The Democrats have realized that while they were looking for a winner, the country was looking for a leader.
But just because "The Democrats" thought it didn't make it true. Clinton, of course, turned out to be quite "electable," winning Electoral College landslides in both 1992 and 1996.
Columnist Mark Shields (inadvertently, it seems) provided what may be the best illustration of the folly of broad assertions about electability during a January 25, 2004, appearance on CNN's Sunday Morning:
SHIELDS: Let me just add, that I think it's interesting electability really is upper most. You talk to voters, talked to a Wesley Clark voter yesterday, they said, were you bothered at all in any way about the fact that Clark had supported, voted for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and said, nope, we got to win back people who did, those Reagan Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan.
So electability is central. If electability had been dominant in the 2000 election, which it wasn't, then Democrats would have nominated Bradley who is far more electable than Al Gore, and Republicans would have elected John McCain, who is far more electable than George Bush.
Got that? Bill Bradley, who lost to Al Gore in every single primary, was the more "electable" of the two. And John McCain was "far more electable that George Bush." George Bush, as you may have noticed, is currently serving his second term as president of the United States. John McCain, as you may have noticed, is not. But John McCain "is far more electable than George Bush" -- no matter what those pesky elections show.
But the best reason for political pundits and journalists to get over their obsession with "electability" isn't that they risk looking foolish when their guesses turn out to be incorrect -- which is good, because the fear of looking foolish when they turn out to be wrong rarely seems to deter pundits from saying foolish things.
No, the best reason not to focus on "electability" is that news reports full of speculation about "electability" are news reports that aren't focusing on what the candidates would do if elected, and what that means for the country.
Let's say that on Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews and his guests spend 10 minutes in a spirited debate about Hillary Clinton's "electability." "She's unelectable," a pundit declares. "You're crazy. She's completely unelectable," Matthews responds. And so on. Now: what has the audience learned? That Clinton can't win? Well, true or not, we'll find out soon enough. Meanwhile, we haven't learned anything that will help us decide if she should win.
It is important to note that this does not seem to be equal-opportunity pointlessness. Democrats seem to be the subject of far more media speculation that they may be "unelectable" than Republicans.
A Nexis search covering January 1 to today finds 74 news reports that contain the word "unelectable" within 10 words of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. Only 24 contain the word "unelectable" within 10 words of McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. And this isn't merely an artifact of the media's obsession with Hillary Clinton. "Unelectable" appeared within 10 words of Clinton 58 times, Obama 29 times, and Edwards 15 times. (These individual numbers do not total 74 because some articles mentioned multiple candidates near the word "unelectable.") On the Republican side, John McCain led the way with 13 mentions of his name within 10 words of "unelectable," followed by Giuliani with 9, and Romney with 4.
That's an imprecise measure, to be sure. But it seems that, after portraying progressives as bumbling losers for so long, many in the media actively look for reasons why a Democratic candidate can't win -- and for reasons why a Republican can.
As a result, for example, John Edwards' hair and purported good looks are portrayed as a negative -- an indication that he is a lightweight. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney's "perfect hair" and "great chin" and "shoulders you could land a 737 on" are painted as assets. And Fred Thompson -- he's "the new Robert Redford." You can "smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva." More substantively, Rudy Giuliani's stated positions on the Iraq war and national security are wildly unpopular with the American people. And yet the media fall all over each other in a race to declare national security a political winner for him.
In September 2005, we wrote about a column by Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "[A]t a time when it seems that half the Republicans in Washington are being fitted for orange jumpsuits, Howard Fineman argues that Democrats are in trouble." Then, for much of last year, the media portrayed the Iraq war as a political danger for Democrats, despite a nearly limitless supply of public polling that showed the opposite. As the year wore on, and Democratic electoral victories looked more and more likely, Mark Halperin warned that the Democrats should be "scared to death about November's elections," while Mike Allen and James Carney weighed in with an October 9, 2006, article declaring, "You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them." A month later, Republicans lost big.
Constantly searching for reasons why Democrats can't win, why they are "unelectable," may be a comfortable old habit. But it doesn't serve the public well, and it makes the media who participate in it look increasingly silly.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Call Your Senators to Reject Spakovsky Nomination to the Federal Election Commission
From the New York Times, June 14, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/opinion/14thu2.html?th&emc=th
Published: June 14, 2007
It apparently wasn’t enough for the Bush administration to pack the Department of Justice with political operatives. The White House has now nominated one of the most meddlesome of those partisans, Hans von Spakovsky, to a powerful post on the Federal Election Commission.
This is the agency charged with making sure elections are fair — an especially ludicrous perch for Mr. Spakovsky. As a voting-rights appointee in the Justice Department, he promoted Republican initiatives to crimp the ballot power of minorities and the poor who typically favor Democrats.
In one of his party missions, Mr. Spakovsky overrode the recommendations of the department’s staff professionals and approved a regressive law in Georgia that required voters to provide photo identification. The law, a voter suppression tool worthy of the Jim Crow era, was later blocked by the courts. A former G.O.P. county chairman in Georgia, Mr. Spakovsky failed to recuse himself from such an obvious conflict of interest. He also pushed for department approval of Tom DeLay’s Texas gerrymandering plan — the plan that the Supreme Court ruled violated the Voting Rights Act.
Feverish for the Republican edge, Mr. Spakovsky drove career lawyers from the Justice department and constantly parroted the (Karl) Rovian line that voter fraud is rampant, though studies have found otherwise.
Uncertain that even a Republican-controlled Senate would approve Mr. Spakovsky’s nomination to the F.E.C., President Bush gave him a recess appointment to the commission last year. The new Democratic-controlled Senate now has the opportunity to strike a blow against electoral skullduggery with a blunt rejection of Mr. Spakovsky’s nomination for a full six-year term.
The realpolitik problem with that is that the two-party machines traditionally stack the F.E.C. with loyal mediocrities and avoid confronting each other’s bad apples. Making it worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has nominated a hometown buddy and party ally to the commission and isn’t eager to jeopardize his own choice. But that’s no reason to look the other way when it comes to Mr. Spakovsky’s obvious unfitness for the job.
Democrats should make clear to the White House — and to Mr. Reid — that the F.E.C. is too important to be left in the hands of political hacks or to be sacrificed for the sake of a political deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/opinion/14thu2.html?th&emc=th
Published: June 14, 2007
It apparently wasn’t enough for the Bush administration to pack the Department of Justice with political operatives. The White House has now nominated one of the most meddlesome of those partisans, Hans von Spakovsky, to a powerful post on the Federal Election Commission.
This is the agency charged with making sure elections are fair — an especially ludicrous perch for Mr. Spakovsky. As a voting-rights appointee in the Justice Department, he promoted Republican initiatives to crimp the ballot power of minorities and the poor who typically favor Democrats.
In one of his party missions, Mr. Spakovsky overrode the recommendations of the department’s staff professionals and approved a regressive law in Georgia that required voters to provide photo identification. The law, a voter suppression tool worthy of the Jim Crow era, was later blocked by the courts. A former G.O.P. county chairman in Georgia, Mr. Spakovsky failed to recuse himself from such an obvious conflict of interest. He also pushed for department approval of Tom DeLay’s Texas gerrymandering plan — the plan that the Supreme Court ruled violated the Voting Rights Act.
Feverish for the Republican edge, Mr. Spakovsky drove career lawyers from the Justice department and constantly parroted the (Karl) Rovian line that voter fraud is rampant, though studies have found otherwise.
Uncertain that even a Republican-controlled Senate would approve Mr. Spakovsky’s nomination to the F.E.C., President Bush gave him a recess appointment to the commission last year. The new Democratic-controlled Senate now has the opportunity to strike a blow against electoral skullduggery with a blunt rejection of Mr. Spakovsky’s nomination for a full six-year term.
The realpolitik problem with that is that the two-party machines traditionally stack the F.E.C. with loyal mediocrities and avoid confronting each other’s bad apples. Making it worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has nominated a hometown buddy and party ally to the commission and isn’t eager to jeopardize his own choice. But that’s no reason to look the other way when it comes to Mr. Spakovsky’s obvious unfitness for the job.
Democrats should make clear to the White House — and to Mr. Reid — that the F.E.C. is too important to be left in the hands of political hacks or to be sacrificed for the sake of a political deal.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Sharon Olds, Poet, Declines White House Invitation
Sharon Olds, Poet, declines White House Invitation
The power of poetry
In a culture like ours, one sometimes forgets the power of a poet's
words...Here is an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush
declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics
Circle Award in Washington, DC.
Feel free to forward it along if you feel more people may want to read it.
Sharon Olds is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed poets
living in America today. Read to the end of the letter to experience
her restrained, chilling eloquence.
To: Laura Bush, First Lady, The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind
invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on
September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or
the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at
a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of
finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in
terms of the desire that poetry serve its
constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and
outer news, it delivers. And the concept of a community of readers
and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of
creative writing in the graduate school of
a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some
magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have
become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of
settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high
schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a
900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has
been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting
friendships between young MFA candidates and their
students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor,
courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost non moving
spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by
letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and
essentialness of writing.
When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer
who is completely nonspeaking and non moving (except for the eyes),
and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get
to the first letter of the first word
of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all
week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is
touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive
for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the
importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's
unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I
thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach
program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books
and meet some of the citizens of
Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as
your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we
should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish
to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant
loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the
noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our
democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on
the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express
the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and
religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and
diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear
witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and
its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war. But I
could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I
sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning
what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush
Administration. What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I
would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents
the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its
continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary
rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be
tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish
and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I
thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the
flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS
This exchange was forwarded to me by Marilyn Horne, who had also
turned down a similar invitation some time ago, as follows:
Brava! I did not write a letter when I was asked a few yrs. ago to
sing for the Christmas Tree lighting at the White House. I refused,
but did not go public about it. I just could not be seen as
supporting this regime. It was the first term, too.......
MARILYN HORNE
The power of poetry
In a culture like ours, one sometimes forgets the power of a poet's
words...Here is an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush
declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics
Circle Award in Washington, DC.
Feel free to forward it along if you feel more people may want to read it.
Sharon Olds is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed poets
living in America today. Read to the end of the letter to experience
her restrained, chilling eloquence.
To: Laura Bush, First Lady, The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind
invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on
September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or
the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at
a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of
finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in
terms of the desire that poetry serve its
constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and
outer news, it delivers. And the concept of a community of readers
and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of
creative writing in the graduate school of
a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some
magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have
become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of
settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high
schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a
900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has
been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting
friendships between young MFA candidates and their
students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor,
courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost non moving
spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by
letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and
essentialness of writing.
When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer
who is completely nonspeaking and non moving (except for the eyes),
and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get
to the first letter of the first word
of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all
week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is
touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive
for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the
importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's
unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I
thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach
program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books
and meet some of the citizens of
Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as
your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we
should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish
to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant
loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the
noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our
democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on
the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express
the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and
religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and
diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear
witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and
its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war. But I
could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I
sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning
what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush
Administration. What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I
would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents
the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its
continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary
rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be
tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish
and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I
thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the
flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS
This exchange was forwarded to me by Marilyn Horne, who had also
turned down a similar invitation some time ago, as follows:
Brava! I did not write a letter when I was asked a few yrs. ago to
sing for the Christmas Tree lighting at the White House. I refused,
but did not go public about it. I just could not be seen as
supporting this regime. It was the first term, too.......
MARILYN HORNE
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Should Bush be allowed to choose which laws he has to obey?
http://www.populistamerica.com/should_bush_be_allowed_to_choose_which_laws_he_has_to_obey
Thought-provoking article by Cliff Carson at the above link. He states that "a healthy and moral Society can exist only when there is a a rule of law applied equally and fairly to all citizens, from the most powerful to the weakest, from the wealthiest to the absolute poorest,equally and fairly to all races,religions, and any citizen who doesn't fit into the above." Mr. Carson also writes that our once great country has been weakened by the current administration which has been ignoring the rule of law and that left unchecked will continue to weaken our resolve. Left unchecked, the "Law of the Jungle" will eventually supersede the "Rule of Law."
Thought-provoking article by Cliff Carson at the above link. He states that "a healthy and moral Society can exist only when there is a a rule of law applied equally and fairly to all citizens, from the most powerful to the weakest, from the wealthiest to the absolute poorest,equally and fairly to all races,religions, and any citizen who doesn't fit into the above." Mr. Carson also writes that our once great country has been weakened by the current administration which has been ignoring the rule of law and that left unchecked will continue to weaken our resolve. Left unchecked, the "Law of the Jungle" will eventually supersede the "Rule of Law."
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Scooter Libby's Sentencing
Firedoglake has a great post on the meaning of Libby's sentencing. Judge Reggie Walton got it right and helps to renew our faith in the legal and judicial process. Scooter was not sporting his usual arrogant smirk after his sentencing. Even though he may have been a "nice" person with children and families, he did not show any remorse about his role in obstructing the investigation into the outing of CIA covert agent, Valerie Plame. Scooter's bigger crime was his first loyalty to one political party and not to his country and constitution. Let's hope further investigations can be started into who actually was the originator of the leak. Outing a covert agent is an act of treason. Let's hope that justice will prevail.
See:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/05/notes-from-the-libby-sentencing/
Notes From the Libby Sentencing
By: Jane Hamsher
This morning as Marcy and I were headed to court we were listening to James Gordon Meek on Washington Journal. Meek was talking about the the bombing plot at JFK and Marcy and I were laughing as one caller after another expressed extreme skepticism about the seriousness of the threat. Meek did his best to be respectful and try to give some kind of context to their critique but almost to a one the callers were so skeptical about the Bush Administration and anything it might claim that all they could do was scoff.
We saw Meek later at the courthouse and he was good natured about the schism between the Washington Journal's caffeinated, east coast reporter's time slot and west coast callers who were still ripped at 5 in the morning. But he was a bit frustrated that nobody could hear what he was trying to say — namely that as someone who covers terrorism all the time, it was his impression that George Bush was the very best recruiting poster that Al Qaeda could possibly have. That in the face of the Iraq war, their recruiting numbers were up, their fundraising was skyrocketing and even though many of the recent "terrorist" attempts were made by those with little competence the danger from anti-American forces was increasing. America is hated round the world and responsibility for this can be laid directly at the feet of the Bush Administration.
Meek's greater point was indeed lost. Contrary to what some Presidential 08s might want to believe, we are not safer than we were six years ago.
Which brings us to, oddly, what for me was the most telling moment of the Libby trial today. It is customary for those found guilty to express contrition during the sentencing phase, a factor that judges take very seriously when determining jail time. Libby expressed none. Zero, zip, bupkis. It was my impression during the trial watching Libby that he thought himself a great man to whom a terrible wrong has been done. Today Scooter's career as a man on trial ended and his life as professional right wing victim began.
Looking at the incredible collection of letters written in his defense is enough to give anyone the bone chilling creeps, but it does offer some insight into the sickness that governs beltway culture these days. As Rick Perlstein notes:
What's missing from every single one - every one: a single forthright statement about the magnitude of the offense for which he'd already been convicted.
Because they, like Libby, don't believe he's done anything wrong. The modern Republican party is built on the construct that all government is bad, and once in power they set about bringing into fruition this self-fulfilling prophecy with ruthless efficiency. They destroy everything they touch, but they are very good at what they are good at: PR, partisan politics and preserving their own power. From where they stand, from where Scooter stands, there is no culpability in anything done in the service of this, and Scooter was just doing his job. Read through the letters. The presumption of exreme moral rectitude even in the absence of any kind of moral compass whatsoever is gobsmacking.
But it does go along way to explaining why the Washington Journal is fueled by the anger of people who believe that the government is never to be trusted or believed. This is a terrible problem, probably one of the greatest that the next President will face. Even as we need to start redeeming government from Grover Norquist's bathtub and begin to have a conversation about what the appropriate role in our lives that government should play, people have been rendered so cynical and so jaded, so thoroughly convinced that those to whom governance has been entrusted like Scooter Libby and his letter writing pals can do nothing right that re-engaging the public at a level necessary to redeem this country from the problems we are going to face will be extremely difficult.
It was rendered just a little bit easier today when Reggie Walton recognized what Scooter Libby and his cronies did not — Scooter is not a great man, he's a common crook and in the eyes of the law he ought to go to jail. This country will be just a little bit better tonight, a little bit healthier and closer to a place where faith in government and our system of justice can be restored because Libby and all his Very Important Friends were not able to hornswoggle Reggie Walton like they have been so many journalists who have fallen down on the job and failed to ask the kind of appropriate questions that should have kept us from getting to this place to begin with.
Thanks, Judge Walton. It was a privilege to sit in your courtroom and see justice carried out. I'll always remember the experience and I believe that as time goes on it will be seen as an important turning point, one where Americans began to shake off the cynicism that has creeped into our national consciousness and reconnect with the kind of faith in the system we will need in order to the face the challenges before us.
What a great experience. On behalf of everyone here at FDL, thanks to everyone who participated in the process and to everyone who shared it with us.
It was the gift of a lifetime, one I would not have missed for the world.
It did not disappoint.
See:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/05/notes-from-the-libby-sentencing/
Notes From the Libby Sentencing
By: Jane Hamsher
This morning as Marcy and I were headed to court we were listening to James Gordon Meek on Washington Journal. Meek was talking about the the bombing plot at JFK and Marcy and I were laughing as one caller after another expressed extreme skepticism about the seriousness of the threat. Meek did his best to be respectful and try to give some kind of context to their critique but almost to a one the callers were so skeptical about the Bush Administration and anything it might claim that all they could do was scoff.
We saw Meek later at the courthouse and he was good natured about the schism between the Washington Journal's caffeinated, east coast reporter's time slot and west coast callers who were still ripped at 5 in the morning. But he was a bit frustrated that nobody could hear what he was trying to say — namely that as someone who covers terrorism all the time, it was his impression that George Bush was the very best recruiting poster that Al Qaeda could possibly have. That in the face of the Iraq war, their recruiting numbers were up, their fundraising was skyrocketing and even though many of the recent "terrorist" attempts were made by those with little competence the danger from anti-American forces was increasing. America is hated round the world and responsibility for this can be laid directly at the feet of the Bush Administration.
Meek's greater point was indeed lost. Contrary to what some Presidential 08s might want to believe, we are not safer than we were six years ago.
Which brings us to, oddly, what for me was the most telling moment of the Libby trial today. It is customary for those found guilty to express contrition during the sentencing phase, a factor that judges take very seriously when determining jail time. Libby expressed none. Zero, zip, bupkis. It was my impression during the trial watching Libby that he thought himself a great man to whom a terrible wrong has been done. Today Scooter's career as a man on trial ended and his life as professional right wing victim began.
Looking at the incredible collection of letters written in his defense is enough to give anyone the bone chilling creeps, but it does offer some insight into the sickness that governs beltway culture these days. As Rick Perlstein notes:
What's missing from every single one - every one: a single forthright statement about the magnitude of the offense for which he'd already been convicted.
Because they, like Libby, don't believe he's done anything wrong. The modern Republican party is built on the construct that all government is bad, and once in power they set about bringing into fruition this self-fulfilling prophecy with ruthless efficiency. They destroy everything they touch, but they are very good at what they are good at: PR, partisan politics and preserving their own power. From where they stand, from where Scooter stands, there is no culpability in anything done in the service of this, and Scooter was just doing his job. Read through the letters. The presumption of exreme moral rectitude even in the absence of any kind of moral compass whatsoever is gobsmacking.
But it does go along way to explaining why the Washington Journal is fueled by the anger of people who believe that the government is never to be trusted or believed. This is a terrible problem, probably one of the greatest that the next President will face. Even as we need to start redeeming government from Grover Norquist's bathtub and begin to have a conversation about what the appropriate role in our lives that government should play, people have been rendered so cynical and so jaded, so thoroughly convinced that those to whom governance has been entrusted like Scooter Libby and his letter writing pals can do nothing right that re-engaging the public at a level necessary to redeem this country from the problems we are going to face will be extremely difficult.
It was rendered just a little bit easier today when Reggie Walton recognized what Scooter Libby and his cronies did not — Scooter is not a great man, he's a common crook and in the eyes of the law he ought to go to jail. This country will be just a little bit better tonight, a little bit healthier and closer to a place where faith in government and our system of justice can be restored because Libby and all his Very Important Friends were not able to hornswoggle Reggie Walton like they have been so many journalists who have fallen down on the job and failed to ask the kind of appropriate questions that should have kept us from getting to this place to begin with.
Thanks, Judge Walton. It was a privilege to sit in your courtroom and see justice carried out. I'll always remember the experience and I believe that as time goes on it will be seen as an important turning point, one where Americans began to shake off the cynicism that has creeped into our national consciousness and reconnect with the kind of faith in the system we will need in order to the face the challenges before us.
What a great experience. On behalf of everyone here at FDL, thanks to everyone who participated in the process and to everyone who shared it with us.
It was the gift of a lifetime, one I would not have missed for the world.
It did not disappoint.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
About "Satya" and "Satyadasi"
"Satya" is a Sanskrit word for "truth," but it also includes the concept of "consciousness, awareness and being-ness of truth."
"Dasi" is the feminine form of "servant" or disciple. That is an aspiration that is sought by me to be achieved---to be a disciple & servant of truth in thought, word and deed.
Truth can set us free, free of confusion, free of anger, free of hatred, free of injustice or "adharma" (another Sanskrit term that means injustice, "untruth," deception, immorality, lack of ethics). The Sanskrit word, "Dharma" means truth, "duty to ethical, right-minded action, right livelihood," and justice. It is essential and vital to our existences that we work to embrace "Dharma" to create a world of harmony, clear-headed action, peace and prosperity (not just for the few) but for the many.
In this current cycle, politically, socially, religiously, environmentally, and ethically, there is confusion, hatred, anger which can pollute our consciousness. To make changes or to bring about the "dharma," we each individually must seek to resonate with the "Truth," that is Universal and Eternal. "Truth" does have a frequency or vibration to it that will strengthen each of us and will guide us to take right action.
Many of us, including myself, are being impelled to act, not only politically, but socially and also spiritually, because of our realization that the "Dharma" and our democratic institutions that we have grown up with and cherish are being demolished.
I was inspired to set up this blog to provide yet another venue to exchange ideas about the nature of truth and how to put that awareness and inspiration into action, whether it be social, political, spiritual, environmental, or health and safety.
I'm a believer of "satya-graha" or non-violent action. Gandhi believed that if one takes violent political action, one becomes the tyrant that is being overthrown. He achieved political success through the use of his intelligence and spiritual inspiration. He was effective because he honored, listened to and was guided by that Universal Truth which is powerful, creative and non-destructive, which can be accessed through meditation, contemplation, and introspection. He also believed that whenever violence occurred, there was going to be "blowback" or negative karma to be experienced. He wanted India to be liberated from the British through non-violent methods as he knew that karmically there would be blood on the hands of the Indian people, which they would have to be accountable for at some time. (What goes around comes around!)
Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. -Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948)
There is no god higher than truth. Mahatma Gandhi
Truth fears nothing but concealment. (proverb)
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German-Swiss-U.S. scientist.
Truth is the property of no individual but is the treasure of all men. Ralph Waldo Emerson
The people have a right to the truth as they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Epictetus
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
Truth is its own reward. Plato
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead... Thomas Jefferson
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
"A half-truth is nothing but a lie." Yiddish Proverb
Adharma (lies, injustice, corruption, unethical behavior) causes disruptions in our emotions, minds, and physical bodies which lead to imbalances and erratic behavior. It also causes a sense of lack, a lack of hope, lack of love, lack of opportunity and abundance, and a lack of will-power. So it is essential that we all make an effort to "rise above" the frequency or vibration of the negativity of lies, distortions, manipulations, injustices, not only to discern this, but to act from awareness of the truth and to be moved and embraced by that Universal Truth of compassion, understanding and justice.
"Dasi" is the feminine form of "servant" or disciple. That is an aspiration that is sought by me to be achieved---to be a disciple & servant of truth in thought, word and deed.
Truth can set us free, free of confusion, free of anger, free of hatred, free of injustice or "adharma" (another Sanskrit term that means injustice, "untruth," deception, immorality, lack of ethics). The Sanskrit word, "Dharma" means truth, "duty to ethical, right-minded action, right livelihood," and justice. It is essential and vital to our existences that we work to embrace "Dharma" to create a world of harmony, clear-headed action, peace and prosperity (not just for the few) but for the many.
In this current cycle, politically, socially, religiously, environmentally, and ethically, there is confusion, hatred, anger which can pollute our consciousness. To make changes or to bring about the "dharma," we each individually must seek to resonate with the "Truth," that is Universal and Eternal. "Truth" does have a frequency or vibration to it that will strengthen each of us and will guide us to take right action.
Many of us, including myself, are being impelled to act, not only politically, but socially and also spiritually, because of our realization that the "Dharma" and our democratic institutions that we have grown up with and cherish are being demolished.
I was inspired to set up this blog to provide yet another venue to exchange ideas about the nature of truth and how to put that awareness and inspiration into action, whether it be social, political, spiritual, environmental, or health and safety.
I'm a believer of "satya-graha" or non-violent action. Gandhi believed that if one takes violent political action, one becomes the tyrant that is being overthrown. He achieved political success through the use of his intelligence and spiritual inspiration. He was effective because he honored, listened to and was guided by that Universal Truth which is powerful, creative and non-destructive, which can be accessed through meditation, contemplation, and introspection. He also believed that whenever violence occurred, there was going to be "blowback" or negative karma to be experienced. He wanted India to be liberated from the British through non-violent methods as he knew that karmically there would be blood on the hands of the Indian people, which they would have to be accountable for at some time. (What goes around comes around!)
Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. -Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948)
There is no god higher than truth. Mahatma Gandhi
Truth fears nothing but concealment. (proverb)
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German-Swiss-U.S. scientist.
Truth is the property of no individual but is the treasure of all men. Ralph Waldo Emerson
The people have a right to the truth as they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Epictetus
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
Truth is its own reward. Plato
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead... Thomas Jefferson
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
"A half-truth is nothing but a lie." Yiddish Proverb
Adharma (lies, injustice, corruption, unethical behavior) causes disruptions in our emotions, minds, and physical bodies which lead to imbalances and erratic behavior. It also causes a sense of lack, a lack of hope, lack of love, lack of opportunity and abundance, and a lack of will-power. So it is essential that we all make an effort to "rise above" the frequency or vibration of the negativity of lies, distortions, manipulations, injustices, not only to discern this, but to act from awareness of the truth and to be moved and embraced by that Universal Truth of compassion, understanding and justice.
Thunderbolt quotes
War would end if the dead could return. -Stanley Baldwin, statesman
(1867-1947)
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of
those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too
little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality.
-Theodor Adorno, philosopher and composer (1903-1969)
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to
think sanely under the influence of a great fear. -Bertrand Russell,
philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)
An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart. -Robert M. Sapolsky,
neuroscientist and author (1957- )
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
(1867-1947)
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of
those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too
little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality.
-Theodor Adorno, philosopher and composer (1903-1969)
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to
think sanely under the influence of a great fear. -Bertrand Russell,
philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)
An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart. -Robert M. Sapolsky,
neuroscientist and author (1957- )
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
