Message to America

Sarah Palin Addresses Wisconsin Protesters: You Must Be 'Willing To Sacrifice'

2011-02-21T12:51:00.001-08:00

I’m sorry to say this, but Sarah Palin’s right: "Real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice.” Hells YES: even if that means we MUST sacrifice the first Amendment to the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

The right to free speech or to assemble? Who needs that?! Especially if, in assembling, we decide to bargain collectively… Shouldn’t we all just - I dunno - be willing to sacrifice certain parts of the Constitution so that the Tea Party can be happy? Come on, people! She’s not really asking for that much!

Who’s with me? Join now, and I’ll throw in sacrificing the 14th Amendment as well!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Vitriol in Our National Bloodstream

2011-01-10T11:44:00.001-08:00

The terrible truth that no one wants to admit is: for Loughner to have committed the heinous crime he did, required MANY people — friends, family, clergy, co-workers, & educators — to ignore his rantings & allegiances, to overlook him as a risk, and to fail to get him the institutionalization he needed.

The painful events of this weekend aren’t really about political vitriol or gun control; they’re about how our culture copes with mental health issues. As I read more about Loughner, it's clear that he was delusional in many, many ways.

Today's environment of harsh rhetoric doesn't help the mentally ill. Easy access to guns doesn't help the mentally ill. And Sarah Palin doesn't help the mentally ill... even if she’s mentally ill herself. But America must learn how to identify and cope with mental illness.

But history has proven that crazy and violent Americans like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Theodore Kazinsky, Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine assailants and now this gem of a man demonstrate their sicknesses well before they commit their heinous crimes — a trail of evidence suggesting how badly they needed our help before their acts of terrorism.

What makes me so sad isn't just this act of terrorism, but also what it says about us: our culture, our awareness and our priorities. Every one of us — even in some small way — is responsible for what just happened and what will happen moving forward. We bare more than witness; we bare responsibility.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tucker Carlson: Michael Vick 'Should Have Been Executed' (VIDEO)

2010-12-30T12:30:00.001-08:00

Man, you gotta LOVE fake Christians like Tucker Carlson who have the balls - within two sentences - to utter the following: "I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself… And I think, personally, [Michael Vick] should've been executed for that.”

Because, you know, that’s EXACTLY what Christ preached: executing people.

Dear Christians who hide behind your holy book while preaching violence, hatred and base desires: we see you for who you are, for what you are and no one - NO ONE - actually falls for your brand of pathetic sermonizing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

WikiLeaks' Amazon Servers Go Offline (LIVE UPDATES)

2010-12-01T23:00:00.001-08:00

the first amendment has no mention of enemy agents, friend. it's a stated right for all peoples in this country, something the founders wanted in order to help set america and its brand of democracy apart from other forms of governance.

and it's a right so important that it's the very FIRST of the constitutional amendments. i might not like what the julian assange publishing, no more than i like a KKK parade. but the constitution is, at it's core, about helping those who are disenfranchised the most and protecting their core rights.

including julian assange.

so shame on you, joe lieberman and shame you too, amazon. you both represent a fear-based shift away from the freedoms americans hold dear and into scare tactics not seen since the mccarthy witch hunt of the 1950's.

remember folks: when the government seeks to manipulate businesses to violate the constitution, it's not just julian assange that's at risk...

it's ALL of us.
About Wikileaks
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

GOP Candidate Ken Buck: 'I Disagree Strongly With The Concept Of Separation Of Church And State' (VIDEO)

2010-10-26T12:54:00.001-07:00

We must remember as progressives, that when waves of positive change sweep through our society and affect core issues such as racism, homophobia, reproductive and sexual freedoms… that such great change will cause great fear in those who cannot embrace it. And the bigger the change, the bigger the fear. It’s mathematical, really. Which is to say: we MUST be going through a tremendous amount of change right now because there is a tremendous uprising of fear, close-mindedness and violence coming out to greet it.

We would be wise to remember that fear is an indication of how much change is happening. The only question now is: will the cultural revolution underway continue peacefully or violently? It’s not pleasant to consider and it’s not fair, but those who cannot embrace change will use any means necessary - including violence - to not be left behind.

But they will be left behind. The history of America reveals that change and evolution always happens over time. It is, like it or not, inevitable.

Reminds me of one of my old, fave JFK quotes: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ahmadinejad U.N. Speech (VIDEO): U.S. Walks Out Over 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

2010-09-23T17:42:00.001-07:00

really? you're going to bat for a repressive dictator? seriously? man, i'd LOVE to hear you talk about hitler: i'll bet you thought he was misunderstood as well.

looks like you need to educate yourself. a lot.

the man denies the holocaust: http://bit.ly/aeoT5I

the man blames jews for the controversy over a mosk at ground zero: http://bit.ly/bPkmyf

the man boasts that israel is governed by hatred: http://bit.ly/bh70es

the man leads a regime which kills children, women and homosexuals: http://bit.ly/djL0no

the man stole an election triggering massive demonstrations: http://bit.ly/9CYfqR

the man denies that his country has a nuclear program: http://bit.ly/aVloFW

so tell us and - please - provide verifiable info for us ignorants: exactly what are we misunderstanding about ahmadinejad? exactly how are these radical stances "misunderstood"?

because here's what i think: you're a racist who probably doesn't know it yet.
About Iran
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

WikiLeaks VIDEO Exposes 2007 'Collateral Murder' In Iraq

2010-04-05T13:59:00.001-07:00

i understand that war is brutal. i understand that war creates great profits for some and massive casualties for others. but SEEING a portion of how this was was (or is) being waged as i watched fthe first 5min of that video made my stomach sour.

right now, the emotional reaction of what i've just witnessed is almost too much to bear.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Georgia Attorney General Faces Impeachment Threat After Refusing To File Anti-Health Care Lawsuit

2010-03-25T22:10:00.001-07:00

mommy, mommy: the democratic attorney general won't do what i want him to do! so i know: let's impeach him!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Georgia Attorney General Faces Impeachment Threat After Refusing To File Anti-Health Care Lawsuit

2010-03-25T22:09:00.001-07:00

mommy, mommy: the democratic attorney general won't dot what i want him to do! i know: let's impeach him!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dan Choi Handcuffs Himself To White House In Don't Ask, Don't Tell Protest (VIDEO)

2010-03-18T16:06:00.001-07:00

Congratulations to Nelson Montana for unilaterally speaking for all Americans! Thank you, Nelson!! As long as you're on a role, please tell me, "What else is happening in the news doesn't sway me?"

You may be a blogger for the Huffington Post, Nel, but you don't get to speak on behalf anyone other than yourself.

As for me, I most certainly AM swayed by Choi's actions. I think it was daring, brash and continues to call very good attention to his being dismissed after being outed for his sexual orientation.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has come out in favor of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. General David H. Petraeus said the same thing earlier this week at a House hearing.

If Choi wants to add his voice to the mix, that's his right. And for those of you that think that Choi's act was extreme, remember this:

every war that's ever been fought in the name of protecting liberty or freedom, every veteran you know that's ever served on behalf of your country has fought, in essense, for Choi's right to protest in this fashion.
About Don't Ask Don't Tell
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bart Stupak Abortion Claims Debunked: Health Bill Would NOT Force Federal Spending On Abortion

2010-03-06T01:08:00.001-08:00

Dear gay Republicans who hate yourselves for being gay: you're STILL gay - http://bit.ly/akGZ0D If you're unwilling to love yourself, you're not qualified to stand in judgement of me. In fact, you're not qualified to stand in jugement of anyone, anyhow. None of us are.

And dear Republicans who hate it when others make decisions about your guns: stop making decisions about what pregnant women can do with their children. If you expect the nation to trust you to keep as many weapons as you like in your home, then you'd better learn to trust what others choose to do with their own bodies and families.

And dear Republicans who hate socialism: if you've ever been helped by the police or fire department; if you've ever driven on local, state or federal roads; if you've ever borrowed a book from the library; if you've ever been helped in any way by the miltary; if you've used a bridge or a dam; if you've turned on the faucet for a cup of water; if you've ever taken public transportation or gone to a public school...

In short, if you're ALREADY a product of socialized benefits and services, then nobody is going to take you seriously when you say socialism doesn't work.

So I propose a solution: until you can back up your words with consistency, or facts, or both...shut the fuck up.

Love,

The Real Democrats,

The Ones that watch, and learn, and talk, and vote.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Grayson, Bachmann Debate Health Care Reform On 'Larry King Live' (VIDEO)

2010-03-03T23:03:00.001-08:00

michelle bachman is like a bad turd the morning after a massive mexican dinner: painful, gassy and you can't wait for it to be over.

but remember: larry king and the other douchebags at CNN and FOX keep putting her on camera. if you wanna be upset at what she says (and theyze be plenty o' reasons for that), remember that media giants are putting her on the air for a reason: to annoy you.

stop being annoyed.

stop making sense of it.

do something to bring about the change you want instead.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

He really is "The One".

2008-11-08T17:17:00.000-08:00

Click on the image for a better view.

When Pigs Fly...

2008-10-06T15:25:00.000-07:00

If you're following the campaign this week, you probably already know that the campaigning has turned dirty: McPalin are talking non-stop about how Obama spends his free time with domestic terrorists and radical fringe figures like Jeremiah Wright and 1960s-era radical Bill Ayers.

In response, JoeBama launched a new "documentary" about how McPalin was involved with the Keating 5/Savings & Loan scandal 20 years ago.

So what does it mean then that FOX NEWS has actually taken to debunking many of McPalin's claims about Obama? For crying out loud folks, when Fox starts debunking lying conservatives, you know that Hell's freezing over.

I guess that would explain the pigs...

CONFIRM that you're registered to vote

2008-10-03T15:54:00.000-07:00

M2A Fans,

Beginning today, I'll be posting/sending more thoughts in the run-up to the election.

With about 30 days before the 2008 general election and with so many "errors" that can occur before you even reach the polls (purging of voter rolls, change of addresses, foreclosures and more...), take a few minutes and MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE. CONFIRM IT WITH YOUR LOCAL COUNTY.

Here's how.

If you live within the 50 states, go here:
http://www.votersunite.org/info/RegInfo.asp
Scroll to find the info on your state.

If you're a citizen who lives overseas, go here:
https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/

If you're a student, go here:
http://www.brennancenter.org/studentvoting

And please: pass this information on to everyone you know. I've got Democrats and Republicans that read these posts so remember: this is a civic, non-partisan effort and therefore, we ALL benefit. Encourage everyone you know to vote. It's the very least we can do in any democracy.

For faith, truth and love of country,
Your Sometimes Humble Editor,

David Koff

Mainstream Media: Myth #1

2008-09-24T14:29:00.000-07:00

Here are two terms you often hear folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other "pundits" mention on their shows: "The Mainstream Media" or "The Drive-by Media"

The frequent claim on right-wing talk shows is how the "Mainstream Media" promotes a Liberal agenda while ignoring or undermining solid Conservative issues. And so we're clear: "Mainstream Media" refers to the large news conglomerates who rule the airwaves and press, thus influencing the most people. An unfair advantage, right?

Wrong, as it turns out.

In truth, the Fox "News" Channel is frequently the highest rated channel with the most viewers among ALL of the cable news networks including CNN, CNBC & MSNBC. I guess the right-wing hosts who like to propagate this lie don't respect their audiences enough to think that any of them would actually, i don't know, fact check...?

Whoooops.

Five Simple Rules for Learning How to Debate

2008-09-20T17:18:00.000-07:00

With the debates beginning later this week, I thought I might share an important lesson I learned from reading George Lakoff and from listening to countless hours of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved and other "pundits": FRAMING the political discussion is essential because it allows you to neutralize your opponent and control the debate to your advantage.

Therefore, to help you understand how the political game is played on a micro-level, I offer the following rules of engagement. Let's call them: "Dave's Rules".

Dave's Rule #1: Always be the one to ASK the question. The person asking the question has control of the conversation and, therefore, the debate.

This rule is deceptively powerful because it takes advantage of human psychology and behavior. If I ask you a question, you're forced - if people are watching - to answer. If I avoid answering, I look like I've got something to hide. This is why you'll rarely, if ever, see two candidates addressing each other directly in a televised debate. There's always a neutral moderator in place to ensure that one party can't control the situation.

But what about at a dinner party? What about at work by the coffee pot on Monday mornings? With no moderator, people are free to use whatever tactics they like to convince others of their positions. Here's an example: let's say a rabid Republican vomits the following on you: "Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim with radical friends and no real foreign policy experience. Why would any American give their support to a Muslim who is so unprepared to lead, especially after 9/11?"

I like to call this kind of tactic an "attack question" because it attacks the person in the guise of asking a real question.

Now, the natural inclination for most liberals/progressives in this situation would be to clearly and articulately defend why you support Obama. And if you do this: the rabid Republican has just won the debate, right there, without even needing to hear what you have to say. Because at that point, it doesn't MATTER what you have to say. It matters that you've taken the bait and gone on the defensive by answering the absurd question that was posed to you. Instead, take another approach...

Dave's Rule #2: Never answer an "attack question". Instead, side-step the remark and counter with your own question.

Don't waste your time trying to defend the absurd or the ridiculous. I'll save you the time: you can't. Instead, use the oldest tactic in the book - respond to an attack question with a question of your own. Reply to the rabid Republican's "question" with:

"How can you be so ignorant - in this age of immediately accessible data - to actually believe that a Christian man with a Harvard Law Degree, who has been elected to local, state and national positions and has run a successful national Presidential campaign for 18 months is, somehow, unfit to lead America on domestic and foreign issues?!?"

Slam dunk response. You've labeled your opponent as ignorant, provided some correction of facts, cited the availability of data to prove your point and then questioned his ability to make a sound judgment. Now he'll be forced to answer your question and defend his ignorance.

This rule ensures that you can quickly and effectively put your opponent on the defensive instead of becoming defensive yourself. Always strive to take the dominant position in a debate.

Dave's Rule #3: ALWAYS ask for clarification and source materials from your opponent. Controlling authenticity means you control the conversation.

This rule, truly, is the easiest because it only requires that you be curious about how your opponents came to their conclusions. Let's say, you're at a dinner party and a gentleman says, "I won't vote for Obama because he's going to raise taxes." Simply ask him in which publication he read this information. By doing so, you'll not only put an attacker on the defensive, but you'll also - at the very least - ensure that the conversation won't be based on gut emotions or rumors but rather on factual information. And you'll put others in the room on notice.

If the person you've questioned is educated, maybe they'll provide you with some solid information that proves their position. If so: fantastic. Now you've just learned something yourself. You can thank them for this.

More likely than not, however, the other person won't have a credible source. They'll have heard someone they trust say something powerful and repeat the claim. Or they'll have listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity spew un-factchecked hatred on the air about the issue and adopt the soundbite as their own.

Challenge them. Get facts, not opinion.

Dave's Rule #4: Be Brief. Time is our most precious commodity.

It's sad but true: the patience of the average American these days is quite small. We live in a world of soundbites and YouTube clips. How many people actually read the newspaper anymore? Or novels for that matter? Most of America doesn't have or make the time. They're too busy holding down three jobs to make ends meet. So say what you need to say quickly. If you need ten written pages to defend your position, like these folks, you're going to lose your audience. No one wants to read that much, even if you ARE right.

Dave's Rule #5: Assume a strong posture: immediately label your opponent when then play their cards.

If, during a dialogue or debate, your opponents give you a compliment, thank them for their kindness. Graciously accepting a compliment raises the bar for all involved, engenders trust and allows for a moment of humanity.

If, however, your opponents lie about you, manipulate facts, or spread rumors, then immediately label them for what they are. Say it out loud, give it a name and call them to the carpet. And for goodness sakes: don't be shy about it because your Republican opponents certainly won't be.

Saying to your opponent "You're lying to the American people about my record and abusing the public's trust..." is a far stronger response than "I never said that...". Saying, "You're running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern Presidential history" is an even stronger way to label your opponent...even if the statement is, perhaps, itself an exaggeration.

Starting this Friday night, I encourage you to try a little experiment. Record each debate. Then, when you have a bit more time, play it back. Get a beer. Kick back. Make a night of it. Invite friends over. Then watch carefully: do the candidates answer the questions? Pause the action and discuss. Are the candidates assuming a dominant or submissive position again their opponent? Are they labelling one another quickly and effectively? And are they the ones setting the tone by asking the questions...?

Let the games begin.

Ugly Christians, Ruining It for Everyone....Again.

2007-07-20T19:37:00.000-07:00

Newton's 3rd Law: Why Progressives Should Thank Bush & Rove

2007-06-13T15:16:00.000-07:00

Aaah, good 'ole Isaac Newton... Now there was a guy who understood politics.

Of course we already know that his "3rd law" is a foundational piece of science: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Anyone who's ever studied high school science is familiar with those words and knows what they mean -- if we push on something, that thing will push back. Simple.

But Newton's 3rd law is worth repeating because it transcends science to become a political and spiritual principal as well: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Politically, this means that when one side pushes, another side pushes back. It's the same concept that's perpetuated the Arab/Israeli conflict for generations and it's the same concept for which progressives should give thanks to the Bush/Rove administration.

Shocked? Don't be. After all, we progressives don't exist in a vacuum; we're out there in the real world, in the trenches and working to educate and inform the public (since the mainstream media gave up on that task years ago). And it is - I would argue - precisely because of George W. Bush that progressives finally found our stride: we needed something around which to unify, organize and rally. Yes, yes... progressives have been around for a while, I know. We've seen a nice evolution over the years from abolitionists to reformers to unionizers to new deal supporters to hippies to bloggers and environmentalists.

But the rise and momentum of our current progressive movement mirrors the rise of the Bush administration. We've never been so present, so organized, so visible. That's because this administration's policies on the environment, national security, human rights, international treaties, and the economy have given progressives the focus we needed to band together and give us a focus.

Thank you, Mister President for all of your bumbling, fudging, manipulating, and illegal wire-tapping. You've accidentally given us the greatest gift of all: a cause against which to rally.

Frank Zappa, Part One: How to Debate Conservatives

2007-06-08T00:44:00.000-07:00

The late Frank Zappa was a prolific musician, a shocking lyricist, a comedy genius and certainly no stranger to politics. He was an articulate, well-educated chap and sometimes went on to talk shows to defend his positions on art, freedom of speech, and the politics of hatred.

Additionally, Frank Zappa was a Conservative. Only he wasn't like today's breed of neo-cons or religious fanatics or right-wing extremists. Rather, he was a traditionalist who believed in a small government that wasn't involved in the matters of the home.

Seen below is Zappa in a 1986 appearance of the show "Crossfire". The show is co-hosted even then by the man who'd later go on to expose Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative: Robert Novak. But what makes this episode of "Crossfire" isn't Novak, it's Zappa and the way he deals so simply with the narrow-minded conservative with whom he's debating:

#1) Zappa answers yes/no questions directly, without being afraid to state what he thinks simply.

#2) He never apologizes for his rationale nor acts like he's wrong in principal.

#3) He answers questions with other questions, putting his questioners on the defensive and forceing them to account for their own position first.

#4) He stays on point. Throughout the debate with the foaming-at-the-mouth conservative, Zappa continues to press the notion that the debate is about words and that no word is pornographic.

#5) He shifts his body language such that - at some point - he actually stops making eye contact with his detractor. This gives him the advantage of rising above the fight and making his opponent not even seem worthy of being looked upon.

A Rulebook: How to Gather News

2007-06-04T08:12:00.000-07:00

We are bombarded with information in our current lives: radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, billboards, cellphone text messages and, of course, the Internet. Due to the proliferation of information, we now have more power than ever over how we choose our news. In today's world, we don't simply receive our news, we actively get to CHOOSE how and what we receive.

In order to help ensure that my news is properly "vetted", I've developed my own rules:

Rule #1: Seeing is not believing.
Stories reported on TV or in the written news aren't always reported accurately or fully. Often, important details or opposing viewpoints are withheld from a story. Therefore, cultivate a healthy sense of skepticism and use what you see or read only as a starting point. Then, investigate the facts for yourself. This requires a slight time investment on your part, but don't be overwhelmed: you don't need to devote all day to learning about the Arab/Israeli conflict. Take just fifteen minutes a day to do some research on one story. Over time, this will make a huge difference.

Rule #2: Prove your news.
If you can't find at least two other reputable news outlets that corroborate a news story, don't trust it. While someone is always first to break a big story, once the word's out, other media outlets work feverishly to report that same news as well. Make sure you've got a few nationally recognized sources for your big stories or multiple local sources for those things happening in your community. It's not worth your time to believe in news that can't be proven.

Rule #3: Cast a wide net.
Cultivate a news "menu" by assembling a diverse group of sources during the week. Choose news from liberal, moderate and conservative viewpoints as well as from domestic and international perspectives. If you're going to educate yourself, there's no sense in limiting yourself: the more diverse your source materials are, the more understanding you will become of the actual news story, the context of how it is reported and what it means to different people on the other side of the city...or the world.

Rule #4: Everything biased in some way.
This rule applies to all of us, conservative or liberal, Jew or Catholic, Black or White, newspapers or blogs or TV. Everything you read is biased by those who created the content... even this blog posting. I have a liberal bias but I also am biased towards educating others and motivating folks to be proactive about how they choose and determine what is their news.

Rule #5: Turn off the TV.
TV news is a dead medium: there's no interactivity for the individual and the medium relies on sensationalism to generate ratings. As such, there's no need to watch TV to get your news. Literally: no need. You can listen to the radio, you can read a newspaper or magazine and you can surf the web to learn the very same stories with a much less sensational delivery. Stop watching TV news for just one month: you'll discover how little you're missing and how easily you forget what Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer all look like.

Lastly, here's a bonus rule, only slightly off-topic, which I love.

Rule #6: Start talking.
Now that you've got some education under your belt, don't be afraid to talk to your friends, neighbors and family about the news. When you do, you will quickly discover that many people are only getting only part of the story, either by ignorance or by willful intention. By educating yourself and talking not just about the news but the sources you use, you will help to broaden the discussion and place yourself in a position to help educate others.

Go get 'em, Tiger....

The Problem with Organized Religion

2007-03-12T16:59:00.000-07:00

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary."

— Rabbi Hillel

A friend of mine who is a professional sociologist was hired recently for two research projects: both concerning why the three major religions — Christianity, Islam and Judaism — can't seem to attract larger numbers of twenty to thirty year olds into their houses of worship. "I'll save you a lot of research time," I told her. "Have priests, rabbis and imams start telling their parishioners that individuals can define for themselves how to practice their own connection with God and, within one generation, we'll see far more people who are active in our religious communities."

We both laughed the laugh of "Wouldn't that be nice...?"

In reality, this kind of radical evolution won't occur in organized religion because, as its name suggests, organized religion requires organizing people to think in similar ways. And how — some people ask — can religious organizations allow their members to commune with God in whichever way they desire and still be considered "organized"? The answer, of course, is that most cannot: we usually sacrifice some degree of personal choice in order to join to our religions. To compensate, most of us prefer belonging to religious institutions which compliment the way we think, not contradict or challenge it.

There are, to be sure, some obvious gifts mainstream religions offer: along with sacred texts and oral traditions, certain codified methods of thinking, behaving and celebrating God are preserved for many generations. But does the focus on preserving a way of life also prevent natural social evolution? For despite the incontrovertible fact that humans have continued to evolve and change over the course of history, mainstream religion has chosen to not keep up with those changes. Worse, threatened by that very evolution, the major world religions continue to hold fast to certain, divisive positions: some Jews claim to be God's Chosen People; some Christians insist that we must accept Christ in order to be saved; some Muslims believe that only Muslims will go to heaven; and then there are those who cross-pollinate and confuse the shit out of all of us.

This doesn't mean that organized religion is flawed; rather, it highlights the problem with how religions organize. And throughout our shared history, that method has almost invariably been one of control: requiring people to adopt a certain inflexible idea or image of God, certain inflexible and sacred texts of God, or certain inflexible laws as given to us by God.

I would suggest that the disconnect between our evolving secular lives and — by comparison — our inflexible religious lives has occurred because of five simple reasons:

#1) We have allowed ourselves to believe that the only proper place to worship God is in a Synagogue, Mosque or Church. While it may be a satisfiying experience to join our religious community in a common house of worship, buildings are not required in order to connect with God. Our ancestors, hunters and gatherers, still found time to celebrate life, to commune with nature, and to practice a co-existance with a variety of Gods and Goddesses. If God is — as theologians tell us — omnipresent, perfect, omniscient, good and eternal, then we have access to that Divine energy at any time and from any place. A perfect being will never punish us for reaching out to pray from our bedrooms, our cars, our toilets, our hospital beds, our national parks or our churches.

#2) We've been falsely convinced that we need clergy to have a true relationship with God. Although clergy can certainly help provide laypeople with advice, commentary and traditions central to our religious organizations, they cannot lead us to God if we are not willing to make that connection ourselves. It is our own responsibility — if we wish — to forge a relationship with a power greater than ourselves. That connection is personal, often private and always sacred.

#3) We have allowed ourselves to believe that God is a force which exists outside of us and separate from us. This belief is, I would argue, the single greatest threat our civilization faces because it affects our personal interactions, our culture, our politics and our planet. If each of us were — as one teaching suggests — made in the image of God, then we carry far more within us than just the DNA of our parents, grandparents and ancestors: we also possess a piece of the Creator within each of us. It is this core truth which threatens organized religions as well as political institutions because it places us all on an equal playing field, where no one individual is more a child of God than anyone else. When we finally understand that this small, still voice, this Life Force, this Divine Spark exists in every living creature, it shatters the illusion that we are separate from God. Further, it also shatters the illusion that we are separate from one another as humans, from other animals or from the very planet itself. We are fovever interconnected with all living things, a fact which ought to unite and humble us.

#4) We've been taught that although God is omnipresent, perfect, omniscient, good and eternal, that God is also vengeful, hateful, likes retribution, and will damn us to an eternity of hell if we don't do exactly what we're told. This is, simply put, a contradiction which cannot be justified. Vengence, retribution, and inflexible control aren't the hallmarks of a perfect, good or omnicient Creator; they are indicators of imperfections and human character defects. Despite this obvious conflict, religions continue to embrace these characteristics and ascribe them to God in order to perpetuate fear among parishoners. It is a powerful and successful tool: fear of God often motivates humans to do as they are told and to not question authority, even at the expense of their own instincts. If God is perfect, then I personally have faith that God will act more like a kindly Father than like a schoolyard bully, a scorned friend or a destroyer of cities or the planet. And if God created the Platypus, then my bet's also on God having a mighty fine sense of humor. An egg-laying mammal that has a spatula for a nose...?!? Please.

#5) We've been taught to believe that our holy book, our God and our religious laws are the only true way to gaining salvation over evil. Some misguided Christians actually have the audactiy to believe that Christianity is the one, true religion. And how can they know this for certain? Simple: their Holy Book tells them so. Then there are the misguided Muslims who have the audactiy to believe that Islam is the one, true religion. And how can they know this for certain? Simple: their Holy Book tells them so. Finally, some misguided Jews tha actually have the audacity to believe that Judaism is the one, true religion. And how do they know this for certain? Simple: they experienced a psychadelic, mass encounter with God...which, as you might guess, is written for all to read in their Holy Book. But if all three major religions simulataneously claim to be the one, true religion...then which is correct? The answer is simple: no one knows for sure — not you, not me, not Jerry Falwell, not Abu Bakar Bahir, not Rebbe Schneerson, not anyone. Humans, imperfect even on a good day, can't possibly claim to speak for God and expect to be taken seriously. My personal belief is that if God spoke to Abraham, to Noah, to Mohammed, to Jesus and to others, then each of those prophets probably has something worthwhile to teach me. But no one person or organization has a monopoly on the truth. Truth is a much bigger concept than any one religion can claim to grasp as sole right.

Where does this leave modern humans in their search for religious connection? To be honest, the odds are stacked against us sometimes: we can't outpreach a fundamentalist Christian who insists we're going to hell; we can't outreason an orthodox Jew who claims we're commanded by God to put on tefillin each day; and we can't stop those Islamic clerics who base their hatred of Western culture and preach jihad on the Koran. I'd suggest that the only solution in a world where some organizations seek to dictate who God is, what God wants and how you should seek God is to free yourself from those chains and adopt a style of authentic living that best suits you...regardless of what others think. This takes bravery, patience and faith. But, no one is better equipped than you to figure out your own religious and spiritual journey, and the process is, frankly, way more fun than being foreced to eat sacred wafers or gifitte fish anyway.

Then, once we've each made that incredible leap into the spirit of the moment, into the knowledge that we are surrounded and supported by Spirit at all times and in all places, we will understand why we can't allow other institutions, organizations or religions get in between us and our relationship with the Almighty.

And besides, since most intelligent folk already know that the one real and true God is a flying spaghetti monster, you might as well have a little fun with your time here on Earth. Reach out and touch his noodily appendage. It's good for you.

A 9/11 Speech to Echo Edward R. Murrow

2006-09-15T15:39:00.000-07:00

A short but worthwhile nod, yet agian, to Keith Olbermann. Democrats love to complain as much as possible about this administration. And while Lord knows there's a lot to dislike and distrust, Democrats aren't the ones spreading the word. They aren't the ones pushing papers, magazines, websites and TV shows in front of the American public.

That's been the job of the American media. And while these same organizations and individuals had a field day with Bill Clinton and his "domestic affairs", they have continued to shirk it's duty in calling this President to task for over six years now.

But we are finally beginning to see, in the mainstream media, some brave journalists & commentators who are willing to put their jobs on the line to examine and discuss the lies, manipulations, misdirections and unmittigating gaul of this President and his administration. Leading the charge is Keith Olbermann and his bosses at MSNBC who bravely allow him to broadcast his cogent, articulate and harsh commentary on George Bush.

What follows is, for me, one of the most brave and daring pieces of television journalism I've ever seen in my lifetime and I hope you'll also celebrate the daring of this eight-minute clip. It's worth the watch:

Bill Maher: Comedian and Political Activist

2006-09-15T10:22:00.000-07:00

Mocking Bush is my patriotic duty
A comedian explains how cruel jokes about the president can stop terrorism

By Bill Maher

Sept. 8, 2006—(Salon) New rule: Bad presidents happen to good people.

Amid all the 9/11 anniversary talk about what will keep us safe, let me suggest that in a world turned hostile to America, the smartest message we can send to those beyond our shores is, "We're not with stupid." Therefore, I contend -- with all seriousness -- that ridiculing this president is now the most patriotic thing you can do. Let our allies and our enemies alike know that there's a whole swath of Americans desperate to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policies. And that's just Republicans running for reelection.

Now, of course, you're gonna say, "But Bill, ridiculing Bush is like shooting fish in a barrel," or, as Dick Cheney calls it, "hunting." Maybe, but right now it's important, because America is an easily misunderstood country these days -- a lot of the time it's hard to make out what we're saying over the bombs we're dropping.

Anyone who opposes the indefinite occupation of Iraq shouldn't be labeled an al-Qaida supporter. That's like saying that if I tell my exterminator that there are more efficient ways to rid the house of vermin than hitting them with a hammer, I'm "for the rats."

Questioning whether it still makes sense to keep troops under fire is supporting the troops. Asking for a plan supports the troops; asking when they'll be leaving supports the troops. Sitting around parsing the definition of "civil war" doesn't support the troops, it supports the president, and he's not a soldier, he just plays one on TV.
So yes, for the sake of homeland security, I ridicule the president -- but it gives me no pleasure to paint him as a dolt, a rube, a yokel on the world stage, a submental, three bricks shy of a load. Or, as Sean Hannity calls it, "Reaganesque."

No, it pains me to say these things, because I know deep down George Bush has something extra -- a chromosome. Cruel? Perhaps, but it may just have saved lives. By doing the extra chromosome joke, I sent a message to a young Muslim man somewhere in the world who's on a slow burn about this country, and perhaps got him to think, "Maybe the people of America aren't so bad. Maybe it's just the rodeo clown who leads them. Maybe the people 'get it.'" We do, Achmed, we do!

And that's why making fun of the president keeps this country safe. The proof? I've been doing it nonstop for years, and there hasn't been another attack. Maybe the reason they haven't attacked us again is they figured we're already suffering enough.

If I could explain one thing about George W. Bush to the rest of the world it's this: We don't know what the hell he's saying either! Trust me, foreigners, there's nothing lost in translation, it's just as incoherent in the original English. Yes, we voted for him -- twice -- but that's because we're stupid, not because we're bad. Bush is just one of those things that are really popular for a few years and then almost overnight become completely embarrassing. You know, like leg warmers, or Hootie and the Blowfish, or white people going, "Oh no you di-int."

So while honoring the anniversary of September 2001, we must also never forget September 2000. That's the month when Gov. George W. Bush said, "I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully." If you don't believe me, you can look it up on both internets. The world changed on 9/11. He didn't. That's why we owe it to ourselves, and our children, to never stop pointing out that George W. Bush is a gruesome boob.

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

also posted online here.

Support for a Conservative?!?

2006-09-01T18:59:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, I define myself as a progressive. That means that I like to support causes that, literally, help the progress and evolution of the political landscape of our nation. Most of the time (but not always), these causes and positions are liberal.

As many of you also know who read this blog and post comments, I have a passionate cousin who is a lawyer, a respected constitutional authority and a vocal conservative.

It's not my fault: blame his dad.

While we frequently disagree on politics, I'm proud of my cousin David's achievements: he is articulate, intelligent, funny and starting to appear more frequently on the Fox News Channel. He appeared on the "O'Reilly Factor" yesterday to defend the first amendment rights of a Palestinian man who wore a t-shirt reading "We will not be silenced" onto a plane two days after the London bombing plot was exposed.

Personally, it's refreshing to hear a conservative talk so eloquently in defense of our right to free speech. Especially at a time when the Bush administration ejects teachers from Bush political rallies for wearing, you guessed it: t-shirts.

And, for those of you reading this on Friday night, September 1st, my cousin David will be on "The O'Reilly Factor" yet again, 11pm EST/8pm PST. Tune in and see him for yourself.

David, I'm proud of you. And if you happen to be on the air with Mr. O'Reilly himself, please, PLEASE: ask him why he stated that if a woman is drunk and wearing clothes that reveal her midriff that she's at fault for her own rape and murder.

I'd looooooooooooooove to know how a conservative comes to that point of view.

The Genius and Daring of Keith Olberman

2006-08-25T18:21:00.000-07:00

This is one of those things that many mainstream media outlets just didn't bother to pick up. It's a list the newsman compiled about major problems the Bush Administration had and the seemingly coincidental appearance of a raised threat level soon thereafter.

Now you can be the judge...

The new law: carry lots of cash, have it seized.

2006-08-21T12:31:00.000-07:00

On the one hand, I wish the following story weren't true. But it is. And that's because I've been growing - like so many of you - more and more dissappointed with how our government acts. But this story wasn't so much dissapppointing as it was shocking and alarming.

Read it for yourselves here. Or here.

On the other hand, I'm glad the story is true. Because here's the truth: the majority of us are lazy when it comes to getting involved with monitoring the running of our government. We have kids, we have spouses and jobs and responsiblities. At the end of the day, we don't really want to see how bad things are getting do we?

So perhaps stories like these serve as the spark that will light a fire under our collective ass to motivate us to pay more attention and insist that things be done in a different way.

No matter what the year, at every point in history, the question that ultimately defines the direction that civilization choses to take is this: for what will you personally stop the routine of your life in order to stand for what you believe to be right...even if you're not personally involved? Are you willing to take a day off of work - a vacation day - to organize for the better good? Or does your participation require that a freedom be revoked by the government in order for you to become involved?

I look forward to your posts.

The Politics of Wealth (or A 30-Day Experiment in Wealth...)

2006-06-11T18:38:00.000-07:00

Now as to the definition of wealth, “Who is rich?” ask the sages. “He who is happy with his lot.”
- Rabbi Moshe D. Bryski

There are people who believe that the love of money is the root of all evil. These are the individuals that preach that one cannot have a fulfilling spiritual or religious life and still accumulate wealth. For these individuals, wealth corrupts and extreme wealth corrupts extremely.

Then, there are those who worship money. These are the individuals who devote most of their professional lives to the pursuit and accumulation of wealth, sometimes to the supreme failure of their personal and spiritual lives.

Somewhere between these two extremes lies the truth: that money is neither evil nor the answer to every problem — it’s simply a tool that can be used by individuals and by governments for a variety of purposes. Money buys us food and clothing, but also buys us narcotics and weapons; money funds churches and synagogues, but it also funds terrorists; money allows us to wage war on poverty but it also allows us to wage war on other countries; money can be used maintain our schools, libraries, and national landmarks but it also can be used to bribe officials to look the other way as those same institutions are destroyed.

Many of us, sadly, are trapped into thinking that money is more important than it really is.

On the wealth side of the trap, we begin by experiencing a false sense of power when we buy material objects for ourselves that others can’t afford; we start to psychologically and morally elevate ourselves above those who don't have as much money as we do; and slowly, we ignore our declining spiritual, emotional and psychological health because we are convinced that accumulating more money will allow us to deal with any situation. Eventually, even good, decent people can begin to feel invincible because of their finances.

On the poverty side of the trap, we begin by experiencing a false sense of failure if we can't buy material objects for ourselves that others have; we start to compare ourselves unfavorably to those who have more money than we do; and slowly, we substitute our spiritual, emotional and psychological wellbeing with our financial bottom line. Eventually, even good, decent people can begin to feel like failures because of their finances.

Far too frequently, I have been - I freely admit - one of these people. Which is why, a few years back, one particular conversation with my friend Jennifer helped to reshape my life. She was talking to me about how she practiced the concept of wealth in her life.

"One either has wealth or not," I interrupted. "There’s no practicing.”

“Actually, we always practice by choosing to see ourselves as either wealthy or poor,” said Jennifer. Then, she related a story. One day, while driving with a friend, they encountered a stranger at an intersection. The man was holding a sign requesting money from passing motorists. Jennifer’s friend rolled down the window and handed the man a $10 bill. On seeing Jennifer’s shocked expression, the woman said, “I am wealthy enough to be able to give a total stranger some money,” said Jennifer’s friend. “Even a $10 bill…”

“From that day on,” said Jennifer, “I decided to practice my own abundance by giving money away to those who asked…” And then she proceeded to tell me how doing so had really changed her outlook on life. And I listened, scared halfway out of my skin.

When I left Jennifer’s apartment that afternoon, I realized that I’d always thought of myself as poor. And not just poor financially, but psychologically: I’d allowed my financially stresses as an artist to define my overall success in life. I didn’t own a house like some of my friends, I didn’t have substantial savings like some of my friends and I didn't even have medical insurance. So I reasoned, there must be something terribly wrong with me. But after listening to Jennifer’s story, I wondered: was it possible to change that thought pattern? Could practicing being wealthy actually cause me to feel abundant? And with my limited funds, could I actually afford to give money away to strangers on a regular basis? I decided to find out:

For exactly thirty days, I decided to give money to ANYONE who asked me for it, no exceptions. I'm sure plenty of people who asked me for money used it in ways I might not have condoned. But the purpose of the exercise wasn't to stand in judgment of others, it was to retrain my thinking about my own wealth by giving my money freely away. And because I lived near a busy intersection in West Hollywood, I started getting asked for money right away.

This presented me with my first challenge: I had to acknowledge each person who asked me for money. I had to make eye contact with each individual and then reach into my pockets to give them something. This took some adjustment because I’d become accustomed to looking away from panhandlers and not caring. Now I had to acknowledge the White, Black, Latin and Asian people who were willing to ask me - a complete stranger - for money. It becomes increasingly difficult to think of yourself as poor when you stop and meet some of the people who ask for money. It was humbling to see, truly, how well-off I was compared to some of those I met. Within a few days, I began to feel more grateful for what I had and excited about giving more of my money away to those who asked for it. After all, I reasoned that I was simply giving a dollar to everyone who asked me for money and my soul could afford that...even three times a day.

Within one week, I faced my second challenge: I was receiving additional requests from those to whom I’d already given money. Admittedly, this annoyed me because I wanted to know that my donation was making a difference. I wanted the satisfaction of knowing that I was turning a fulltime beggar into a productive member of society. Honestly, It was a selfish thing to think. First of all, people weren't going to change simply because I'd given them a few dollars on a couple of occasions. Secondly, the truth was that - in some instances - giving money away had nothing to do with the recipient: it was about overcoming my own judgmental thinking. And by judging who deserved my money and who didn't, I was valuing that one dollar more than the human who'd asked for it. Realizing this was a powerful and painful lesson. My commitment was to give money to anyone who asked, no exceptions. No exceptions meant multiple requests should be honored. And so they were.

By day fifteen, I faced my third challenge: what constituted someone asking me for money? Someone who verbally asks? How about a man holding up a sign on a street? Those are more overt solicitations. But what about the less obvious pleas? What about the man I found splayed out at the corner of Sunset and Fairfax one Sunday? Now this man wasn't verbally asking me for money; heck, he wasn't even aware that people were literally stepping over him to continue on their way. And he certainly wasn't holding up a sign asking for help. But this man had become the sign – he was a symbol of how far each of us could fall. And as a symbol, he challenged those around him to either step over him or to offer help. After making sure the man was alive, I put a $10 bill in the man's shirt pocket. If this man was sick enough to collapse on the sidewalk in full view of the city, I was healthy and wealthy enough to donate that week's movie money to try and help him and to allow myself the luxury of not needing that money as much as he did.

The last challenge was the hardest to accept: I didn't always have enough money to help. On several occasions, since I had little or no money on my person, I offered food or clothes or whatever else I had. Very often, these offers were accepted. Once, when I was asked for money, I was only able to find nine cents in my pocket. I looked at the man who'd asked for help and simply tried to honor my commitment. "This is all I have on me right now," I said. "It's not a lot but you're welcome to it." The man smiled and took the money. "Hey: every little bit helps," he said and stuck his hand out to accept my coins. I was stunned. How humbling it must be, I thought, to be willing to take nine cents from a stranger because you need it that badly... I shook the guy's hand and told him to have a good day. He said he'd say a prayer for my good deed and we both disappeared back into the night.

Although I wasn't going to fix the world by giving away my money, I came to understand that the original purpose of the exercise wasn't to fix the world: it was, as Jennifer had said, to help fix my beliefs about myself. And it worked: by the 30th day, I was feeling more abundant and wealthy than I'd ever felt in my life and grateful for my material possessions. By trying to help others, I'd been tricked into helping myself.

Give this 30-day experiment a try and then write to me and let me know what happened. I guarantee this: it will certainly change the way you think.

Upholding Our Freedom of Speech...When Convenient

2006-04-23T19:10:00.000-07:00

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1

Although Americans recognize that our freedom of speech is a Constitutionally protected right, we also acknowledge that this freedom has limitations: for example, society doesn't legally permit me to joke about having a bomb while in line at the airport or to use sexual, racial and religious slurs at the workplace. As an American, I accept these practical limitations on my freedom of speech for the sake of preserving the common good. I will not however, tolerate my freedom of speech from being unfairly eroded. Sadly, this is the case with America: while we fight for Democracy abroad, our own citizens are increasingly being restricted from expressing their political views here at home. Worse yet, the rest of us are allowing these restrictions to go unchallenged while those who do speak their minds are harassed, threatened, or punished.

Last month, during a lecture to his highschool geography class, Jay Bennish ranted against capitalism, against American violence abroad and compared President Bush's 2006 State of the Union speech to previous speeches made by Adolf Hitler. Bennish finished his rant by reassuring his students that they needn't agree with him. To those who openly challenged him, he added "I'm glad you asked all of your questions because they're all very good, legitimate questions." Several days later, Bennish was placed on paid administrative leave by his school district for not including an opposing viewpoint during his rant.

If you're curious about how administrators learned of Bennish's lecture without actually being in his classroom, you're not alone. One of Bennish's students, 16-year-old Sean Allen, surreptitiously recorded twenty minutes of his teacher's lecture and then took the recording to local conservative radio stations who broadcast the entirety of the child's recording. That recording can be heard here.

Within twenty-four hours, Bennish had become a national story. Right wing "pundits" ripped him apart. Bombarded by the press, he went back to live with his parents and received death threats. At his school, nearly 100 students protested in favor of Bennish, staging a walkout from their classes. Sean Allen, meanwhile, was invited to meet with Bill Owens, the Governor of Colorado -- who was impressed by the boy's "courage" -- and began appearing regularly with Sean Hannity on TV.

These are not isolated incidents. And they seem to be growing more frequent. The frontline of the culture war has shifted. The battle that Republicans wage to control what you say has moved into our schools, our airlines, our malls, our churches and onto the campaign trail itself.

This year, a Republican UCLA graduate offered students money to tape liberal professors in class. He used the recordings to create a list he called "the dirty thirty" which spotlighted to those university teachers who didn't espouse a proper Republican agenda. Right wing activist David Horowitz went one step further and wrote a book exposing and embarrassing liberal professors for the political views they expressed outside of the classroom.

If you're not sick to your stomach just yet, wait: there's more.

We tolerate schools sending home students for wearing political t-shirts that might offend others. We tolerate airlines kicking passengers who wear political t-shirts off of flights. We tolerate school guardians physically abusing students for wearing political t-shirts. We tolerate arresting people for wearing t-shirts that advocate peace at public malls. We tolerate religious "leaders" telling us that we must not criticize the President during a time of war because dissent equals treason. We tolerate the Bush campaign ejecting teachers from his rallies because they wear t-shirts with political messages of dissent.

I hear too many Progressives and Liberals complain about the sorrowful state of America. Folks, what else needs to happen before each of you becomes so disgusted with the news that you're willing to stand up, get involved and start working for the ideals in which you truly believe? If you're waiting for abortion to become illegal, your opponents are well ahead of you. The future depends on us. Start demanding action and excellence from those around you: if your leaders can't or won't hear you...speak louder, especially under penalty of scrutiny. In doing so, you inspire others to do the same.

Even President Bush defended Jay Bennish and the rights of others to criticize him. So thank you, Mr. President.

And in the unlikely event that you're reading this: I am ashamed of you as a leader and as someone who purports to be compassionate Christian man. The six years you've led this country have been financially, morally and spiritually the darkest times since I've been alive. I support your immediate resignation, your impeachment for repeatedly lying to the American people about how wiretapping requires a court order, about there being WMD in Iraq, and about punishing anyone in your administration for leaking classified information. You owe an apology to this nation's citizens, natural spaces, students, veterans, teachers, poor and to the entire city of New Orleans.

You are a President in title only; in action you are a selfish and arrogant prick who refuses to admit to mistakes, the son of a far smarter man who helped you fail on grander and grander scales until you squandered the biggest treasury surplus in American history, ruined our international good standing, and presided over the most divisive period in America's recent years after running on a fictitious platform of being a "uniter, not a divider."

Are you - as Jay Bennish would have us believe - "eerily similar" to Adolf Hitler, Mr. President? No, Sir: I don't believe so. Hitler took far less vacation time than you did during the war he created.

Edward R. Murrow

2006-02-22T22:20:00.000-08:00

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment upopular."

Edward R. Murrow,
See It Now, CBS News broadcast
March 9th 1954

Love, Not Blindness

2006-02-19T15:10:00.000-08:00

"We know that religious beliefs cannot define patriotism."
Walter Cronkite, December 5, 1988

I love America. I love her unabashedly and unashamedly. And here's why:

I love the idea of a democratic nation that has an established history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. Some reading this were born here. Others moved here for a better life. And the native ones – like the Navajo, the Apache, and the Comanche – have been here for well over one thousand years, long before any of us or our ancestors. Today, there are nearly 300 million of us that live here. Incredibly - despite our radically diverse racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds – we continue to evolve together as one of the greatest social and political experiments in the history of humanity and I love America for that.

I also love the freedoms that Americans are guaranteed by our Constitution and open society. Here, we may speak our minds freely and openly without fear of arrest. Here, both men and women are encouraged to have an education. Here, one can travel where and when one pleases. Here, men and women can have jobs and support a family. Here, everyone can freely and openly practice the religion of their choice without persecution. Here, we can be increasingly open about our sexual orientation without fear of being physically assaulted. Here, we can choose to not marry, we can choose not to have children and we can choose which types of food we won't eat. What we have isn't perfect, but we take it for granted: millions of humans around the globe do not have these same privileges. We are truly lucky for our freedoms and I love America for that.

But it is my ongoing love affair with the country herself, that fuels me most: the actual land on which we all stand. America has long stretches of pristine beaches on her coasts and towering mountain ranges covered with snow. America has vast deserts with sand dunes, desolate lake beds and active volcanic craters. America has old growth Sequoia and Redwood forests where some trees are so massive that you can hold hands with 15 of your friends and still not be able to encircle them. America has a river which is thousands of miles long, another which has carved a canyon over a mile deep into the rock and she has massive lakes left over from a previous ice age, when glaciers slowly and violently sliced through the land and left behind their tears. Most of us living in the larger cities forget just how beautiful this country truly is, but we are truly blessed to have so many natural wonders within our borders.

And yet, despite my deep fondness for America's diversity, freedoms and natural wonders, my love comes with a price – a sense of duty to protect this gift which we've all inherited and to help make it better. And to be better, America must continue to evolve. And because evolving requires rigorous honesty, my love for this country requires me to praise a job well done and to concede when America blunders.

To those misguided individuals who think it unpatriotic to admit that anything is ever wrong with America, her leaders or her policies, I say you've got it backwards: our nation's history repeatedly proves that confronting our mistakes and working to create a better society is about the most patriotic thing one can do for America. Ignoring mistakes or pretending they don't exist is childish, disrespectful of our great nation, and will eventually cause our downfall as a society.

We can't continue to make America better if we continue to think that everything's perfect the way it is. So when Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh & Anne Coulter become enraged at liberals, moderates or even conservatives who address valid problems with America, they do us all a great disservice: they encourage the silencing of dissent and, in doing so, delay or prevent necessary change and progress from occurring.Silencing dissent doesn't just kill the debate: in the end, it slowly kills democracy.

If we honor our own freedoms enough to use military power to give others similar autonomy, we must never lose site of our own most basic freedoms. So, the next time someone becomes enraged because there are those who do not support the war in Iraq, politely remind them of the truth: our soldiers fight to protect our Constitutional right tochallenge the fact that they need to fight at all.

Five Ways to Identify an Extremist

2006-01-12T10:15:00.000-08:00

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert Kennedy

At a time in world history when we are bitterly divided by social, political and religious points of view, it is reassuring to remember that our deepest fear is also our darkest secret: we cannot survive alone. We are raised by other humans, schooled by other humans, fed and clothed by other humans and use machines, conveniences and weapons which are manufactured by other humans. Like it or not, we depend on one another to survive as individuals, as communities, and as nations.

To those in power, this mode of thinking is subversive because it fosters humanizing everyone around you. And, despite being a Judeo-Christian country, we don’t like to humanize our enemies because that makes us connect emotionally with them. Not surprisingly, since the 9/11 tragedy, our nation’s language has been transformed by our leaders in order to encourage the dehumanizing of others for the sake of violence. The words “evil-doers”, “terrorists” and “axis of evil” are now commonplace in our lexicon. But a funny thing has happened: people now use the word “extremists” and "terrorists" interchangeably. And this provides an unexpected opening: after all, if we’re fighting extremists, it’s only in other countries, right?

Well, not exactly...

Extremists exist in every culture, in every religion and in every country – even America. Thus, it becomes essential for each culture to have a guideline for identifying extremists. And since Americans currently have no guidelines from our Republican dominated leadership, I humbly offer my own:

#1) Extremists polarize issues, reducing all options to only two possibilities with no middle ground permitted. I freely admit that seeing the world in simple terms makes life a whole lot easier. For example, if every action is either “Good” or “Evil” but never “a little bit of both”, it makes navigating life much simpler. Despite our illusions, however, the complexity of life allows for many combinations and shades of grey. For example, how do we reconcile that we each have different definitions of “Good” and “Evil” and "God"? The answer: we cannot. Which is why a true democracy must rely on diversity of opinion as much as it does consensus.

#2) Extremists rarely, if ever, admit fault or apologize for their actions. Isn't it incredible how utterly perfect some politicians are? Or how morally correct some talk show hosts seem to act? And how they respond to opposition by becoming arrogant, loud, and angry? That's because for the extremist, strength is a necessity. Because admitting mistakes is considered a sign of weakness for someone in power, extremists never apologize for their actions regardless of how bad the mistake may have been.

#3) Extremists use God to justify unjustifiable actions or ungodly points of view. Muslim extremists site Koranic passages in order to justify suicide bombings. Christian extremists site Biblical verses claiming that only Jesus is way to salvation. Jewish extremists insist that the murder of Yizhak Rabin was justified by Jewish law. Isn't is ironic that although Mohammed, Christ and Moses were all peaceful prophets in service to God, that some people honor their memory by using violence, insults and exclusivity to achieve their political means?

#4) Extremists confuse decisiveness, moral outrage and loudness with correctness. Just because someone makes a decision based on their opinions and proclaims it loudly, it doesn't mean that they are right. We must always be vigilant when filtering what others tell us, even our leaders. Questioning what we read, hear and watch is a healthy and necessary exercise that allows us to refine our own moral compass and help those around us do the same. In addition, in an open democracy like America's, graciously challenging those with opposing points of view -- even our leaders -- can help us all to discover our common truths.

#5) Extremists preach an almost exclusive combination of fear, anger, hatred and violence. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Senator Joe McCarthy used political witch-hunts to attack and shame American citizens. Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber", sent explosives through the mail. Ann Coulter won't compliment, show graciousness or flatter a democrat. All of these people are Americans, and all of these people are considered terrorists or extremists.

When we are finally able to identify those extremists currently among us, we will be better equipped to deal with the problems that face our neighborhoods, our culture and our nation. But, if we continue to think of extremists as dark-skinned people from other parts of the world, we will be trapped in a cycle of ignorance and violence for some time to come.

Jimmy Carter: The LA Times Op-Ed of 11/14/2005

2005-12-29T13:11:00.000-08:00

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

Seeking the Truth Behind the Words

2005-12-20T14:59:00.000-08:00

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
-- President George W. Bush, 4/20/2004

"So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
-- President George W. Bush, 12/19/2005

When the President speaks to us, there is an unspoken code of ethics behind every word he utters: We, the People, trust that he is the most knowledgeable individual on the facts, we trust that he is honest in what he communicates, and we trust that he respects the rule of Law, our Constitution. We expect the same of all of our elected officials because we do not, generally speaking, have the time to fact check everything we are told.

But unchecked faith in our leaders is, perhaps, the greatest weakness of our democracy because of the important questions it raises. Are we vigilant enough to know when we are not being told the truth? Are we smart enough to recognize when we're given only partial truths or are lied to by omission? And are we brave enough to admit that our leaders are actually capable of lying? These can be upsetting questions. In fact, some of you reading this are already upset that I've even dared to ask the questions in the first place, despite what history already tells us: that Presidents lie. In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned because he faced certain impeachment for his lies concerning the Watergate investigation, and in 1998, President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

But if Presidents, like all human beings, are capable of lying, who then can we trust? And when? The answer: we must must be willing to pay attention, do our fact-checking and then listen to our instincts. As an example, let us examine the current scandal in Washington...

Earlier this week, President Bush claimed he had authority to order the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap Americans without a court order if those citizens had suspected links to terrorist organizations. Bush said, "As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it." However, an examination of our Constitution proves that the President is not correct. None of the four Sections in Article 2 of the Constitution grants the President the powers to spy on American citizens. In fact, when a President takes office he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not the United States itself...a subtle but important difference. And although Article 2, Section 2 does bestow upon the President the title of "Commander in Chief" of the Army, Navy and Militia, the NSA is not a part of the military. Call and ask them yourself - here's the number: (301) 688-6524.

Judicial rulings don't help the President build his case either. In 1974, The Supreme Court voted unanimously that the President of the United States (then Richard Nixon) does not have the jurisdiction to order wiretaps of Americans and then avoid all legal consequences by simply citing "executive privilege".

But we must ask ALL of our officials to be more specific. So when the Vice President defends Bush's authority to order these wiretaps, we must ask him: can you please cite the specific phrase in the specific law which gives the President the authority to overturn the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling? If Mr. Cheney cannot do so and be proven correct, then the Vice President is either lying or ignorant.

And when Attorney General Alberto Gonzoles claims that Congress gave the President consent "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to fight the war on terror, we must boldly ask him: how does the phrase "appropriate force" get misconstrued to mean eavesdropping on our international phone calls without securing a court order? Or ordering the FBI to monitor groups like PETA and Greenpeace that have nothing to do with the war on terror? Or secretly paying to have one-sided, pro-American news stories printed in Iraqi news papers?

If the President of the United States is truly obeying the law, then he has nothing to fear by allowing questions, dissent, or investigations into his actions, especially those being called for by members of his own party like John McCain, Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham. But if the President reacts to the uproar over his actions with anger, secrecy and a lack of accountability, that sends a clear message to America and to Iraq as well: that although we're willing to fight for Democracy abroad, we're not willing to defend it here at home.

Five Things You Can Do Right Now To Make a Difference

2005-12-05T12:05:00.000-08:00

In loving memory of Caryn Shalita: 1968-2005

Each month, I ridiculously attempt to filter and condense all of the important news, try to find a central theme and then present that theme to those of you who read this blog. However, because we live in a time of war and scandals and uncertainty and massive natural disasters, most of what I've been sharing with you has been gut-wrenching and difficult to swallow.

It is, admittedly, difficult to always identify and face one's problems. And although being able to identify problems is a worthwhile skill, we often forget that democracy requires more than constant vigilance: it requires constants participation. And participation requires a belief that our actions can actually make a difference.

So, let us begin by remembering that a small group of dedicated people can – and often does - change the world; that even one, lone, individual can galvanize a national movement or bring an entire line of tanks to a halt. And if you think – even for a moment – that your small contribution isn't making a difference, remember this: many small drops of water can eventually fill an entire swimming pool.

Solution #1: If you want better political leaders, run for office.

On November 9th, 2005, the town of Hillsdale, Michigan elected it's new mayor: 18-year-old Michael Sessions. Believe it or not, the kid actually won the endorsement of the local fire department during his campaign. Think that's outrageous? In 2001, a friend of mine actually ran for mayor of Los Angeles, receiving The Green Party's endorsement. Francis Della'Vecchia was 36 years old at the time and ran on a platform of complete transparency using the internet. Although he didn't win the election, he changed the conversation by challenging convention.

If a 36 year old can mount a mayoral campaign in a major American city and an 18 year old can actually become mayor of a small American town: so can you. Even if you run for smaller offices such as precinct captain, the local school board or a county supervisor, you'll be making a huge difference in your community.

Solution #2: If you want to change inequality, volunteer.

This time of year, folks line up to help feed the homeless. It's a touching act to witness. Consider, however, the rest of the year: can you afford to make a weekly commitment to a shelter or an organization that truly needs your help? Your weekly donation of time allows you to be of service to those less fortunate than yourself. It will also serve to remind you of how lucky you are to have the life and possessions that you do. Your children will think you're a hero and you can bring them along if you volunteer locally or internationally.

Solution #3: If you want to save money & the planet, grow a garden and eat your own food.

Growing your own food is one of the most primal and sexy things any human can do: it connects you with the planet, it's proven to relieve stress and it saves money and time at the supermarket. Plus, as parents, gardening is one of the greatest gifts you can teach your children: they'll learn how to work with the earth in order to plant, nourish and then eat their own healthy fruits and vegetables. The nicest thing about gardening is that you don't need a huge house or a lot of money to do it: you can grow a garden indoors, on a patio, or by the windowsill.

Solution #4: If you want to spread Democracy, help ten people register and learn how to vote.

This suggestion comes from a reader: many thanks.

First, help your friends register to vote by bringing them voter registration forms or taking them online. Then, help educate them using the internet: look-up their Congressional representatives, discover who's contributed money to the candidates, help them examine voting records of the candidates & officials. When voting day arrives, drive them to the polls or help get then an absentee ballot in order to vote by mail. By getting others motivated to become participants, you spread the hope and promise of Democracy, one of America's core values.

Solution #5: If you want to reduce your dependency on foreign oil, improve your air quality and save money, change how you travel.

These small changes to your routine have a HUGE impact. First off, if you're looking for a new home, consciously choose to live closer to where you work. Some states will actually PAY YOU small grants as an incentive to do this. Then, once you're settled in, consider biking to work instead of driving. The exercise will help you lose weight and you'll save a ton of money on gas and car upkeep. If your commute is too far to bike, take public transportation. Another option – even if you live in a big city like Los Angeles – is carpooling. Visit websites such as Craigslist or http://www.erideshare.com/ to help you connect with folks in your area who want to share the ride. When you factor in gas, insurance and upkeep, the real cost of owning a car is very high. Therefore, if you have more than one car, try living with just one. Believe it or not, many families learn to get by with one or no cars. So can you. Finally, there are more and more hybrid cars on the road from the major automakers. If you're in the market for a new car, buy a vehicle that uses less gas.

-----

When I am asked to speak in public about political matters, I am continually surprised at how many people, even educated and well-intentioned people, don't know how to go about making a difference. Mabye it's laziness, maybe apathy. I'm not sure. What I can say for certain is that beyond money, beyond career and beyond religion, there lies one, simple, unalienable truth: that if you have a better vision for the world, then you can't rely on others to give it to you -- you must be willing to do some of the work yourself to bring about that world.

The Denial of Addiction

2005-10-24T00:18:00.000-07:00

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George H. W. Bush, 4/26/99 (text, video)

"I want to see to it that the truth prevail."
-- George W. Bush, 10/7/2003 (text & video)

The nature of addiction is such that it prevents an individual from recognizing that he has a problem. The gambler, for example, risks his income in order to relieve stress, anxiety, or any powerful emotion. And even though his job, family relations and health eventually disintegrate, the grip of denial in addiction is so tenacious that the addict will never admit that there is a problem.So it is with our President and the leadership of the Republican party. Only – in this case – the addiction is to power and control. There is a lack of voices calling for reform and apologies from within the Republican party and Democrats, as usual, don't seem to have the spine to unify, stand up and demand justice. While that's sad, it's not surprising. The worse truth, the one that really hurts, is that America's soul is dying because We, The People, are allowing our leaders to abandon basic moral principles. It's hurricane season alright but what we are currently witnessing is a perfect storm of political incompetence and international embarrassments. And we're not doing enough to stop it because we're in severe denial.

How many more political scandals need we suffer as a nation until America understands that its current leadership undermines the validity of our democracy? How can we pretend to be a beacon of hope for other burgeoning democracies when we are so inept at taking care of our own house? The questions reach beyond partisan politics because – Republican or Democrat – any caring American should be alarmed at the list of top officials who are currently embroiled in investigations, allegations or actual indictments:

#1) Topping the list is Michael Brown, the former FEMA director who disgraced the nation with his utterly botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Brown's forged resume and lack of experience, created an atmosphere of mismanagement at FEMA. Despite dire warnings from one FEMA official in New Orleans, Brown was apparently too busy eating dinner to bother with the biggest natural disaster in American history.

#2) Close behind is Tom Delay, the Republican House Majority Leader who was recently booked on money laundering and conspiracy charges. No stranger to ethics violations, Delay has been publicly rebuked three times by his own peers in Congress. Why? Because he has a record of repeatedly and flagrantly violating Congressional rules. So flagrant, that he actually tried to change the rules of Congress to preserve his status as Majority Leader if he were indicted. Which he now is...

#3) Not to be outdone, the Senate Majority Leader has a neat scandal of his own: Republican Bill Frist, is under investigation by the SEC and the Justice Department for selling stock in his family's hospital corporation several weeks before its price plunged. That company, HCA, was founded by Frist's family and, oh yes, paid the largest government fraud settlement in U.S. History, a whopping $840 million.

#4) Batting "clean-up" is top Republican fundraiser Jack Abramoff who's currently under investigation by one grand jury in Washington D.C., by a second in Guam and was already indicted by a third in Florida resulting in his arrest. But it's the current investigation in Washington, that ties Abramoff to illegally giving gifts to Republicans Tom Delay, Conrad Burns and Bob Ney. Hey: at least he's consistent.

#5) David Safavian was appointed by President Bush to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMD) in 2004. Safavian was arrested on September 19th, 2005 on charges of obstruction of justice. The arrest came as part of the Justice Department's probe into Safavian's mentor: (surprise!) Jack Abramoff. Safavian obviously chooses his mentors using a well-honed moral compass: he previously worked for Abdurahman Alamoudi, a "fierce supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah" who was imprisoned as part of a plot to assassinate the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

#6) The President's top strategist, Karl Rove is at the center of the nation's largest political scandal: the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. Rove has an ugly and immoral history, having been fired from George H.W. Bush's 1992 Presidential campaign for leaking unethical information to Robert Novak. Not really a surprise given that Rove's been playing dirty since he was nineteen years old and was investigated by the Republican Party as early as 1973. Rove's nickname, chosen artfully by the President, is "turd blossom".

#7) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at the center of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, where Iraqi POW's were tortured physically and sexually by American troops. It is alleged by The New Yorker and Newsweek that Rumsfeld – along with President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft – authorized the most aggressive torture possible in order to pry information from captives and sidestep The Geneva Conventions.

#8) I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, is also under investigation in the Valerie Plame affair. And although you might not know much about "Scooter" (as he is known), he is, despite his low profile, one of the top advisors to the President.

#9) Vice President, Dick Cheney's had an incredible run of power and scandals in his lengthy career. Although nowadays he's most often under attack for the outrageous no-bid contracts awarded to his former company, Halliburton, it's nice to remember that Cheney also had the fortitude to stay on his Wyoming fly-fishing vacation after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. A former top aide to Colin Powell recently testified that Cheney is responsible for hijacking America's foreign policy. And if that wasn't enough fun, Cheney's also been fingered as being part of the Valeria Plame leak.

#10) Last, and by no means least, is President Bush himself. Bush is a man who was dear friends with Ken Lay, the target of the most expensive corporate scandal in U.S. history; he's a man who lied to Americans in his 2003 "State of the Union" speech about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa; he's certainly a man who praised former FEMA chief Michael Brown for his botched job; he's a man who – according to George Stephanopoulos – may himself be involved directly with the Plame scandal; but, thank goodness, he's also man who "expects that members of his administration adhere to the highest ethical standards...". One might think, that with so many of his own party and cabinet affected by scandals, that the highly ethical and devoutly Christian President would offer some solace to a nation which continues to disapprove of his job performance. Instead, this week, Bush called the problems "background noise".

The last thing that an addict does before choosing to get well is called "bottoming out", a condition where reality and responsibility are altogether disregarded and the individual cocoons in a false reality until tragedy strikes. We are currently witnessing the Bush Administration bottom out.

The good news is that once America becomes willing to admit that her stewards suffer from addiction and delusion and then makes a sincere and honest effort to clean house, we can become a proud and well-respected nation. The bad news is that if Americans continue to live in denial about the corruption of our politicians, we're destined to repeat the future, acting stubbornly like a drunk who tries to fix a hangover with one more bourbon.

The Great and Mighty Oz

2005-09-17T15:53:00.000-07:00

When Dorothy, The Tin Man, The Cowardly Lion and The Scarecrow all entered the giant chamber of the Great and Mighty Oz, they were awestruck by the Being's power and force. He was larger than life, able to command vast plumes of fire and smoke and his face seemed to hang in the air, floating there like a giant apparition. So fully immersed in their own fear were they, that our four heroes were unable to see that they were being duped. It took the fearless little Toto, a non-human, to pull back the curtains and reveal that the Great and Mighty Oz was nothing more than an old and insecure man who relied on illusions to maintain his control over the people.

So it is with our President.

The only difference is that in our real-life version, the non-human that ripped down the curtain of illusion from the Great and Mighty Bush Administration was Hurricane Katrina. In her wake, the entire world witnessed how poorly the federal government responded to the worst natural disaster in American history.

So widespread is the dysfunction of our federal government, that anger and shock have come from some surprising sources: conservatives. Robert Novac, Newt Gingrich, & the editorial staff of The New Hampshire Leader -- one of the most conservative papers in America -- have all been critical of the President and his government's response. Even tsunami victims in Indonesia are stunned that America could so quickly send help to their country but then let its own citizens suffer needlessly and die.

Compare the blindingly incompetent aftermath of Katrina to the September 11th terrorist attacks which resulted in the deaths of 3052 people. Three days later, on September 14th, the President arrived in New York City to visit ground zero. Standing atop the rubble of the twin towers with his arm draped around a firefighter, Bush announced to the world: I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." It took three days for the President to arrive on the scene. His approval rating skyrocketed.

By comparison, on August 29th, Hurricane Katrina made landfall as a Category 4 storm. The death toll is nearly at 1,000 and climbing. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt thinks thousands have died. One million were displaced as the entire city of New Orleans lost power, water, transportation. Four days later, President Bush arrived in the city to tour the devastation and have his pictures taken with rescue workers. It took four days for the President to arrive on the scene.

Incredibly, during those four days: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld watched a professional baseball game in San Diego; Vice President Dick Cheney was fishing in Wyoming before returning to Washington to go house hunting; both Department of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff and FEMA Director Michael Brown were unaware that refugees were stranded at the convention center; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice played tennis with Monica Seles at The U.S. Open and then took in a Broadway show and bought thousands of dollars worth of shoes in NYC.

There is no spin that Karl Rove can orchestrate that will make us forgive the actions of the most important individuals in the President's cabinet; no spin that will make us forget the heart-wrenching images we saw of tens of thousands of people -- modern American refugees -- who were stuck without enough food and water in a 21st century American city. Violence and theft were rampant as humans tried to survive. Children and parents were separated. Some children just died due to heat and lack of nourishment.

There's no justification to explain why - when the President gave his televised speech to America from the French Quarter in New Orleans - the power was turned on just long enough for him to speak before being turned off again; or why every Republican voted, astoundingly, to block the creation of a bi-partisan commission to investigate what went wrong with the federal government's response; or why New Orleans is to be rebuilt by those companies with close ties to the White House.

The curtain has been pulled back and ripped down. The Great and Mighty Bush and his are revealed to be inept, corrupt, ignorant, and, ultimately, just not interested in human life. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been. Which is why the Wicked Witch of the East already has a plan in place to shift focus, blame, integrity, and accountability away from those who hold power at the national level.

Wake up, America! Your poppy-induced trance is over. It's time to remember that - just like Dorothy - we've had the tools to fix this situation all along: we're already wearing a set of ruby slippers in the form of voiciferous free speech, demanding government accountability, grassroots activism and yearly elections.

The future of American politics and, indeed, America itself now depends on our willingness to return to basics: respect and care for each other and respect and care for the power of our home - Earth. Let us begin by clicking our heels together three times and intoning the ageless wisdom of our ancestors: "There's no place like home... There's no place like home..."

A Brief History of American War

2005-06-17T02:38:00.000-07:00

"The record is clear; there are some things the U.S. simply cannot accomplish." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 2001

Like many people, this latest and awful terror attack in London prompted me to think about war, specifically the nature and history of war here in America. On July 4th, 2005, our country turned 229 years old. During those years, we've fought twelve major wars: one for every generation since 1776. Isn't it shocking, then, that for a country who goes to war as frequently as we do, that we have no codified methods or nationally recognized system of determining how and when we go to war?

"Hold on," you say. "We've got the 'Articles of War' as framed by our Founding Fathers." Yes, that's true. But those codes only apply to our soldiers' conduct, not to any rules of engagement. "Wait!" you say, feeling feisty. "What about Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution which grants to Congress the sole right to declare war...?" Also true. But this important passage only applies to the declaration of war, not to the process by which that fateful decision is reached. "Not so fast, Smartypants..." you now say, growing cocky. "You forgot that we've got the Geneva Conventions...!" Yes, but those are international documents – not American - that only apply to actions taken once war has already begun, not to actions which might occur before war begins.

So again I ask: how can a country that's been fighting wars for 229 years have no widely known rules of engagement on which the nation's citizens can all agree? Is it because we can't all agree on a few core principles concerning war? Certainly not. We can all agree, for example, that no one likes going to war...except for those who profit greatly from it. In truth, I believe the reason America has no nationally recognized process by which we go to war, is so that our establishment never has to fear reprisal. Without rules, our leaders don't have to worry about breaking them and then having us to hold them accountable. And we have no such rules...or do we?

In his book "Plan of Attack", Bob Woodward reports that in March of 2001, just two months after he accepted George W. Bush's invitation to become the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld crafted a document on the use of war. That document, which he submitted to the President, was called "Guidelines to be Considered When Committing U.S. Forces." and it asks some fundamental questions concerning war:

Is the proposed action truly necessary?
Is the proposed action achievable?
Is it worth it?

Rumsfeld ends the essay with a section on honesty: "U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the Congress, the public and coalition partners. We must not make the effort sound even marginally easier or less costly than it could become. Preserving U.S. credibility requires that we promise less, or no more, than we are sure we can deliver. It is a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!"

While I'm unabashedly progressive when it comes to politics, I'm not an idealist: I understand that there are occasions when using violence against an enemy becomes a necessity. But what are those occasions, specifically? What are the actions we need to first attempt taking in order to avoid war? Is there, for example, a set amount of time that we must wait before we use force? And when we do commit to using force, how much force should we use? Further, what type of force is best suited so that we use as little as possible to accomplish our task? I was comforted to see Rumsfeld asking similar questions in his document.

But even by his own standards, our current military actions in Iraq have failed to meet Rumsfeld's handcrafted guidelines. And that's because what's been missing from "The War on Terror" and "Operation Enduring Freedom" is what's been missing in America for 229 years: an open conversation between America's leaders and its citizens about the use of force to achieve our means. But until that conversation occurs, radical Conservatives will continue to be intolerant towards Liberals who openly criticize the position of the sitting administration. And radical Liberals will continue to insist that war is never necessary.

Without that conversation, without a national consensus on when, why and how we use violence, we will continue to remain a house divided, giving up our power to make decisions to those who we continue to not hold accountable.

At the Crossroads...

2005-06-16T23:19:00.000-07:00

In America, we've largely given up on politics.

On an average election day, less than one half of all eligible Americans show up to vote, nearly the lowest voter turn out of any industrialized nation in the world. Then, for those of us who do vote, we go home and simply leave it at that. We trust those who got elected to do what's best for us. We don't follow up, we don't watch how our officials vote on substantive issues and we usually don't call or write to them with our concerns.

The cultural problem this highlights, is that in America, we either give our power and voice away or we forget that we have those things in the first place. Unfortunately, our political, educational and cultural systems reinforce this. How many of us were taught in school that our politicians are actually supposed to serve us? That we can and should passionately speak out about important issues regardless of our age? That our democratic responsibility is to practice and refine the art of Freedom of Speech? I wasn't taught those things in school. Or by watching MTV or CNN. Or by reading the New York Times. Or by my folks.

Is fact, so far removed are we from our own political processes, that we now scorn those who actually do pay attention to government and make comments. Being a political writer, I frequently get e-mails from otherwise intelligent people asking me, "Why should I listen to you? What qualifications do you have?!?" The answer: I'm an American. And in America, one doesn't need a special degree, license or title in order to make political observations and then share them with the community. One only needs to be able and willing to communicate.

But requiring qualifications from others instead of listening for the relevance in their message, is one of the ways that individuals, political organizations and the media marginalize opposition and diversity of thought. Phrases like "He's not an expert so what could he know...?" or "She's a Washington outsider..." or "Hollywood actors shouldn't be political..." undermine our democracy because they avoid acknowledging our simple, shared origins. We're all humans and each of us has something important to say. Further, each of us is an expert at doing at least one thing: perhaps it's being a mother, perhaps it's driving a cab, perhaps it's fixing computers. At the very least, each of us knows exactly what we feel better than anyone else. No one -- not the President, not the media, not the high school principal -- is more qualified than you are to understand and describe what it is that you're feeling.

This, ultimately, means that the biggest problem isn't the system: it's us. We've become lazy and unwilling to work for what we want politically. If just one out of every ten people in this country picked up the phone to tell their Senator that they didn't support a political action -- say, a never-ending war with Iraq -- then that's almost 30,000,000 people making phone calls, an unprecedented form of political action made up, simply, of regular folks like you and me.

But, often, we don't act because our brains lie to us by saying that one person can't make a difference. In reality, by working together, we become the next super power. 30,000,000 united voices becomes a true mandate of the people. And if this country is to steer itself towards a brighter future of equal rights for all citizens, fighting and punishing corporate crime, respecting the environment, caring for those less fortunate than ourselves, then we all need to be willing to RAISE OUR VOICES UP RIGHT NOW AND DEMAND IT. You want your wake up call, here it is: your country needs you and your democracy depends on you.

Raise your voice. Disrupt the calm. Talk about how you feel. And then, for heaven's sake, do something about it. Find out who your Congressional Representatives are. Then see how they've voted on the issues...all of them. It takes ten minutes a day. That's it. Then tell your friends. And then pick up the phone and remind your representatives that you're watching and discussing what they do. Don't be rude. Just let them know when you agree or disagree. They are there, afterall, to do your bidding and to represent you.

We are at a crossroads historically and politically. The time for ordinary people to remain as spectators has passed. I'm convinced that the next phase of our evolution as a country won't come from our leadership and trickle down to us, it will come from The People and rise up, ensuring that our representatives follow the will of The People.

Science tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If we're not happy with the current set of actions, than our job is to become that equal and opposite reaction. We can't do this by complaining. Rather, we must stand up and speak up for what we believe to be right and moral and just, even in the face of great darkness and despair.

I, for one, look forward to being a part of that equal and opposite reaction.

Stand Up & Lead: An Open Letter to The Democrats

2005-05-23T22:04:00.000-07:00

Dear Democrats:

Well, it's been a heck of a week, hasn't it? You came up with an 11th hour resolution to stop the filibuster from being eliminated by working together with seven moderate Republicans. Thank you. And while the details of the deal itself are important, it's not as important to me as what the announcement of the deal did: enrage many of the right wing extremists in this country. So I won't apologize: it feels good to see my ethically-challenged extreme Right-wing brethren and sistren suffer because a group of powerful moderates finally told them, in effect, "No, you're not permitted to have everything you want all of the time...".

To wit, Christian extremist James Dobson of "Focus on the Family" called the agreement "a complete bailout and betrayal"; Rush Limbaugh spewed his predictable cocktail of anger and bitterness; Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the partisan "Concerned Women of America" called the seven moderate Republicans who helped broker the deal "sell-outs"; Sean Hannity treated Senator Jon McCain, with resentment and frustration on his TV show; and when I, myself, called into the Larry Elder Show, "The Sage From South Central" childishly began calling me names because he had no suitable answer to two simple questions: (#1) Does he not support tools for the minority party in Congress to use? And (#2) Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it forbid the use of filibusters?

So yes, Democrats: let us celebrate that you stood your ground, that you worked with those across the aisle and that you found a way to forge alliances for the immediate future. And let us also celebrate that your hard work made every extremist Conservative nitwit I despise get red in the face. I drink a pint of Stella Artois and salute you with a hearty belch of hops and malt.

But let us not get too excited. What you've done is a fine start. But it's only a start. You still have a ton of voter inertia to overcome and a lot of 'splainin to do to your core, moderate constituents. For example:

#1) You gave up the fight for public support when Al Gore won the 2000 Presidential election. Never mind that Gore won the popular vote or the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach or that Gore that he ran an utterly lackluster campaign... What really stung was that you didn't use every available media outlet and grassroots organization to publicly fight for what you'd rightfully won: instead you opted to take the high road and act like gentlemen and ladies. It's not that you didn't fight for Florida because you kinda did: it's that you didn't rise to the challenge when your well-lubricated corporate opponents threw mud in your face.

#2) You didn't raise a huge fuss over the multitude of election errors in the 2004 Presidential election. The state of Ohio's voting errors continue to be a major embarrassment but you've stayed largely quiet, behaving like sheep and not getting the media involved. John Kerry lost the state of Ohio and, because of that, the entire election. Where was he after the returns? And why the bejeeguz hasn't the Democratic National Party raised serious issues about voting laws and procedures in this country and taken them, full court, to the supposed liberally biased press?

#3) You gave up on the environment. In the House, 21% of you voted for Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiatives" which, in an ironic fashion, actually thinned or decimated 20 million acres of our public forests. Not to be outdone, nearly 30% of Senate Democrats voted for this legislation. Worse, you voted to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) despite the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) saying that even if the price of oil fell to $16 a barrel, there would actually be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain.

#4) You've given up on the common, non-rich, working-class Americans you claim to protect. 37% of House Democrats and 42% of Senate Democrats voted for Bush's crippling new bankruptcy law despite its effects on the average American because it favored your big campaign funders; ignoring Florida state law and personal choice when it comes to our own bodies, 47 Democrats in the house voted to delay the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube.

#5) You've sat idly while Republicans have shut you out of committees, debates and procedures. You've allow laws pushed by the Republicans to be passed in the middle of the night; after John Ashcroft and the House Rules Committee altered the original Patriot Act to include a tremendous expansion of search and seizure rules, you debated the new legislation for a grand total of one day before voting almost unanimously in favor of it; you debated the Iraq War Resolution for a luxurious two days before voting on it. Even moderate Republicans are beginning to acknowledge and resist this unprecedented grab for power and control of information.

#6) You put Nancy Pelosi on camera too much. Way too much. Bottom line: ANY person with that much make-up and facial work scares the shit out of me and most of America. Please stop. Seriously. Just put someone else on camera that looks more like a human being and won't scare my cats out of the livingroom when I bother to watch TV.

#7) You've got no clear and concise vision or guiding principles as a party. In the 1950's Democrats stood for unions, working-class families, civil rights, education and the environment. But what do you stand for now, Democrats? The website for the DNC has a link to a forty-three page document outlining your goals. What moron do you actually think is going to scroll down to page thirty-four to read the party's thoughts on the environment?! Why is it so difficult for you to clearly and concisely list your goals and priorities on one page? I'll tell you why: because you don't really know for yourselves. Here's one suggestion for a clear list.

Why is it that five-and-a-half years after Bush took office that you still haven't you figured out that you need to STAND THE FUCK UP AND FIGHT LIKE HELL for your beliefs?!? That playing nice-nice won't get the prize when dealing with Republicans or Christian extremists? That you need to roll up your sleeves, get some friggin' backbone and use the truth like it's the most powerful weapon since the atomic bomb?

Stand up, you scared, pitiful men and women. Stand up! Stand up for the environment that provides you with a multitude of trees to filter the filth out of our air that you've almost allowed to become legislated. Stand up for the poor, the forgotten, and the down-trodden in our cities. Stand up for the successful unions that have made working conditions better for Americans and fight corruption in those that haven't. Stand up for economic policies that support a fair distribution of wealth and vigorously oppose those that don't. Stand up and SCREAM about voting machine fraud. Pass a voter's bill of rights.

Stand up for God and stand up for religion but fight ANYONE who tries to co-opt either of those things. And since everyone on Capitol Hill loves a good litmus test, I'll give you one: deny power or political office to ANYONE who believes that I'm going to hell for not believing in their version of God. No one group, no one religion, no one book is the final and only word of God. Our livelihood as a nation is not based on Jesus nor the God of the Jews or the Muslims: it's based on the Constitution.

Stand up and remove Tom Delay from your midst. He is a complete disgrace as a politician. He is a fraud, a sham and a fucking shill. Remove him from power. Relieve him of his station because he has lost the respect of the nation and you, lazy Democrats, have lost our respect for not dealing with him promptly, loudly and efficiently.

Stand up to this incessant grab for power by a bunch of extreme Christian idealogues. Stop backing down every time someone plays the religion or faith card. In fact, do the opposite: start talking about God and religion out loud: to the press, to your constituents, to your families, to everyone. Stop waiting for a signal. Too many of them have already passed.

Stand up to the Neocons. Hold a series of press conferences with Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and the Democratic leadership. Demand an exit strategy from the President on the war in Iraq. The American people -- whether they support the war or not -- still wish to know the following:

How much longer will our sons and daughters in the military be there fighting?

Does this war in Iraq have an end?

What are the specific goals we must accomplish before we can bring our trooops home?

Are you still willing to commit troops to Iraq if we don't achieve these goals in a reasonable period of time?

Stand up and start acting like leaders instead of acting like politicians who try to get re-elected by saying the right thing. DO THE RIGHT THING and you'll get your re-election. I guarantee it. Because if you don't, I'll guarantee this instead: people will leave this party, people will lose their faith, people will flock to the Greens, the Libertarians, the Independents and the Progressives -- parties that more closely represent not only the people's point of view, but their manner of direct and swift action.

And that process has already begun, Democrats. Your flocks are dwindling.

And the clock is ticking.

Christian Extremism Rears Its Ugly Head

2005-04-27T18:52:00.000-07:00

Jesus was radical.

He was a radical thinker, a peace-maker and a man of the people. He hung out with whores and lepers because his philosophy was to love and care for the forgotten, for the poor and for those at the fringes of society. He loved everyone regardless of their station in life, practiced a deep sense of humility and tolerance and preached that we were all, as was he, children of God. Radical thoughts for those times and for now.

But especially now. That is because after Muslim extremists from other countries attacked America on 9/11, America responded, in part, with extremists of it own: Christian Extremists. And Christian Extremists want America to be a completely Christian nation, run only by Christians, and teaching the lessons of Christ, whether you like that or not. And they're working very hard to make this a reality.

There are, of course, many hundreds of millions of peaceful non-extreme Christians around the world who practice kindness, tolerance of other religions and thoughtful community work. Some work behind the scenes and others are more vocal. The National Council of Churches, for example, vocally opposed the organizers and the purpose of Justice Sunday last week in Kentucky. And that took guts.

Unfortunately, it is the Christian Extremists who are grabbing most of the headlines and setting most of the agendas. Which is bad. And the media is complicit in this. Which is worse. Individuals like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Bill Frist -- in their roles as public figures and leaders with way too much airtime-- consistently pervert the teachings of Christ while continuing to call themselves good Christians. Somehow, qualities like lying, ignorance, rage, arrogance, sidestepping the issues and aggressive grabs for personal power seem to be the hallmarks of today's Extreme Christians, replacing Christ's own examples of love, tolerance and acceptance. Worse yet, the plague of this kind of thinking is trickling down from today's Extremist Christian leaders to those in their flocks as well.

Take this gem of a note I got from an angry reader who read my last essay on Senator Bill Frist. When, during our correspondence, she discovered that I was Jewish, she sent this to me:

"that explains it. why didn't you say you where jewish in the letter you wrote. apparently you are studying the wrong religion. my GOD is the only GOD whether you believe it or not. it would help you to study the King James version of the true Bible and maybe you would find the truth."

Let's set aside, for the moment, that this sentiment is responsible for more wars being fought than any other throughout history. Put it aside for a second and observe how a brainwashed Christian Extremist likes to proclaim her monopoly on God. This is the "only my God is acceptable" tactic which is similar, but not identical, to the "you're going to hell if you don't believe in my God" approach. When this next happens to you, smile politely and REALIZE THAT NOTHING YOU CAN SAY OR DO WILL EVER CHANGE THIS PERSON. This is a lost soul, already brainwashed by other extremists into believing that unless you believe EXACTLY as they believe, that you will be labeled as wrong. Take pity. But...if you'd like to have some fun and, perhaps, try to make a difference, ask your assailant, "Exactly which portion of the Bible directly quotes Christ as saying that he was the only acceptable God and that those who thought differently than him would go to hell?" You'll get excuses but not an answer...because Christ never preached exclusivity, arrogance or Hell as retribution for not agreeing with everything he said and did.

Here's another classic from a more articulate reader:

"I enjoyed reading about your fairy tail land where Democrats vigorously support President Bush and demonstrate Christian behavior. Why is it that people like you want to define what a Christian is and tell us not to practice free speech. It would be refreshing if you would first define yourself honestly."

This is another common tactic Christian Extremists use which I like to call the "I'll avoid commenting on ANY of the salient points you've just discussed and instead attack you personally" approach. Conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity loves this approach; he's an expert at it. And it's a very popular tactic because it avoids having to deal with any of those sticky things called "facts". And, really, what person wants to admit they might have their facts wrong when he can have a big ego, act defensively and get really angry in order to make his point...all qualities that Christ himself embodied, right? The best way to deal with people who attack you in this fashion is simple: ASK QUESTIONS. When you put your attacker into the position of having to answer direct questions, you force them to be accountable for their answers. The only problem: you need to do your homework. And homework, dear students, is mandatory if you have any desire to speak truth to power or truth to the brainwashed.

We continue on to my next bumbling example:

"The Democrats ARE obstructing the President's judicial nominations!
They haven't confirmed nearly any Appeals Courts nominees!
The Senate's role is to advise & consent, NOT OBSTRUCT!
All nominees deserve an up or down vote in the Senate if they make it out of committee!
The filibuster has NEVER BEEN USED in this fashion in 200 years!
HOW DARE YOU HEATHEN DEMOCRAT INVOKE JESUS' NAME!!!
How would Jesus respond to Democrats today.
Would Jesus approve of abortion? NO!!!!!
Would Jesus approve of obstruction? NO!!!!!
Would Jesus approve of adultery? NO!!!!
Would Jesus approve of all the lies the Dimocrats tell? NO!!!!
Would Jesus approve of sex before marriage? NO!!!!
Would Jesus be a Democrat or a Republican? NO!!!!!"

This is a good Extremist Christian response because it combines a personal attack along with the 'ole "I'm going to confuse you with tons of extra punctuation so that you'll forget to fact check any of my sputum" approach. Only, I always fact check. And this woman's email contained an incredible array factual errors. For example, her assertion that Democrats haven't "confirmed nearly any" judicial appointees. Actually, the Democrats have already confirmed 204 out of 214 of Bush's appointees. Or that the filibuster "HAS NEVER BEEN USED in this fashion" in our history. When, very clearly, it has. But the biggest factual error of all was calling me a "heathen democrat". Because, as the primary definition of heathen is "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible" and as I am a practicing Jew, it might logically follow that this Extreme Christian woman is drinking too much water from the pool. And Jesus wouldn't have drunk water from the pool; he would have walked across it.

But let us move to my most precious example:

"Don't send me another one of your emails. I strongly support the Republicans in this situation. I voted for Bush and I would over andover a million times and will vote again Republican in 2006 and 2008 so get hug another tree and drink some more Kool Aid and thank God there is a Republican in the WhiteHouse and the control everything because it is people like you that President Bush one reelection. We don't people like you running this country."

This one truly captures the "I'ma fuck you up by throwing everything at you I can possibly think of" tactic (see also the "Potpourri"). But you gotta give the guy credit: his last sentence is a huge comedic masterpiece, he manages to include exceptionally poor grammar and misspellings, and he worked in two ancient references to hippie culture. Speaking of which, I have a newsflash for Christian Extremists: Jesus had long hair, was counter-culture, wore sandals, hung out with lepers and whores and loved to preach peace. That kinda makes Jesus a HUGE hippie.

But today's final quote - the proverbial icing on the Extreme Christian cake -- comes from none other than Pat Robertson of the uber-Christian 700 Club. Pat appeared recently on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" and was asked about the filibustering that Senate Democrats might use to defeat some of Bush's judicial nominees. His response was that Federal Judges were more of a threat to America than Al Queda:

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

Then, when Stephanopoulos asked if Robertson's claims that these same renegade judges were "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Queda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War...", Robertson -- feeling the love of Christ within -- replied:

"George, I really believe that. I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together. There is an assault on marriage. There's an assault on human sexuality, as Judge Scalia said, they've taken sides in the culture war and on top of that if we have a democracy, the democratic processes should be that we can elect representatives who will share our point of view and vote those things into law."

So congratulations to Pat Robertson: he is Message to America's "Extreme Christian of The Moment" for preaching love, tolerance, peace and understanding exactly the way Christ would have done himself.

And congratulations too to George Stephanopoulous who was a compliant enough puppet to have the gumption to give airtime to Robertson in the first place.

Wake up America.

What Would Jesus Do...

2005-04-22T11:08:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to Dr. Bill Frist
or
Why Lying to Americans
in the Name of Jesus Christ
Doesn't Make You a Man of Faith

"There's only one thing throughout history
that the ruling class has ever wanted:
EVERYTHING."
-- Michael Parenti

Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

Dr. Frist,

Why is it that you never mention how vigorously the Democrats on Capitol Hill have supported President Bush and his appointees? According to your fellow Senator Harry Reid, during President Bush's first term in office, Congress confirmed 204 of his judicial appointees. In fact, only 10 nominees were rejected overall: that means that Democrats and Republicans together have already confirmed over 95% of Bush's appointees. You've got to admit: even though many of these appointees have close ties to corporate interests and less than moral values when it comes to protecting our sacred environment, this proves awfully good bi-partisan support of the President's choices by the Democrats.

Yet you feel that Bush's 10 remaining nominees, the other 5%, should be approved right away. But the stubborn Democrats are threatening to use the filibuster a political tool more than 200 years old to block these remaining appointees from being confirmed. They somehow feel that the remaining 10 nominees are too radical in their agenda, too conservative in their values to best serve the majority of the American public.

So this presents a dilemma, Doctor: you want something politically that your opponents don't. How, then, should you proceed?

Well, you've proceeded by becoming a key participant in "Justice Sunday", a day of conservative grass-roots organizing in nearly 1000 churches throughout the country on April 24th. The event is being sponsored by the Family Research Council, a Christian group which claims, on their website, to be "defending family, faith and freedom". You must, therefore, be a Christian man of great faith, Sir. And I respect that, being a man of great faith myself.

So...if we're talking about faith and Christianity, dear Doctor, let us ask the most important question any good, faithful Christian can ask when faced with a dilemma such as yours: what would Jesus do? Let's say it was Jesus Christ and not you, Doctor, who was a member of the current Senate and who was considering a run for President in 2008. Let's say it was Jesus and not you, Doctor, who got to vote on President Bush's judicial nominees. And let's say it was Jesus and not you, Doctor, who saw that he didn't have enough votes to stop his opponents from using a filibuster, a centuries-old political tool still acceptable according to the rules of the Senate.

What would Jesus do?

Would Jesus attack his opponents, calling them names, saying that they are "against people of faith"? Would Jesus just boldly lie, claiming that his opponents' use of a filibuster would be "unprecedented" or create a "crisis" that would damage the country? I wonder if Jesus would conveniently forget that the Republicans filibustered President Clinton's Surgeon General appointee, Henry Foster, just a few short years ago. Or, would Jesus propose to change the rules of the system in order to get his way?

Would the Son of God, good Doctor, do as you have done and manipulate the public opinion, engage in childish name-calling, obfuscate the truth and then spread lies among those he was elected to represent? And would he do so all the while proclaiming he was a man of God?

Not by a friggin' longshot, Sir.

If Jesus were a Senator, he would strive to create peace, harmony & understanding. He would demonstrate loving his enemy, practicing kindness, compassion and working with those who opposed him to help educate and elevate them to a higher level. That's who Jesus was. Which makes you, Dr. Frist, a complete sham.

News flash: if you're going to represent Christ, then act like Christ would, Senator: tell the truth, don't seek power to suit your own personal needs, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and start to love your enemy. If the actions you're taking are supposed to represent the true teachings of Jesus Christ, you might want to read the Bible that your constituents have read.

So do us all a favor, Doctor: either step up to the plate and act like a good Christian or step down from your decaying pulpit and resign from your post as Senator. Further, please understand that you and those who preach hatred and lies as you do are a dying breed. And though it is true that throughout history, those like you occasionally rear their heads and come to power, eventually, the people see you for who you truly are, Doctor: a charlatan and a liar. Rather, it is those who seek true love and kindness and openness that will prevail. 2000 years later, people are still talking about Jesus Christ; how long will people be talking about you?

No, Democrats aren't against people of faith, Dr. Frist. However, we are against people who use their faith as an excuse to repeatedly lie to the American public in the name of grabbing more personal power.

Sincerely,

David Koff
Editor, Message to America
http://messagetoamerica.blogspot.com

Why We Need A Voter's Bill of Rights - Part I

2005-04-06T20:43:00.000-07:00

If youve never examined the history of voting rights in America, you might be surprised to learn that our beloved Constitution doesn't actually grant any of us the right to vote. Go ahead and read that last sentence again. Its true. Instead, Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution describes how "Electors" (who are chosen by the State Legislature) get to vote in elections, not ordinary citizens like you or me

Turns out that since the Founding Fathers couldn't agree on who deserved the right to vote, they removed themselves from the debate entirely, leaving it up to the states to decide for themselves. Thus started a 229 year odyssey during which time nearly every group of disenfranchised citizens have had to petition for their right to vote including: poor white men, white men who didn't own property, white men who weren't Catholic or Christian, black men, uneducated men, all women and finally, young people over the age of 21. During those 229 years of struggle, three Amendments were passed to forever alter our original Constitution, redefining who should be granted the right to vote: the 15th, the 19th, and the 26th Amendments.

Which brings us to today. Today, any American citizen who is at least eighteen years of age (and who isn't a convicted felon) is legally permitted to vote in any state regardless of race, sex, education, sexual orientation or financial status. We've come a long way, but the struggle for securing our voting rights is not over. Today, our votes are in danger of being forfeited because we have no legal rights to have our vote be properly counted and verified. Unlike the 15th, the 19th, and the 26th Amendments to the Constitution, there is no amendment which guarantees that your vote MUST count, MUST be verified, or MUST be accurate.

Now, if you think that sounds far-fetched, think again: unless your rights are spelled out specifically, they dont legally exist. And now, with the advent of electronic or computerized voting machines, your vote is in even greater danger of being ignored, altered, dropped, or outright changed. In fact, here are a few examples of why the vote you cast is already in grave danger:

80% of EVERY VOTE cast in the November 2004 election was counted by just two companies - Diebold and ES&S - which are owned by brothers with deep ties to the Republican party.

Diebold's voting machines continue to use software that is not verifiably safe from outside manipulation, also known as hacking.

Diebold was aware that its voting machines were open to hacking LONG BEFORE the November 2004 election and tried to hide that fact from the news, the public and the government.

ES&S was previously owned by Republican Chuck Hagel. After selling voting machines to the state of Nebraska, Hagel decided to run for Senator and won virtually EVERY demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. In fact, Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state.

During the November 2004 election, WIDESPREAD MALFUNCTIONS of electronic voting machines occurred in the states of: Ohio, Nebraska, New Mexico, Indiana, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, Florida, Nevada and Louisiana. That means that 26% of all the states in the entire nation that had voting machine breakdowns. For a full list of all of these documented irregularities, click here.

The good news is that many non-profit organizations have sprung up to address the very important topics of:

But it's not enough. At no time in our country's 229-year history has our democracy been so close to being undermined by a few people with power and access to technology. The time has come for the federal government to provide specific protections for our most basic democratic right: voting. In part two of this essay (due out next week), I'll propose what a decent "voter's bill of rights" might include along with actions that you, as citizens, can take to help support current legislation along these lines.

In the mean time: educate yourself. Here are two links to a rather disturbing 30-minute online documentary about how Diebold's security flaws were discovered. Watch from the comfort of your own office, living room or dorm room.

For broadband access, click here.
For dial-up access, click here.

The Myth of "Elite Liberal Media" - Part I

2005-02-25T19:42:00.000-08:00

Taken from The Drudge Report on Feb 25th, 2005:

CABLE NEWS RACE FOR THE PERIOD ENDING THURS., FEB 24, 2005

Network/Show Host: Number of Viewers

Fox News/O'REILLY: 2,181,000
Fox News/HANNITY&COLMES: 1,622,000
Fox News/SHEP SMITH: 1,386,000
Fox News/BRIT HUME: 1,318,000
Fox News/GRETA VAN SUSSTERN: 1,307,000
CNN/LARRY KING: 1,004,000
CNN/PAULA ZAHN: 673,000
CNN/AARON BROWN: 551,000
CNN/ANDERSON COOPER 524,000
MSNBC/CHRIS MATTHEWS & HARDBALL: 388,000
CNN/LOU DOBBS: 379,000
CNNHN/NANCY GRACE: 366,000
MSNBC/SCARBOROUGH: 240,000
MNSBC/KEITH OLBERMANN & GANNON: 208,000

These telling numbers prove -- yet again -- that when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly talk about the "elite liberal media", they must be smoking a liberal amount of marijuana. There is always bias in media: that much we can't change. But to continue to accuse the nation of having an elite media with a "liberal" bias is patently wrong. These numbers show that most Americans are tuning into Fox News, a channel with a rather obvious conservative bias.

I'll be posting more in the coming weeks about the myth of the "elite liberal media", giving you more specifics about how this particular lie is a bunch of crap being spoon-fed to America in order to create division, fear and resentment.

A "Top Ten" List for Howard Dean & The Democrats

2005-02-01T13:10:00.000-08:00

Dr. Dean:

According to the article you published last week on Yubanet (http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_17414.shtml), the two biggest problems facing Democrats are (#1) bringing out more votes than the Republicans and (#2) letting go of centralized control. With all due respect, I believe you’ve completely missed the mark.

Turning out the vote and de-centralizing control involves organization. But Democrats can’t organize – let alone move forward as a viable political party – without first having some degree of national consensus. Rank and file Democrats look up to our party’s leaders to help us form that consensus. This is why, in my opinion, the single most important challenge facing Democrats today is defining a clear identity and national agenda for our party. We need definition, Sir: refinement, purpose and direction.

I believe that the best way to achieve this new identity and agenda is to define a mission statement for our Party: a list of easily understood Democratic ideals or principles around which we can all rally. First, let us make these principles so basic and sensible that they will be unassailable by even our harshest critics. Next, let us make these principles attractive to all within our political spectrum: the liberals, the environmentalists, the progressives, the libertarians and moderates in order that we might unite them under one banner. Then, we give the voters a real choice: they can support a candidate who refuses to take a common sense approach to humanity and politics, or – as is more likely – they can support a Democrat who pledges to uphold those simple principles we hold most dear.

Am I crazy? Almost one year ago, you yourself went on the David Letterman show to read one of his “top ten” lists after your infamous screaming incident (http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/archive/ls_topten_archive2004/ls_topten_archive_20040122.shtml). So I ask you plainly: shouldn’t the Democratic Party have its own “top ten” list? I believe it should and I humbly submit the following:

THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S MISSION STATEMENT:
OUR VERY OWN TOP 10 LIST:

#1) Democrats pledge to use the local, state and federal governments to help those less fortunate than ourselves: the poor and the sick in America. We seek promote abundant affordable housing for those with economic needs; we seek to promote free or nearly free health care for our neediest of citizens; and we seek to establish a living wage so that any American who is willing to work fulltime hours can be guaranteed enough income to provide the basic necessities: clothing, food and shelter. Like the figures of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha that dominate our citizens’ holiest religious texts, we strive to help those who cannot help themselves for a reasonable period of time until they might begin to better care for themselves.

#2) Democrats pledge to use the local, state and federal governments to help protect God’s greatest gift to humanity: our very home, the Earth. We will strive to enact legislation to help reduce pollution of our skies and our many rivers and streams. We will work to save or expand our forests, deserts, prairies, and animal populations. We seek to honor God’s creation by learning to better live in balance with nature, enacting legislation if necessary, to ensure such balance and to teach it to our current business leaders and to future generations.

#3) Democrats pledge to use the local, state and federal governments to fully prosecute corporate crime. We pledge to permanently remove the business charter of any corporation - American or foreign - that knowingly seeks to harm the human population through abuse of: child labor, adult employees, the environment, or our core value system. Simultaneously, we will work to enact programs and legislation to REWARD those corporations that best serve our communities, our country and humanity. We will give financial incentives to those businesses that promote honor, respect and dignity and to those that take their role as community leaders seriously. As these corporations benefit from financial incentives, they will grow, creating new jobs.

#4) Democrats pledge to use the local, state and federal governments to reform the judicial sentencing system to reflect the differences between violent and non-violent crime. We currently have over 2,000,000 Americans in prison (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm). Over 54% of those in federal prisons are there for drug-related offenses (http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html#Drug). We strive to enact sensible therapeutic treatment programs for those convicted of non-violent or drug-related crimes rather than forced imprisonment. Creation of these treatment programs means new jobs. Further, we recognize that if our communities suffer from repeated drug use or addictions, then we must help our citizens overcome their addictions by use of better parenting, stronger communities, 12-step groups, therapy, or doctor recommended medications.

#5) As individuals, Democrats pledge to assist every citizen in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. As those are our inalienable rights, we will oppose any law, individual or institution which discriminates on the basis of sex, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or country of origin. Individuals will be judged ultimately by God, The Creator and not by humans. As such, we will assume it is in the best interests of society to treat every last human as a manifestation of The Divine.

#6) As representatives of America, Democrats pledge to uphold the highest standards of respect, understanding and patience. While we understand, sadly, that war is sometimes a necessity, we pledge to choose war only as a last resort when dealing with other countries. Instead, we strive first to treat other countries and their representatives as we ourselves would wish to be treated as Americans. We acknowledge that we are but one country in a world of many nations. Further, we understand that as a financial, entertainment and military world leader, we have a responsibility to first lead by the examples of balance, imagination, and peace.

#7) Democrats pledge to ensure that economic status will never play a role in determining which child will receive a better education. We recognize that a good education is not a luxury, but a right and a necessity if America is to continue to be a world leader. We therefore strive to promote and support legislation which better funds our public schools, pays our teachers a better salary and ensures that all children, regardless of economic status, will receive equally well-rounded education that includes a diverse curriculum.

#8) Democrats pledge to use the local, state and federal government to establish and guarantee a modernized VOTER’S BILL OF RIGHTS:

+ every voter who is of eligible age and legal status will have the unobstructed right to vote.
+ every voter is guaranteed an official “receipt” with their vote choices clearly marked; this receipt must be used in any recount.
+ bi-partisan commissions will be established to ensure that all digital voting machines provide data which is safe from hacking.
+ sufficient numbers of voting machines will be provided so that no voter will need to stand in line for more than one hour.
+ election day will be moved to a weekend or made into a national holiday like every other industrialized nation, providing everyone the chance to vote without the pressures of work.

#9) Democrats pledge to view abortion not as an independent moral issue, but rather as part of the larger problem of our culture’s approach to sexuality and childbirth. We pledge to promote and support legislation which teaches our children a well-rounded sexual education including the many options of birth control and abstinence to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies; we pledge to introduce and support legislation guaranteeing extended and sensible maternity leaves so that women in the workplace can give birth to and raise their children and still be guaranteed their job when they are ready to return to work; we pledge to promote and support legislation that will make it far easier, affordable and comfortable for couples or single women to give up their child for adoption; we further pledge to promote and support legislation making it easier and cheaper for couples who wish to adopt a child to do so. Finally, democrats support the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, giving women the ability to have an abortion even if their own life is not in danger (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop and scroll down to sections “X” and “XI”). As a national party, we accept and support Justice Blackmun’s definition of the “compelling” point of pregnancy as the distinction between an unborn being a potential life or a viable life: a potential life requires a mother for an unborn child to further develop in order to survive; a viable life is one where an unborn child might survive outside the womb without the mother’s assistance. We recognize that the States have a morally appropriate need to fight for the rights and survival of any viable life and we therefore pledge to support and promote legislation that allows the States to do so. Simultaneously, we pledge to support and promote legislation that endorses the faith that our female population knows how to make informed and responsible decisions in regards to terminating an unborn fetus when it is still a potential life.

#10) While our Party enjoys a diversity of opinions, Democratic leaders pledge to band together as a group to uphold and support these core principles and others to honor the voters. Further, because the Democratic leadership of today and tomorrow have such faith in these core principles, they acknowledge that the principles themselves are more important than any individual’s political career. Therefore, Democratic leaders pledge to uphold and support these principles even when it is politically difficult to do so or when it might mean losing an elected position. Finally, Democratic leaders pledge to help one another stand up for these core principles and to rise up against those who would attack our moral or ethical standards, using this list as our very code of conduct.

Dr Dean, if you are interested in leading our party and our nation, please do LEAD and set a course for us. THEN, decentralize control and turn out the vote and watch as we spread like wildfire…

With my deepest respect,

David Koff
Los Angeles,
dkoff@pacbell.net

--

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

-- President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003